Chesler Chronicles

July 6th, 2009 1:03 pm

Conservatives are Feminists, Liberals Are Misogynists

Over the weekend, Asma al-Ghul, a Palestinian woman journalist in Gaza was nearly arrested by Hamas policemen for “laughing in public” and for dressing “immodestly” at the beach. The police confiscated her passport. Subsequent death threats have kept her confined to her home. (Hat tip to Jeffrey Imm of Real Courage).

If Hamas has its way, the women of Gaza will soon be wearing burqas or the Iranian version of them. My question: If Asma immigrates to America, will she be free of such policing? Who will best safeguard her personal rights in America?

Some of my best friends are, or certainly were, liberals. As long as they are not still afflicted with Bush Derangement or Let’s-All-Pile-On Palin Syndrome, we have certain memories, friends, interests, and values in common.

Well, maybe we don’t anymore.

For example: On the matter of America, Israel, the Jews, and Islam we seem to have parted company. Still, I am willing to entertain certain liberal views; I respect and wrestle with valid points no matter what flag their bearers fly. The same is not true in reverse. Whenever I even hint at a view that does not match theirs exactly, there is tension, yelling, hyperventilating, shaming, a harangue.

This is the behavior of a cult member, not that of a free human being.

Why do I even mention this? Because I have been polling various liberals of all faiths and of no faith at all about whether America should restrict or ban the burqa and niqab in America.

A Muslim friend made an interesting point. She said that “if you ban something the hotheads will protest it, you will give them a raison d’être, a symbol. If you just leave it alone, it is bound to die on its own.”

A Jewish friend immediately yelled at me. He insisted that if I applied the same ban to hasidic and ultra-Orthodox dress that I would consider myself an anti-Semite. “You don’t want the government coming in and telling people how to practice their religion.”

I pointed out that hasidic and ultra-orthodox attire does not block the five senses, communication and identification are possible, there is no sensory deprivation involved—although, I conceded, wearing heavy, long, dark clothing works better in nineteenth century Poland on a cold winter day than in The New World (or in Israel) on a hot summer afternoon. I also
pointed out that there are only a small number of Jews (14 million) compared to Muslims (1.3 billion), and that hasidic and ultra-orthodox Jews have set a high educational standard for themselves and others and do not share a religious ideology which has vowed a jihadic war against the West.

I spoke to no avail. Interestingly, this particular Jewish man does not usually defend the rights of hasidic or ultra-orthodox Jews. On the contrary. He continuously attacks them. His brotherly concern seems to emerge only when Muslim dress codes are at issue.

I do agree that the subordination, marginalization, disenfranchisement of women may be an issue in all religions. However, there is a difference between an evolved, diversified, and pro-modern Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, Sikhism, and Hinduism as compared to a medieval and barbaric version of Islam.

Page 1 of 2 Next ->

Pajamas Media appreciates your comments that abide by the following guidelines:

1. Avoid profanities or foul language unless it is contained in a necessary quote or is relevant to the comment.

2. Stay on topic.

3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.

4. Threats are treated seriously and reported to law enforcement.

5. Spam and advertising are not permitted in the comments area.

The clause regarding "hate speech" has been deleted because readers criticized it as being too loosely defined. We agreed.

These guidelines are very general and cannot cover every possible situation. Please don't assume that Pajamas Media management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment. We reserve the right to filter or delete comments or to deny posting privileges entirely at our discretion. If you feel your comment was filtered inappropriately, please email us at story@pajamasmedia.com.

92 Comments

1. Michael:

I agree with you on most of your points. However the “conservatives are feminists” comment kind of rankles me even if it meant tongue in cheek. I know there are some truly decent people who may consider themselves “conservative” but almost every “conservative” I can think of in government has been anything but a feminist. Many of them seem bent on turning Western countries into a Christian version of an Iranian theocracy.

I’m far to the left on most issues but totally agree with you that “the left” as a whole is totally wrong about Israel and the question of Jihad/radical Islam in general. However I don’t think “The conservatives” in government are really any better with their oil wars in support of the Saudis.

Jul 6, 2009 - 1:58 pm 2. Alan Rockman:

Liberals are Fascists, Period. Note how it seems that most of them, even so-called Jewish ones, try to equate Israel with Nazi Germany. Methinks they ought to take a good look at themselves – and Obama (who goes bananas over a Jewish family building a room but is stone silent when a beautiful Christian – yes, she WAS Christian, girl and her friends are massacred by those whom he and Biden gave a pass to last year, the Iranian Guards aka Thugs) in the mirror.

Seems that there’s not much difference between Jew Baiters and America haters on the Left 2009 or those “Good” Germans who voted in Herr Hitler 1933.

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:02 pm 3. Norman Dubeski:

Thank you for possessing the courage of your convictions. As an academic, I have often found the “official feminists” around me less than interested in women’s rights around the world and interested instead only in such things as “Take Back the Night” marches (when most violence happens at home) and affirmative action (when millions of women around the world suffer absolute poverty, Female Genital Mutilation, and the risk of honour killings).
Yours sincerely, Norman Dubeski, Ph.D.

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:16 pm 4. Norman Simms:

Spot on, Phyllis!

We are in a great war between civilization and barbarism, with all the touchstones clear to allow us to see who is on which side: Jews and women, America and Israel, and so we have to decide what is worth living for and what we would die for.

Norman

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:30 pm 5. SYD:

The world has been turned on it’s ear. That is for sure.

I can’t even say who is “Liberal” and who is “Conservative” with certainly, any more. The labels have become meaningless.

I am glad that I have my old school Feminism to fall baclk on in regards to issues like this. For me… if a “choice” is forced, even on a few, it is not a “choice.” And I’m not about to defend it.

Very clear thinking, Dr. Chesler. Please keep speaking out!

SYD

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:41 pm 6. A. Nonymous:

I think I can help resolve this liberal/conservative dichotomy by pointing out that a conservative is somone who was liberal in their youth and never changed their position.

Does that help?

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:46 pm 7. Tina Trent:

Michael:

I have feminist credentials to burn (and sometimes that seems a self-preserving impulse), and I do not find the idea of conservative feminism jarring. Left-wing misogyny runs deep: not only is it central to many of the causes Leftists espouse, but it has both material and ideological roots in the movement.

Dr. Chelser’s views are those of many feminists from the first generation of modern activists. Many of these women have given up on younger feminists with their single-minded obsession with sexual behavior and their internalization of a sort of self-loathing. Nobody needs to oppress these girls: they are culturally wired to do it to themselves, and they are aware that it is the price of the ticket to their seat at the table of so-called “Progressivism.” It’s sad.

With that said, I am troubled by the rage I often see directed at women in the comment threads on Pajamas Media — the sexual and physical innuendo, accusations of “femiNazism,” and so on. It’s ugly and childish. I should not have to worry about being called a hag or having slurs about menopause being thrown at me if I choose to participate in a political forum, and that does happen here.

The difference, to me, is that when I worked in liberal politics, the expectation was that I would openly submit to being a shamed, guilty, second-class citizen within a so-called “civil rights” movement because I was a white, middle-class woman, whereas in conservative circles I am treated with respect for the quality of my opinions, and it is only the angry, anonymous, emotional nuts who intrude with ugly comments. That is why classical, equality-based, modern feminism is comfortably at home within conservative thought. I do wish certain commentators (and commenters) would distinguish between the equal rights for women they almost universally practice in their own lives and the left-wing political feminist movement they abhor. That would be both rational and civil.

Jul 6, 2009 - 2:58 pm 8. George Jochnowitz:

We must make a distinction between liberals and leftists. Nadine Gordimer was once cited in the New York Times as saying, “I’m a leftist, my dear, not a liberal.” Conservatives and liberals ought to realize that they are natural allies, since both support the idea of democracy and the right of Jews to live. On the other side, ultra-leftists and far rightists ought to recognize that THEY are natural allies, since they oppose freedom and believe Israel should be destroyed. The Left is the Right. Liberals are conservatives. Our current confusion about the differences between liberals and leftists, and between conservatives and rightists, has led to a weakening of democracy. The real difference is between moderates and extremists.

Jul 6, 2009 - 3:15 pm 9. SYD:

All good points, Tina!

Thanks for helping me figure this out!

SYD

Jul 6, 2009 - 3:38 pm 10. linda clarke:

Phyllis Chesler’s empathy, logic, scholarship and instincts are impeccable.

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:00 pm 11. Dave:

I recently saw (only skimmed, did not read)
an article the The Spectator of London. (Do not remember authors name, either.)

Thesis was that if you wanted to become an extremist, associate only with those who always agreed with you.

Of course there is a ever-present human tendency to embrace the agreeable and ignore the disagreeable. Therefore it stands to reason that if a person can shut out anything and everything not liked, that persons ability to reason goes in the toilet.

For some reason or other, that has happened to the generality of those in America labeled “liberals”. “Conservatives” are certainly not immune to the disease but they are surely more resistant to it.

Those most severely infected cannot tolerate reasoned dissent. So they indulge themselves in a blind hatred of normal people and embrace
the pathological as allies, if not soul mates.

It is suicide, that is what it is. Now what the heck can we do about it?

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:31 pm 12. Tonya:

Mrs. Chesler,
When I read this paragraph “In my conversations of the last few weeks, here is how liberals differ
from…me–aka the Zionist bitch, conservative traitor, “too dangerous to
even talk to,” Islamophobe, etc.” I seem to want to throw my shoulders back and ask who in their right mind would say this about you.

They are so wrong, because you are a compassionate woman, anyone can see this from your writing. God bless you, because you do so much good and I really feel you are doing a righteous act for these women. You are on the path of righteousness, and certainly not evil.
They had better watch their words, because now I am angry that anyone would say this about you.

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:54 pm 13. David Thomson:

“Liberals do not really believe there is a war on, that there is any clear and present danger; they fear that any relaxation of our fundamental civil rights will either…”

These folks simply do not wish to grow up. Admitting that there is an existential war between the West and Islamic extremism compels them to abandon their childish ways. These are grossly immature secularists who desire a life of passivity and ease. Most of them were born and raised in well to do homes and take for granted their relatively peaceful and affluent existences. The very idea that police officers and military personnel are indispensable is an utterly alien concept.

Jul 6, 2009 - 4:59 pm 14. Greenconsciousness:

One of your best posts – might make a chapter if Death gets another edition. “Slavery as a human right in Freedomland” or as Obama puts it, Slavery as a Personal Choice.

Jul 6, 2009 - 5:26 pm 15. Greenconsciousness:

Tina Trent – I love your blog — everyone should go have a look at it.

Jul 6, 2009 - 5:30 pm 16. Max Friedman:

David Thomson has it right. Liberals refuse to grow up and face reality, much like the Jews of Europe in the 30’s. However, Jewish liberals in America don’t have to worry about being killed (very much) as compared to those they would betray around the world, be it in Israel, Iran, Vietnam or Honduras.

The fact that they “do not wish to grow up” and to “abandon their childish ways” means that they are self-retarded, i.e. forcing themselves into a small, narrowly-focused world of existence that doesn’t stand a chance against the barbarians at the gates.

If it weren’t for our military and police (my son has/is both), we wouldn’t have the America we have today. That is why Obama and his marxist minions are continually undermining/subverting, and destroying those institutions which define and defend America.

Obama doesn’t want to interfere in Iran (re elections or human rights), but he wants to destroy a constitution in Honduras. He wants Israel to give, and give and give, and get nothing in return, and liberal Jews and Israeli-turncoats applaud this.

Phyllis: You have been stabbed in the back by the liberals you thought were friends. There is a major life lesson to be learned from this. You have NO friends in liberals and leftists – only temporary “united fronts” like the 30’s. Then when things are settled on one issue, the “long knives” will get you in the back on another, and you lose!

Welcome to the “real world.” Israel learned that, I hope, a long time ago, but whether they still remember “lessons learned” is another question. The Democrats, liberals and our Messiah leader never learned that their is a “real world” instead of their Michael Jackson “Neverland”.

Like Peter Pan, liberals never grow up and don’t want to grow up. Hey Peter – look at what happened to Michael Jackson. Grow up, face the challenges of reality, and live a life worth living.

Jul 6, 2009 - 5:53 pm 17. Asma Al GHUL:

America a great Country
… I visited twice, but I want to stay in Gaza( At least in this period) because i believe in that freedom comes from within the human And grow with the struggle
I dont want to be lazy if i accept the Prefabricated-liberal

thanks for your artical
Asma Al GHUL

Jul 6, 2009 - 6:01 pm 18. Lynn B.:

On July 4th, 2009 I liberated myself from the DNC. I felt I could no longer be part of a Party who spent so much time savaging women who happen to have different views and opinions. I still believe the burqa and veiling should be banned. It is NOT a religious symbol, it is a symbol of female hate and oppression. I saw a video of a young woman burning her hijab, she said it was her day of liberation. Three men tried to grab it and put it out. It was her day of liberation and they were shocked by her actions. All those hands grabbing at a burning headscarf to save Islam from her liberation. It spoke volumes to me. Keep up the good work Ms. Chessler, you’re doing better then you realize. You won me over.

Jul 6, 2009 - 6:31 pm 19. Marion L.:

There are people who call themselves liberals and people who call themselves conservatives who are on all sides of the issues raised here. I think it is more important to pay attention to the substance of a persons’s point of view than to a label that serves as political shorthand.

Alan Rockman’s “Liberals are Fascist. Period” comment ironically displays the very hostility and lack of civility that Dr. Chesler campaigns against.

And for people who try to approach difficult issues with a view to the complexities involved, the labels sometimes overlap. For example, I’m liberal when it comes to civil liberties and a democratic socialist when it comes to the type of economy I would like to see in the United States. (Other labels that apply to my economic perspective are social democrat, market socialist, and advocate of workplace and economic democracy.) And overall, I’m an ardent feminist.

I often agree with Dr. Chesler’s views about gender apartheid (although not necessarily on points of strategy). And I vehemently disagree with her rose colored view of Bush, Cheney, et. al.

So what does that make me overall? I think that it makes me a Jewish woman who is committed to seeking peace and pursuing justice with sincerity and with an openness to life long learning. That Alan Rockman would automatically write me off as a “fascist” is very sad, and one more indication of just how polarized our society has become.

Jul 6, 2009 - 8:07 pm 20. Vladtepesblog:

A. Nonymous:

You, me and Christopher Hitchens. “I haven’t changed, the left has”

Jul 6, 2009 - 10:22 pm 21. Pajamas Media » Conservatives As Feminists, Liberals As Misogynists:

[...] Read the entire piece here. [...]

Jul 7, 2009 - 2:05 am 22. Delia:

Crazyyyyyyyyy huh?

I’m baffled by the misogynists from the left.

WHY? WHY?

Many times, the hatred of women even comes from…OTHER WOMEN.

WTF?

As a woman with a card-carrying vagina and a survivor of both molestation/incest/rape, I can say with all my heart,

DEATH TO RAPISTS
Death TO CHILD MOLESTERS
DEATH TO INCEST Propagators

May you, scum of the earth, rot in hell for what you do to women and children.

Jul 7, 2009 - 2:31 am 23. Phil Cowell:

Let’s be careful here. Conservatives must still vocally stand against the more radical victim feminists on the left. Left wing feminists, for instance, believe that Russian women cannot decide for themselves how they will communicate with American men if they want to. They got the IMBRA law passed forcing us men to be background checked before being allowed to say hello to adult foreign women online. Clauses in the law basically prevent a lot of communication between Americans and foreign adult women. That is pure fascism, but they used the concept of “chivalry” to get Sam Brownback to convince his colleagues to vote for this in a tit for tat that got Alito seated without a filibuster (giving away men’s rights to seat a Supreme Court justice – the stupidest idea ever).

So, yes, this burqa comment is a valid example of the hypocrisy of the feminist left…but let’s not forget that victim feminism is NOT something conservatives need to take up as a banner themselves.

A few thousand Men’s Rights Activists took Norm Coleman’s senate seat from him because he ignored them to secure the “women’s vote” which didn’t come through for him (hint to Republican pols: secure the MEN’S vote first before you try to secure the women’s vote).

More hyporcrisy of liberal feminists…they are doing nothing about trying to stop porn (which cannot be stopped by anyone) or German brothels using Mastercard and Visa but doing everything to stop dating websites where US men might want to meet a gorgeous Russian woman to replace the aging liberal feminist next door who owns 5 cats.

They know what threatens them…which is total replacement.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:14 am 24. Blackwater:

Just ban it. It’s the ultimate symbol of sexism if there ever was one. There’s just so many things wrong with islam. Start chipping away at its backwards barbarism one messed up issue at a time.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:14 am 25. Emma:

@Tina Trent – “With that said, I am troubled by the rage I often see directed at women in the comment threads on Pajamas Media — the sexual and physical innuendo, accusations of “femiNazism,” and so on.”
—————–

Yes! (Although it’s not just PM, it’s everywhere.) I cringe when I see this kind of thing in a comments section.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:20 am 26. Delia:

10. linda clarke:

“Phyllis Chesler’s empathy, logic, scholarship and instincts are impeccable.”

AMEN.

She actually wrote me to my email I use here, but, me being the lax ass-hat that I am, don’t check this email I use here that often as I shouild.

Phyllis,

You’re an ANGEL.

Thank you. Just…

THANK YOU.

There is so much work to be done for humanity and especially for women. It’s so easy to sit back in a country that allows the very ‘thought’ of feminism.

As I’ve stated before, my daughter and I have watched ‘NOT WITHOUT MY DAUGHTER’ over and over since she was young. We put that movie right up there with ‘Gone With The Wind’.

I’ve tried to keep up with Betty Mahmoody’s life, and I still wonder about her daughter to this day.

I dated an Iranian when I was in my teens, he was one of those who insisted on being called ‘Persian’… When I saved a young girl from the grasp of the ‘Iranian Brotherhood’, I was pretty much thrown out on my tuckus and given my walking papers. For, how dare I, I young, blonde white girl not only liberate a girl younger than I, but liberate myself? ‘They’ hated me.

There is no greater strength than INNER strength and RESOLVE to do what is RIGHT and by what is ‘right’, I mean, the very basic human liberties we should ALL hold dear.

God bless America and God bless all people who rise up against tyranny, cruelty and injustice.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:25 am 27. Tina Trent:

George Jochnowitz: thank you for the clarity. That makes sense to me.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:29 am 28. Jerry:

Phyllis, I have a question about your support for abortion on demand: Have you ever attended an abortion, particularly late stage? I saw one on TV and could no longer hold a dogmatic view of the subject. I am sure that had I seen one in person, I would be even less supportive of the practice.

Jul 7, 2009 - 4:10 am 29. "progressive"watch:

Muslim women wear burqas because they had rather live. They is no other reason for their wrapping themselves in sacks and for allowing themselves to be treated as inferior to Muslim men. Leftist women have to right in the U.S. to wear a burqa–how many do?

Jul 7, 2009 - 4:40 am 30. jw:

Let us keep to the meaning of “liberal” as meaning someone with a liberated mind, like John Stuart Mill. “Liberal” became used in the MSM as a euphemism for “socialist,” so that even a Communist like Angela Davis was called a “liberal.” Dinesh D’Souza has it right – the self-designated feminists Phyllis Chesler describes are illiberal, mainly Marxists.

Jul 7, 2009 - 4:57 am 31. Gianni:

The only label I can apply to myself is that I am a feminist. Period. I know some feminists would not accept me beacuse I am a man and because I don’t hate Israel or I oppose cultural relativism.
“Women’s rights are human rights” and “If you don’t take gender into account into any of your solutions you are about to fail” are two senteces I love.
I oppose laws and attitude that have a different standard for women simply beacuse they are female. Yes, the body is different and a gender medicine, both traditional and holistic is to be supported, but for all the rest men and women should be equal.
No culture, religion, or interpretation of religion should tramp equal rights for women. And while I oppose racism, I think sexism is a far more important issue. And let me be very clear: race and culture are not the same thing. A multiracial society could be ok, but not a multicultural one.
I sign petitions for the end of stoning, for equal rights for women in Africa, I support the fight of religious jewish orthodox women and muslim women to change their religions sexists attitudes, women in the Church of England so that they can become bishops, indigenous women’s rights to own the land, a woman’s right to choose, gay and lesbian rights including marriage, women in non-traditional jobs, campaigns to have violence against women stamped out, more funding to women’s shelters and more severity to punish rapists, maternity and paternity leave.
I think all this makes me a feminist.
As for the liberal/conservative divide: conservative are denouncing (and rightly so) violent abuse of women, stoning, female genital mutilation, forced veiling, poligamy, etc and, very often (but not always) liberals are mute on these isses.
At the same times conservatives are mute on mass rapings in Congo and other african countries, feminicides in Nicaragua and Ciudad Juarez, Mexico, and rabid homohpbia in Jamaica, just to make some examples.
It seems that they are concerned only when people who commit such abuses are muslims. Nothing wrong about that but if you are passionate about women and human rights there should be no turning your head the other way.
To all the conservatives here who oppose the ban of burqa: you are in the same room with Katha Pollit, she just published an op-ed opposing the ban of burqa.
To me it’s funny: a multicultural “feminist” and conservatives togheter. I oppose both of them.

Peace to all. And, please, keep the conversation polite.

P.S. I am curious to learn more about what’s happening at NOW….

Jul 7, 2009 - 5:04 am 32. Snorri Godhi:

“Liberal” and “conservative”, “left” and “right” are slippery words. To see just how slippery they are, consider that, in early xix century France, the “left” was the party of individual freedom and the “right” the party of State power. Indeed, some French liberals insisted that socialism was a reactionary, “far-right” movement.

Now, there are some modern “liberals”, even in this thread, who complain that some on their own side are supporting theocracy, the suppression of free speech and women’s and gay rights, and antisemitism. You have my sympathy, but, with all due respect, may I suggest that the rot started with earlier generations of liberals: it started because

1. liberals became more like socialists in economic policy, and as Hayek and Friedman [as well as xix century French liberals] argued, if you lose economic freedom then you lose all freedom;

2. liberals accepted communism as part of the “left”. In fact, they accepted communism as “far-left”, which means that the further to the “left” you go, the less respect you have for freedom and human rights.

If “left” and “right” had preserved their original meaning, I’d be happy to define myself “center-left”. As it is, I expect that the “right” will continue to become more like the original liberals (with a bit of Burkean prudence), and if they do, I’ll support them; but only if they do.

Jul 7, 2009 - 5:12 am 33. John Marshall:

The question of permitting women to wear burqas is not a question about how women dress. The garment is just a symbol. In wearing the garment, women are submitting to the dictates of a religious and legal system that renders them subservient to men and to family. The dictates are enforced with outrageous punishments. Under some versions of the religious and legal system, women who have affairs or who have been raped can be justifiably killed by family members.

The burqa is not a garment. It is a symbol of submission. Simply wearing a burqa is not enough. A woman must be accompanied by a husband or male family member when outside the home. And one purpose of the escort is to monitor the woman’s behavior so that her speech or body language is not offensive. Laughter is offensive and the woman who indulges it faces outrageous punishments. In the presence of burqas, I am frightened. My innocent behavior could cause great suffering to the woman in the burqa.

The institution of the burqa is not just an extreme form of paternalism, though it is that too. The burqa deprives the wearer of fundamental human rights. It is not just free speech that is lost. No, the wearer loses all right to self-expression and self-determination.

There is no “truth is relative” argument that can justify such extreme limitations on an otherwise normal adult human being. In the United States, we have a very good set of beliefs about the individual’s right to self-determination. Those beliefs conflict with the institution of the burqa in fundamental ways and no adjustments of them can make them compatible with the burqa. The institution of the burqa should not be permitted in the United States.

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:15 am 34. mariecurie:

#26 Delia:

There is a lot of info on Betty Mahmoody on the Web via Google. Here is one link (although from 2004):

http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?BRD=2243&dept_id=451157&newsid=7736494&PAG=461&rfi=9

I find it interesting that her husband has not made a film to tell the story from his perspective. Seems that her daughter is fine. An interesting article.

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:42 am 35. mariecurie:

Sorry–meant to say that Mr. Mahmoody has indeed made a film to tell the story from his perspective.

Betty’s film influenced me quite a lot in high school. I didn’t realize a relationship could take such a turn . . . until I met a Muslim man while living in Germany. I think I avoided a disaster, with the help of my landlady who covered for me and helped me distance myself from the guy.

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:45 am 36. Burqa Challenge - Kelly:

Perhaps we should challenge the liberal leftists who believe women should be “allowed” to wear a burqua – the challenge is this:

YOU wear a burqua for one full summer week (buy a long black wool coat and pants from a thrift store and add the other items), do ALL your regular activities indoors and out – and don’t for goodness sake let your face or any skin show in public! Then, report back to let us know how it goes and if you still think women WANT to wear this garb in the name of “religious modesty.”

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:45 am 37. David S:

So now, instead of a war on terror, we should start a war on Islamic fashion?

Is this really the current thinking in the shallow end of the pool?

This is an issue of the most fundamental freedoms guaranteed in our Constitution. Banning the garb of a specific religious sect with no rational justification is a frontal attack on civil liberties.

I believe each and every person on the planet should have the right to choose what they want to wear – or not to wear. Banning the burqa is not the answer.

Religious garb should not be subject to discriminatory laws. If you don’t like the burqa, don’t wear one. But grow up and face the fact that some do choose it, and show some respect for that choice.

Peace.

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:51 am 38. AThinkingPerson:

Do the liberal leftists also feel it’s okay for female genital mutilation? I see no difference. Both are horrifying means of control meant to subjugate women.

Liberals truly are a blight on civilized society.

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:28 am 39. David S:

@38. AThinkingPerson:
“Do the liberal leftists also feel it’s okay for female genital mutilation?”

Nope. And you can’t find one who has made that argument.

“I see no difference. Both are horrifying means of control meant to subjugate women.”

If you can’t see the difference between clothing and mutilation, you’re going to live a very confused life. Neither should be forced on the unwilling, true – but beyond that there is a world of difference.

“Liberals truly are a blight on civilized society.”

I can understand why you would believe this. You seem to have no idea what liberalism is.

Peace.

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:40 am 40. Mo:

What I do not understand is your Point #6. How many times have we heard stories of women being arrested, beaten or even killed in Islamic countries because they were not covered? How can people not believe that, when the evidence is so overwhelming?

That is what I do not understand about liberals who hold to this view.

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:48 am 41. Mo:

@ Michael –

“Many of them seem bent on turning Western countries into a Christian version of an Iranian theocracy.”

Here we go again. If I had a dollar for every time I heard this ridiculous argument…

Christianity and Islam have nothing in common. There is no “Christian theocracy” here, nor is anyone calling for such a thing. Nor is anything like that taught in the Bible to begin with.

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:51 am 42. davimcg:

Dear Michael, Could you please give me some specifics concerning the “almost every ‘conservative’ I can think of in government has been anything but a feminist. Many of them seem bent on turning Western countries into a Christian version of an Iranian theocracy.” Give me just one factual and substantive example of when an American conservative politician sought to force any specific religious adherence upon anyone.

Also, here’s a little trivia for you: during their eight years as president, who publicly invoked the name of Jesus Christ more, William Jefferson Clinton or George Walker Bush?

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:57 am 43. Alex Bensky:

Coincidentally, I saw a woman in a burka at Costco yesterday.

I offer a respectful demurral on this issue, Dr. Chesler. One of the reasons I stopped calling myself a liberal some time back is that in contradistinction to most people who call themselves liberals I believe in freedom of speech and religion even for ideas and people I detest. Whether the Koran requires the burka or not, it is part of a religious practice and I am loathe to start interfering with it.

That’s generally; we had a case here in Michigan where a Muslim small claims court plaintiff wouldn’t remove her veil and the judge, properly in my opinion, dismissed her case since the other side didn’t have a fair opportunity to observe her demeanor and other factors which are part of the right of confrontation.

As to left wing misogyny, I’m sorry–is anyone still under the impression that leftists actually care about women generally, as opposed to women who agree with them or can be cast as victims in need of protection? Or for that matter, is anyone in doubt that for want of a better term we might call establishment feminists are much interested in anyone other than themselves?

It would be nice if this rapt self-absorption were balanced by a modicum…a scintilla…an iota of self-reflection but of course it isn’t.

I hope your feelings are not too badly hurt by the betrayal of putative friends, Dr. Chesler. You probably realize that for a lot of liberals and leftists politics is a form of sociodrama, a means of displaying virgue and self-righteousness. Thus a political disagreement isn’t a disagreement, it’s an attaqck on morality and virtue, thus inherently a personal attack rather than simply a political dispute.

It’s one of the reasons I resonate with one of the “South Park” guys who said, “I hate conservatives, but I f.ing hate liberals.”

Jul 7, 2009 - 7:57 am 44. Strawman:

For such reasons, I cannot persuade most true liberals that most/many? /some? /a handful of Muslim women wear the burqa mainly in order to avoid being killed. Western liberals simply do not believe it. Their professors and most beloved journalists have not educated them about the phenomenon. They want to believe that everyone is like them.

Key point. Multiculturalism is based on the myth that cultures are only superficially different. It’s rooted in western ethnocentrism. It shows a profound ignorance of other cultures.

They pride themselves as culturally sophisticated, when their fatal flaw is precisely that they aren’t.

It’s the height of vanity and hubris to think that in some university in the US that they can have a better understanding of the Arab/Muslim culture than the Israelis who actually live with them.

Jul 7, 2009 - 8:19 am 45. Strawman:

There’s another dimension to this. There has been a feminist movement since the 19th century. It’s reinvented itself several times, with rather different missions. The vanguard today is simply the latest reinvention. There’s also a men’s right movement. It’s much newer, simply because it’s a reaction (exclusively) against the latest incarnation of feminism.

What gelled the men’s right movement was what are seen as excesses of feminism rev. 2.0. Specifically, its basis in the sexual zero-sum. By definition, feminism 2.0 means that women can only advance at the expense of men, and vice-versa.

This, I believe, is the source of most of the acrimony. This, I believe is why the term “femi-Nazi” is thrown around. It’s hyperbole, but it’s rooted in the reality that the leading lights of feminism are in fact anti-egalitarians, because they are welded to this zero-sum framework.

Books have been written on the practical fallout of this, and I couldn’t possibly even get started on what this translates into in terms of real-life consequences (some of Helen Smith’s columns here give you an idea), but it should be obvious that when you frame the question of how half of humanity should relate to the other half in zero-sum terms, you’re going to get war.

A little bit more intelligent and introspective variety of feminism would avoid this war. But then again, it would leave little for the existing organizations and institutions to do. What’s going on is the sexual equivalent of insisting on fighting a war because the army exists.

Jul 7, 2009 - 8:43 am 46. Blue Collar Todd:

I like the distinction in the title. I think you are on to something because feminists are now defending a woman’s “choice” to wear the burka>/a> in France and even America. The most absurd part of feminist thinking on this is that they think Muslim women will be even more isolated if they are not able to “freely” wear the burka in the West.

Jul 7, 2009 - 8:54 am 47. John Marshall:

Alex Bensky writes:

“Whether the Koran requires the burka or not, it is part of a religious practice and I am loathe to start interfering with it.”

Alex, with Islam you get a lot more than a religious practice. Women who wear the burqa run the risk of incredible penalties for what non-Muslims would see as minor infractions. They have fewer civil liberties than someone who has been sentenced by a judge to home confinement and the wearing of a monitoring device.

If that is not scary enough, consider that the woman cannot choose to stop wearing the burqa as prescribed, unless she persuades her sect to give up the practice. But matters are much worse! If the woman attempts to leave the Islamic faith then she has committed apostasy and that is punishable by death.

So, do you really think that tolerance for different religions should lead us to issue excuses for those sects of Islam that require the burqa?

Jul 7, 2009 - 9:51 am 48. Kelly:

So, if I am hearing some people right – in the name of so called “religious” freedom, if Islamic women were required to wear handcuffs or shackles while in public due to the Islamic leaders decision to consider handcuffing/shackling women a religious requirement of the Koran would that be okay too? I mean, since they were brought up with this as part of their religion and have been handcuffed or shackled since they were toddlers, they would WANT to continue doing forever, right?

Jul 7, 2009 - 10:49 am 49. john from cinncinatti:

i was under the impression that everyone was supposed to pull their own weight and that you were supposed to enjoy the fruits of your labor. i didn’t read the disclaimer where it said except for women, children and minorities, and all rules are subject to change.
partnering up with a strong, educated woman seems to me, to be to my benefit, and to society in general. its a no brainer to know that i also have to step up my game.

Jul 7, 2009 - 11:21 am 50. David S:

@48. Kelly:

“So, if I am hearing some people right – in the name of so called “religious” freedom, if Islamic women were required to wear handcuffs or shackles while in public due to the Islamic leaders decision to consider handcuffing/shackling women a religious requirement of the Koran would that be okay too?”

There must be something wrong with your hearing. I don’t see anybody supporting a requirement that women wear the burqa – just people defending their right to wear it if they so choose. I’m having trouble seeing why anyone would object, other than plain old-fashioned religious bigotry.

“I mean, since they were brought up with this as part of their religion and have been handcuffed or shackled since they were toddlers, they would WANT to continue doing forever, right?”

I wonder if you realize how absurd this sounds? Again – the point is that women should have the choice. They is basically no difference between those who would force women to wear the burqa and those who would force them not to.

Peace.

Jul 7, 2009 - 12:38 pm 51. Blue Collar Todd:

@Kelly,

Great analogy. And Liberal feminists would argue that is just your “choice” and that you would be more isolated and impressed if you were not permitted to do so.

Jul 7, 2009 - 12:42 pm 52. Sebastian Shaw:

For liberals, ethnocentrism trumps feminism; therefore, the liberal feminists will be silent about the oppressed women in Muslim countries forced to wear such garbs, will not stay anything about stonings, & will be silent about the murdered homosexuals in Muslim countries.

Jul 7, 2009 - 12:59 pm 53. Pat J:

Banning articles of clothing is unconstitutional. We are not France.

Jul 7, 2009 - 2:10 pm 54. Oldguy:

Maybe Ms Chesler should consider asking her liberal Jewish friends if they would consider wearing a yellow star on their coats.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:05 pm 55. I blame Bush:

Liberals? Don’t make me laugh. These are the people who tittered appreciatively when Letterman said that Sarah Palin looked like a “slutty flight attendant”. As others have pointed out, imagine what a career-ending move it would have been if he had said it about Maureen Dowd.

PS there is absolutely no federal constitutional power for congress to impose a general ban on wearing a burqa, at least in one’s private life. The debate is, to that extent, academic.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:42 pm 56. John Marshall:

David S writes:

“I wonder if you realize how absurd this sounds? Again – the point is that women should have the choice. They is basically no difference between those who would force women to wear the burqa and those who would force them not to.”

Women wearing a burqa were not given a choice. No one would voluntarily be a prisoner at home and require an escort on the street.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:45 pm 57. LALA:

welcome home Phyllis, long time coming.

Jul 7, 2009 - 3:49 pm 58. John Marshall:

I Blame Bush writes:

“PS there is absolutely no federal constitutional power for congress to impose a general ban on wearing a burqa, at least in one’s private life. The debate is, to that extent, academic.”

You do not have to ban the burqa. All you have to do is refuse to decriminalize the activities undertaken in the name of the burqa.

Jul 7, 2009 - 4:09 pm 59. Evil Pundit:

#42 Strawman –

Well said.

Islam is an enemy of equality and freedom, but so is the current iteration of feminism.

Both are equally threatening to civilisation. Conservatives should be careful about entering into an alliance with either, since both are ultimately the enemies of democratic society.

Jul 7, 2009 - 4:16 pm 60. Cat:

Whether muslimahs “choose” or not to wear degrading clothing (including hijab, jilbab, abaya, and the like) is not properly the issue in a Western society. Nor is their purported or professed level of happiness while so shrouded, or what interpretation of Islam requires it, or the like.

The opinions of muslimahs simply do not matter at all in the end analysis. What matters is the effect of muslimah religious clothing on free women in a free society. A growing set of evidence from such far-flung places as Australia, Denmark, Sweden, the U.K, France, the Netherlands, and even North America suggests that where muslimah clothing becomes widely practiced — or even demanded, depending upon the numbers of muslims in an area — women who do not choose to shroud themselves are at a greater risk of assault, rape, mayhem, and murder (in particular, “honor”-killing).

In other words, at a certain level, it appears that muslimah religious clothing can create an atmosphere where a continuing physical threat to the safety of free women is amplified. From the “dancing slags” of the aborted London nightclub attack to the “uncovered meat” of the Sydney gang rape victims, what muslimahs wear as “good” women within the Islamic framework allows Muslim men to view those who do not cover themselves as “bad” ones who can be freely attacked.

I could care less if a muslimah is happy in her hijab. However, I care a great deal if free women are forced to bear the cost of her “choice,” and that, I fear, is what eventually occurs.

Jul 7, 2009 - 6:40 pm 61. John Moore:

This conservative disagrees strongly with the ultimate consequence of your logic: that the wearing of burqas be banned.

Yes, a burqa may be worn as a result of coercion. Yes, it is a symbol of devaluation of women. Yes, it may help to enforce multi-culti separation, to the detriment of the melting pot.

BUT… as I wrote in a response to previous post, these are not valid reasons for the government to ban the wearing of it. The only valid reasons would be related to public safety (it may provide concealment for weapons, or to conceal the identity of a perpetrator).

There are other ways to deal with coercion that do not prevent those who (for whatever reasons) want to wear a burqa (hey, it might become a cross-dressing fad!). Coercion is coercion, and we have laws dealing with illegal coercion.

Symbols of evil are directly constitutionally protected. If you can’t ban women wearing swastikas, you can’t ban them wearing burqas.

Don’t ban the burqa – defeat the phenomenon that causes it to be warn.

Jul 7, 2009 - 8:27 pm 62. Snorri Godhi:

John Moore:
“Coercion is coercion, and we have laws dealing with illegal coercion.”

Others have made a similar point. It is a valid point, but we have to be realists: the easiest way to prevent women being coerced into wearing a burqa, by far, is to ban the burqa; and if the burqa is not banned, some women will inevitably be coerced into wearing one. OTOH the ban would introduce another coercion, namely, the coercion not to wear a burqa. So there is a trade-off, and we have to figure out what is the lesser evil rather than make an appeal to absolute rights.

Then there are other considerations to keep in mind, eg Cat’s (#59), as well as constitutional protections, which complicate the issue even further.

Jul 8, 2009 - 6:36 am 63. Kelly:

No David S. it’s not absurd for someone who has been mentally and physically abused since they were young to continue acting out the behaviours they were coerced into via that abuse even as they become adults.

Why do you think so many abused wives stay with or even go back to their husbands?

You don’t seem to share my meaning of “choice.” Choice to me doesn’t include doing something because I choose not to die or incur bodily harm.

My “absurd” example was meant to point out that it’s just as ridiculous to be handcuffed as it is to be forced from childhood forward to wear a garment that makes it almost impossible to do routine daily tasks. Both are imprisoning.

Their choice is already distorted by the years of mental and physical anguish and threats of bodily harm if they did not comply. The threat remains no matter if they leave their home country because it is imbedded in their mind forever. The choice no longer exists for them.

We may not want to or be able to ban it because of freedom and because it does indeed put some women in an even more difficult situation – but we do need to voice our disapproval over the reasons women are being forced to wear it or it will never change and they will remain enslaved.

Jul 8, 2009 - 6:55 am 64. Greenconsciousness:

Cat and Kelly — Excellent posts !

Jul 8, 2009 - 8:19 am 65. Greenconsciousness:

As for “free choice” in England, Muslim slave women are also “freely” choosing Sharia courts. Therefore, should we allow slave courts in the US as well?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1197478/Sharia-law-UK–How-Islam-dispensing-justice-side-British-courts.html

Jul 8, 2009 - 8:24 am 66. Strawman:

I strongly suspect that the arguments we’re hearing are situational – that if the context were some white abusive boyfriend, said troll would understand Stockholm Syndrome completely, and would totally place the blame on the boyfriend.

Everyone here please take note that the consensus opinion of the left trolls is that women in abusive relationships are always free to leave, and deserve the abuse if they chose to stay.

Duly noted by me.

Jul 8, 2009 - 9:28 am 67. John Marshall:

Our existing laws might defeat the burqa. Most of the activities associated with the burqa are illegal in the US. For example, a woman whose husband requires her to wear a particular garment when she leaves her home can sue under US law and receive relief. But not under Sharia law. We must keep Sharia law out of the US.

Jul 8, 2009 - 9:39 am 68. Ms. Attitude:

In the early 80’s my father worked in the Middle East. On the flights home for visits he told us how upon boarding the plane all of the women had on burqas. During the flight the women would take turns in the bathroom and come out wearing western clothing and makeup. Not one woman would get off the plane in a burqa. He said they did not speak with the burqa on but once they were “Americanized” the chatter on the plane was filled with english.

When did they stop respecting our culture and our choices? Is it because radical Islam has taken over in the Middle East and is taking over here?

I’m seriously thinking about getting a burqa, wearing it to my Federal Government job and claim it’s my religious right. Let it go to the Supreme Court and see how they handle it. Really, these things look like something you’d see at a KKK rally!

Jul 8, 2009 - 11:11 am 69. Ms. Attitude:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Muslim_Dress_Billboard.jpg

wow…who looks happier in these pictures?

Jul 8, 2009 - 11:17 am 70. David S:

@63. Kelly:

Again, in case you were having trouble reading:

[There] is basically no difference between those who would force women to wear the burqa and those who would force them not to.

Here I agree. I don’t want to ban the burqa- I believe in freedom – but I also agree that it is appropriate and valuable to voice disapproval of practices that denigrate human rights. If women are being forced to wear the burqa, the solution is not to ban the burqa – the solution is to make their choice free. It is a much more difficult and complex task, but it is infinitely superior as well.

Peace.

Jul 8, 2009 - 12:52 pm 71. Greenconsciousness:

David S

You don’t believe in freedom or equality for women — you believe in male supremacy — there are no women making the rules in countries or religions that require the burka.

Here in the US women are being killed, divorced and then deported for not dressing traditionally — young Muslim girls being home schooled and praised only for submission to absorb idea about modesty.

But other women here have said it all. The decision is not about what Muslims want, it is about what free people will tolerate done to the other in their country. In the US we have turned against these unequal sex role regulations. We need to not only ban the Burka but to enforce laws against Christan polygamy and child development retardation amonst the various cults and religious sects in the US. All religions are given too much privilege in the US and that kind of tolerance will eventually degrade women’s rights.

Jul 8, 2009 - 2:20 pm 72. abi:

Perhaps as Americans we have a difficult time believing that someone cannot dress as they please. Maybe it’s sorta like being in Catholic school..you dress accordingly or..rap on the knuckles..except they get beheaded..

Jul 8, 2009 - 5:36 pm 73. John Moore:

Snorri Godhi writes:

the easiest way to prevent women being coerced into wearing a burqa, by far, is to ban the burqa; and if the burqa is not banned, some women will inevitably be coerced into wearing one.

Many problems are most easily solved by taking away rights, and there has been way too much of that.

What of the women who WANT to wear burqa’s? What of THEIR rights? What if I want to wear one?

No, the path to tyranny is paved with these sorts of well intentioned “easiest ways.”

Jul 8, 2009 - 6:05 pm 74. Yaakov Watkins:

In the US people are ostracized daily based on differing philosophies. Yet when those philosophies are called religions, suddenly the rules change.

These people would protect Stalinism under the theory of freedom of speech and expression. But Islam would not get those freedoms. Or vice versus.

We regulate racially charged speech, but we don’t regulate sexually charged speech. The “n” word is not excused because of redeeming social importance.

If we are to be inclusive and embrace philosophical diversity, then we need to be inclusive embrace philosophical diversity. If we aren’t going to be inclusive, there are some liberals I would like to have banned.

Jul 8, 2009 - 8:40 pm 75. John Marshall:

Dear John Moore,

The women who wear a burqa do not have the right not to wear a burqa.

If laws in the US gave women the right to wear a burqa and the right to change their minds about the burqa, everything would be fine here in the US. However, some sects of Islam do not give women the right to change their minds. That is the problem. That is non-Western. That is a kind of enslavement. What do you not understand about “you will wear the burqa or you will face outrageous punishment.”

Jul 8, 2009 - 8:56 pm 76. John Moore:

John Marshall,
I am well aware of those facts. They do not change the fact that outlawing the Burqa simply for the purpose of freeing those women would be against the American Constitution, and would be an act of tyranny.

Jul 8, 2009 - 9:13 pm 77. Snorri Godhi:

John Moore:
What of the women who WANT to wear burqa’s? What of THEIR rights? What if I want to wear one?

Now, I did mention that we would be taking freedom away if we were to ban the burqa, didn’t I? and yes, I am aware that the number of women who want to wear the burqa might be exactly zero, but even so, it would be taking freedom away.

No, the path to tyranny is paved with these sorts of well intentioned “easiest ways.”

I am aware of that, but since we are well down the path anyway, we might as well ban the burqa … actually, no, I did not want to take a position on the banning issue. I only meant that it’s not as simple as saying: we already have laws against coercion.

Jul 9, 2009 - 12:26 am 78. RRwest:

What a great article!

Thanks for outlining some of the problem that is Islam for the world.

You hit the nail on the head about forced versus free choice regarding women’s attire. For hundreds of millions of women in Islam face beatings, rape and death at the hands of husbands, brothers or even police for not conforming to the standard dress proscribed to women in Islam.

Now, about the burkha. Have you or anyone else noticed how this type of clothing resembles a phallus when worn? Check it out for yourself and see how the woman’s curved figure becomes phallic when viewed in silhouette. In my mind, it symbolically de-sexes women.

And thank you for pointing out that we are at war with Islam and its leaders, who claim that it is merely a religion. It is not merely a religion. It is a total control system that has a thin veneer of religion to mask its true intentions which is total domination over the world.

The sooner all “liberals” realize this, the better. Would they say the same things about the Nazis as they do about Islam? I think not.

The west needs to change its “multi-cultural” policies when it comes to Islam. Muslims the world over repeatedly hide behind these once progressive policies and defend the tyranny that Islam promotes in the same breath. They cross the line over and over again, particularly in Europe, where Muslim immigration has almost destroyed entire communities like Malmo, Sweden.

Keep up the good fight.

May the west prevail.
Kafir and proud.

Jul 9, 2009 - 11:49 am 79. Doc Merlin:

“Banning articles of clothing is unconstitutional. We are not France.”

Damn right!!!
And fie on the leftists and those who try!

Jul 9, 2009 - 2:36 pm 80. Sandra:

I’m loving this. This is a wonderful article. I wish there was more of this out there with a wider audience.

Jul 9, 2009 - 10:00 pm 81. Marc Malone:

Banning the burqa is infringing upon rights? I have news for you, but you can’t just wear what you want in society. There are indecency laws, for example. There are rules against offensive words on T-shirts, like “nigger”, which can be construed as inciting violence. Try wearing a KKK outfit when going about your daily affairs.

Freedom isn’t free. It’s not all about your personal freedom. It impacts others. The burqa should be banned completely, because it is a symbol and tool of slavery. It is a symbolic shackle. When one woman “chooses” to wear one, she provides all the justification Muslim men need to force their own women to wear it.

Muslim women need an absolute defense vis-a-vis their husbands: “I would, honey, but you know it is forbidden here.” Call it a woman’s sacrifice for the good of other women; doing their little part. Absolute freedom is bad for everyone. And really, no one will miss it. No one!

Another argument against the burqa is that, I can guarantee you, an abused Muslim woman would wear it. No one would ever find out about the abuse, unless she got a black eye… or until she’s dead.

#37 David S – A war on Islamic fashion? C’mon, a burqa is not fashion. It is a ball-and-chain. Good lord, man, have some sense of right and wrong! You simply don’t have to be absolutely contrary about every last thing here. We do get it right, sometimes, y’know!

Jul 10, 2009 - 2:12 am 82. Snorri Godhi:

Marc Malone:
“Banning the burqa is infringing upon rights? I have news for you, but you can’t just wear what you want in society. There are indecency laws, for example.”

Yes, excellent point: if we are not allowed to go around stark naked, why should we be allowed to go around completely covered?

Surely, being naked counts as free expression more than being completely hidden!

Jul 10, 2009 - 6:39 am 83. David S:

@81. Marc Malone:

Must I say it again? Banning the burqa infringes upon rights. You can’t argue that the burqa is “indecent”, or “offensive” or an “incitement to violence” – so what’s the justification? You’ve cited examples – but they don’t apply to the case of the burqa. Try again?

You can’t maintain freedom by banning items of clothing. It is all about personal freedom, as protected by the Constitution. A ban on the burqa would be an explicit affront to the USA and all she stands for. Moreover, a ban on the burqa raises the political stakes and makes martyrs of those who continue to proudly follow their native cultural traditions. Not a good idea.

Absolute freedom is not what this is about. We’re talking about the government banning a traditional clothing choice favored by a specific religious and cultural minority.

A burqa is a piece of clothing. There is nothing wrong with a woman who freely chooses to express herself by wearing one. There is something seriously wrong with people who think that the government should ban this article of clothing. You may get it right sometimes – but this is not one of those times.

Peace.

Jul 10, 2009 - 9:47 am 84. Marc Malone:

#83 David S – Actually, yes I can maintain that the burqa is offensive and an incitement to violence. It is a tool of slavery. It IS offensive. It is also a cause of violence to women… by the Muslim men. It makes it okay for them to indulge in violence against their women.

I don’t think women will think it is to great a sacrifice to give up the “right” to wear a burqa inorder to prevent its use as a tool of enslavement. It is a very small price to pay for freedom for these women. Shall we hoard our freedom?

Jul 10, 2009 - 1:39 pm 85. myth buster:

Legally speaking, consent under duress is not consent at all.

Jul 10, 2009 - 11:38 pm 86. LOLZ:

This is a really stupid article. Women’s rights sure have come a long way in the last century, but I think a lot of Westerners are quick to forget that 90 years ago, women over 16 (or thereabouts) who wore skirts that exposed their ankles or let their hair hang loose were branded as whores. I think the burqa or chador are an outdated customs but let’s not kid ourselves here.

The idea that women ought to dress modestly isn’t something confined to the Middle East. Read gossip blogs or fashion magazines, watch the news, hang out with teenage girls. You’ll see modern pop starlets being labeled “whores” and “selling sexuality.” You’ll see rape victims being blamed in court for wearing “provocative” clothing. If you truly believe that a woman’s morals can’t be discerned from how she dresses, criticize the burqa to your heart’s content, but don’t pretend that the underlying attitude is specific to Muslims only.

Jul 11, 2009 - 8:50 pm 87. joeblough:

You know … the KKK ghost sheet costume is just an item of apparel too.

I think I have a right to show up at NAACP meetings wearing one — and the right to sue if they don’t like it.

It’s a “choice” you know. And very modest too.

Ha!

What a load of crap this all is.

1. stop mohammedan immigration
2. deport anyone with the faintest distant connection to any jihaddist organization.
3. monitor the mosques and deport anybody found promoting jihaddi propaganda and/or recruitment.
4. prohibit the operation of mohammedan private schools until after the war is over, until after aggression against western targets has ceased.
5. separate mohammedan criminals from the general prison population.
6. bar mohammedan preachers and mohammedan religious materials from the prison system.
7. hire a small army of non-mohammedan middle-easterners to work for the intelligence services.
8. Require the study of sharia law, mohammedan sexual and religious aparheit practices and mohammedan war doctrines by all members of the police force, the intelligence and armed services
9. prosecute all crimes that smack of mohammedan sexual and religious apartheit practices to the fullest extent of the law (especially the stupid hate crimes laws) with mandatory maximum sentencing for “honor” killings or anything that faintly resembles jihaddi mass murder practices.
10. prohibit the wearing of masks or other face coverings in government buildings, secured places (banks etc), and schools.

And most of all, stop pretending that we are not in a war.

Jul 12, 2009 - 11:17 pm 88. Millie:

Islam is the first religion to grant any kind of RIGHTS and supreme position to women, according to muslimsvoiceofamerica.

http://muslimsvoiceofamerica.com/blog/2009/04/taliban-false-soldiers-of-islam/

Jul 15, 2009 - 1:26 am 89. Max Friedman:

Re #88 – Millie: Obviously the “muslimvoiceofamerica” never read the old Testament (i.e. The 5 Books of the Torah). It has sections devoted to “rights” for women and how men have to respect them as women and leave their rights alone.

Don’t have a copy with me, but women were given certain rights about keeping the house, raising the children, handling money and conducting some types of businesses, etc. Remember, Judaism recognized the woman/mother as being the transmitter of the religion to the children, not the father. This was a great departure from other cultures and societies where family descent was patrilinear, not matrilinear.

Also, sex between a husband and wife was viewed as also being a pleasurable act. Female genital mutilation would be abhorent to any Jewish woman, and man, and viewed as torture.

Re “muslimvoiceofamerica”, don’t believe the hype!

Jul 17, 2009 - 8:01 pm 90. nick:

I found couple of more intersting articles on muslimsvoiceofamerica.com

http://muslimsvoiceofamerica.com/blog/2009/07/honor-killing-and-islam/

http://muslimsvoiceofamerica.com/blog/2009/07/lifting-the-veil-on-the-debate-over-veils/

Jul 24, 2009 - 11:10 am 91. Barbara N.:

Labeling is justification for hate mongering, I am a liberal conservative with left right leanings. I don’t know any thinking person who holds total liberal or conservative views to say The Liberals think this or that is just ridiculous, who are you designating as Liberal or conservative and how exactly do you know what they all think? I mean I am liberal on many issues, but no one has asked me how I think so who is speaking for all liberals.
and excuse me but where are the laws to regulate “racially charged speech” because I hear it everyday and I don’t see anyone even being questioned and stiffled about it. who has banned t-shirts with the N word on it? you mean a school? a school regulating dress or even your employer having a dress code is fine but as a society if we start banning clothing, how about what you’re wearing? I think we should outlaw thongs and tanktops open to the navel, turning young women into sex objects, they are being degraded and sexualized, even if they want to wear this, they just don’t know any better because our culture says you must be sexy.

Jul 27, 2009 - 2:40 pm 92. Barbara N.:

continuing: yes, if you want to walk around with your hood on you have that right, people do walk down the street with the KKK garb on, it is called freedom of speech.
as a Liberal I don’t like KKK or racists using the N word or calling woemn sluts whores or bitchs but I do believe in freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of choice. I work with domestic violence women everyday, many tell me about being beaten, raped, sodomies and watching their children being abused too; and a month later they go back to the perpetrator. I am sad, sometimes mad and always fearful for them. I don’t believe any of them like being abused but guess what I beleive they still should be free to choose. I am not for putting them in jail for choosing something I adamantly disagree with. if you ban the the burqa what is the punishment for a women caught wearing it, jail? a fine? or the same punishment as they get for not wearing it? we will really help these women by creating a double bind, damned if you do, damned if you don’t. John Moore is the only sane person on this blog

Jul 27, 2009 - 2:51 pm