NationStates Jolt Archive

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

Do you feel the same way about the Jewish Orthodox "Frum" dress code for women?

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

Perhaps Mohammad was a bit of a sex hound himself.

*awaits protests*

Do you feel the same way about the Jewish Orthodox "Frum" dress code for women?

I don't think I've ever seen that, to be honest. But generally, I do feel this way about any kind of excessive clothing worn to be "modest". Catholic nuns' habits would fall into the same category for me.

Perhaps Mohammad was a bit of a sex hound himself.

*awaits protests*

Well, the argument could be made that in his days, life tended to be a little less civilised and a lot less lawful. So in those days, it might have made some sense... possibly. Although I've got some doubts there.

Fair enough, though I'd say that a dress code that applies to all women belonging to the mass membership of a religion as such is far worse than one that applies only to women who choose to devote their lives to a special extra-bizarre religious order.

Your focus on the Islamic tradition in particular though could easily be misunderstood. Why did you choose to single Muslims out in your opening post? If your post had such an exclusive focus on Orthodox Judaism, it would have been quickly shouted down as antisemitic.

Looking at the quite frankly massive problem with men abusing women in Egypt, you might be onto something.

Fair enough, though I'd say that a dress code that applies to all women belonging to the mass membership of a religion as such is far worse than one that applies only to women who choose to devote their lives to a special extra-bizarre religious order.

Your focus on the Islamic tradition in particular though could easily be misunderstood. Why did you choose to single Muslims out in your opening post? If your post had such an exclusive focus on Orthodox Judaism, it would have been quickly shouted down as antisemitic.

Frankly, because I wasn't aware of specific dress prescriptions for orthodox Jewish women.
And, in all honesty, most excessive clothing you're likely to see here and in the UK (and possibly all over Europe and North America) is bound to be strongly influenced by Islam these days.

Your focus on the Islamic tradition in particular though could easily be misunderstood. Why did you choose to single Muslims out in your opening post? If your post had such an exclusive focus on Orthodox Judaism, it would have been quickly shouted down as antisemitic.

I doubt it would. She talked about Muslims because the headscarves are more evident in the UK.

Ah, didn't think of that. But then the headscarves are all that they talk about here too and trust me- they don't have that excuse.

Hell, I live near Stamford Hill (biggest London Orthodox community) and I still see more Muslim women than Jewish women in scarves.

Getting back to the OP, I think it's really interesting you're looking at it from the man's POV, as it were: arguing it also demeans men to a certain extent. I haven't really heard that articulated before, but on reflection I think you're right: it certainly does suggest an assumption of a lack of sexual control. The stats for sexual violence in areas enforcing (Muslim) sumptuary codes aren't notably lower, though, so evidently it's not working.

Ah, didn't think of that. But then the headscarves are all that they talk about here too and trust me- they don't have that excuse.

I wasn't aware that Orthodox Jewish women completely cover their bodies like some Muslims do. Though the point still stands, it seems it's more common amongst Muslims to wear the traditional coverings. And, more importantly, there are a billiion+ Muslims and more Islamic states than there are either of Jews/Jewish.

Do you feel the same way about the Jewish Orthodox "Frum" dress code for women?

Is that where the expression 'frumpy' comes from? ie. She looks frumpy in that dress?
Sorry that wasn't intended as a racist remark.

And to actually answer the OP, I agree. It seems to treat women as objects rather than people. And seems far more about power of men over women than about any sexual morality.

It is also important to note that the Qur'an requires 'modest dress' from both women and men.it seems its more common amongst Muslims to wear the traditional coverings. It is just as common amongst orthodox Jews as it is amongst orthodox Muslims.

Looking at the quite frankly massive problem with men abusing women in Egypt, you might be onto something.

Well, considering that women in Egypt would dress up in headscarfs much more than, say, in Ireland, would you then conclude that the dress has to do with the amount of abuse?

Well, considering that women in Egypt would dress up in headscarfs much more than, say, in Ireland, would you then conclude that the dress has to do with the amount of abuse?

Well, in eastern Europe, the headscarf is widely worn in some parts, and they're orthodox christian, as far as I know. Likewise, I remember a time my mother wouldn't leave the house without one, and thats about 30 years ago....

Are you sure you don't mean the burkha/chador kind of thing.....?

Well, in eastern Europe, the headscarf is widely worn in some parts, and they're orthodox christian, as far as I know. Likewise, I remember a time my mother wouldn't leave the house without one, and thats about 30 years ago....

Are you sure you don't mean the burkha/chador kind of thing.....?

Well, my grandmother used to wear them to protect her hair from dust when doing housework or working on the farm.
I was talking about headscarfs and any kind of excessive clothing that's worn for reasons of "modesty", there implying everything I've listed in the OP

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head, Cabra... I mean, I've never really thought about how other people might view these headscarves, especially those that don't really know that much about why they wear them. I mean, I'd rather not judge them because of their clothing like that, but it does pretty much convey that women are for physical purposes and that men are sex-deranged animals.

I guess that the one possibly positive thing you can see in it is that, when in their own home, women do not have to wear headscarves or gowns or anything like that - and, IIRC, the same for the men. So that could lead to the thought that the excessive clothing is a sign of fidelity to a couple, although I'm sure that infidelity in marriage is a big no-no in Islamic culture.

It is just as common amongst orthodox Jews as it is amongst orthodox Muslims.

Perhaps, I do not have statistics, but as I said, in terms of overall numbers Muslims are far more prevalent. And Israel is not known for its repression of women in the way some Islamic countries are.

But, as to the reasons these religious/cultural laws exist, are the ones in the Jewish tradition to do with modesty and fidelity in marriage as well?

Perhaps Mohammad was a bit of a sex hound himself.

*awaits protests*
He had at least 11 wives and we know they didn't all play Scrabble, because it hadn't been invented yet.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head, Cabra... I mean, I've never really thought about how other people might view these headscarves, especially those that don't really know that much about why they wear them. I mean, I'd rather not judge them because of their clothing like that, but it does pretty much convey that women are for physical purposes and that men are sex-deranged animals.

I guess that the one possibly positive thing you can see in it is that, when in their own home, women do not have to wear headscarves or gowns or anything like that - and, IIRC, the same for the men. So that could lead to the thought that the excessive clothing is a sign of fidelity to a couple, although I'm sure that infidelity in marriage is a big no-no in Islamic culture.

I was just trying to think things through, really...
And the buzz word "sex object" and all the talk about objectifying women has been a concept that I have found puzzling for a long time, as it mostly gets applied in instances where women are showing themselves as sexual beings.
I don't think that objectifies, I think it just draws attention to a certain aspect of being a woman.
Burqas, heascarfs and the like, however, do objectify women, I feel.
The woman wearing the low-cut top is sending the message "I'm feeling sexy, and I've got boobs. And I appreciate a few admiring looks." While the woman covering as much of her skin as possible is saying "I know I am a sex object to you, so I'm not showing anything of myself that I don't have to."

I'm not too sure how the clothing would be sign of fidelity. Wouldn't that be even more objectifying, not to mention overly possessive?

Many orthodox Jewish women who are hiding their hair do it under a wig, rather than a headscarf. This may explain why they are not so noticeable by those of us who are not accustomed to checking if women are wearing wigs or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheitel

I was talking about headscarfs and any kind of excessive clothing that's worn for reasons of "modesty", there implying everything I've listed in the OP

By whose determination is it "excessive"? A lot of people feel the need to dress "modestly" and the definition of exactly what that means to individuals varies greatly.

In my culture, I am generally expected to wear a bra, especially if I want to be dressed modestly. If I came from a society in which women did not wear such garments, I might find them restrictive and "excessive".


While I agree that forced dress codes of this type (or even severe pressure) can send the types of signals you're talking about, I don't think there's anything inherent in the head scarf that does it.

You've pretty much hit the nail on the head, Cabra... I mean, I've never really thought about how other people might view these headscarves, especially those that don't really know that much about why they wear them. I mean, I'd rather not judge them because of their clothing like that, but it does pretty much convey that women are for physical purposes and that men are sex-deranged animals.

Does the adoption of modest dress in other cultures do the same thing?

For instance, does the fact that I don't wear tube tops and mini skirts send some sort of signal that I am for a physical purpose or that men are sex-deranged animals?

Many orthodox Jewish women who are hiding their hair do it under a wig, rather than a headscarf. This may explain why they are not so noticeable by those of us who are not accustomed to checking if women are wearing wigs or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sheitel

That's interesting. I had noticed that Jewish women seemed to wear wigs more often, but I never knew that might be the reason.

Dem has beat me to my point. The problem with talking about "excessive" clothing is that it automatically assumes that there is some "correct" amount of clothing to wear. I dress more modestly than most women my age. I almost never wear low-cut tops or short skirts. To me, the message I am conveying with that is not "I know I am a sex object to you, so I'm not showing anything of myself that I don't have to," but rather "I don't really like showing my cleavage in public; it makes me feel kinda naked." Why can't "I don't really like showing my hair in public; it makes me feel kinda naked" be just as valid a sentiment?

Dem has beat me to my point. The problem with talking about "excessive" clothing is that it automatically assumes that there is some "correct" amount of clothing to wear. I dress more modestly than most women my age. I almost never wear low-cut tops or short skirts. To me, the message I am conveying with that is not "I know I am a sex object to you, so I'm not showing anything of myself that I don't have to," but rather "I don't really like showing my cleavage in public; it makes me feel kinda naked." Why can't "I don't really like showing my hair in public; it makes me feel kinda naked" be just as valid a sentiment?

^This.

And another sentiment might be, "This is an outward sign of my religion." Much like the turban for a man who is Sikh or a yarmulke for a Jewish man, a woman may choose to wear hijab as a sign of her religious faith.

Ain't it odd how religious leaders who want to boink a bunch of women suddenly get the WORD from the LORD that plural marriage is OK? *points to Muhammad & Joseph Smith as examples*

OK, my personal views: Women who dress like sluts are presumed to be sluts and attract the people who are looking for a slut. Women who dress modestly will be more likely to attract the attention of the more honorable sort of man. the Hijab is taking things quite a bit further than necessary. I read somewhere that the costume designer for the original Star Trek series said that the sexiness of a garment is directly related to the apparent probability that it will fall off. If your garments look like they'll offer a peek at something forbidden, they'll probably attract the wrong sort of attention (unless you WANT leering looks, of course) and the relative level of cover depends on your standards and the standards of those you meet.

I understand the ideas behind religious dress codes- don't advertise things that aren't for sale. I just think that in a lot of cases it's taken too far.

Women have been wearing bonnets/headscarves (my grandmother still does) of various sorts for centuries, now some parts of a religion say their followers should and it's a bad thing all of a sudden. :rolleyes:

Ain't it odd how religious leaders who want to boink a bunch of women suddenly get the WORD from the LORD that plural marriage is OK? *points to Muhammad & Joseph Smith as examples*

It's more creative than your average chat up line ;)

<snip>

In all fairness, in Iran, the epitome of Islamic anti-sex thinking, men are nominally supposed to cover up their arms as well (so I've heard, anyway). Does it send messages? Perhaps. What type of messages? It depends on your perspective. It could be proclaiming one's religion, identity, belief in woman's inferiority, or one's belief in Platonic male-female relationships, or any combination of those. Or someone could be wearing it simply because it was a habit and they've never really thought about it. Or it might mean nothing at all.

But, the real question is, does it matter? No, not really, not much at all...

How awesomely politically correct of all of you. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort to employ moral relativism while completely tip-toeing around the real issue: the lack of human rights of women under Islamic law.

In the Muslim world it is the woman who is at fault when abused or raped because they are responsible for it. The coverings are to allow them to pass unmolested outside of the family's house. Even if they leave a Muslim country they must still wear such coverings because the men in their lives have total control over them as that is the Islamic custom. Penalties for allowing men to view your body are harsh whether it is enforced by the state or by one's family.

So point out the Orthodox Jews if you wish. Point out Nuns if it helps you sleep at night. Or call it "custom" as though it matters. I won't because I believe all women deserve the right to wear what they wish, when they wish, as well as the right not to fear physical harm when they employ those rights. It seems to me that I have never heard of an "honor" killing when an Orthodox Jewish women or a Nun throws off the customary dress code.

Sure, some Muslim women like the scarf or burqa. But should they have to suffer under systems that don't allow them to choose to wear them?

I have no doubt you all would be screaming to the high heavens if this was a Christian cult that enforced such a standard in such a brutal fashion. Are human rights optional in the face of religious customs? Or is it just certain religions that are held to higher standards? Do Muslims ever have to abide by human rights or are they immune because you might be branded an "Islamophobe"?

Perhaps Mohammad was a bit of a sex hound himself.

*awaits protests*

Oh he was.

also, the head covering revelation didn't come from Allah to him. It came from Umar, after Umar had to see Mohammad's fat wife outside tending to nature, as in craping or something. He went to him and said "hey, surely the wives need to be covered", and after two more times, Mohammad finally had a "revelation"

How awesomely politically correct of all of you. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort to employ moral relativism while completely tip-toeing around the real issue: the lack of human rights of women under Islamic law.

In the Muslim world it is the woman who is at fault when abused or raped because they are responsible for it. The coverings are to allow them to pass unmolested outside of the family's house. Even if they leave a Muslim country they must still wear such coverings because the men in their lives have total control over them as that is the Islamic custom. Penalties for allowing men to view your body are harsh whether it is enforced by the state or by one's family.

So point out the Orthodox Jews if you wish. Point out Nuns if it helps you sleep at night. Or call it "custom" as though it matters. I won't because I believe all women deserve the right to wear what they wish, when they wish, as well as the right not to fear physical harm when they employ those rights. It seems to me that I have never heard of an "honor" killing when an Orthodox Jewish women or a Nun throws off the customary dress code.

Sure, some Muslim women like the scarf or burqa. But should they have to suffer under systems that don't allow them to choose to wear them?

I have no doubt you all would be screaming to the high heavens if this was a Christian cult that enforced such a standard in such a brutal fashion. Are human rights optional in the face of religious customs? Or is it just certain religions that are held to higher standards? Do Muslims ever have to abide by human rights or are they immune because you might be branded an "Islamophobe"?
How awesomely ignorant of you to believe that islamic law is identical in all places. And to have a rant about people discussing headscarves in a thread specifically about headscarves.

Ain't it odd how religious leaders who want to boink a bunch of women suddenly get the WORD from the LORD that plural marriage is OK? *points to Muhammad & Joseph Smith as examples*

In fairness to Muhammad, his many wives were for political or humanitarian reason, rather than a personal harem.

How awesomely politically correct of all of you. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort to employ moral relativism while completely tip-toeing around the real issue: the lack of human rights of women under Islamic law.

Last time I checked, "Islamic law" is not instituted where I live, or where Cabra does.

If you'd like to talk about the oppression of women, that's a conversation we can certainly have, but this thread is about a specific article of clothing. As I pointed out above, regimes in which women are forced to dress a certain way are a problem. But the article of clothing itself is not.

So point out the Orthodox Jews if you wish. Point out Nuns if it helps you sleep at night. Or call it "custom" as though it matters. I won't because I believe all women deserve the right to wear what they wish, when they wish, as well as the right not to fear physical harm when they employ those rights.

I agree! And that means they can wear hijab if they so wish!

Sure, some Muslim women like the scarf or burqa. But should they have to suffer under systems that don't allow them to choose to wear them?

Of course not. Should women who choose to wear it have to suffer derision because of their choices or have laws made to try and discourage their chosen mode of dress?

How awesomely ignorant of you to believe that islamic law is identical in all places. And to have a rant about people discussing headscarves in a thread specifically about headscarves.

No, he's ranting about (at least to my best interpretation) how ridiculous and even sexist it is to dispute a woman's right to wear whatever she pleases, simply because it makes us uncomfortable. All while ignoring the detrimental effects of Islamic law on women's rights in some areas of the world.

It's religious clothing meant to help keep a mans thoughts pure while promoting modesty for the women. While it may convey to some that he can't physically contain himself, it isn't meant to. It's more like why they try to keep teenage girls in high school from wearing mini-skirts and other skimpyness. It's distracting for the boys who need to study their lessons. I'm not saying that I agree with it though.

I love sexuality, nudity and debauchery of all sorts. I also detest religion.

No, he's ranting about (at least to my best interpretation) how ridiculous and even sexist it is to dispute a woman's right to wear whatever she pleases, simply because it makes us uncomfortable. All while ignoring the detrimental effects of Islamic law on women's rights in some areas of the world.
Find me a country that doesn't dictate what women can and cannot wear in some way or another.

very true - it's not as if the "freest country on Earth" doesn't have ridiculous modesty laws of it's own that are seen as conservative in other countries, or even in our own country... like that stupid law against showing your boxers.

How awesomely ignorant of you to believe that islamic law is identical in all places. And to have a rant about people discussing headscarves in a thread specifically about headscarves.

I know Islamic law is not identical in all places. Never do I say it is. Are you saying that those places were Islamic law holds sway, whether officially or through family, women have the freedom to wear what they wish without penalty?

Please tell me which country you are referring to so as to prove my ignorance.

I know Islamic law is not identical in all places. Never do I say it is. Are you saying that those places were Islamic law holds sway, whether officially or through family, women have the freedom to wear what they wish without penalty?

Please tell me which country you are referring to so as to prove my ignorance.

In places where religious law holds sway, often people of neither sex are allowed to dress as they wish. Examples include Mennonite communities, orthodox and Hassidic Jewish communities, Islamic theocracies in the middle east, and probably many others that I am not aware of.

This is a problem of religion dictating moral behaviour. In countries where there is more separation between religion and state, the influence of religion on such laws is mitigated, but rarely avoided completely.

As you can see, it is not a problem associated solely with Islam or with women.

i dont have a problem with head scarves. they cover the hair--big deal. if that is how a woman wants to dress "modestly" thats fine.

i dont like the more restrictive head-to-toe black stuff that doesnt allow a woman to act freely in the world.

Last time I checked, "Islamic law" is not instituted where I live, or where Cabra does.

I refer you to this line that you obviously missed:

Even if they leave a Muslim country they must still wear such coverings because the men in their lives have total control over them as that is the Islamic custom.

The point is Islam itself and the cultural norm that dehumanizes women and stripes away their rights. While I am quite aware that Islamic men have the capacity to treat women very well, considering my family ties, it does not mean that Islamic traditions and customs are female friendly.

Check out the UK and how they are close to allowing Islamic law to be upheld in cases of domestic disputes and divorce.

If you'd like to talk about the oppression of women, that's a conversation we can certainly have, but this thread is about a specific article of clothing.

An article of clothing that is many times imposed upon a woman. I have no issues with the scarf as long as the women does not feel threatened to walk the streets without it.

Of course not. Should women who choose to wear it have to suffer derision because of their choices or have laws made to try and discourage their chosen mode of dress?

Nope. You should be able to wear what you wish with the exception of face coverings in ID photos and as long as it abides by any clothing restrictions of employment or willful membership. Those are laws that I understand. As long as your chosen form of wear does not endanger anyone you are good in my book.

That being said, you have the freedom to dress as you wish and people have the freedom to make fun of your choices.

No, he's ranting about (at least to my best interpretation) how ridiculous and even sexist it is to dispute a woman's right to wear whatever she pleases, simply because it makes us uncomfortable. All while ignoring the detrimental effects of Islamic law on women's rights in some areas of the world.

Somebody got it. Thank you.

The point is Islam itself and the cultural norm that dehumanizes women and stripes away their rights. While I am quite aware that Islamic men have the capacity to treat women very well, considering my family ties, it does not mean that Islamic traditions and customs are female friendly.

Actually, the point is headscarves. You seem to be making it about Islam. It makes you seem like a religious bigot.

In places where religious law holds sway, often people of neither sex are allowed to dress as they wish. Examples include Mennonite communities, orthodox and Hassidic Jewish communities, Islamic theocracies in the middle east, and probably many others that I am not aware of.

Which of these religious laws allow for the beating and brutalization of those women who not comply? Which of those religious laws allows you to kill those women who attempt to leave that religion?

This is a problem of religion dictating moral behaviour. In countries where there is more separation between religion and state, the influence of religion on such laws is mitigated, but rarely avoided completely.

Indeed, it is a problem of religion dictating moral behaviour. We agree. The problem I have with a majority of the posters on this thread is the degree of abuse towards women you are willing to ignore in the name of political correctness or moral relativism. Once again, where do you see Mennonite's bringing physical abuse upon women who do not abide by the dress code?

It is one thing to create a dress code and quite another to physically enforce it in the name of a God.

As you can see, it is not a problem associated solely with Islam or with women.

Actually, I just see someone who missed the point.

Actually, the point is headscarves. You seem to be making it about Islam. It makes you seem like a religious bigot.

Here is the first line of the OP:

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

You seem to be making this about me. That makes you someone who is ignorant of the actual topic whose only recourse is jumping to idiotic conclusions.

Which of these religious laws allow for the beating and brutalization of those women who not comply? Which of those religious laws allows you to kill those women who attempt to leave that religion?

I don't see how it relates to headscarves. Try to stay on topic.

Indeed, it is a problem of religion dictating moral behaviour. We agree. The problem I have with a majority of the posters on this thread is the degree of abuse towards women you are willing to ignore in the name of political correctness or moral relativism. Once again, where do you see Mennonite's bringing physical abuse upon women who do not abide by the dress code?

It is one thing to create a dress code and quite another to physically enforce it in the name of a God.

You seem to be incensed that people are ignoring violence towards women in Muslim communities, and instead are discussing the psychological and social implications of headscarves. It may have something to do with the fact that the title and OP for the thread explicitly state the subject to be the psychological and social implications of headscarves.

Actually, I just see someone who missed the point.

Are you actually claiming that religious dress codes only affect Muslim women?

Indeed, it is a problem of religion dictating moral behaviour. We agree. The problem I have with a majority of the posters on this thread is the degree of abuse towards women you are willing to ignore in the name of political correctness or moral relativism. Once again, where do you see Mennonite's bringing physical abuse upon women who do not abide by the dress code?

Who is ignoring abuse "in the name of political correctness or moral relativism"?

This thread is not about abuse. It is about an article of clothing and the message wearing such an article may or may not send. If you want to discuss abuse, start a thread on that.

Here is the first line of the OP:

And the next sentence in the OP explicitly states that it is not meant in a religious sense.

Here is some information regarding Christianity, Judaism and Islam in how it can be interpreted to promote AND condemn violence against women - http://new.vawnet.org/category/Main_Doc.php?docid=411

Within Islam, we also find texts and interpretations of texts that have been used by abusive men to justify their behavior. According to Muslim scholar and activist Sharifa Alkhateeb (1999):

The most abused verse is ayah 34 of Surah four: "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women because Allah gave more to the one than the other, and because they support them from their means. So devout women are extremely careful and attentive in guarding what cannot be seen in that which Allah is extremely careful and attentive in guarding. Concerning women whose rebellious disloyalty (nusbooz) you fear, admonish them, then refuse to share their beds, then hit them; but if they become obedient, do not seek means of annoyance against them. For Allah is Most High, Great" (pp. 54-55).

Alkhateeb (1999) argues that this passage instructs Muslim men to financially and physically protect women (given their greater physical strength) and instructs Muslim women to guard their fidelity in obedience to Allah. She points out that to translate the word "to hit" contradicts the explicit teachings of the Prophet:

Some translators assert that it is incorrect to translate the word "hit" at all, based on the Prophet's lifelong abhorrence of hitting -- found in the hadith collections of Abu Daud, Nasa'I, Ibn Hibban, and Bayhaqi, and in his instruction in his last sermon where he restricted striking to a light tap ( gbayr mubarrih - without causing pain) only if the wife has become guilty of nusbooz , obvious immoral conduct (p. 55).

Then Alkhateeb (1999) concludes:

The wording of this verse emphasizes the woman's obedience to Allah's desires, and not to those of another human being, but those who misinterpret this verse would assign men the duty of being eternal surveillance police over their wives. . . In short, this verse has been used as a tool of control and abuse completely opposed to the Islamic foundation of marriage and family (p. 55).

In contrast, Alkhateeb (1999) points out that in the Qur'an, the marital relationship specifically is mandated to be one of "mutual kindness and mercy (30:21; 9:71)" (p. 53). Muslim women keep their own names when they marry and have a right to a marriage contract in which they can specify their expectations of fair treatment.

No human being has ultimate authority over women. . . . Islam actually requires kindness, politeness, consideration, gentleness, respect and general goodness to women. . . . The current unjust practices to women represent ignorance of the religion rather than an example of the religion (Alkhateeb, 2003, pp. 7-8).


Both the Hebrew Bible and Christian Scriptures contain story after story of violence against women: e.g. Dinah (Genesis 34), Tamar (2 Samuel 13), the Levite's concubine (Judges 19), Jephthah's daughter (Judges 11), Vashti (Esther 1), Suzannah (Daniel 13), and probably the persistent widow in Luke's Gospel (Luke 18) 2 . Later Christian texts also condone male violence against women and the domination of women. For example, the right of chastisement was the enforcer of women's subordination in marriage. In the "Rules of Marriage" compiled by Friar Cherubino in the 15 th century (Bussert, 1986) we find the careful instruction to a husband to first reprimand his wife; "And if this still doesn't work . . . take up a stick and beat her soundly . . . for it is better to punish the body and correct the soul than to damage the soul and spare the body" (p. 13).

Unfortunately, this doctrine has been viewed as consistent with scriptural passages interpreted to confirm male dominance over women: "Wives be subject to your husbands as you are to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, the body of which he is the Savior. Just as the church is subject to Christ, so also wives ought to be, in everything, to their husbands" (Ephesians 5.22-24 NRSV). Either by its silence or its instruction, the church has too often communicated to battered women that they should stay in abusive relationships, try to be better wives, and "forgive and forget." To batterers, it has communicated that their efforts to control their wives or girlfriends are justified because women are to be subject to men in all things. They have been permitted to "discipline" their wives and their children all for the "good of the family." Christian history is filled with examples of church leaders justifying abuse of women by men. Church fathers like Martin Luther unapologetically described their own physical violence towards their wives (Smith, 1911).

In dealing with domestic violence, however, the Christian scriptural justifications for women remaining in abusive relationships (subordination in marriage, e.g. Ephesians 5:20; prohibition of divorce, e.g. Malachi 2:13-16) must be considered in the fuller context of ethics, theology, and doctrine. Prooftexting (the selective use of a text, usually out of context, to support one's position) is a common ploy by those who seek to simply justify their actions. It is not difficult to prooftext a man's prerogative to dominate and control a woman within patriarchal western religious traditions. But it nonetheless does not represent the whole story.

For example, in Jesus' ministry, he teaches: "The thief comes only to steal and kill and destroy. I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly" (John 10:10, NRSV). Victimization is never God's will but rather fullness of life. Jesus understood his ministry "to proclaim release to the captives . . ." (Luke 4:18 quoting Isaiah 61, NRSV). He told the story of the Good Samaritan to emphasize our responsibility to stop and care for the victim. These are fundamental teachings through which other passages must be interpreted in Christianity.

Who is ignoring abuse "in the name of political correctness or moral relativism"?

This thread is not about abuse. It is about an article of clothing and the message wearing such an article may or may not send. If you want to discuss abuse, start a thread on that.

This thread is about the implications of the Islamic custom of headscarves. A implication that was quickly drowned out by comparisions to Orthodox Jews and laws against nudity. Like those things really are the same thing.

But hey, I can take a hint, by all means discuss scarves and scarves alone.

The issue of conflicting cultural views of modesty is interesting and relevant. If we look at what Dempublicents and Poliwanacraca suggest, we notice that the headscarf has implications of oppression for Westerners that an ankle length dress does not, yet both stem from cultural assumptions about what is properly modest female dress.

It sounds obvious when I say it, but I realise now how deeply it affects my perception.

The other day, I was walking down the street and I noticed two young women. Both were wearing tight jeans, but one was wearing a hijab as well. So I couldn't see her hair, but I could see the firm ripeness of her young, pert backside. Now, I wouldn't have noticed her ass (just like I didn't notice her friend's possibly nubile posterior) unless her 'modest' head covering hadn't seemed out of place. But of course, it's my assumptions about the hijab as a tool of forcing modesty on young Muslim women that caused the dissonance.

Well, in eastern Europe, the headscarf is widely worn in some parts, and they're orthodox christian, as far as I know.
Western Christians, also, used to be just as strict about it as Muslims or Orthodox Jews. It was against the law for a woman to have her hair uncovered in public, in most European countries, until the Renaissance. The nuns' "habit" was not originally a special dress; it is what all women used to wear.

And the next sentence in the OP explicitly states that it is not meant in a religious sense.

Let's see:

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.

Understandable why CW would put in a disclaimer. Who wants to be a "religious bigot"? I am sorry, since I am the only one, who brought up the religious aspects of the Islamic headscarf in the exact same manner as the OP, in a religious sense. Because the headscarf, and what says "about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships" is in no way connected to religious morality or religious law.

Like I said above, enjoy this thread about the headscarf and define its impact on the woman who wears it without referring to any religion whatsoever. If you dare to you are a "religious bigot".

Western Christians, also, used to be just as strict about it as Muslims or Orthodox Jews. It was against the law for a woman to have her hair uncovered in public, in most European countries, until the Renaissance. The nuns' "habit" was not originally a special dress; it is what all women used to wear.

This is an excellent point. I leave it to someone, not a bigot like me, to point it out.

By whose determination is it "excessive"? A lot of people feel the need to dress "modestly" and the definition of exactly what that means to individuals varies greatly.

In my culture, I am generally expected to wear a bra, especially if I want to be dressed modestly. If I came from a society in which women did not wear such garments, I might find them restrictive and "excessive".


While I agree that forced dress codes of this type (or even severe pressure) can send the types of signals you're talking about, I don't think there's anything inherent in the head scarf that does it.


Does the adoption of modest dress in other cultures do the same thing?

For instance, does the fact that I don't wear tube tops and mini skirts send some sort of signal that I am for a physical purpose or that men are sex-deranged animals?
I agree with Dem.

Forced dress codes shouldn't be on the books, and punishing people, or holding them responsible for bad things that has happened to them, based on the way they dress is abhorrent.

But I don't see anything inherently repressive in choosing to wear a headscarf either.

This thread is about the implications of the Islamic custom of headscarves. A implication that was quickly drowned out by comparisions to Orthodox Jews and laws against nudity. Like those things really are the same thing.

Any religion that encourages or requires the wearing of head scarves is equally relevant to a discussion about the practice. Cabra was apparently unaware that they are practices of other religions as well.

And these things really are the same. There's no objective moral value ascribed to any article of clothing. In some cultures, nudity or, at least, toplessness is not an issue at all. In most of Western culture, we're expected to cover a bit more. And, in some religious traditions, even more should be covered.

And women in all of those cultures and religions sometimes choose to adhere to given dress codes.

Now, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, there is a problem when someone is forced to adhere to such standards of dress - whether through physical force, financial pressure, social stigmas, etc. But such force is not inherent to any given dress code and, when it is, it is not the dress code itself that is an issue - it's the force.

The issue of conflicting cultural views of modesty is interesting and relevant. If we look at what Dempublicents and Poliwanacraca suggest, we notice that the headscarf has implications of oppression for Westerners that an ankle length dress does not, yet both stem from cultural assumptions about what is properly modest female dress.

It sounds obvious when I say it, but I realise now how deeply it affects my perception.

The other day, I was walking down the street and I noticed two young women. Both were wearing tight jeans, but one was wearing a hijab as well. So I couldn't see her hair, but I could see the firm ripeness of her young, pert backside. Now, I wouldn't have noticed her ass (just like I didn't notice her friend's possibly nubile posterior) unless her 'modest' head covering hadn't seemed out of place. But of course, it's my assumptions about the hijab as a tool of forcing modesty on young Muslim women that caused the dissonance.

One of the women in my circle of friends wears hijab. She hasn't been forced or even pressured into it - it was her choice. But, before I got to know her, I still did hold certain assumptions. For instance, I had an expectation that she would be very conservative and would tend to show deference to her boyfriend. We had a rather raunchy comedy on the first time she was at my house and I was afraid it would offend her. I felt like I should avoid certain topics of conversation around her.

Of course, now that I've gotten to know her, all of that seems absolutely ridiculous.

I don't have any issue at all with women who choose to wear the headscarf, in fact I have complete respect for my friends who choose to do so. Whenever I have spoken to a Muslim woman about the headscarf about why she chooses to do so the emphasis has always been throughly on the self and internal reasons rather than others and external reasons. They admit that women are sex objects (perhaps not the right term), but that they are also other things -- like intelligent and rational creatures. What the headscarf allows is for them to focus on this particular aspect of theirself. So when they go out to work, they aren't wondering about how pretty they look, but more about the task at hand -- doing Allah's will to help the people around them and better the world they live in.

I have to admit though, that the cross-section of Muslim women I have spoken to is pretty narrow -- mostly involved in NGO work or studying on PolSci related degrees.

edit: whoops, forgot the other part of my post.

But in regards in how society perceives a specific group of people walking around head scarves. That's slightly different. In the way an individual might perceive a group of retirees loitering outside their house compared to a group of teenagers. If it's not a practice you're familiar or comfortable with then it can certainly give off the impression of a social cleek (sp?). Which in terms of society can have a negative impact whether the social exclusion is intended or not. So really I guess it's a matter of societal norms and perceptions that have been tinted.

Perhaps Mohammad was a bit of a sex hound himself.

*awaits protests*

he did marry and bed a 9 yr old.

I know Islamic law is not identical in all places. Never do I say it is. Are you saying that those places were Islamic law holds sway, whether officially or through family, women have the freedom to wear what they wish without penalty?

Please tell me which country you are referring to so as to prove my ignorance.

You imply it by just saying 'Islamic law' without any greater specificity. Find any country where a woman (or man) has total freedom to wear what they want.


I refer you to this line that you obviously missed:

The point is Islam itself and the cultural norm that dehumanizes women and stripes away their rights. While I am quite aware that Islamic men have the capacity to treat women very well, considering my family ties, it does not mean that Islamic traditions and customs are female friendly.
I like how you get to define what Islam is and isn't (again with the homogenous implications)


Check out the UK and how they are close to allowing Islamic law to be upheld in cases of domestic disputes and divorce.
We had an entire thread about this. Those arbitration courts are allowable if both sides agree to be bound by them. How oppressive.

Which of these religious laws allow for the beating and brutalization of those women who not comply? Which of those religious laws allows you to kill those women who attempt to leave that religion?
Prison is a sentance for public indecency. And you'll be in serious trouble for being pagan in several countries where Christianity is the majority religion.



This thread is about the implications of the Islamic custom of headscarves. A implication that was quickly drowned out by comparisions to Orthodox Jews and laws against nudity. Like those things really are the same thing.

But hey, I can take a hint, by all means discuss scarves and scarves alone.

Let's see:



Understandable why CW would put in a disclaimer. Who wants to be a "religious bigot"? I am sorry, since I am the only one, who brought up the religious aspects of the Islamic headscarf in the exact same manner as the OP, in a religious sense. Because the headscarf, and what says "about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships" is in no way connected to religious morality or religious law.

Like I said above, enjoy this thread about the headscarf and define its impact on the woman who wears it without referring to any religion whatsoever. If you dare to you are a "religious bigot".

I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.

From the OP I wouldn't say that it's specifically Islamic headscarves. He mentions them, but goes on to talk about headscarves generally. But you've gone off headscarves and onto Islam in general, and then rant when people say you're OT.

he did marry and bed a 9 yr old.

-awaits "it was a different culture" argument-

-awaits "it was a different culture" argument-

I dont care what culture your from. sticking your penis in a 9 yr old is wrong.

I dont care what culture your from. sticking your penis in a 9 yr old is wrong.

Especially when in that culture she was still considered a kid. So even if there was a cultural norm of having sex with 9 year old, maybe if they "matured" differently or something, he was still going against the norm.

Before having sex with her at 9, he used to go and play with her while she was playing with dolls, and there were some accounts of him rubbing his penis between her legs until the time the marriage was consummated at 9.

he did marry and bed a 9 yr old.

Apparently, she should have worn a headscarf.

Especially when in that culture she was still considered a kid. So even if there was a cultural norm of having sex with 9 year old, maybe if they "matured" differently or something, he was still going against the norm.

Before having sex with her at 9, he used to go and play with her while she was playing with dolls, and there were some accounts of him rubbing his penis between her legs until the time the marriage was consummated at 9.

yeah. and woman didn't mature faster then they matured slower. puberty has been coming sooner and sooner these days thanks to improved diet. getting off topic dont think I can follow a know child molester's teachings.

Before having sex with her at 9, he used to go and play with her while she was playing with dolls, and there were some accounts of him rubbing his penis between her legs until the time the marriage was consummated at 9.

Thank the Powers for the confirmed historical accuracy of the accounts! I guess he really did ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem as well - as there are accounts of him doing. :rolleyes:

Way to go off topic, btw.

yeah. and woman didn't mature faster then they matured slower. puberty has been coming sooner and sooner these days thanks to improved diet. getting off topic dont think I can follow a know child molester's teachings.

Why do you think I quit following Islam after such a short time? I stopped hearing the sugar coated stories of it, and dove deep into the actual religion and was repulsed.

Its sad, because those things that Mohammad did are now seen as normal culturally practices, especially in the Arabian peninsula. See the two kids marrying at age 11 that were recently in the news. Or see how men at age 50 are still marrying young girls at ages 9-14

Thank the Powers for the confirmed historical accuracy of the accounts! I guess he really did ascend to Heaven from Jerusalem as well - as there are accounts of him doing. :rolleyes:

Way to go off topic, btw.

Sorry, just going by Islamic sources. What is written is what they believe, and what they believe impacts their social view.

But, as to the reasons these religious/cultural laws exist, are the ones in the Jewish tradition to do with modesty and fidelity in marriage as well?
Yes, that is their main reason. Oh, and remaining humble before God. *shrug* I, and most other young, secular Jews think it's silly but people are people and if women want to dress like that, so be it.
I dont care what culture your from. sticking your penis in a 9 yr old is wrong.

Yes, and attempting to slit your own son's throat because some voice tells you to is also pretty fucking wrong. Anyway, I was under the impression a lot of the stuff that has to do with....Aisha, right?....was mostly from the Hadeeth?

Yes, and attempting to slit your own son's throat because some voice tells you to is also pretty fucking wrong. Anyway, I was under the impression a lot of the stuff that has to do with....Aisha, right?....was mostly from the Hadeeth?

Reliable hadith, narrated by herself.

Reliable hadith, narrated by herself.

Ah...in all honesty, it's somewhat irrelevant, but the hadeeth are much more, uh..., interpretable or questionable, I thought? But, really, it comes down to the fact that it's a silly bible story. Are you running around slitting your sons' throats, waiting for God to tell you not to? I didn't think so.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.You forgot the third part of that.
3) When a woman is sexually assaulted it is almost always her fault. Whether for not covering herself sufficiently or some other reason.

You forgot the third part of that.
3) When a woman is sexually assaulted it is almost always her fault. Whether for not covering herself sufficiently or some other reason.

That isn't tied to headscarves. It doesn't matter what "modest" means in a given culture. There are assholes everywhere who will say that a woman who is raped should have been dressed differently or that it is otherwise her fault.

Especially when in that culture she was still considered a kid. So even if there was a cultural norm of having sex with 9 year old, maybe if they "matured" differently or something, he was still going against the norm.

Before having sex with her at 9, he used to go and play with her while she was playing with dolls, and there were some accounts of him rubbing his penis between her legs until the time the marriage was consummated at 9.

Was she wearing a headscarf?

he did marry and bed a 9 yr old.Marry. And yes it was custom. But it was also custom not to bed her until puberty. It was traditional for a girls to be in her husbands household before her first menses.

Covering up the face (partially or fully) hides that which we use to identify our fellow humans. Thus, covered women are having their individual identities eliminated.

That's interesting. I had noticed that Jewish women seemed to wear wigs more often, but I never knew that might be the reason.

Actually, its because female Jews have the baldy gene. Men only get part of it, hence the Ben Gurion/Woody Allen effect. Well known fact.

Marry. And yes it was custom. But it was also custom not to bed her until puberty. It was traditional for a girls to be in her husbands household before her first menses.

Custom doesn't cut it, because even by Arab customs she was still a child when the marriage was consummated. She was playing with dolls, which is forbidden by Muslims of age to do, for idolatry reasons. Only children can play with dolls.


Was she wearing a headscarf?

To be quite honest, I am not sure.

Ah...in all honesty, it's somewhat irrelevant, but the hadeeth are much more, uh..., interpretable or questionable, I thought? But, really, it comes down to the fact that it's a silly bible story. Are you running around slitting your sons' throats, waiting for God to tell you not to? I didn't think so.

Hadith and Bible have nothing to do with one another. As far as your Abraham question, God has not commanded any Christian to go around attempting to kill their children. Now on the flip side, Islam says that muslims are to follow the example of Mohammad, who did have sex with an child, and did force women to cover up after political pressure from one of his followers.

To be quite honest, I am not sure.

Then I am wondering why you bring it up.

Its really just a way of showing how devoted you are to your god. Just like married women wear wedding rings all the time.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

Whats up with pop culture and subtly/subliminally sending out bad messages. :confused:

How awesomely politically correct of all of you. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort to employ moral relativism while completely tip-toeing around the real issue: the lack of human rights of women under Islamic law.

In the Muslim world it is the woman who is at fault when abused or raped because they are responsible for it. The coverings are to allow them to pass unmolested outside of the family's house. Even if they leave a Muslim country they must still wear such coverings because the men in their lives have total control over them as that is the Islamic custom. Penalties for allowing men to view your body are harsh whether it is enforced by the state or by one's family.

So point out the Orthodox Jews if you wish. Point out Nuns if it helps you sleep at night. Or call it "custom" as though it matters. I won't because I believe all women deserve the right to wear what they wish, when they wish, as well as the right not to fear physical harm when they employ those rights. It seems to me that I have never heard of an "honor" killing when an Orthodox Jewish women or a Nun throws off the customary dress code.

Sure, some Muslim women like the scarf or burqa. But should they have to suffer under systems that don't allow them to choose to wear them?

I have no doubt you all would be screaming to the high heavens if this was a Christian cult that enforced such a standard in such a brutal fashion. Are human rights optional in the face of religious customs? Or is it just certain religions that are held to higher standards? Do Muslims ever have to abide by human rights or are they immune because you might be branded an "Islamophobe"?


We have Christian "cults" that enforce such dress restrictions. The Brethren, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, certain Orthodox religions. Some sects of these religions enforce it more dramatically than others, just as some cultures that are predominantly Muslim in religious affiliation are stricter than others. Many branches of Islam do not require the headscarf, just as not all Christian denominations require the Mormon 'magic underwear'.

And I'll bet you have heard of honour killings in other religions and cultures. We just don't call it that. We call it an anomaly when a father kills his teenage daughter for marrying someone he doesn't like. We call it awful when a husband kills his wife for leaving him or cheating on him. But at the base of it, these crimes are as much an honour killing as the WASP who kills his daughter for getting pregnant out of wedlock.

Custom doesn't cut it, because even by Arab customs she was still a child when the marriage was consummated. She was playing with dolls, which is forbidden by Muslims of age to do, for idolatry reasons. Only children can play with dolls.



And plenty of Victorian girls were married off at this age in England. Much more recently than Mohammed. You going to imply something about my ancestors next are you?

And many Christian sects forbid playing with dolls. Noone makes a fuss.

Its really just a way of showing how devoted you are to your god. Just like married women wear wedding rings all the time.

Er... no they don't. Some do, but some don't. Some don't even have rings.

Whats up with pop culture and subtly/subliminally sending out bad messages. :confused:

Such as?

You know, governments could be creative about all of this. Hijabs, scarves and yarmulkas are fine. Wigs and funny hats are okay but butquas are out. Covering der face ist verboten! If countries like France and Turkey want to draw a line in the sand, that's what it could be.
A woman in England went for a job interview and got the job as a teaching assistant. She then started wearing a burqua. She took them to equal opportunity and lost. The reason why? The burqua scared the little kids. Moreover, she interviewed without that crap on - then she tried to pull that stunt.
Good on English law on that one. Now a hijab is fine. But looking like Cousin It from the Addams Family is a little extreme. I also think that it is men enslaving women - denying them any identity. Who was that masked woman?

Ok, maybe I should clarify what I was trying to say in the OP:

What concerns me is not so much the garments themsleves, be it a heascarf of burqa, but the sentiment behind them. And yes, that sentiment is probably extremely closely linked the the religion they express.
I don't really make a distinction between any of the world's religions, and I most certainly don't compare them based on body count or the amount of bloodshed and suffering they've caused. So I'm not picking Islam to rant against because I particularly dislike it as a religion. I dislike all kinds of religion.
What I'm talking about here is the image of what a woman is and what a man is that I find propagated in most religions, but that finds a very obvious expression in the particular female garments promoted by a good section of the Islamic world.

I think, personally, that by trying to de-sexualise females by asking them (and in many cases forcing them) to cover themselves up as much as possible, the exact opposite is achieved. It objectifies women by turning them into "forbidden fruit". Aside from the fact that it restricts their liberties, I wonder about the general idea of what men think and what women are that would require such drastic amounts of fabric to counteract.

Headwear, from a religious point of view, seems to have various social and cultural implications. It's pretty easy to spot, and easy to differentiate. According to the different headscarves/hats that people wear around here, I can tell what religion they are. Orthodox Jews, Sikhs, Rastafarians, and Muslims are the easiest to tell apart. So we can see that headwear acts as a visible symbol of the religious community that the wearer belongs to.

In terms of interplay between the sexes, it would seem logical to assume it plays a similar role. If I wear a certain outfit, I will look like an orthodox Jewish man. With another, I would look like an orthodox Jewish woman. The same could be said of the dress of orthodox members of other religious communities. So, we could also point out that they enforce gender roles in religious communities as well. The clothes can even enforce cultural views by themselves. A good example is breastfeeding. In some religious communities and religiously influenced cultures, the woman has to wrap herself totally. This makesit difficult for women to breastfeed in public, which may also be a view of the same culture.

In many cases, we see that the clothes also have an aspect of enforcing cultural norms about modesty from the time that they were established. Hassidic Jews, for example, dress like modest people from Eastern Europe from the era in which they began, so to speak.

This enforcement of modesty, gender roles, etc. is something that affects both sexes. However, it is easier, in every religion that I can think of, for a male to disregard these clothing norms and still maintain the respect of the community.

How awesomely politically correct of all of you. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort to employ moral relativism while completely tip-toeing around the real issue: the lack of human rights of women under Islamic law.


Of course, to you the real issue is how much you believe Islam to be evil and how much you hate and fear Muslims. And when I saw the threat title I was wondering how many posts it would take before some Islamophobic bigot such as yourself popped in with a "the real problem is the Muslims LOL!" rant. Now I know.

Congratulations on being awesomely predictable. Such a gnashing of teeth and furious effort.

Do Muslims ever have to abide by human rights or are they immune because you might be branded an "Islamophobe"?

"Wah. I can't go on about how much I hate and fear Muslims without getting called an Islamophobe!"

The problem with this debate is that both sides are right, and both are wrong. Of course it's highly bigoted to go on about how utterly evil and bad all these Muslims are.

On the other hand, Sharia law (note, I didn't say MUSLIM law, or ISLAMIC law) is horribly repressive of not just women, but pretty much everyone except the male ruling caste. It's a horribly repressive regime, and responsible for frequent, gross violations of basic human rights.

The problem with both sides remain in the extremes, both those who would take one specific thing followed by some people in one specific religion, and use that to exrapolate and condemn an entire people, and those who blindly lash out with titles of "bigot" anyone who would point out that under Sharia, women face serious problems.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.
What's crazy is that on the other end of the spectrum, you have entire fashion lines devoted to dressing females in revealing, sexy clothes at younger and younger ages, which some would argue also turns women into sexual objects.

The problem with fashion is that no matter how much I want to argue it's simply a personal choice, it never really is. Fashion is highly influenced by culture, either an acceptance of the mainstream, or a rejection of it. The way we dress is one of the most immediate forms of expression we have as human beings. We are absolutely attempting to communicate something through our appearances...even if our 'look' has become so common for us that we no longer do so consciously.

So yes. Messages are being sent, messages are being received, though the communication is happening through layers and layers of cultural expectations and understandings, and misunderstandings are inevitable.

I state all this so it's clear that I'm not denyin the obvious nature of mode of dress, because now I need to disagree with your opening post.

I'm going to look at the issue of headscarves as worn in the West, since that's where I live, and I simply don't have enough experience with Islam outside of the West. For many of my Muslim friends and classmates, the hijab is an accessory. The issue of modesty is...extremely underplayed. Many of these women dress very sexily, though the exposure of bare skin is kept to a minimum. Nonetheless, tight leggings, skirts, tight tops showing off fantastic racks...and an absolutely stunning silk embroidered hijab. They look beautiful, and they know it.

The hijab for them is a visible sign of their culture and their community. Many people have some similar sign...a fashion 'alignment', a standard mode of dress. Yes, communication is happening via these symbols...but I disagree that the proper interpretation is one of objectification of women and the infantalisation of men.

What I'm saying is that the hijab is not inherently anything. It has specific cultural connotations in one context, and altered connotations in another. If you speak to a Muslim woman and she tells you that she wears the hijab to protect her modesty from the prying and predatory eyes of men, then you can feel confident in drawing the conclusion you have.

If, however, she tells you that she wears the hijab because she is proud of her culture, because her friends wear the hijab and because she feels good in it, then you need to delve a bit further. Is shame an element of the hijab for most Western Muslim women? Is it even a large element for those Muslim women recently come to the West?

It's too nuanced an issue and too caught up in cultural bleeding for it to be useful or accurate to take the most extreme view and use it to generalise about the motivations of wearing the hijab and the effect of such.

Questioning it, as you have done...is not harmful either...but it's a lot more useful to get your information from the people themselves in terms of the motivation. The reactions to the hijab, you'll get plenty of here.

was she wearing a headscarf?

rofl.

Here is the first line of the OP:

You seem to be making this about me. That makes you someone who is ignorant of the actual topic whose only recourse is jumping to idiotic conclusions.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

Clearly the focus of the OP was about fans. I am going to go on a rant about how fans behave in ridiculous ways when the object of their fanhood is mentioned, or appears. Don't accuse me of trying to hijack the thread to deal with this important topic because I bolded the word 'fan' in the OP to prove that I am totally and completely on track.

Is anyone else as amussed as I am that people on the right suddenly become passionate and rightous defenders of women when its Islam thats the enemy?

Is anyone else as amussed as I am that people on the right suddenly become passionate and rightous defenders of women when its Islam thats the enemy?

What does "the right" have to do with it any more than "the left?" These are fictions, they don't exist.

Clearly the focus of the OP was about fans. I am going to go on a rant about how fans behave in ridiculous ways when the object of their fanhood is mentioned, or appears. Don't accuse me of trying to hijack the thread to deal with this important topic because I bolded the word 'fan' in the OP to prove that I am totally and completely on track.

Clearly you missed the true focus.

Originally Posted by OP
I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

The focus of the OP was anti-capitalism. Who is behind the marketing of the scarf? Clearly this religious tradition has been hijacked by the fat cat scarf manufacturing cabal for mere greed. Once again, notice the bolded word to prove my point.

I like you Neesika. You make me giggle.

What does "the right" have to do with it any more than "the left?" These are fictions, they don't exist.

Of course not.

I'm sure KoL is going to go on to tell you that the Average Republican is a wife-beating, homo-burning skinhead that is willing to hire Jack Thompson at triple his normal rate and is absolutely unwilling to participate in any kind of reasonable debate, but since he's probably hung around a few too many forums where the vast majority of posters were on the left, making any stance further than moderate into a neo-conservative Reagan-necromancer, I'd possibly discount this statement. :p

Is anyone else as amussed as I am that people on the right suddenly become passionate and rightous defenders of women when its Islam thats the enemy?

Oh come on now. It's the people of the right who fought tirelessly to stop the practice of putting a woman's sexual history on trial...who decry the view that you can place any blame whatsoever on a woman who is sexually assaulted if she dressed 'slutty'. Righties have at their very heart the emancipation of women, and the advancement of women's issues, and always have.

It's the left handed bastards who want to forcibly impregnate all women and chain them to cooking implements.

It's the left handed bastards who want to forcibly impregnate all women and chain them to cooking implements.

I don't care about impregnation and really have nothing in particular for or against cooking implements.

The chains, on the other hand, I can get behind.

Of course it's highly bigoted to go on about how utterly evil and bad all these Muslims are.

I certainly haven't done this.

On the other hand, Sharia law (note, I didn't say MUSLIM law, or ISLAMIC law) is horribly repressive of not just women, but pretty much everyone except the male ruling caste.

Interesting. How is Sharia law not Muslim or Islamic? What non-Islamic countries employ it? Please school me in the differences so can attain the level of PC-ness that so many of you strive to impose on everyone else.

It's a horribly repressive regime, and responsible for frequent, gross violations of basic human rights.

Is Sharia a "regime"? Or is it the law as dictated by Islamic tradition and followed by a great many Muslims? You don't have to answer. I know the pain of being labeled a bigot. Strange that you almost seem to be agreeing with me while handing out such labels yourself.

The problem with both sides remain in the extremes, both those who would take one specific thing followed by some people in one specific religion, and use that to exrapolate and condemn an entire people, and those who blindly lash out with titles of "bigot" anyone who would point out that under Sharia, women face serious problems.

Considering the Muslims in my family, with whom I can freely speak with about such things without being called a "bigot", I can honestly say I was not, nor did I, condemn an entire people. If you would like to prove that Islamic culture and traditions are egalitarian towards women then do so. I just know, from my conversations with the Muslim women in family and their friends, that they only wear traditional coverings when they travel back to Iran or other Middle Eastern countries. It is not pride but fear that compels them. When they live here they dress in short skirts, heels, and show cleavage. They seem far more in love with their Persian ancestry than the Islamic Revolution that forced them to deny their feminine beauty and power.

But hey, back to scarves. Or was it fans? Or perhaps anti-capitalism?

It's the left handed bastards who want to forcibly impregnate all women and chain them to cooking implements.

You captured the Clinton administration perfectly! Nicely done.

I don't care about impregnation and really have nothing in particular for or against cooking implements.

The chains, on the other hand, I can get behind.

I didn't know you were left handed!

But hey, back to scarves. Or was it fans? Or perhaps anti-capitalism?

Stop playing dumb.

...

Deal with the issue at hand please. If you want to rant about Islam in general, go forth and create for thyself a platform in the form of a thread.

The discussion, which pretty much everyone else has been able to grasp the point of, is whether the headscarf as worn by Muslim woman, is inherently sexualising of woman and infantalising of men. You can back up your argument with references to Islam, to Muslim culture here and abroad...but try to actually keep the main focus on the scarf itself and not on say Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy which is only tangentally related to the OP.

These are fictions, they don't exist.

Your opinion that the political spectrum doesnt exist is noted.

Of course not.

I'm sure KoL is going to go on to tell you that the Average Republican is a wife-beating, homo-burning skinhead that is willing to hire Jack Thompson at triple his normal rate and is absolutely unwilling to participate in any kind of reasonable debate, but since he's probably hung around a few too many forums where the vast majority of posters were on the left, making any stance further than moderate into a neo-conservative Reagan-necromancer, I'd possibly discount this statement. :p

Flamebait much?

I don't care about impregnation and really have nothing in particular for or against cooking implements.

The chains, on the other hand, I can get behind.

This.

Anyway, on topic. I personally highly doubt that very many women wear the Islam head dress for any reasons other then tradition, pressure from family/community, or fear. Assuming that the third reason mentioned is the least likely to occur in the west...

Tradition is a fair enough reason. Being in touch with one's ancestory and homeland is a good thing. Its no more strange to me then my Scotish friend who occasionally wears a kilt.

Pressure from the family or community I am less fond of, all though the pressures from other communities to dress like a whore are not healthy either (all though I do like the latter look). A woman should be free to dress as she sees fit, and it is not the business of the family or the community.

Finally, Neesika mentioned shame. Im more inclined to believe that their traditions and culture teaches them to feel shame in their bodies for being sin factories (just as in all Abrahamic religions), and this would be the strongest reason for Islamic and Middle Eastern women to wear the headscarf.

What's crazy is that on the other end of the spectrum, you have entire fashion lines devoted to dressing females in revealing, sexy clothes at younger and younger ages, which some would argue also turns women into sexual objects.

The problem with fashion is that no matter how much I want to argue it's simply a personal choice, it never really is. Fashion is highly influenced by culture, either an acceptance of the mainstream, or a rejection of it. The way we dress is one of the most immediate forms of expression we have as human beings. We are absolutely attempting to communicate something through our appearances...even if our 'look' has become so common for us that we no longer do so consciously.

So yes. Messages are being sent, messages are being received, though the communication is happening through layers and layers of cultural expectations and understandings, and misunderstandings are inevitable.

I state all this so it's clear that I'm not denyin the obvious nature of mode of dress, because now I need to disagree with your opening post.

I'm going to look at the issue of headscarves as worn in the West, since that's where I live, and I simply don't have enough experience with Islam outside of the West. For many of my Muslim friends and classmates, the hijab is an accessory. The issue of modesty is...extremely underplayed. Many of these women dress very sexily, though the exposure of bare skin is kept to a minimum. Nonetheless, tight leggings, skirts, tight tops showing off fantastic racks...and an absolutely stunning silk embroidered hijab. They look beautiful, and they know it.

The hijab for them is a visible sign of their culture and their community. Many people have some similar sign...a fashion 'alignment', a standard mode of dress. Yes, communication is happening via these symbols...but I disagree that the proper interpretation is one of objectification of women and the infantalisation of men.

What I'm saying is that the hijab is not inherently anything. It has specific cultural connotations in one context, and altered connotations in another. If you speak to a Muslim woman and she tells you that she wears the hijab to protect her modesty from the prying and predatory eyes of men, then you can feel confident in drawing the conclusion you have.

If, however, she tells you that she wears the hijab because she is proud of her culture, because her friends wear the hijab and because she feels good in it, then you need to delve a bit further. Is shame an element of the hijab for most Western Muslim women? Is it even a large element for those Muslim women recently come to the West?

It's too nuanced an issue and too caught up in cultural bleeding for it to be useful or accurate to take the most extreme view and use it to generalise about the motivations of wearing the hijab and the effect of such.

Questioning it, as you have done...is not harmful either...but it's a lot more useful to get your information from the people themselves in terms of the motivation. The reactions to the hijab, you'll get plenty of here.

I like nuance :fluffle:

Interesting. How is Sharia law not Muslim or Islamic? What non-Islamic countries employ it? Please school me in the differences so can attain the level of PC-ness that so many of you strive to impose on everyone else.
Is striving for accuracy "PC-ness"? Really?

Stop playing dumb.

You first, although I absolutely love the humor you wrap around it.

Deal with the issue at hand please. If you want to rant about Islam in general, go forth and create for thyself a platform in the form of a thread.

The rant was not about Islam but about the concept behind the scarf that the OP was talking about. With a clear reference to Islam to boot.

I was noting that the scarf was indeed a symbol of oppression for Islamic, Muslim, or Sharia abiding women. Something that many here felt they had to tip-toe around or risk being called a "bigot". A fear that has been proven to be real. My post had everything to do with the OP.

Funny that so many here are now on-topic Nazis but hey, it is a good plan if you need to resort to it. A little under-handed but that never seems to stop you.

The discussion, which pretty much everyone else has been able to grasp the point of, is whether the headscarf as worn by Muslim woman, is inherently sexualising of woman and infantalising of men. You can back up your argument with references to Islam, to Muslim culture here and abroad...but try to actually keep the main focus on the scarf itself and not on say Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy which is only tangentally related to the OP.

Nice. Please point out where I have ventured off the path to talk about "Ahmadinejad's nuclear policy". I was speaking of the Islamic/Muslim/Sharia enforced reasons that many of these women are compelled to wear scarves and other coverings.

But hey, I bow to your superior ability to misdirect and your amazing ability to read into what is written. Have yourself an excellent weekend.

Is striving for accuracy "PC-ness"? Really?

Then explain to me how Sharia is not Islamic law. And the difference between Sharia, Islamic law, and Muslim law. One is referring to the Sharia when one says Islamic or Muslim law. Sharia being the laws that Muslims abide by when they are followers of Islam.

Where is the accuracy? Where is the difference? My great uncle, and Iranian Muslim, has referred to "Islamic law" and the "laws of Muslims" in our conversations. Is he inaccurate?

So yes, I believe I have labelled this stupidity correctly.

Then explain to me how Sharia is not Islamic law. And the difference between Sharia, Islamic law, and Muslim law. One is referring to the Sharia when one says Islamic or Muslim law. Sharia being the laws that Muslims abide by when they are followers of Islam.

Where is the accuracy? Where is the difference? My great uncle, and Iranian Muslim, has referred to "Islamic law" and the "laws of Muslims" in our conversations. Is he inaccurate?

So yes, I believe I have labelled this stupidity correctly.

Nah, not really. Sharia is not part of the Quran. Its a seperate book written by a cleric. So its not really "Islamic Law".

I was noting that the scarf was indeed a symbol of oppression for Islamic, Muslim, or Sharia abiding women.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

And slightly more interesting, do you believe this is the only reason that Muslim women wear headscarves? Why or why not?

Then explain to me how Sharia is not Islamic law. And the difference between Sharia, Islamic law, and Muslim law. One is referring to the Sharia when one says Islamic or Muslim law. Sharia being the laws that Muslims abide by when they are followers of Islam.

Well, Islamic religious law is made up from sharia and fiqh, isn't it? The body of laws and the jurisprudence? So Sharia is one part of Islamic law - a part that's made up by other sources, including the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and other sources that the different subgroups (Sunni, Shi'a) disagree on.

And by "muslim law" it seems like you're talking about a law that's applicable to all muslims - even, for example, American muslims who don't adhere to any other law than the laws of the land. (They're still muslims, btw.)

Where is the accuracy? Where is the difference? My great uncle, and Iranian Muslim, has referred to "Islamic law" and the "laws of Muslims" in our conversations. Is he inaccurate?
Yes.

So yes, I believe I have labelled this stupidity correctly.

So accuracy in language is "PC-ness"? I see...

Nah, not really. Sharia is not part of the Quran. Its a seperate book written by a cleric. So its not really "Islamic Law".

Next you will try to tell me that the Hadith is not an official part of Islamic tradition and teachings.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/sharia+law

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sharia

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/sharia_law.htm

I could keep going but the term "Islamic law" appears in each one of these. Not to mention that Sharia is always said to have its foundations in the Koran.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

Easily demostrated. Don't wear it and walk down the street in Tehran or Riyadh. Next.

And slightly more interesting, do you believe this is the only reason that Muslim women wear headscarves? Why or why not?

If you bothered to read my actual statements I have said that people should be able to wear what they wish to wear. If you think you look dressed to kill in a headscarf then go for it. However, many a Muslim woman knows what to expect from the local authorities, if they live under Islamic law, or their own Muslim communities, if they live in one in a Western nation.

I am sure that many a Muslim woman wears the headscarf because they like it or to announce their pride in their culture and heritage. Once again, no problem since they have much to be proud of. I am saying that a woman should be able to take one off without the threat of persecution. Pretty simple really.

Well, Islamic religious law is made up from sharia and fiqh, isn't it? The body of laws and the jurisprudence? So Sharia is one part of Islamic law - a part that's made up by other sources, including the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and other sources that the different subgroups (Sunni, Shi'a) disagree on.

Already addressed and put to rest.

And by "muslim law" it seems like you're talking about a law that's applicable to all muslims - even, for example, American muslims who don't adhere to any other law than the laws of the land. (They're still muslims, btw.)

This is like saying the 10 Commandments don't apply to Catholics living outside of Vatican City. Even American Muslims, depending on which sect or flavor of Islam they follow, consults with their religious leaders who refer to Islamic law for guidance. Islamic law does not separate state and religion and all Muslims are bound to practise Islam before submitting themselves to the laws of other countries.

Yes.

Wow. I will tell my Great Uncle that he has no understanding of his own culture.

So accuracy in language is "PC-ness"? I see...

C'mon. You don't really see anything. "PC-ness" has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with avoiding the real argument by being able to call others "bigots".

Next you will try to tell me that the Hadith is not an official part of Islamic tradition and teachings.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sharia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia

http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/sharia+law

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/sharia

http://www.audioenglish.net/dictionary/sharia_law.htm

I could keep going but the term "Islamic law" appears in each one of these. Not to mention that Sharia is always said to have its foundations in the Koran.


None of that shows that Sharia is part of the Koran. And, seeing as how I have a Koran, have read it, and have my copy right here, if you say it is Ill know youre a dirty liar.

C'mon. You don't really see anything. "PC-ness" has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with avoiding the real argument by being able to call others "bigots".

"PC" is a right wing boogie man that makes some conservatives cry because they cant call black people ******s without being called a racist.

Easily demostrated. Don't wear it and walk down the street in Tehran or Riyadh. Next.

So, when I was at the passport office the other day (I'm in Canada, by the way), the woman who was wearing her hijab there was doing so because if she didn't, some random person would beat her? No, obviously not. Yet your example of sexism masquerading as religious fervor also points out the reality for many women. So, it would be fair to say that the hijab is a symbol of oppression for many Muslim women who live in theocratic countries or communities, but that is not the entire reality. Obviously, for other Muslim women, it may mean something else, and probably does.

If you bothered to read my actual statements I have said that people should be able to wear what they wish to wear. If you think you look dressed to kill in a headscarf then go for it. However, many a Muslim woman knows what to expect from the local authorities, if they live under Islamic law, or their own Muslim communities, if they live in one in a Western nation.

I am sure that many a Muslim woman wears the headscarf because they like it or to announce their pride in their culture and heritage. Once again, no problem since they have much to be proud of. I am saying that a woman should be able to take one off without the threat of persecution. Pretty simple really.

So, you think that there are many possible reasons for a Muslim woman to wear a headscarf. Would you then agree that the headscarf can be more than a symbol of oppression?

Have yourself an excellent weekend.

This suggested that you were leaving. You haven't left. Liar.

Looking at the quite frankly massive problem with men abusing women in Egypt, you might be onto something.

Men abuse women everywhere, from the Scandinavian nigh-utopias to Burkina Faso. I'm the furthest thing from a feminist, but it's true.

This suggested that you were leaving. You haven't left. Liar.

I have to go, though.

Te llamo mas tarde.

Already addressed and put to rest.
Not in the slightest. The random dictionary links you posted offers nothing.


This is like saying the 10 Commandments don't apply to Catholics living outside of Vatican City. Even American Muslims, depending on which sect or flavor of Islam they follow, consults with their religious leaders who refer to Islamic law for guidance. Islamic law does not separate state and religion and all Muslims are bound to practise Islam before submitting themselves to the laws of other countries.
So you now claim that American muslims abide by Sharia?


Wow. I will tell my Great Uncle that he has no understanding of his own culture.
You should do that. Seeing as how I know nothing about his understanding on the topic, you should afterwards inform him of what I actually posted: Concerning the accuracy of his statements.



C'mon. You don't really see anything. "PC-ness" has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with avoiding the real argument by being able to call others "bigots".
So... You're just bullshitting?

I have to go, though.

Te llamo mas tarde.

I'll hold the fort.

Te quiero, mi bomba de sexo :D

This is like saying the 10 Commandments don't apply to Catholics living outside of Vatican City. Even American Muslims, depending on which sect or flavor of Islam they follow, consults with their religious leaders who refer to Islamic law for guidance. Islamic law does not separate state and religion and all Muslims are bound to practise Islam before submitting themselves to the laws of other countries.

Um. Are you honestly suggesting that Americans who believe in religion are inherently unable to separate Church and State? 'Cuz most religions have rules and religious authorities, etc.

C'mon. You don't really see anything. "PC-ness" has nothing to do with accuracy and everything to do with avoiding the real argument by being able to call others "bigots".

OH NOES TSF SEES THRU OUR CHARADE!#$!@!

Men abuse women everywhere, from the Scandinavian nigh-utopias to Burkina Faso. I'm the furthest thing from a feminist, but it's true.

...would that be a male chauvinist?

Not in the slightest. The random dictionary links you posted offers nothing.

And people wonder why I don't source. What a waste of time.

So you now claim that American muslims abide by Sharia?

Inside their own communities many do. Islam dictates that state and religion are not separate. Many find comfort in referring to spiritual leaders on matters of Islamic law when they immigrate to other nations. Have you heard of honor killings, beaten women, and female circumcision in Europe and the US? I have.

You should do that. Seeing as how I know nothing about his understanding on the topic, you should afterwards inform him of what I actually posted: Concerning the accuracy of his statements.

You do indeed know nothing. I would put his, and his extended family's, understanding of Islam before yours. Tell me how long you have lived in a Muslim country and practiced Islam. He is only an 87 year old Muslim and head of a huge extended Muslim family. What you got?

So... You're just bullshitting?

Nope, just exposing your bullshit.

And people wonder why I don't source. What a waste of time.

Your source fucking sucked hairy, diseased goat balls, did not deal with the substantive issues raised by Gravlen, and you're crying because we should just be happy you deigned to provide any source at all?

Hi-lar-i-ous. Source (http://www.gadgetell.com/images/2007/05/kermit.jpg)!

[QUOTE]Your source fucking sucked hairy, diseased goat balls, did not deal with the substantive issues raised by Gravlen, and you're crying because we should just be happy you deigned to provide any source at all?

Awesome. I guess multiple sources that reflect my understanding, and the understanding of actual Muslims, "fucking sucked hairy, diseased goat balls"? You should note that no has yet explained, and sourced, the difference between Sharia and Islamic law. But hey, that sort of thing doesn't concern the mighty and brilliant Neesika does it?

You are my model for dealing "with the substantive issues". Don't worry, you can't make me cry over a internet forum but thank you for your concern.

"fucking sucked hairy, diseased goat balls"... That is so totally awesome. I see why you are so full of win!

Awesome. I guess multiple sources that reflect my understanding, and the understanding of actual Muslims, "fucking sucked hairy, diseased goat balls"?

You keep saying that word, source.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

And people wonder why I don't source. What a waste of time.
...you call that sourcing?

"You keep using that word. I do not think it means, what you think it means."

I see you have no understanding of this topic. If you did, you would at least try. Dictionary definitions offers nothing when examining the nuance of the elements making up Islamic law. And since you don't understand that sharia is a part of Islamic law, but isn't actually synonymous with "Islamic law" in the above-mentioned respect, you have little to offer here.


Inside their own communities many do. Islam dictates that state and religion are not separate. Many find comfort in referring to spiritual leaders on matters of Islamic law when they immigrate to other nations.
Many =/= all. That means that there are people who don't do that, and chooses not to submit to it but accepts and follows the local laws instead - and thus, they aren't subject to any "Muslim law", are they now?

So I repeat: The term is not accurate.

Have you heard of honor killings, beaten women, and female circumcision in Europe and the US? I have.
Yes. Done by muslims and non-muslims.

(Not as much the female circumcision, but that's a horrible cultural thing more than a horrible religious thing.)


You do indeed know nothing. I would put his, and his extended family's, understanding of Islam before yours.
Your loss, though I have yet to say anything negative about his understanding of Islam. That was your words, not mine.

Tell me how long you have lived in a Muslim country and practiced Islam. He is only an 87 year old Muslim and head of a huge extended Muslim family. What you got?
Accuracy.


Nope, just exposing your bullshit.
You need to do a better job of that, because you're way behind thus far.

Still, you stick to the claim that specify that you're talking about Sharia and not "Muslim law" is somehow avoiding the real argument? If that's the case, what argument is being avoided?

You keep saying that word, source.

I do not think that word means what you think it means.

Damn you, you beat me by seconds!!

*Has GoG punish you as revenge*

You should note that no has yet explained, and sourced, the difference between Sharia and Islamic law.

*Cough*

Well, Islamic religious law is made up from sharia and fiqh, isn't it? The body of laws and the jurisprudence? So Sharia is one part of Islamic law - a part that's made up by other sources, including the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and other sources that the different subgroups (Sunni, Shi'a) disagree on.

Damn you, you beat me by seconds!!

*Has GoG punish you as revenge*

Muahahahahahahaha...you fool! You're giving me exactly what I want! How is that revenge?

Muahahahahahahaha...you fool! You're giving me exactly what I want! How is that revenge?

Video tape >.>

And at least I'm not involved in a land war in Asia...

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

1. I completely disagree with your first statement. In modern Western society, many females, though certainly not all, are "objectified" daily, by themselves. In Western society, the women often becomes an object to be viewed, she is encouraged to dress in tight and revealing clothing, she is encouraged to not engage in intellectual activities (math, science, reading, etc.). In modern Western society, the women truly becomes a sex object, something for men to look at, to jeer at, to want. They become an object of desire.

On the other hand, the women who wears the scarf rejects this culture entirely. She demands that that men not see her as an object. Let's face the fact, most men, are very easy to "arouse". When a women wears the scarf, she rejects being treated as thing which "arouses". And because of this, a women wearing a scarf will often, subconcsiously, be treated more seriously (in the work place or in public) than one not wearing it.

2. The fact is that men do have a tendency to objectify women when we look at them. If that's not the case with men on NSG, well, I will say that NSG is certainly not representative of global trends. So wearing a scarf is only a recognition of that fact, not a belief that men are rape-happy apes.

3. In Eastern societies, the veil can signify other things. For instance, in many countries in the Middle East(Egypt is one, if you want a specific example), wearing some sort of extra covering is the norm. Women that do not however, are seen as "loose", or "Westernized". Crowds of men will harass and namecall such women should they wander around a market or other public place. When a women in such a society wears a veil, she essentially is saying "Don't Fuck with Me", unless of course her family is making her do it, in which case it is "Don't Fuck with Her". Often times, it is a combination of both, where cultural values have greatly influenced the beliefs of a particular person.

My point of view can certainly be expressed more eloquently, and if there are any questions, then I'd be glad to answer them. As for arguments, I say bring it.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

I believe that the choice of one's clothing (or lack thereof, as I think public nudity should be legal) is a personal right.

That doesn't mean I have to like everything I see, though. I share your opinion, both on why it's demeaning to women and why it's demeaning to men.

Men who would show no self control don't deserve to be called such. I hate the line of thinking that says "women should cover their hair because men will go crazy if they don't." It's bullshit, and it's the same line of thinking as the "It's bad that he raped that woman, but she was asking for it because she was wearing a mini-skirt and obviously he couldn't control himself."

I don't think I've ever seen that, to be honest. But generally, I do feel this way about any kind of excessive clothing worn to be "modest". Catholic nuns' habits would fall into the same category for me.

But one can complain just as easily about the alternative: skimpy clothing worn to be alluring treats women as objects for men to look at. It's not the belief behind the clothes, but the coercion, either explicitly or through public opinion, that makes them wear what they do.

Anyway, on topic. I personally highly doubt that very many women wear the Islam head dress for any reasons other then tradition, pressure from family/community, or fear. Assuming that the third reason mentioned is the least likely to occur in the west...

Tradition is a fair enough reason. Being in touch with one's ancestory and homeland is a good thing. Its no more strange to me then my Scotish friend who occasionally wears a kilt.

Pressure from the family or community I am less fond of, all though the pressures from other communities to dress like a whore are not healthy either (all though I do like the latter look). A woman should be free to dress as she sees fit, and it is not the business of the family or the community.

Finally, Neesika mentioned shame. Im more inclined to believe that their traditions and culture teaches them to feel shame in their bodies for being sin factories (just as in all Abrahamic religions), and this would be the strongest reason for Islamic and Middle Eastern women to wear the headscarf.

So, a female friend of mine, R, is Muslim, as are her siblings. R and her mother don't wear any sort of traditional "modest" garb; her two younger sisters wear headscarves. When one of R's sisters got married, the entire extended family - about half of them born, raised and currently living in Egypt - came to the wedding. Probably 7/8 of the guests or more were Muslims of varying degrees of orthodoxy.

I saw a lot of pictures of the reception, and commented to R on the interesting degree of variation in dress, even just among the bridesmaids. Of the five of them, one had covered every inch of her skin except for her face, one wore a headscarf and a high-necked, long-sleeved dress, one wore a headscarf and a quite low-cut dress, one had her (quite lovely hair) loose and visible above a modest dress, and one (R) wore what one might think of as typical Western bridesmaid attire. The same sorts of variation could be seen among the guests - there were Muslim women there in cute skimpy sundresses and Muslim women there covered from head to toe.

So I asked R, out of curiosity, if she or any of the other girls had taken any flak from the more conservative guests about their mode of dress, and she told me, "Oh no, not at all. There's always a few people out there who are dickheads about it, but almost none of the Muslims I know give a damn what anyone else wears. My Egyptian great-uncle seemed a little grumpy about some of us Westerners, but that was the worst of it."

I know anecdotal evidence isn't worth much, but I'm inclined to trust R (who, by the way, lived in Egypt, one of the most conservative Muslim countries in the world, for a dozen years or so). She has told me that her experience in Egypt as an attractive, independent-minded feminist girl was often extremely stressful, but she has always been very clear that the stress came not from the majority of people but from the one guy in every fifty or so who felt the need to act like a jackass. So, yes, a fair number of women in Egypt wear the hijab or other traditional "modest" garb out of fear or shame - but an awful lot of them, especially in the West, seem to make their choices simply based on what they personally like. R's younger sisters, for example, both started wearing their scarves as adults after deciding to commit more seriously to their faith. Both are smart, beautiful women who display no trace of shame, and who, I have no doubt, would laugh hysterically if someone suggested that they were "sin factories" or anything of the sort.

I work in an Orthodox community, and one of my colleagues at work is Orthodox. "Modest dress" for them is merely a skirt and a round neck collar and three quarter sleeves. That doesn't seem to equate with full body covering to me.

It's tradition, really, and besides in those kind of countries it is a good idea to cover yourself up so you don't expose your skin to the relentless sun.

OK, my personal views: Women who dress like sluts are presumed to be sluts and attract the people who are looking for a slut. Women who dress modestly will be more likely to attract the attention of the more honorable sort of man.

I wear rather short skirts on a semi-regular basis and attract the attention of plenty of honourable men. Granted, I also get attention from jerks, but I'm capable of saying "no, fuck off" politely so it's not a problem.

But one can complain just as easily about the alternative: skimpy clothing worn to be alluring treats women as objects for men to look at. It's not the belief behind the clothes, but the coercion, either explicitly or through public opinion, that makes them wear what they do.
I wear skimpy clothing when it's hot outside. Fuck what everyone else thinks, if I want to look alluring, I'm not going to do it in a pleated skirt and a tank top, I'll do it in a cute dress with some heels.

I am sure that many a Muslim woman wears the headscarf because they like it or to announce their pride in their culture and heritage. Once again, no problem since they have much to be proud of. I am saying that a woman should be able to take one off without the threat of persecution. Pretty simple really.

Why then, did you enter the thread and chastise people saying exactly that for being "too PC" or whatever?

I state all this so it's clear that I'm not denyin the obvious nature of mode of dress, because now I need to disagree with your opening post.

I'm going to look at the issue of headscarves as worn in the West, since that's where I live, and I simply don't have enough experience with Islam outside of the West. For many of my Muslim friends and classmates, the hijab is an accessory. The issue of modesty is...extremely underplayed. Many of these women dress very sexily, though the exposure of bare skin is kept to a minimum. Nonetheless, tight leggings, skirts, tight tops showing off fantastic racks...and an absolutely stunning silk embroidered hijab. They look beautiful, and they know it.

The hijab for them is a visible sign of their culture and their community. Many people have some similar sign...a fashion 'alignment', a standard mode of dress. Yes, communication is happening via these symbols...but I disagree that the proper interpretation is one of objectification of women and the infantalisation of men.

What I'm saying is that the hijab is not inherently anything. It has specific cultural connotations in one context, and altered connotations in another. If you speak to a Muslim woman and she tells you that she wears the hijab to protect her modesty from the prying and predatory eyes of men, then you can feel confident in drawing the conclusion you have.

If, however, she tells you that she wears the hijab because she is proud of her culture, because her friends wear the hijab and because she feels good in it, then you need to delve a bit further. Is shame an element of the hijab for most Western Muslim women? Is it even a large element for those Muslim women recently come to the West?

It's too nuanced an issue and too caught up in cultural bleeding for it to be useful or accurate to take the most extreme view and use it to generalise about the motivations of wearing the hijab and the effect of such.

Questioning it, as you have done...is not harmful either...but it's a lot more useful to get your information from the people themselves in terms of the motivation. The reactions to the hijab, you'll get plenty of here.

It certainly is a nuanced issue.
I have to admit that most Muslim women I have been speaking to about the issue in the past were Turkish immigrants in Germany. They were covering up to various degrees : some of them, those I met in my school and at university, didn't wear any kind of specific clothing. Others, those who did wear hijabs, would also generally wear very baggy clothing, some wore even footlong coats that left nothing but their hands to be seen.
So those women I talked to who did wear the hijab would usually tell me that they did so as to not arouse any men present, and that it was required as a form of modesty.
I found that highly disturbing to say the least, to be honest.

As a symbol of cultural identity, I'm not too sure if I'm so much happier with that. While you cannot choose the culture you're born into and grow up in, promoting the way it traditionally segregates the genders as indentifying aspect seems a little of-focus.

But one can complain just as easily about the alternative: skimpy clothing worn to be alluring treats women as objects for men to look at. It's not the belief behind the clothes, but the coercion, either explicitly or through public opinion, that makes them wear what they do.

I think what there ought to be is choice.
For a long time, I personally have not felt all too secure about my looks. I wore baggy clothes to draw attention away from my belly and behind.
In a way, I was covering up. I didn't need to expose anything I didn't feel like.

These days, I like showing off my body. I don't feel objectified by what I show or don't show, and I personally believe that most men are in fact capable of looking at a woman, going "Mm, nice" in their heads, and still recognise her as an intelligent human being.
Feeling like having to cover up because I need to worry about how men might react to it would make me feel very much more objectified to an unbearable degree.

1. I completely disagree with your first statement. In modern Western society, many females, though certainly not all, are "objectified" daily, by themselves. In Western society, the women often becomes an object to be viewed, she is encouraged to dress in tight and revealing clothing, she is encouraged to not engage in intellectual activities (math, science, reading, etc.). In modern Western society, the women truly becomes a sex object, something for men to look at, to jeer at, to want. They become an object of desire.

I daresay they are very much encouraged to engage in intellectual activities, I know for sure that I've always been encouraged by absolutely everyone. The only girls I've ever seen struggling with their culture and family because of them wanting to get further education invaribly were from Muslim families.

I'd say women here are not sex objects. They are simply sexually aware, and enjoy their sexuality, just like men have always done with impunity.


On the other hand, the women who wears the scarf rejects this culture entirely. She demands that that men not see her as an object. Let's face the fact, most men, are very easy to "arouse". When a women wears the scarf, she rejects being treated as thing which "arouses". And because of this, a women wearing a scarf will often, subconcsiously, be treated more seriously (in the work place or in public) than one not wearing it.

2. The fact is that men do have a tendency to objectify women when we look at them. If that's not the case with men on NSG, well, I will say that NSG is certainly not representative of global trends. So wearing a scarf is only a recognition of that fact, not a belief that men are rape-happy apes.

I refuse to believe that men are little more than animals, driven by their instincts and not capable of treating women as equals.
But thank you for confirming that my suspicions as voiced in the OP were correct.


3. In Eastern societies, the veil can signify other things. For instance, in many countries in the Middle East(Egypt is one, if you want a specific example), wearing some sort of extra covering is the norm. Women that do not however, are seen as "loose", or "Westernized". Crowds of men will harass and namecall such women should they wander around a market or other public place. When a women in such a society wears a veil, she essentially is saying "Don't Fuck with Me", unless of course her family is making her do it, in which case it is "Don't Fuck with Her". Often times, it is a combination of both, where cultural values have greatly influenced the beliefs of a particular person.

My point of view can certainly be expressed more eloquently, and if there are any questions, then I'd be glad to answer them. As for arguments, I say bring it.

So, in Eastern societies, men feel at liberty to abuse and insult women in public? Wow. That is a very, very serious situation you've got there.
Especially since, as an Egyptian friend who is now in her 50s once told me, some 30 years ago you wouldn't have seen a woman with headscarf anywhere in Cairo.
So, if men could behave themselves normally back then, why can't they now?

But one can complain just as easily about the alternative: skimpy clothing worn to be alluring treats women as objects for men to look at. It's not the belief behind the clothes, but the coercion, either explicitly or through public opinion, that makes them wear what they do.

The thing about skimpy clothing is that the woman usally freely decides. Without being coerced into wearing it by a society that regards her as sex object and forces her to act accordingly.
Meaning she can be a sex object if she so chooses, or she can opt out of that.

The thing about skimpy clothing is that the woman usally freely decides. Without being coerced into wearing it by a society that regards her as sex object and forces her to act accordingly.
Meaning she can be a sex object if she so chooses, or she can opt out of that.

Well that may depend on how one defines coerced. After all a woman may feel the need to wear skimpy clothing because it is the fashion and trend at the moment and is dictated by society. She may not really want to but feels she must in order not to be deemed an outcast.Why do I know I'm going to get flack for this?

Well that may depend on how one defines coerced. After all a woman may feel the need to wear skimpy clothing because it is the fashion and trend at the moment and is dictated by society. She may not really want to but feels she must in order not to be deemed an outcast.Why do I know I'm going to get flack for this?

While fashion does dictate what can and cannot be worn, it would be considered a very extreme case indeed if a women drew actual abuse onto her for the way she chooses to dress.

Fashion is little more than a srong recommendation, not a law or requirement.

While fashion does dictate what can and cannot be worn, it would be considered a very extreme case indeed if a women drew actual abuse onto her for the way she chooses to dress.

Fashion is little more than a srong recommendation, not a law or requirement.

Well, it would happen maybe not physical abuse but woman may get verbal abuse and be inflicted with mental trauma, it certainly does happen, in high school yards, I have even heard older women who should know better putting down a women because she was wearing crappy clothes.

I would say that in some certain areas fashion does become a requirement, go down to your pub in stubbies and thongs and try getting in.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

I'm not so sure that it sends any signals to society on the whole except perhaps to show that this woman is a Muslim.

I do agree though with points one and two.

Well, it would happen maybe not physical abuse but woman may get verbal abuse and be inflicted with mental trauma, it certainly does happen, in high school yards, I have even heard older women who should know better putting down a women because she was wearing crappy clothes.

I would say that in some certain areas fashion does become a requirement, go down to your pub in stubbies and thongs and try getting in.

Guess what? I did that once, and it wasn't a problem at all.

Ok, it was a Rocky Horror Picture Show theme night, but still ... ;)

Guess what? I did that once, and it wasn't a problem at all.

Ok, it was a Rocky Horror Picture Show theme night, but still ... ;)

Yeah I had no problems getting into the pub dressed in drag when I gate crassed my freinds hen night. Getting out now, that was a differant matter!

Guess what? I did that once, and it wasn't a problem at all.

Ok, it was a Rocky Horror Picture Show theme night, but still ... ;)

Umm, having seen the Rocky Horror Picture show I cant see why you would go dressed wearing short tight shorts and thongs or as the Americans like to call them flip flops, though I may not know what I am talking about.

Actually I have seen pubs that allow people wearing stubbies and thongs, though they were in the country and allowed their farmers in regardless even if they were still wearing the fashion of the 1970's

Or trying going into a club Friday night wearing jeans, a t-shirt and sneakers.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. ...

... same goes for catholic nuns, you know.

... same goes for catholic nuns, you know.

Unless you are making a joke, no, no it doesn't.

Umm, having seen the Rocky Horror Picture show I cant see why you would go dressed wearing short tight shorts and thongs or as the Americans like to call them flip flops, though I may not know what I am talking about.

Actually I have seen pubs that allow people wearing stubbies and thongs, though they were in the country and allowed their farmers in regardless even if they were still wearing the fashion of the 1970's

Or trying going into a club Friday night wearing jeans, a t-shirt and sneakers.

Wait... Americans call SHOES thongs???!!??? *roflmao
You can get into quite some quirky misunderstandings here, then. Thongs are panties.

And what's wrong with wearing t-shirt, jeans and trainers in a club? I'd say that's what most people would wear.

... same goes for catholic nuns, you know.

I know. As I said in one of my first posts, I don't make any excuses for them, either.

Wait... Americans call SHOES thongs???!!??? *roflmao
You can get into quite some quirky misunderstandings here, then. Thongs are panties.

And what's wrong with wearing t-shirt, jeans and trainers in a club? I'd say that's what most people would wear.

Umm, no Australian's call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_(footwear) them thongs. As for the panties that you may call thongs we call them g-strings. Yes it may have some misunderstanding.

I never said there was anything wrong with it (though when I say t-shirt I do mean the one's without a collar) but there are clubs that don't allow it and you must be wearing something less casual to get in.

Umm, no Australian's call http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flip-flop_(footwear) them thongs. As for the panties that you may call thongs we call them g-strings. Yes it may have some misunderstanding.

I never said there was anything wrong with it (though when I say t-shirt I do mean the one's without a collar) but there are clubs that don't allow it and you must be wearing something less casual to get in.

Well, yes, and there are restaurants that won't serve you unless you wear a tie.
But I'd say that affects a very small minority of people, really.

Unless you are making a joke, no, no it doesn't.

Does. Nuns wear a headscarf (aka veil) as a symbol of reclusion from the mundane world. That is, the veil "protects" the nun from becoming object of sexual desire.
Also, until the II Vatican Council, catholic women were to wear a headscarf at masses, and the benches in the church were divided: on the left side women, on the right side men.

So, yep, it's quite the same, with the obvious difference that becoming a nun is voluntary (or should be: see The Bethroted), while being a woman isn't.

Does. Nuns wear a headscarf (aka veil) as a symbol of reclusion from the mundane world. That is, the veil "protects" the nun from becoming object of sexual desire.
Also, until the II Vatican Council, catholic women were to wear a headscarf at masses, and the benches in the church were divided: on the left side women, on the right side men.

So, yep, it's quite the same, with the obvious difference that becoming a nun is voluntary (or should be: see The Bethroted), while being a woman isn't.

Well I suppose I should have stoned all those Catholic nuns because I saw them not wearing a habit on numerous occasions. Maybe some orders require them to wear habits on certain occasions certainly not these ones, a bit like the army or even where I work how I have to wear high visible clothing.

As for Vatican II, they saw that all that was ridiculous and so dropped it, no point talking about what things used to be like.

Well, yes, and there are restaurants that won't serve you unless you wear a tie.
But I'd say that affects a very small minority of people, really.

Yes I know but that was my point, as it does depend on how you define coerced.

Yes I know but that was my point, as it does depend on how you define coerced.

I think drawing a comparison between not being able to eat at certain restaurants without wearing a tie, and not being able to go out into the street for fear of being hassled and possibly assaulted for not covering up enough is intellectually dishonest.

Wait... Americans call SHOES thongs???!!??? *roflmao
You can get into quite some quirky misunderstandings here, then. Thongs are panties.

And what's wrong with wearing t-shirt, jeans and trainers in a club? I'd say that's what most people would wear.

Heheh no no no, some people it may be Americans but for all I know it may be Australians, call flip flops by the name of thongs!

Strange, but then so are people.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

It's not just an Islamic tradition, it's an eastern tradition in general. Headscarfs have been in use long before the rise of Islam. As far as an opinion on the topic, I am indifferent. My grandmother wears a headscarf all the time simply because her mother (who came to the US from Russia) did it all the time... It's tradition (we Hebrews like our traditions :) ). Granted, my mother isn't exactly a big fan of wearing one, but that's mostly because of her job.

I think drawing a comparison between not being able to eat at certain restaurants without wearing a tie, and not being able to go out into the street for fear of being hassled and possibly assaulted for not covering up enough is intellectually dishonest.

Now I'm confused. In the OP, you seemed to be talking about women who choose to wear the headscarf.

Obviously, it's a problem for women (or men, for that matter) to be hassled and/or assaulted for what they choose to wear (or not wear). But I would say it is the assholes who would be doing the hassling/assaulting who send the types of messages you talk about in the OP, not the woman who chooses of her own accord to wear it.

I've never been a fan of the Islamic tradition of headscarfs (is it headscarfs or headscarves? Someone please tell me), but I kept telling myself that they're not exactly harming anyone, so it's not really any of my business.

But recently I started thinking about the message they're sending to society. Not in a religious sense, mind you. I don't know nearly enough about Islam to allow myself an opinion on the religious justification of covering up.
I was simply looking at what headscarfs - from simple scarf to full body cover - say about the way the wearer views men and women and their social relationships.
And that's rather scary, to be honest.

The message seems to be that:

1) Women are sex objects.
Any kind of view of a woman's body, from hair to wrists to face, apparently is highly sexual and will be viewed by all men with nothing but sexual desire. And it matters little if we're talking about a little girl who just had her fist menstruation, or a 90-year-old granny. All have to cover up, because all will arouse men.

2) Men are incapable of any form of self-control, and little more than sex-obsessed primates.
The sight of a woman's hair/wrist/face/etc. will send men in such a frenzy that they will be unable to control their instincts and will sexually assault the woman. There's no self-control, no ability to see more in a woman than an object of desire, just plain instinct.

Now, personally, I do believe women to be more than sex-objects, and men to be more than just sex-obesessed apes.. ok, sometimes I have my doubts, but overall I think both sexes have higher brain functions and can use them.

I'm not promoting any legislation outlawing headscarfs, definitely not. But I am worried about the signals this particular bit of fashion sends to society on the whole.

The basis of the headscarf, traditionally called a burqa dates back hundreds of years to the Crusades.

Crusaders traveling through a muslin town or village had a tendency to rape, pillage, and bun the "evil" Muslims.

Crusaders tended to target the youngest and most beautiful girls first. Before the Crudades, the burqa was mostly used in the desert to protect women from the punishing rays of the sun, men wore turbans and head wraps to attain the same protection.

This was adapted to everyday use during this dark period on history to make the crusaders ability target the youngest and prettiest girls harder.

From that time on it has become a deeply rooted tradition in muslim society.

So if you want to place blame for the burqa, blame the Catholic Pope who allowed his holy warriors to murder, rape, and maim any Muslim they found, in the name of God.

The basis of the headscarf, traditionally called a burqa dates back hundreds of years to the Crusades....

So if you want to place blame for the burqa, blame the Catholic Pope who allowed his holy warriors to murder, rape, and maim any Muslim they found, in the name of God.

I'd love to see a source for this. If this were true, we would only see them in areas where Crusaders attacked; however, we see it throughout the Muslim world.

I'd love to see a source for this. If this were true, we would only see them in areas where Crusaders attacked; however, we see it throughout the Muslim world.

GoG, noooooooo!! He´ll now go into a tirade of making distinctions between sources and citations!! It´s a cruel cycle!!! And he won´t link us to the source of his claims.:(

From that time on it has become a deeply rooted tradition in muslim society.

So if you want to place blame for the burqa, blame the Catholic Pope who allowed his holy warriors to murder, rape, and maim any Muslim they found, in the name of God.

So, you're saying the basis of this modern oppression is because of something that stopped happening about 800 years ago - and that's justifiable to you?

Cabra seems to be talking about the hijab (from what I can see) in the OP. You're talking about the niqāb and confusing it with the burqa. All three are distinct items of clothing.

GoG, noooooooo!! He´ll now go into a tirade of making distinctions between sources and citations!! It´s a cruel cycle!!! And he won´t link us to the source of his claims.:(

Ask any Muslim theologian / historian or for that matter any historian on the crusades.

Once more I hate to see how me having a life and not keeping a chronicle of web links on stand by for any statement made does not give reference to where the information came from.

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

Ask any Muslim theologian / historian or for that matter any historian on the crusades.

Once more I hate to see how me having a life and not keeping a chronicle of web links on stand by for any statement made does not give reference to where the information came from.

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

It´s so simple it´s beyond me why can´t you understand. Rules of debate. I claim something, you disagree. Back your claim with evidence on why you disagree with me. There´s no other way to simplify it.

And btw, everyone here has a life, but that doesn´t prevent us from adhering to debate etiquette. So, until you link me to the source of your claim, I consider debating, anything with you, a waste of my precious life.

So, you're saying the basis of this modern oppression is because of something that stopped happening about 800 years ago - and that's justifiable to you?

Cabra seems to be talking about the hijab (from what I can see) in the OP. You're talking about the niqāb and confusing it with the burqa. All three are distinct items of clothing.

I never said it was justifiable I was just referencing how the burqa became a centerpiece of Muslim society.

I never said the burqa was just or was needed today for everyday wear. Well it is needed for everyday wear if you are still out on the open desert but that is about it.

In fact I don't see where in my explanation did I ever state that the burqa was just. All I stated is the the Crusaders placed a need to take an article of clothing used to protect people from the harmful rays of the sun, and adapt if to attempt and protect their daughters, sisters, mothers, nieces, and maybe even there grandmothers from being viciously raped by barbaric crusaders.

The fact that you twisted my words so viciously is not very appreciated.

It´s so simple it´s beyond me why can´t you understand. Rules of debate. I claim something, you disagree. Back your claim with evidence on why you disagree with me. There´s no other way to simplify it.

And btw, everyone here has a life, but that doesn´t prevent us from adhering to debate etiquette. So, until you link me to the source of your claim, I consider debating, anything with you, a waste of my precious life.

I still fail to see a violation in etiquette. I do not understand why if you disagree in a civilized conversation why I must present anything else besides how one can find information.

Is this a trial? Last time I check disagreement is not a crime? So why must I be forced to catalog and archive data to present to you. I give you the tools (where to look for information on the subject) and you can find it in a matter of seconds online and then you can formulate everything on your own.

Why should I have to do your research for you?

The basis of the headscarf, traditionally called a burqa dates back hundreds of years to the Crusades.

Crusaders traveling through a muslin

Im 100% sure this is false.

And, now just to show you its false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa#History

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran.

Nothing bout the Crusades there.

I still fail to see a violation in etiquette. I do not understand why if you disagree in a civilized conversation why I must present anything else besides how one can find information.

Is this a trial? Last time I check disagreement is not a crime? So why must I be forced to catalog and archive data to present to you. I give you the tools (where to look for information on the subject) and you can find it in a matter of seconds online and then you can formulate everything on your own.

Why should I have to do your research for you?

Time wasted. This has been explained to you already, and not just by me.

And do remember, we´re not sitting across from each other sharing a cup of tea. You´re miles and miles away from me. Therefore, the supplying of links is tantamount to having an argument with you.

Back your claim with evidence on why you disagree with me.

So you disagree with me, and it is my job to do all the work to show you why you disagree with me.

This logic of yours makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

If you disagree with me, it should be you showing me your evidence. Then if I disagree with the evidence you showed me I can form a rebuttal to your evidence, and you can form a counter-rebuttal. This process can go on indefinitely until one side exhausts all explanations and resources, one side ends debate, or until the pre-structured format has expired.

I never said it was justifiable I was just referencing how the burqa became a centerpiece of Muslim society.
And you didn't mention the whole thing about it being part and parcel of Koranic teachings. Instead you say it was because of the Crusades. Which makes no sense as the covering of the body (both male and female) was around before the Crusades began.


In fact I don't see where in my explanation did I ever state that the burqa was just. All I stated is the the Crusaders placed a need to take an article of clothing used to protect people from the harmful rays of the sun, and adapt if to attempt and protect their daughters, sisters, mothers, nieces, and maybe even there grandmothers from being viciously raped by barbaric crusaders.
What you said was - go blame a Pope from the 11th century for today's problems. In my mind people today are responsible for their actions today.

The fact that you twisted my words so viciously is not very appreciated.
I didn't twist anything - I argued.

Time wasted. This has been explained to you already, and not just by me.

And do remember, we´re not sitting across from each other sharing a cup of tea. You´re miles and miles away from me. Therefore, the supplying of links is tantamount to having an argument with you.

So you are now saying that if we were sitting next to each other providing links evidence would be unnecessary then?

Your logic continues to baffle me. In all the fuss you have created about me not doing your research for you ( which I will do if you pay me $10 and hour) you could have compounded a mountain of sources and data to argue me position instead.

All it would have required on your behave is to do a simple search and I even told you websites to go to and keywords to Google.

I believe that you will never relent from this chain of semantics, so unless you desire to discuss the subject at hand instead of complaining about having to look something up. I conclude our discussion and bid you farewell.

P.S. Following me from thread to thread over this item is become very belligerent and disrespectful of my attempt to participate in these forums.

Im 100% sure this is false.

And, now just to show you its false:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa#History

Nothing bout the Crusades there.

So you use Wikipedia, which you cannot cite as a source in any academic literature EVER, as your holy source on the entire history of a culture that has existed for thousands of years, this has become a mockery of academic debate.

So you disagree with me, and it is my job to do all the work to show you why you disagree with me.

I´m not disagreeing with your claims, I´m not entering the burqa debate with you. I was explaining how a debate works. You seem to miss the point there.

This logic of yours makes absolutely no sense what so ever.

Your refusal to provide evidence also makes no sense... nay, it´s baffling.

If you disagree with me, it should be you showing me your evidence. Then if I disagree with the evidence you showed me I can form a rebuttal to your evidence, and you can form a counter-rebuttal. This process can go on indefinitely until one side exhausts all explanations and resources, one side ends debate, or until the pre-structured format has expired.

But darling boy, you´re the one who has, time and time again, refused to provide sustainable evidence to your claims, in all the threads I´ve seen you.

So you are now saying that if we were sitting next to each other providing links evidence would be unnecessary then?

Your logic continues to baffle me. In all the fuss you have created about me not doing your research for you ( which I will do if you pay me $10 and hour) you could have compounded a mountain of sources and data to argue me position instead.

All it would have required on your behave is to do a simple search and I even told you websites to go to and keywords to Google.

I believe that you will never relent from this chain of semantics, so unless you desire to discuss the subject at hand instead of complaining about having to look something up. I conclude our discussion and bid you farewell.

It is not, and never has been, her job to look up your evidence. That's your job. if you wish to make claims, it is your responsibility to back them up.

P.S. Following me from thread to thread over this item is become very belligerent and disrespectful of my attempt to participate in these forums.

If you want to participate in the forums in any meaningful way, it behooves you to follow the rules that the forum community has created.

And the most simple rule on NSG is "back your shit up". Your refusal to do that is what has prevented you from participating in the forums in any meaningful way. Thus it's your fault, nobody elses.

Your logic continues to baffle me. In all the fuss you have created about me not doing your research for you ( which I will do if you pay me $10 and hour) you could have compounded a mountain of sources and data to argue me position instead.

You are the one who made the original assertion: that muslim women wear modest clothing due to the sex crimes of the crusader armies. Therefore, the burden of proving that assertion falls on you and you alone.

But darling boy, you´re the one who has, time and time again, refused to provide sustainable evidence to your claims, in all the threads I´ve seen you.

If by not providing substantial evidence you mean refusing to dig though every media archive for you, just because you do not want to, then I stand guilty as charged.

I provided you with the channel (CNN) and the show upon which the story regarding Obama appeared (The situation room). If you do not want to find the archived clips at CNN.com then stop badgering me. It is your responsibility as an intellectual to conduct your own research into subjects. My responsibility is to tell you where I found my evidence at which I did tell you. I can not do anything more than tell you where I found what I saw at, you have to then proceed to look it up and form your own opinions on it.

You are the one who made the original assertion: that muslim women wear modest clothing due to the sex crimes of the crusader armies. Therefore, the burden of proving that assertion falls on you and you alone.

Yes and if one was to do a little bit of research on the burqa (not wikiapedia) they could find the historical reference to the crusades.

The insane point about this is all I was trying to do was reference when burqa's historically became a very important part of Muslim history.

If by not providing substantial evidence you mean refusing to dig though every media archive for you, just because you do not want to, then I stand guilty as charged.

I provided you with the channel (CNN) and the show upon which the story regarding Obama appeared (The situation room). If you do not want to find the archived clips at CNN.com then stop badgering me. It is your responsibility as an intellectual to conduct your own research into subjects. My responsibility is to tell you where I found my evidence at which I did tell you. I can not do anything more than tell you where I found what I saw at, you have to then proceed to look it up and form your own opinions on it.

This argument is a waste. Everyone has tried to explain to you something you refuse to understand. Not only that, but with your last assertion, again, you back our own claims that you do not understand what a debate, in NSG, is about.

Yes and if one was to do a little bit of research on the burqa (not wikiapedia) they could find the historical reference to the crusades.
Yet you can't do that little bit of research and give us even one link?
The insane point about this is all I was trying to do was reference when burqa's historically became a very important part of Muslim history.

Then please do so.

Yes and if one was to do a little bit of research on the burqa (not wikiapedia) they could find the historical reference to the crusades.

Fine - give us authors, titles and page numbers for these reputable historical sources that claim the burqa/hijab/niqab came around because of the Crusades.

And the most simple rule on NSG is "back your shit up". Your refusal to do that is what has prevented you from participating in the forums in any meaningful way. Thus it's your fault, nobody elses.

Only seeing a small part of a very large disagreement, that has spanned 4 different threads, so coming in and talking as if you have seen the entire discussion is very disrespectful.

Why is it that these forums have to be reduced to childish games instead of actual discussion about the topic of the thread.

So you use Wikipedia, which you cannot cite as a source in any academic literature EVER, as your holy source on the entire history of a culture that has existed for thousands of years, this has become a mockery of academic debate.

The first thing you'll notice about 'academic debate' is that academics are expected to provide citations and sources for any claims they make. That's what the little numbers are for...

Incidentally, this is precisely why the person making the claim is supposed to provide the source: because it avoids the tedium of providing possible sources only to be told "Oh not that one, I didn't mean that one". Just provide a link for heaven's sake.

So PG is doing that 'not providing sources' thing here too? Hmmm. *duly noted*

The first thing you'll notice about 'academic debate' is that academics are expected to provide citations and sources for any claims they make. That's what the little numbers are for...

Incidentally, this is precisely why the person making the claim is supposed to provide the source: because it avoids the tedium of providing possible sources only to be told "Oh not that one, I didn't mean that one". Just provide a link for heaven's sake.

^This.

If you can´t understand this, Patrick, intellectual debate is beyond you.

Ask any Muslim theologian / historian or for that matter any historian on the crusades.

Once more I hate to see how me having a life and not keeping a chronicle of web links on stand by for any statement made does not give reference to where the information came from.

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

If it's so easy to come up with sources, then it would hardly interfere with 'your life' to get them, now would it? He who asserts must prove. Is it really too hard to understand that if you can't back your shit up, you should just shut the fuck up?

Spouting your unfounded assertions really is pointless. Asserting something with even some cursory proof is not. Clear? I can say it in Spanish if you want...

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html

What constitutes modest clothing has changed over time. Like most customs, what women wear has reflected the practices of a region and the social position of the wearer. The veil itself predates Islam by many centuries. In the Near East, Assyrian kings first introduced both the seclusion of women in the royal harem and the veil. Prostitutes and slaves, however, were told not to veil, and were slashed if they disobeyed this law.

Beyond the Near East, the practice of hiding one's face and largely living in seclusion appeared in classical Greece, in the Byzantine Christian world, in Persia, and in India among upper caste Rajput women.

The above link and excerpt is from an essay written by a Muslim historian on the history of the veil. As you can see, the use of the veil as a way of controlling men's and women's sexuality has been around longer than Islam and the Crusades.

http://www.womeninworldhistory.com/essay-01.html



The above link and excerpt is from an essay written by a Muslim historian on the history of the veil. As you can see, the use of the veil as a way of controlling men's and women's sexuality has been around longer than Islam and the Crusades.

And... ^this, of course, evidences a claim. Which is what we´re trying to explain.

Perhaps I need to reread this thread more carefully (again) but where did we stop talking about headscarves and start talking about burkhas? They're two different things, albeit not unrelated.

Only seeing a small part of a very large disagreement, that has spanned 4 different threads, so coming in and talking as if you have seen the entire discussion is very disrespectful.

Why is it that these forums have to be reduced to childish games instead of actual discussion about the topic of the thread.

What's childish is spending your precious time telling us why you shouldn't have to provide a source, instead of taking a few moments to find one.

You're expending more energy defending your intellectual sloth than it would take to actually just provide proof. It's true...being lazy actually takes more work!

The basis of the headscarf, traditionally called a burqa dates back hundreds of years to the Crusades.

Headscarf or hijab: http://images.inmagine.com/img/blendimages/bld130/bld130069.jpg

Niqab: http://www.muslimbase.com/images/003618-three-piece-niqab.jpg

Burqa: http://blog.thecurseof1920.com/wp-content/burqa.jpg

Perhaps I need to reread this thread more carefully (again) but where did we stop talking about headscarves and start talking about burkhas? They're two different things, albeit not unrelated.

I think that as long as it's an article of dress that does the same things a headscarf does (enforce religious and cultural expectations of gender roles), it's fair game in this thread. It's just the usual NSG Islam debate tendency that is focusing the issue on hijabs, burqas, etc.

Fine - give us authors, titles and page numbers for these reputable historical sources that claim the burqa/hijab/niqab came around because of the Crusades.

Well I would love to do that if I made that statement.


If you read my entire article you would have seen the obvious reference to the fact that burqa was used well before the crusades to protect Arab women from the scorching heat of desert sun, while men wore turbans and other religious headdress to protect them, also on a side note this practice of wear burqa's and head dress still is used every day in the Middle East. The burqa was then adapted to help protect Muslim women from rape by crusaders.

The burqa did not come around because of the crusade, it came around because you would literally burn the skin off your face walking around in a desert. The burqa was used during the crusades to help protect women from the barbaric acts of rape committed by the crusaders.

This is also part of the cultural reason why many Muslim communities expect women to be escorted by a man at all times.

This practice is arcane and is not fair to Muslim women if the do not wish to wear a burqa. I was attempting to bring in some early stories of how the burqa we used in Muslim communities. I find it tragic and distasteful that this would be so readily twisted and taken out of context.


To too this insult despite me offering several topics to research when can to the threads I have discussed you accuse me of not presenting and sources.

You then add insult to injury by insisting in you explanation that I am wrong and must defend myself, while you offer no evidence at all to even speculate that their is an drop of reason behind your belief. Discussion is free exchanger of knowledge and opinion. This a sick perversion and I am glad to remove myself from this forum.

Headscarf or hijab: http://images.inmagine.com/img/blendimages/bld130/bld130069.jpg

Niqab: http://www.muslimbase.com/images/003618-three-piece-niqab.jpg

Burqa: http://blog.thecurseof1920.com/wp-content/burqa.jpg

^^This.

The burqa is something vastly different from the hijab.

Headscarf or hijab: http://images.inmagine.com/img/blendimages/bld130/bld130069.jpg

Plus "hijab" is the term for the general Koranic principle of modesty. Calling the headscarf a hijab is a common figure of speech...metonymy? Synecdoche? Whatever it is that Cyrano does.

-snip-

See ya.

Ask any Muslim theologian / historian or for that matter any historian on the crusades.

Once more I hate to see how me having a life and not keeping a chronicle of web links on stand by for any statement made does not give reference to where the information came from.

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

If a simple Google search will bring up the information you "referenced" in a fraction of a second, why don't you do one and link the relevant results?

That would be proper debate tactics and far more productive than throwing a temper-tantrum about how you don't have to provide citations.

So you are now saying that if we were sitting next to each other providing links evidence would be unnecessary then?

Your logic continues to baffle me. In all the fuss you have created about me not doing your research for you ( which I will do if you pay me $10 and hour) you could have compounded a mountain of sources and data to argue me position instead.

All it would have required on your behave is to do a simple search and I even told you websites to go to and keywords to Google.

I believe that you will never relent from this chain of semantics, so unless you desire to discuss the subject at hand instead of complaining about having to look something up. I conclude our discussion and bid you farewell.

P.S. Following me from thread to thread over this item is become very belligerent and disrespectful of my attempt to participate in these forums.

This is come up in thread to thread, because you continue to pop into threads, make absurd comments, and then refuse to back them up.

Such tactics aren't respected here in the NSG Forums--or in any civilized debate.

So you use Wikipedia, which you cannot cite as a source in any academic literature EVER, as your holy source on the entire history of a culture that has existed for thousands of years, this has become a mockery of academic debate.

Granted Wikipedia is a bad source, but this is like a blind man criticizing a one-eyed man's vision.


Discussion is free exchanger of knowledge and opinion. This a sick perversion and I am glad to remove myself from this forum.

Oh NOES! Don't throw us in that briar patch!

Seriously, we don't want you to go away. We simply ask that you support your claims. That is conducive to a productive discussion.

Discussion is free exchanger of knowledge and opinion. This a sick perversion and I am glad to remove myself from this forum.

Awwww, taking your marbles and going home.

To too this insult despite me offering several topics to research when can to the threads I have discussed you accuse me of not presenting and sources.

:confused:

This practice is arcane and is not fair to Muslim women if the do not wish to wear a burqa.

Yes it's veeeerrrryyyyy mysteeeeeerrrriiiiiiooooooouuuuus, oooooooooohhhhh.

Or perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Mayhaps you meant archaic

Wow, people are STILL arguing with PG?

Yes it's veeeerrrryyyyy mysteeeeeerrrriiiiiiooooooouuuuus, oooooooooohhhhh.

Or perhaps that word doesn't mean what you think it means. Mayhaps you meant archaic

ar·cane –adjective; known or understood by very few; mysterious; secret; obscure; esoteric: She knew a lot about Sanskrit grammar and other arcane matters.

ar·cha·ic –adjective; 1. marked by the characteristics of an earlier period; antiquated: an archaic manner; an archaic notion.
2. (of a linguistic form) commonly used in an earlier time but rare in present-day usage except to suggest the older time, as in religious rituals or historical novels. Examples: thou; wast; methinks; forsooth.


People who try to use big words and fail - priceless

:D

Wow, people are STILL arguing with PG?

Well, you know. We tried. But here, I think, this terms applies:

EPIC FAIL.


:(

Well, you know. We tried. But here, I think, this terms applies:

EPIC FAIL.


:(

I thought you left....

I thought you left....

I failed at that too.

A simple Google search of burqa will bring up all the information I just referenced and only take a fraction of a second.

I've looked up on various sources the history and origins of the Burqa, none of which have contained reference to the crusades. I've also looked through sources on the crusades and tried to find a reference to the Burqa or headscarf, to no success. I've tried searching google using key-words like 'Burqa Crusades', 'origin of headscarf crusades' etc... No success.

So no, a simple search will NOT bring up all the information and does NOT take a fraction of a second.

I failed at that too.


Don't think of it as failure, just a detour.

I think that as long as it's an article of dress that does the same things a headscarf does (enforce religious and cultural expectations of gender roles), it's fair game in this thread. It's just the usual NSG Islam debate tendency that is focusing the issue on hijabs, burqas, etc.

True, though I think it's worth discussing the difference between a headscarf, which covers the hair and neck but not the face, and a garment that covers most or all of the face or all of the body. I'm no psychologist, but it seems that there's a great difference in the message.

A headscarf may identify the wearer as part of a culture or religion, but it doesn't obscure the identity of the wearer, and it allows the wearer's facial expression to be seen. A veil or a burkha has the effect of anonymizing the wearer and it cuts off communication via facial expression, which are pretty strong if rather ambiguous statements for a garment to make. (Depending on context, facelessness can either be threatening (like Star Wars Stormtroopers) or make the faceless person easier to disregard as a real human being (like, um, Star Wars Stormtroopers.) It seems to me that both of these messages are perceived at the same time, whether it's conscious or not -- a lot of public debate on Islamic culture seems to include the idea that veiled women are both horribly repressed and a cultural threat. Regardless of the rational (more or less) backings for those ideas, I bet there's a good bit of chimpanzee-brain-level confusion about faceless people mixed in to the argument as well.

Don't think of it as failure, just a detour.

Hmmm, that´s a good way to put it.

Lol, I just clicked on this thread and the banner ad that came up was the Muslim Matrimonial site.

The same sentiments behind the headscarf exist in a range of religions, and a range of cultures. Furthermore, 1.6 billion people cannot all be classified as having the exact same views. My neighbours are Croatian Muslims. They drink, smoke, wear skimpy clothes and their teenage daughter dyes and cuts her hair, and hangs out at parties until all hours of the day or night.

They are not any more or less Muslim than the Africans whose daughters wear the hijab and baggy dress-type things from neck to ankle, or the Arabs in the next suburb over who wear the niquam and hijab.

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints has extremely strict dress rules for women and men, right down to the underwear. Women, in particular are taught to be modest in their dress to minimise their sexual attractiveness. The Exclusive/Christian Brethren are extremely strict in their dress sense.

With regard to the points that have been raised about honour killings, I see no difference between the angry fathers who kill their wives and children when their wives threaten to leave them and the Muslim fathers and husbands who do the same.

Time wasted. This has been explained to you already, and not just by me.

And do remember, we´re not sitting across from each other sharing a cup of tea. You´re miles and miles away from me. Therefore, the supplying of links is tantamount to having an argument with you.

When I'm having a cup of coffee with someone and having an argument I always demand they show me proof of their statements there and then. And I wonder why no one invites me out to coffee any more :( jks

I think drawing a comparison between not being able to eat at certain restaurants without wearing a tie, and not being able to go out into the street for fear of being hassled and possibly assaulted for not covering up enough is intellectually dishonest.

Well that is true but it was showing how fashion can be more than just a suggestion and can be a requirement in some cases, but as I said it all depends on how you define coerced after all people are sometimes 'forced' to wear a particular style or bit of clothing in order not to be verbally abused and treated like an outcast.

Hmmm, that´s a good way to put it.

I wouldn't worry. Most of us have tried to leave at least once. Usually publicly.

When I'm having a cup of coffee with someone and having an argument I always demand they show me proof of their statements there and then. And I wonder why no one invites me out to coffee any more :( jks

I don't demand journal articles, but I do call people on their statements. Generally I ask for clarification and ask where they got their information. Usually if they make a fish-gasping-for-air face, I know they pulled it out of their ass, and I politely ask them to put it back.

You see, even in 'friendly' barroom debates, I back my shit up. "This is from Chief Justice Lamer's ruling in Delgamuukw" or "I saw this on last thursday's 'The Nature of Things' with David Suzuki" etc. Saying, "well I imagine this is how things work" doesn't even cut it over a pint, sorry...not unless you just want to get into the other person's pants.

I don't demand journal articles, but I do call people on their statements. Generally I ask for clarification and ask where they got their information. Usually if they make a fish-gasping-for-air face, I know they pulled it out of their ass, and I politely ask them to put it back.

You see, even in 'friendly' barroom debates, I back my shit up. "This is from Chief Justice Lamer's ruling in Delgamuukw" or "I saw this on last thursday's 'The Nature of Things' with David Suzuki" etc. Saying, "well I imagine this is how things work" doesn't even cut it over a pint, sorry...not unless you just want to get into the other person's pants.

Well that is fair enough, and I must admit I do the same to an extent, as for letting it slide if I am trying to get into their pants well that all depends on what the issue being discussed is, at least to me.

Well I suppose I should have stoned all those Catholic nuns because I saw them not wearing a habit on numerous occasions. Maybe some orders require them to wear habits on certain occasions certainly not these ones, a bit like the army or even where I work how I have to wear high visible clothing.


I guess that here in Italy nunneries are quite more conservative then.

are we talking about the headscarves that lil old ladies wear to keep their hair in place and to keep the wind and rain off their heads

I guess that here in Italy nunneries are quite more conservative then.

Yes I suppose they are.

I guess that here in Italy nunneries are quite more conservative then.

When I went to school, it was really only the old nuns still wearing it. The younger ones would wear skirts or pants and blouses for the most part, although they would wear only black, white and grey and no patterns.

It is the same sentiment that annoys me so much about this whole "dressing modestly", though. I have no problem with a woman dressing any which way she feels like, but the notion that certain parts of the body absolutely have to be covered in order to avoid arousing men and risking abuse I just cannot accept.
And the way that religions promote that notion of men being helpless against their instincts and women are sex objects that need to cover themselves up so as not to cause utter mayhem galls me beyond words.

And the way that religions promote that notion of men being helpless against their instincts and women are sex objects that need to cover themselves up so as not to cause utter mayhem galls me beyond words.
It's utterly insulting.

As if the only thing stopping me, as a man, from raping every female I see is a long skirt or a frumpy dress. Not, y'know, my disgust at the concept of rape...

Sad thing is, it's not just religious orders that promote this view. A small, yet vocal, amount of feminist/women's shelter organisations take this extremely unhelpful view as well; harming IMO the feminist cause. A couple of years back, there was a proposal in Scotland to take DNA samples from every male over the age of 18, so that in a rape case the perpetrator could be easily identified. It was, thankfully, never passed, but a spokeswomen from the local Rape Crisis Centre stated that this allowed men a free reign to rape.

A couple of years back, there was a proposal in Scotland to take DNA samples from every male over the age of 18, so that in a rape case the perpetrator could be easily identified. It was, thankfully, never passed, but a spokeswomen from the local Rape Crisis Centre stated that this allowed men a free reign to rape.


Shit thats pretty off. I would volunter for this if every woman also gave her DNA sample so that any case of infentacide could be more easily sovled, other wise it give women free reign to kill their children in a fit of post natal depresion.

It's utterly insulting.

As if the only thing stopping me, as a man, from raping every female I see is a long skirt or a frumpy dress. Not, y'know, my disgust at the concept of rape...

Sad thing is, it's not just religious orders that promote this view. A small, yet vocal, amount of feminist/women's shelter organisations take this extremely unhelpful view as well; harming IMO the feminist cause. A couple of years back, there was a proposal in Scotland to take DNA samples from every male over the age of 18, so that in a rape case the perpetrator could be easily identified. It was, thankfully, never passed, but a spokeswomen from the local Rape Crisis Centre stated that this allowed men a free reign to rape.

I totally agree with you... nothing hurts the feminist cause more than assuming that men are animals and need to be kept under constant control.
It should be about equality, and I for one actually do belief that gender equality is something that can be achieved. But it won't be achieved by taking sides in an imaginary battle between the genders.

As for the modesty issue, I can't honestly say which notion is more appaling : that men can't control themselves, or that women are nothing but sexual objects that need to be well covered up at all times. It's disgusting whichever way you look at it.

It should be about equality, and I for one actually do belief that gender equality is something that can be achieved. But it won't be achieved by taking sides in an imaginary battle between the genders.
Quite.

A good friend has just published a story on this subject, and she was shocked to find out that the London Feminist Network refuses to allow men to attend their meetings because, they say, they want to encourage a safe atmosphere(!).

Check it out here (http://www.ldnfeministnetwork.ik.com/p_womenonly.ikml).

It's disgusting whichever way you look at it.
It's so infuriating.

As for the modesty issue, I can't honestly say which notion is more appaling : that men can't control themselves, or that women are nothing but sexual objects that need to be well covered up at all times. It's disgusting whichever way you look at it.

What about cultures/religions that require modesty from both men and women?

I don't think the viewpoint is necessarily that men can't control themselves and that women are sexual objects that need to be covered (although I think that is sometimes the thought in cultures that force standards of modesty - particularly on women).

It could also relate to general views on sex. Not that everyone is a sex object, but that everyone is sexual and that they shouldn't advertise that - that it should be kept more in private. Depending on one's views towards sex, of course, this could be a disturbing point of view as well.

And another viewpoint might be that one simply shouldn't worry so much about appearance - that one shouldn't need to fret over the style of one's hair or how their cleavage looks, etc. - that people should not be judged on their appearances and thus should not spend a great deal of time worrying about it.

There are all sorts of reasons that one might adopt a modest mode of dress. You seem very focused on one - arguably the most alarming one, but still just one among many.

What about cultures/religions that require modesty from both men and women?

I don't think the viewpoint is necessarily that men can't control themselves and that women are sexual objects that need to be covered (although I think that is sometimes the thought in cultures that force standards of modesty - particularly on women).

It could also relate to general views on sex. Not that everyone is a sex object, but that everyone is sexual and that they shouldn't advertise that - that it should be kept more in private. Depending on one's views towards sex, of course, this could be a disturbing point of view as well.

And another viewpoint might be that one simply shouldn't worry so much about appearance - that one shouldn't need to fret over the style of one's hair or how their cleavage looks, etc. - that people should not be judged on their appearances and thus should not spend a great deal of time worrying about it.

There are all sorts of reasons that one might adopt a modest mode of dress. You seem very focused on one - arguably the most alarming one, but still just one among many.
I am a big one for pointing out that there is no universal cultural mode that accounts for all human viewpoints or ways of living, but still, I wonder if you can give us some examples of cultures that require men and women to show equal amounts of modesty and keeping sexuality out of public view. I ask because I would like to have such examples to read up on and use in discussions like this.

I have read about some "traditional" cultures -- small tribal groups from various parts of the world -- in which men and women are expected to live mostly separate lives except for sex purposes, and such cultures also often have very strict notions of modesty for both men and women. However, the ones I know about -- such as certain tribal African, South American, and Pacific cultures -- do not require hiding of male and female sexuality or sexual traits as a part of maintaining modesty. Quite the opposite, in fact, as many of them are tropical cultures in which clothing is optional and non-nudity may be considered weird, and many encourage traditional garb or adornments that are specifically designed to enhance sexual traits for reasons including sexual attractiveness, reinforcement of social gender roles, and magical fertility notions (which are more amorphous than just being about human sexuality).

My point is that I do know of cultures that have more or less equal modesty requirements for both men and women, but I do not know of any that require both men and women, or men more than women, to hide their sexual traits or to hide their faces or bodies at all, specifically for modesty reasons. (I have heard of a few North African tribes, such as the Tuaregs, who do or used to expect men to keep their faces covered in public, but this taboo was apparently because it was considered unlucky or magically dangerous for a person have their mouth uncovered, especially while eating, laughing or yawning. It had nothing to do with modesty.)

To the topic in general: I have not read the whole thread (I've been caught up in others), I am interested, so I'll try to read all the points that have been raised so far later today. I'd just like to say my personal view is that all forms of dress which I think of as "membership signals," meaning signs that one belongs to a certain group and performs a certain function in that group, can be oppressive, empowering or neutral depending entirely on the individual wearing it, their reason for wearing it, and the relationship between the wearer and the group.

It is my personal opinion that the headscarf that leaves the woman's face visible gives a far less "separating" message than the burkha, which not only obscures the entire body including the face but also creates a physical barrier to the wearer's movements and ability to interact with the world via sight and sound.

Because of the greater difficulties of wearing the burkha rather than the headscarf, it is my personal view that the burkha is far more likely to be a sign of oppression than the headscarf. I can imagine that some women may voluntarily choose to take on such a burdensome limitation, but I think we see pretty clearly from the way the requirement to be covered by the burkha is enforced upon women, that the societies that demand it do not care whether women accept it voluntarily or not, and in fact that it is imposed upon many women against their will.

Now, the headscarf can also be imposed on and enforced against women against their will (just like any woman can have any expectation used against her by an abusive or domineering partner or group), but the burden of the headscarf is so much lighter than that of the burkha, I personally believe it is far more likely that many women who wear the headscarf do so voluntarily and feel empowered or supported within their chosen social group because of it.

When I'm having a cup of coffee with someone and having an argument I always demand they show me proof of their statements there and then. And I wonder why no one invites me out to coffee any more :( jks

:p
Well, next time I have an argument in a cafe, I´ll be sure to let you know so you can join us. How does that sounds? Oh, but don´t bring Patrick Gentry.


:D

Well that is fair enough, and I must admit I do the same to an extent, as for letting it slide if I am trying to get into their pants well that all depends on what the issue being discussed is, at least to me.

Well, sometimes getting into someone's pants is easier if you demand sources. Then they can say "well actually I have some journal articles at home...wanna come over and fuck on them?"

Well, sometimes getting into someone's pants is easier if you demand sources. Then they can say "well actually I have some journal articles at home...wanna come over and fuck on them?"

I’ll take you home and bend you over Am. Jur. 2d

I’ll take you home and bend you over Am. Jur. 2d

Hahahahaha, best use it'll ever be put to :D

I am a big one for pointing out that there is no universal cultural mode that accounts for all human viewpoints or ways of living, but still, I wonder if you can give us some examples of cultures that require men and women to show equal amounts of modesty and keeping sexuality out of public view. I ask because I would like to have such examples to read up on and use in discussions like this.

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is: not really. From my understanding, Islam requires modesty of both men and women. However, the cultural norms that define modesty always seems to be different for the sexes and, most often, seem to be more stringent and more heavily enforced (either by social stigma or actual force) for women.

At least, this is true from what I've seen. I'm not familiar with some of the cultures you described in the rest of your post.

Unfortunately, the answer to this question is: not really. From my understanding, Islam requires modesty of both men and women. However, the cultural norms that define modesty always seems to be different for the sexes and, most often, seem to be more stringent and more heavily enforced (either by social stigma or actual force) for women.

At least, this is true from what I've seen. I'm not familiar with some of the cultures you described in the rest of your post.
Technically, I should be out running errands right now, but I'm not feeling well and the weather sucks, so I'll take just little more time to procrastinate and say that, yes, Islam does require "modesty" for both sexes, but in practical application, what it takes for each sex to meet that requirement varies so widely from culture to culture and local social group to local social group, that I suspect that enforcement of the modesty requirements often has more to do with the local social power structure than the religion itself.

Now as to the issue of women's modesty versus men's modesty, I have to say that, from what I've read over many years, the idea that women are somehow the cause of male lust and/or bear some kind of responsibility or blame for male immorality or for immorality in general, and therefore, women's sexuality must be more repressed than men's, seems to be unique to the relatively modern cultural model that is informed by Bible-based religion. That is why I am always interested in more cultural examples to study, because I am not yet comfortable saying definitively, yes, this is a Judeo-Christian-Islamic thing.

But although I have read of many cultures that have strong beliefs and taboos about female sexuality, I have yet to read of any non-J/C/I-influenced culture that attaches blame/responsibility to women for the behaviors of men. Even strongly dualistic cultures that separate opposites such as male/female, still maintain equal balance between opposites, because imbalances would upset their cultural/spiritual notions of how the universe works. This seemingly unbalanced, one-way flow of responsibility/blame seems unique to this relatively modern culture model.

It just raises some complex questions, which I can't go into just this minute because, dammit, I really have to pop some painkillers and go to the bank and market.

Hahahahaha, best use it'll ever be put to :D

what, you think you'd be the first? :p

what, you think you'd be the first? :p

Like I care, I know how much I rock :P

:p
Well, next time I have an argument in a cafe, I´ll be sure to let you know so you can join us. How does that sounds? Oh, but don´t bring Patrick Gentry.

:D

lol, sounds good.

Well, sometimes getting into someone's pants is easier if you demand sources. Then they can say "well actually I have some journal articles at home...wanna come over and fuck on them?"

I like the way you think, I should try that next time :p

The Headscarf is NOT an Islamic tradition, it is a purely Geo-political thing.

If you were to move to a place where people are regularly naked or nearly naked would you feel comfortable dressing like them or would you keep your western style clothing?

If you were to move to a place where people are regularly naked or nearly naked would you feel comfortable dressing like them or would you keep your western style clothing?

But where would I keep my car keys and wal.... oh.... I see.

If you were to move to a place where people are regularly naked or nearly naked would you feel comfortable dressing like them or would you keep your western style clothing?
I'm a product of my culture. For a good long while, I'd stick with my western style clothing because it's what I'm used to. If I lived in a clothing-minimal/optional culture for a long time, I'd probably get used to seeing naked people around me very quickly and would probably start leaving off more garments of my own gradually over a few years. But this may be because I do not attach any moral value to wearing clothes. I don't consider nakedness to be immodest, in and of itself.

The thing about skimpy clothing is that the woman usally freely decides. Without being coerced into wearing it by a society that regards her as sex object and forces her to act accordingly.
Meaning she can be a sex object if she so chooses, or she can opt out of that.

Really? I don't think explicit coercion is the only way to get someone to do something against their will. Advertising and mass media are just as effective as the invocation of traditional morality in coercing. It's true that I don't hear many women complain about having to wear skimpy outfits, but I don't really hear women complaining about having to wear headscarves*, either. Both are inflicted on women in their own way.

That's not to say all skimpy-dressers wouldn't choose to anyway. But again, the same can be said for the headscarf.

*To answer a question someone had earlier: my Firefox spellchecker says it is "headscarves." Take that as you will.

Well, in eastern Europe, the headscarf is widely worn in some parts, and they're orthodox christian, as far as I know. Likewise, I remember a time my mother wouldn't leave the house without one, and thats about 30 years ago....

Are you sure you don't mean the burkha/chador kind of thing.....?

Well, my grandmother used to wear them to protect her hair from dust when doing housework or working on the farm.
I was talking about headscarfs and any kind of excessive clothing that's worn for reasons of "modesty", there implying everything I've listed in the OP
As far as I understand it, the traditional headcoverings of Eastern Europe -- scarves, caps, scarves + caps, often accompanied by braiding of the woman's hair -- is an ancient cultural tradition that predates Christianization. It has to do with magical beliefs about a kind of ambient spiritual energy that is bound up with female sexuality. Apparently, the connection between hair and sexuality is very strong in those cultures, and superstitious beliefs hold that dangerous spirits and sorcery can be drawn to unrestrained female sexuality, symbolized by loose, uncovered hair. There are circumstances in which that power should be loosed, and other times when it must be constrained.

Here's a rather interesting article about it, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.arts.ualberta.ca/SEEFA/RUSALKA.HTM

The interesting thing to me is that, in this case, the "modesty" is not really the same as the modern moralistic concept we are thinking of in this discussion. Rather than just being a matter of social mores, there seems to be a real fear of magical dangers associated with this covering the hair thing, which has little or nothing to do with religion.

Considering that the specific garments required for women under Islam also predate Islam, as Eastern European/Slavic women's headcoverings predate Christianity, I wonder if there is not a similar magical thinking behind it that has nothing to do with religion but has been co-opted by the moralistic religious thought-system. I'm thinking especially of the North African tribes in which men also are expected to keep their faces covered, especially outdoors, for fear of evil spirits or magic attacking them through their open mouths.

Originally Posted by Sparkelle
Its really just a way of showing how devoted you are to your god. Just like married women wear wedding rings all the time.
Er... no they don't. Some do, but some don't. Some don't even have rings.
But what about those who do?

Not all married women wear rings. Not all Muslim women wear headscarves. Not all Catholic nuns wear habits. But of those who do -- and do so voluntarily -- are they not just expressing their sense of membership to whatever those garments/adornments symbolize?

Really? I don't think explicit coercion is the only way to get someone to do something against their will. Advertising and mass media are just as effective as the invocation of traditional morality in coercing. It's true that I don't hear many women complain about having to wear skimpy outfits, but I don't really hear women complaining about having to wear headscarves*, either. Both are inflicted on women in their own way.

That's not to say all skimpy-dressers wouldn't choose to anyway. But again, the same can be said for the headscarf.

*To answer a question someone had earlier: my Firefox spellchecker says it is "headscarves." Take that as you will.

Let me put it this way : many women will wear revealing clothes on some occasion. No woman will wear them all the time. And no woman I ever heard of feels pressured to wear a skimpy outfit anytime she goes out in public.
Most women pick a style of clothes depending on mood and occasion. Therefore it must be their choice what to wear and how much to reveal.

A woman in a culture like the one described by the poster earlier on who claimed to be from Egypt does not have that choice.