233 Comments

1. Pajamas Media » Naomi Wolfe Finds Muslim Suppression To Be ‘Feminist’:

[...] Read the entire article here. [...]

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:40 am 2. Lynn:

And we thought the scarf was to hide a bad hair day! Imagine the looks of lust we would receive from our western men if we had unveiled those sexy pink curlers. Oh the thought!

I notice sometimes, that the very ones who say they represent freedom are the ones who hold the keys tantalizing out of reach to others living in cages.

Cover up ladies! Your just too hot for them. Men would not be able to control themselves with your unimagined beauty! Oh! your hair, your neck, your elbows, your knees, your ears, all horrible temptations for the uncontrolled desire of the lecherous western male who can’t treat you like a ‘real’ person.

Her article (Wolfe) sounds like a real “cover-up” to excuse oppression. Now if she could only explain to us how it is fulfilling for many women in the Middle East to give birth to little ones who are raised to kill themselves and murder other people, after, that is, they make hot, hot love to their uncontrollable men.

Wolfe has become a real champion for the animals. Run, hide, cover up, the animals are on the loose! And Mohammad’s legacy lives on.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:05 am 3. tanstaafl:

Naomi Wolfe, wasn’t she Al Gore’s personal advisor during his 2000 presidential run ? Dressed him in olive drab and so forth, presumably to up his appeal ?

Gore went along with Naomi’s recommendations. I thought all that was pretty dumb. I’ve seen a few videos of Naomi where she doesn’t seem like the brightest bulb in the lot.

I guess her idea is that clothing makes the man. Or the woman. (Gore needed help way beyond clothing. Still does)

Undoubtedly there are wearers of the burqa who, after lifelong conditioning, wouldn’t dare step out the door in Riyadh unless sheathed from head to toe in the black bug suit.

I wonder if Naomi has ever addressed the unhealthiness of such an arrangement in 100°+ heat ?

And, of course, female university students in Turkey, demanding to wear the headscarf on campus.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:19 am 4. michiganruth:

it’s interesting that Wolfe chose those particular countries to visit, since they are about the LEAST fundamentalist of all the Arab nations.

I was in Morocco last year during Ramadan and wore a headscarf in the streets to be respectful of their culture, but I certainly didn’t need to.

the streets of Marrakech are full of women wearing everything from full burkhas to headscarves with western-style dress. the point is that when you have a CHOICE, you very well might choose to veil yourself, and that’s just fine. the problem comes when you DON’T have a choice.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:27 am 5. deguello:

This is feminist insanity on display. Proof that what motivated feminism,was hatred of men;not equality for women.Naomi prefers a medieval regime for women: torture,abuse,child marriage,female circumcision,the hideous Burkha,anything,rather than tolerate the possibility that a man should gaze at a beautiful woman!What a monstruous lack of perspective this is! What an insult to islamic women who want legal equality in their countries!This ntellectually corrupt,morally bankrupt, harpy should emigrate to Tehran.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:29 am 6. cubedweller:

George Orwell would be proud. Truth are lies, Slavery is Freedom, Oppression is Feminism.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:07 am 7. Assistant Village Idiot:

Perfect liberalism. Solve one problem by creating 20 others. Naomi gets a breather from having to dress up – the same reasoning as is used for school uniforms, I recall – and so figures that what gives her a break must be good for everyone else.

Unbelievable.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:10 am 8. MisterH:

I’ve seen Naomi Wolf in a couple of interviews. She’s become as crazy as a rat in a coffee can. I have no idea what mental pathologies may be at the source of her loathing of western civilization but listening to her for five minutes raised this burning question: What manner of timid, self-loathing and pitable creature could endure being married to her?

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:12 am 9. George Jochnowitz:

Is there any sane explanation for why feminists support the persecution of women in Islamic countries? Is there any reasonable way to understand why gay activists support the murder and execution of homosexuals in Islamic countries? They will claim that they do no such thing, oif course. But their silence and their excuses are support.

For the left, anti-Zionism takes precedence over all other issues. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:20 am 10. truepeers:

#8 Did you know her husband is a leftist “Jew” who works for alJazeera? Phyllis Chesler was probably loathe to speculate beyond an attempt to appeal to the Obamabots, but maybe hubbie’s career with the Arabs needed a little boost.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:32 am 11. VinceP1974:

I love Noami Wolf. Her stupidity is exceeded only by Nancy Pelosi.

I know that when I’m about to read a story about Wolf that I’m about to be transported into the mind of madness.. where Bush’s America is literally the same as Nazi Germany and someone is reading her junk mail.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:37 am 12. Lynn:

I like the school uniform analogy. Of course the little girls are always dressed in skirts or jumpers so they can never comfortably run, jump, somersault, or swing. And on a windy day, of course one must stand around clutching your clothing as to not let the corrupt breezes expose your shame.

Something that protected a desert dweller from the harsh sun has become a symbol of subjugation or a protection from the evil uncontrollable western male, and we of course are eager to ‘respect’ their custom.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:37 am 13. Lynda:

Wolfe claims that she donned a “shalwar kameez and a headscarf” for a trip to the bazaar.
What an absolute idiot Wolfe is. Here in Vancouver, Canada where we have a large Indo-Canadian population, many non-Indian/non-Pakistani women wear kalwar shameez (not shalwar kameez)to go out for the evening! With its long tunic, matching trousers and 6′ long scarf, the kalwar shameez, available in myriad gorgeously coloured and embroidered silks and cottons, is without a doubt, a most comfortable (and flattering) outfit. It is ideal for women who prefer comfort, colour, and craftsmanship, to skin tight techno-fabrics. For post menopausal women it’s the perfect evening wear (hides the lumps, bumps and lost waistline) and, of course, it’s ideal for pregnant women.
In Canada, the scarf is rarely used as a head covering by Indian women – except in the temple, gurdwa, or mosque – in fact, the sales people in the Indian shops will show you a huge variety of ways to wear the scarf -none of which cover the head.
The kalwar shameez is about as far from the niqab, chador, or burqha, as a bikini is from the baggy old track suits of the ’80s.

If Wolfe “presents the West as anti-woman because it treats women as sex objects”, how does she think women are treated in the east, with it’s child brides, child prostitution, non-consequential rape (for the rapist, not the victim), forced marriages, wife beating, daughter killing, etc., etc., etc.?
On the other hand, western men are so used to seeing scantily dressed women that they barely even look at them – I take public transit and often watch the responses of the men (young and old and very culturally diverse) when a pretty young girl in low slung jeans and a half top gets on. Most of them don’t give her more than a glance and the others don’t even look up from their books or papers.

Finally, I would suggest that Ms. Wolfe, who is on the downhill slide to fifty and menopause, will very soon find out what it is like to really be invisible.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:44 am 14. Lawler:

Liberalism is, truly, a mental illness.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:56 am 15. Banned by Huffpo:

“Or, perhaps they view them as natural, “infidel” prey.”

No “perhaps” about it.

If you’re an “infidel,” you deserve everything that you get. Including gang rape, stoning, torture, etc, ad nauseum.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:07 am 16. Omar:

Does Ms. Wolffe ever wonder about the social mechanisms at work in preserving the “islamic Character” of many of these places afflicted with forced veiling and gender aparteid . . .?

“There Must be Violence Against Women”

http://www.yementimes.com/article.shtml?i=1117&p=community&a=6

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:11 am 17. Lynda:

Perhaps Ms. Wolfe should take a moment to read “Honeymoon in Purdah” by Alison Wearing, an account of a young woman’s travels through post revolutionary Iran – as opposed to a quick trip to the bazaar in Morocco.
The author, an independent Canadian travel writer, wanted to see Iran for herself but knew that she would never be permitted to enter the country on her own; nor would it be safe for her to do so, even if concessions were made for her. Together with a male friend, she forges a wedding certificate, buys a gold band for each of them, and sets out for Iran on her “honeymoon”.
Throughout her travels, whenever she is out of doors, she must wrap herself in a chador which she describes as metres of black polyester that must be wrapped around the body and over the head and held with one hand (undercover) so that there is no part of the body exposed except the face.
Keeping this covering together occupies most of her time when she is out of doors. In the heat of the Iranian summer she faints more than once. Only other women help her – the men ignore her plight. This is what happens when you are truly invisible.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:12 am 18. scythe:

Psssst! Wanna know the REAL reason why Naomi is looking wistfully at the burqha? She’s getting up there folks. Know a better way to hide the age spots, the cellulite, the sags and bags of gravity’s menace, the stretch marks, wrinkles, and sagging joints? Hey – I might just buy one myself. Now that’s liberation!

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:14 am 19. SteveB/Colorado:

I thought that Ms. Chesler was on point with a good article until I got to the very end. There she blew herself out of the water with the comment about Ms. Wolf “fishing for Saudi gold and positioning herself within the Democratic Party.” And naturally, she had to get in an irrelevant comment about President Obama and Islam. I don’t recall Obama taking any position on how women dress in Muslim societies.

Then I read just above those remarks: “you will find pornography magazines in every princely tent….” And just how does Ms. Chesler know that? Has she been in every tent? And just maybe many Muslim families no longer live in tents? Then she says: “I am told that the Saudis fly in fresh loads of Parisian prostitutes every week….” Once again, how is this known?

Really unfortunate because Ms. Wolf very much deserves a fact based rebuttal. Obviously Phyllis Chesler is not the person to do that rebuttal.

#14 Lawler: “Liberalism is truly a mental illness.” Funny. That sounds like a quote from Vladimir Lenin. In grad school, I had a book by Lenin called “Left Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder.”

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:17 am 20. David Thomson:

Naomi Wolf is a beneficiary of affirmative action. She has been saying dumb things for years—but the fact that she is a woman protected her. Few men were willing to be accused of indulging in anti-feminist sentiments. Most of the liberal arts degrees rewarded to women in the last forty years are fraudulent. This is inevitably the result of left-wing females jumping aboard the affirmative action gravy train. They have nobody to blame but themselves. The intellectually shallow Ms. Wolf easily “earns” a six figure annual income. This academic feminist stuff is very lucrative. The money would have stopped flowing years ago had she been even a halfway sensible human being.

Congresswoman Diane Watson is another example of a woman obtaining phony credentials. She recently employed the race card in defense of Barack Obama—while also praising the alleged greatness of Fidel Castro. Ms. Watson somehow acquired a Ph.D. of some sort from Claremont Graduate School. She and Naomi Wolf should go on a speaking tour together.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:18 am 21. Increase Mather:

Honest to gosh…when I saw this article, I thought for sure it was a parody…showing how feminists have abandoned women in Islamic countries…had to be.

But no…there REALLY is a feminist pubically justifying this system of gender slavery. Guess she’s trying to make sure HER organization doesn’t get bombed.

Wow.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:21 am 22. amos:

“Western gaze?” Clearly this woman hasn’t been to East Asia.

I’m pretty sure there’s a lot of gazing and gawking at women going on in those parts of the world. Also footbinding and a bustling child sex slave trade.

What I don’t get – as a Neo-Darwin sythesis-loving atheist – is the complaint, “I am not a sex object.”

Sweet-Cheeks, Honey-Buns, if you’re not a sex object, you’re algae, a virus or a rock.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:30 am 23. Jim Baker:

Naomi Wolfe is, first and foremost, a communist. She is totally in bed, as it were, with Obama’s communist cadre. She writes this bilge because she wants to give cover to Obama’s allies, which are all of the enemies of western civilization. What did we expect from this nitwit? Next subject.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:45 am 24. Jason S:

So Sarah Palin is a neanderthal but the men who make women cover themselves are liberators? Makes perfect sense in a world where up is now down and right is now wrong.

Christian ideals, on which this country was founded, are backwards and outmoded, but the prevailing Islamic ideals, which have not changed in centuries, are cutting edge and progressive. Gotcha.

I hope women everywhere are taking notes. See ladies? Slavery is actually not slavery at all, just a form of freedom that is too complicated for your female brains to understand. Now go put on your hijab and make me some dinner. I’ll be sure to let you know when your reproductive organs are needed.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:48 am 25. Moho:

Phyllis, I know that you are an expert on the muslim world, but you remind me of a foreigner coming to America and getting all of their ideas of American culture from the headlines. In such a view, Americans also have a long history of keeping sex slaves [such as Jaycee], many of them are pedophiles and serial killers, the country is constantly on fire, etcetera. As a muslim who has lived in the Arab world and the US, I can tell you that Arabs are surprisingly just like everyone else. Some girls really do like wearing the hijab, because it keeps young men from leering at them. Some like it because its part of their heritage and a ritual of adolescence. Others hate it and consider it to be an unfair burden.

Some parents get their daughters to wear a hijab through the coercion of love–just like American families get their daughters to wear less revealing clothes through the bond they have developed. Others beat their daughters to maintain the community standards of dress and decorum. Some American fathers and mothers even kill their children, just as parents everywhere throughout history have been known to do. I kind of doubt that the muslim world can beat the American landscape for intra-family violence and murder.

Finally, who can take you seriously? You sound like a frightened woman bordered up in her attic and watching the news, convinced that what she sees there is the exact mirror of the world outside of the walls of her house. You come off like an obtuse fool.

Your

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:52 am 26. Morton Doodslag:

Sorry, Mz. Chesler — Naomi Klein IS a feminist doing her utmost to forward the Marxist narrative which animates your predominantly anti-Western anti-white anti-American movement. It’s an inconvenient fact. Just because you reject one or two planks of that narrative and therefore find Mz. Klein’s complete inanity frustrating doesn’t negate the ugly facts.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:55 am 27. Jason S:

By the way, if anyone wants to really understand why liberals love tin pot dictators and Islamic fundamentalists should read Unholy Alliance by David Horowitz. It’s a bit of a tough read, but only because it is easy to get lost in all of the leftist organizations that have been set up to damage America, which is why they are the natural ally of others who want to damage America. The irony is that, were America to ever be conquered by fundamentalist Muslims, the Godless deviants and miscreants on the left would be the first to be buried up to their necks in sand and have rocks thrown at them. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:00 pm 28. Moho:

The irony is that, were America to ever be conquered by fundamentalist Muslims, the Godless deviants and miscreants on the left would be the first to be buried up to their necks in sand and have rocks thrown at them. Talk about Stockholm Syndrome.

The real irony is that this scenario is as likely as one involving a martian invasion.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:03 pm 29. Steve Sampson:

As a single man, I find the black wrap around very alluring. I live in a rural area and find myself at country and western bars occassionally. I think it would be a gas to watch women line dancing with burkas and cowboy boots, sort of like the sorcerer’s apprentice type imagery.

Now as a single man, I am wondering how to approach a burka wearing cowgirl at the bar. Should a guy open a conversation with, “Hi there, boy you sure know how to wear a sheet” I am worried that this might seem offensive and too forward to a burka wearing chick. Perhaps some readers might have a suggestion for a guy who is always interested in being politically correct, especially with women. I don’t want to seem like a lecher, but like Ted Kennedy, I do have an eye for women. Although, I am a better driver and swimmer.

I know this may seem inonsequential to some feminists, but with our present administration, I think it is important to be ready for changes in our culture and I don’t want to be considered backward and unable to get a date because Islam has overwhelmed our culture.

There are many aspects to consider, dancing in chadoras has to leave a woman subject to over heating. Is it considered improper to offer like a gentleman to lift the hem and offer to fan women to cool them off. Don’t worry, I am a gentleman and would never seize the opportunity to gaze beneath the gown like some women try to look under my kilt. I have a modicum of integrity and refuse to let my baser instincts overrule my sense of decency.

I just like to be ready for whatever situation opens itself up for me and I do so want to be politically correct.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:07 pm 30. Thomas:

Naomi Wolf – having read her bio on Wiki, this thread logically belongs to the well advanced other posts, titled:

“Reflections on the New Anti-Semitism”
by David Solway

for she is the feminine reincarnation of Lazar Kaganovich, the wolf of the Kremlin, who was the Jewish murderer of the “other” Jews.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:09 pm 31. Jason S:

“As a muslim who has lived in the Arab world and the US, I can tell you that Arabs are surprisingly just like everyone else. Some girls really do like wearing the hijab, because it keeps young men from leering at them. Some like it because its part of their heritage and a ritual of adolescence. Others hate it and consider it to be an unfair burden.”

- Moho

What’s your point? If they are forced to wear it, it doesn’t really matter how they feel about it, now does it? I’m sure there are those who like to wear a straight jacket too. If we can find a few of them, do you think it would be ok to mandate that every woman wear one in public?

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:12 pm 32. Moho:

Is it considered improper to offer like a gentleman to lift the hem and offer to fan women to cool them off. Don’t worry, I am a gentleman and would never seize the opportunity to gaze beneath the gown like some women try to look under my kilt.

Judging from your writing, I can only assume that you come off like a total douchebag. So you’d be better off not talking much in any case.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:14 pm 33. The UnPatriot:

“Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, abaya, niqab, jilbab, or hijab (headscarf), and those who resist are beaten, threatened with death, arrested, caned or lashed, jailed, or honor murdered by their own families.”

Had a conversation last Friday with someone familiar with specific cases of what he called “faith killings” of young girls HERE IN THE US!!!

I was even more shocked that someone else in the group had never heard of this before.

–The UnPatriot

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:19 pm 34. Moho:

Jason S. I’m trying to be careful to not use large words here, because its obvious that you’re not very bright. Aren’t there things in the US that people are made to do that they don’t like? Don’t business men have to wear ties? Arent’ women obligated to wear gowns at weddings? Do you understand how these people are “forced” to do such things? Do you know anything about humans, and human agency?

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:19 pm 35. Sebastian Shaw:

Naomi Wolf takes ethnocentrism to its extreme; she rationalizes the subversion of other women because in most Arab cultures this is part of their traditions. Yet to see her trying to rationalize it makes her a weak, stereotypical, tired feminist. She reminds me of the Fembots from the original Bionic Woman episodes (a Fembot for the uninitiated are subservient robot women who possessed superhuman strength to equal Jamie Somers). Naomi Wolf has turned into a parody of herself. I’m sure President Obama could make her a Czar in his administration….

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:26 pm 36. BettyBlue:

Well, Moho, one problem is that in many Islamic countries, women are forced to do such things. If they go outside without the proper headcovering, etc., the religious police come after them. Or their menfolk beat them up, or kill them, for bringing “dishonor” to the family.

I’ve yet to hear of any businessman being reprimanded by a religious leader because he didn’t wear a tie.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:26 pm 37. Sarkis:

Thanks for sharing, Moho, as well as providing some material for analysis. Here we have the fairly obvious “ad homini” (could easily degenerate further into “yo mama” discourse) plus the “tu quoque” which is just a little harder to see through (Jaycee’s kidnapper did not have scriptural and societal support), and “Arabs are like everyone else” thrown in for good measure (see Atbashyan’s series on why “Russians are like everyone else” is inane, too) . Ethnicity has nothing to do with it — I’ve met Christian Arabs who treat their children well and Muslim Africans who don’t.
Yes, if not covering yourself exposes a young woman to leers and much worse, she might cover up. We would regard that as a failure of the society, in particular the result of the damage that young men receive that leaves them treating women as obscure objects of rape. Not as evidence of the woman’s free will.
You are a good Muslim, Moho, but your taquiia and kitman need a little work.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:27 pm 38. Moho:

We would regard that as a failure of the society, in particular the result of the damage that young men receive that leaves them treating women as obscure objects of rape.

Yes we would and we do, since rape happens here and sexist leering is one of the most common experiences for an American woman. In fact, I’d say our rape statistics put most other countries to shame. You’d do better worrying about the shortcomings in your own culture, rather than constantly pointing the finger at others. That’s asinine and useless, and generally simply an excuse to coddle bigoted feelings.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:31 pm 39. BettyBlue:

Head scarves, burkhas and all the rest of Islamic woman’s traditional dress is about oppression, not “freedom”, or “choice”; http://frontpagemagazine.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=34293

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:31 pm 40. Thomas:

@26. Morton Doodslag:

You said:
“your predominantly anti-Western anti-white anti-American movement.”

I don’t know much about Ms. Chesler…is she too belongs to the Soros-ACLU-Jstreet-”Democracy Alliance” society?

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:39 pm 41. BettyBlue:

#10 truepeers, yeah, Naomi might have been trying to help out hubby a bit. And there’s always the possibility Saudi money was involved.

You know, it’s funny, Chesler mentioning Marabel Morgan. I remember just how much the feminists all loathed her! She supported the oppression of women! She wanted to keep them barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen! Ooooh, da noive a dat woman! She was almost as bad as that other archfiend, Martha Stewart, who advised women on how to cook, clean and decorate. How horrible! She was brainwashing them, trying to turn them into—gasp, shudder—housewives!

And, of course, all traditional Jewish and Christian women were just oppressed slaves, who needed their brave, feminist sisters to rescue them from oppressive, patriarchal religion.

But, let Naomi Wolfe, or some other feminist burble about the wonders of burkhas and hijabs and niqabs, and it’s swoon, swoon, swoon, oh, how wonderful it all is—this, about Islam, a faith that’s about as repressive and patriarchal as you can get! But the feminists love it.

(Oh, and, yes, I think Marabel Morgan was daft—but not as daft as feminists who defend Islam, and are trying to push worse things on women than just putting on some saran wrap!)

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:41 pm 42. Moho:

Bettyblue. I don’t blame you for holding these kinds of views–I’ve seen your ignorance about your own country in full detail in other venues here. However, Chesler can only be said to be an idiot or a liar. Because its true that in most Islamic countries, the burka, the hijab and etcetera are not mutually interchangeable. In the countries of the levant the burkha is hardly seen, while the hijab is considered a normal standard of dress. In the Saudi countries, those, in fact, that have the best relationships with the US, the burkha is ubiquitous. I’ve never seen anything very startling about a social standard requiring a hijab. In fact, for the felahi peasants of the levant, a head scarf is a normal part of dress for both men and women, and in general, the dress only varies in pattern. Men wear literally the same clothes as women, but in different traditional colors and with a coat.

And in both western and eastern societies the measures by which compliance are extracted vary wildly. Certainly this won’t be believed here, but I rarely met parents in Palestine who even spanked their children.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:43 pm 43. Jason S:

Moho-

I appreciate your stooping to my intellectual level to not answer any of my questions.

To the best of my knowledge, nobody in the US is forced to wear a symbol of oppression that signifies the wearer’s inferiority and subservience to another segment of the population. If American Jews were expected to wear a Star of David or if African Americans were forced to wear chains around their necks, you might have a point. They’re not, and therfore you don’t.

Feel free to answer my previous questions and to refrain from the ad hominem attacks.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:46 pm 44. Calvin Ball:

Wasn’t Wolfe also the one who said Algore needed to be an “alpha-male”? Sounds like she may have issues. Maybe she secretly wants to be mauled by a man-bear-pig.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:47 pm 45. Mouse:

Moho,

You do realize that calling people names, especially if they have not called you names first, does not further your argument. You come off as less reasonable than those who do not resort to such props. Just saying.

Also,could you please explain to me the historical authenticity/inauthenticity of the events that were the basis for “The Stoning of Soraya M.”? With links, please, as I notice that you have cited many statistical “facts”, but have yet to verify a single one.

Thanks.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:47 pm 46. digitalis:

Mrs. Moho: Last time I looked a businessman wasn’t getting stoned for not wearing a tie. Or a woman for not wearing a gown to a wedding. Now…if the wedding attendant just wore a tie and the businessman wore the gown, well..that might be another story. Do you enjoy your burqua?

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:49 pm 47. Calvin Ball:

12. Lynn:

I like the school uniform analogy. Of course the little girls are always dressed in skirts or jumpers so they can never comfortably run, jump, somersault, or swing.

Yeah. And if they are indecent, they burn to death:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dca_1239264337

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:50 pm 48. Moho:

Last time I looked a businessman wasn’t getting stoned for not wearing a tie.

You are aware that homophobic violence is a fact of life in our society. The reality is that the homophobe attackers are never sure that the men are gay, only that they do not dress or act like others. Your ignorance of your own culture is astounding, but welcome. Better to have this kind of obtuse stupidity out in the open than always hidden from view.

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:55 pm 49. Omar:

Actually, Moho, the gender aparteid and veiling practices of islamic societies tend to teach men that they bear no responsibility for their sexual agression, and that if a woman is outside her house and accessible to be leered at, touched or raped, it’s her own fault for being uncovered and within arm’s reach. In Egypt for example, the incidence of harassment is absolutely astounding:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7514567.stm

I would also recommend this account by Ed Husain, a muslim who was absolutely astonished by the treatment of his wife on a trip to Saudi Arabia:

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/book_extracts/article1685726.ece

Excerpt:

“. . . Faye was not immodest in her dress. Out of respect for local custom, she wore the long black abaya and covered her hair in a black scarf. In all the years I had known my wife, never had I seen her appear so dull. Yet on two occasions she was accosted by passing Saudi youths from their cars. On another occasion a man pulled up beside our car and offered her his phone number.

In supermarkets I only had to be away from Faye for five minutes and Saudi men would hiss or whisper obscenities as they walked past. When Faye discussed her experiences with local women at the British Council they said: “Welcome to Saudi Arabia.”

After a month in Jeddah I heard from an Asian taxi driver about a Filipino worker who had brought his new bride to live with him in Jeddah. After visiting the Balad shopping district the couple caught a taxi home. Some way through their journey the Saudi driver complained that the car was not working properly and perhaps the man could help push it. The passenger obliged. Within seconds the Saudi driver had sped off with the man’s wife in his car and, months later, there was still no clue as to her whereabouts.

We had heard stories of the abduction of women from taxis by sex-deprived Saudi youths. At a Saudi friend’s wedding at a luxurious hotel in Jeddah, women dared not step out of their hotel rooms and walk to the banqueting hall for fear of abduction by the bodyguards of a Saudi prince who also happened to be staying there.

Why had the veil and segregation not prevented such behaviour? My Saudi acquaintances, many of them university graduates, argued strongly that, on the contrary, it was the veil and other social norms that were responsible for such widespread sexual frustration among Saudi youth. . . . “

Aug 31, 2009 - 12:59 pm 50. Moho:

Moho,

You still need to link to sources of information.

Just because you say something is so, or “everyone” knows it, doesn’t make it so.

So, a) please document the most recent case of homophobic violence in the US.

b) please comment on (and link to) instances of homophobic violence in Muslim countries.

Thanks.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:03 pm 51. Steve:

Moho wrote in #34:

“Jason S. [...] its obvious that you’re not very bright.”

(a) if you intend to baselessly mischaracterize another reader’s intelligence, you ought to demonstate knowing the difference between “its” vs. “it’s”

(b) if you intend baselessly mischaracterize another reader’s intelligence, you to out know the definition of an “ad hominem attack” — as mentioned in PJM’s rule #3, posted at the top of the comments section.

As for the topic itself: from time to time, my response to a feminist’s complaint of objectification in Western society would be to mention the option of a burka. I never realized anyone, much less Naomi Wolf, would take the suggestion seriously.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:05 pm 52. Jason S:

Moho-

“You are aware that homophobic violence is a fact of life in our society. The reality is that the homophobe attackers are never sure that the men are gay, only that they do not dress or act like others. Your ignorance of your own culture is astounding, but welcome. Better to have this kind of obtuse stupidity out in the open than always hidden from view.”

Astounding. Simply astounding. Who is it that needs to look at their own culture? Did Islam decide last night to embrace homosexuality and I am just not aware of it? I am glad to know that Islam is now the world’s bedrock for gay and women’s rights.

You are a riot. I needed a good belly laugh today – thanks.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:06 pm 53. digitalis:

Mrs. Moho: Did you just out yourself?

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:07 pm 54. Jason S:

45 Mouse –

He knows full well the personal attacks weaken his argument, but he cannot help himself. Self-restraint has never been a strong suit of the left, which is why their moral foundation is filled with exceptions and caveats, which is in turn the reason that Moho can argue that burquas are the equivalent of neckties with complete sincerity. Everything is relative – see how that works?

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:11 pm 55. Mouse:

Jason S.

Thanks for the heads-up.

I’m new here. Did I poke one of the resident trolls?

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:15 pm 56. Mouse:

To whom it may concern:

# 50 was me, not Moho. Typing with a baby in one arm impeded my accuracy. Apologies.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:16 pm 57. Lynn:

#47 Calvin Ball, yes your point is taken. Can anyone reason why a piece of cloth to protect one from the sun or sand would be perverted to mean something else?

It is strange to me that a covering so lechers can not see, would have been necessary especially with Mohammad and his cronies. They tended to snatch use and abuse whichever female caught their eye.

It seem hijabs and such are needed when other can’t control themselves. Yes lock up the victim so the perpetrator can walk freely about.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:18 pm 58. March Hare:

Lynn: “I like the school uniform analogy. Of course the little girls are always dressed in skirts or jumpers so they can never comfortably run, jump, somersault, or swing. And on a windy day, of course one must stand around clutching your clothing as to not let the corrupt breezes expose your shame.”

Odd… wearing a jumper never hindered my running, jumping, somersaulting, or swinging. Of course, that was in The Dark Ages (1960’s) and we girls wore shorts under our skirts.

Nowadays, school uniform options include pants and shorts for girls as well as skirts & jumpers. And the girls still wear shorts under their skirts (instead of slips), whether it’s a uniform skirt or not.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:47 pm 59. Anonymous:

Ultimate feminist choice? Only for self-loathing ones.

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:48 pm 60. Michael Reynolds:

But of course! What else would we expect from such a miserable fool?
“Four legs good – two legs bad! Baaa! Baaa!”

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:50 pm 61. RebeccaH:

I’ve never thought of “freedom” when I’ve seen those women wrapped up in shrouds. All I could ever think about is how horrible it must feel to be thought so unclean by your society that you have to cover yourself head to foot, even to the point of wearing gloves (presumably so the sight of female knuckles won’t drive some pure-hearted young Muslim man to lose control).

Aug 31, 2009 - 1:54 pm 62. Laura:

Naomi Wolf is a perfect example of where the feminist movement has lost all credibility. It has become all about promoting radical left politics and demonizing America, Israel and western civilization and not about the rights of women. Not only does Wolf and her supposed “feminist” cohorts refuse to condemn the oppression and brutality and violence against women in the muslim world, but she seeks to attempt to convince us of the orwellian notion that being covered up really means that muslim women are more liberated than we women in the west are and that it is their choice to cover up. Does she really think women in muslim countries are free to express how they really feel?

Aug 31, 2009 - 2:02 pm 63. Jason S:

Mouse #55 –

Babies, while cute and cuddly, impede our ability to type AND create an enormous carbon footprint without really contributing much to society. So do seniors for that matter. And cows.

Aug 31, 2009 - 2:03 pm 64. tanstaafl:

Yes lock up the victim so the perpetrator can walk freely about.

The whole idea of demanding an Islamic woman be “covered” in public is so that she won’t entice a man.

(well, there’s more, it’s part of the “control the woman” dimension of much Islamic culture)

Anyway, if she isn’t all covered up and, subsequently, is molested or worse, it is, of course, her fault.

Same for a young girl getting raped by an uncle or someone, it’s (very often) her fault, of course.

A story related by a sister in law of Osama bin laden when he came to her house and she opened the door, unveiled. He turned away in horror.

And all this brouhaha stemming from one single line in the Koran where Mohammed advised the household women to modestly cover their hair when the marauders came around. I think the point was to look un-tempting, as Mohammed was well-versed in the art of woman stealing.

Aug 31, 2009 - 2:11 pm 65. Calvin Ball:

This notion of liberation through heavy-handed rules and codes is eerily reminiscent of “Arbeit macht frei”. Who was that, again, who said that?

Aug 31, 2009 - 2:12 pm 66. John C.:

What can you say? The modern Left is all about the genocidal hatred of the West, and in their war of extermination against the West they’ll take any ally. That’s why you see leftists championing the mass immigration of Muslims to the West even though the mildest of those practicing Muslims is against everything the Left stands for, and will in the long run destroy the Left itself. It’s that last bit that’s important, Leftists are cultural suicide bombers dedicated to destroying the West at any cost, even at the cost of their own lives and beliefs. This is the real struggle. Conservatives are failures because they simply refuse to recognize that fact. To do so would destroy their safe, comfortable (and profitable) world.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:01 pm 67. Steve Sampson:

Thank you Omar, that was an excellent post and an opportunity to learn. I only meant to use satire as humor in my earlier post. There is not supposed to be humor in the Islamic world.

Do you find Moho to be an embarrassment to Islam?

You seem to be an example of the type of Muslim that could make peace in the world, good luck and G-d speed.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:05 pm 68. George S.:

thank you Phyllis for this excellent artical.

for those playing in the mud with the trolls, you may consider not engaging them as nothing good can come of it. they are ideologs and unable to debate with honesty.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:07 pm 69. NMSC:

One thing that strikes me more than anything about Wolf is just how naive she is. It’s not like she was born yesterday but she writes and acts as though she was! It amazes me the number of prominant writers, politicians, etc. who have so little life experience to back up their sweeping conclusions. Of course, this is why I will take Chesler’s (and Hirsi Ali’s, et. al) word for it any day over someone like Wolf. I like to know that my “feminist experts” have a little experience and wisdom under their belts. Now if we can just get CNN to stop calling Wolf and start calling Chesler when they need a feminist perspective.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:08 pm 70. Patrick Manshardt:

I can’t wait for Noami Wolf to next tell us that female circumcision is liberating. The cultural and moral reletivism of the left is always ready to turn the world upside down on a moments notice.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:20 pm 71. Moho:

Did Islam decide last night to embrace homosexuality and I am just not aware of it?

The point, as always, is look to your own culture first. Constantly fretting about what the Islamic world is up to when we have the worst rates of incest, pederasty, murder, rape, assault, drug use, spousal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, hate crimes, etcetera is the sport of idiots. I can’t imagine why you would think anyone would take your concern for the diverse and varied problems of Islamic societies serioulsy, when you obviously have no interest in the problems of your own. In other words, what a great way to out yourself as a loud-mouth do-nothing, focused with laser-like attention on problems you have absolutely no wasy to affect, while in complete denial of the ones in your own purview.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:25 pm 72. Hank Racette:

Ms. Wolf should read the portion of _Infidel_ in which Ayaan Hirsi Ali describes the horrific process which she and her sisters went through, the enlightened tradition of female “circumcision.” Maybe she could cook up a new spin on this atrocity, which is inflicted on untold young women every year.

Liberal apologists like Ms. Wolf betray the hundreds of millions of women who are, today, the true victims of chauvinistic brutality. It’s tragic, and repulsive.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:25 pm 73. Moho:

Do you find Moho to be an embarrassment to Islam?

Of course, this is important. Because the opinion of your token Arab/Muslim outweighs any and all considerations. Just like the election of Michael Steele to supreme leader of your movement means that Republicans don’t have a race problem. What a bunch of rubes.

Aug 31, 2009 - 3:27 pm 74. Good Ole Charlie:

Moho:

So you’re a unbleached muslin? Thought so…

What ever happened to the quaint notion of human dignity in the Muslin World(tm)? Or is it Dignity For Us But Not For Them??

For stomach-turning sexuality I give you the Arabic Male. Do you happen to be an A-rab, pal? Thought so…

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:07 pm 75. Laura:

“Constantly fretting about what the Islamic world is up to when we have the worst rates of incest, pederasty, murder, rape, assault, drug use, spousal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, hate crimes”
……………………………….
Wrong, its the islamic world which has the worst rates of the above. Not only that, but wife abuse, incest, rape aren’t even considered crimes. And murder being a crime depends on who is being murdered and the one doing the murdering. For instance a man can murder his wife or daughter for “dishonoring” him, a muslim can murder an infidel.

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:16 pm 76. Veiled Honor:

Omar, 49, is spot on! Before I lived in Saudi Arabia I considered the veil a cultural oddity and little more. I was not in the country that is the birthplace of Islam long until I understood that the ultimate purpose of the veil is to protect the seventh-century definition of men’s honor. In Saudi Arabia there are no social norms for relating to the opposite sex, resulting in the total separation of genders under the guise of protecting women from men who cannot, after all, be expected to restrain themselves from natural sexual urges. A disrespected or violated woman causes great dishonor to the men of her birth family. The veil is the means of gaining the respect of other men in that male-dominated culture while at the same time providing a measure of protection for women from them! Men are not dishonored by their own behavior, but by the perceived “immorality” of women in their families.
Dr. Chesler, thanks for the mention of my soon to be released book.

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:17 pm 77. Roderick Reilly:

#19 SteveB:

“”"” I don’t recall Obama taking any position on how women dress in Muslim societies. “”"”

Uh . . . Obama’s Cairo speech? You know, where he remarked on the appropriatness of female Muslim garb, or somesuch? You hadn’t heard/read that?

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:21 pm 78. patmanshardt.blogspot.com:

Why is it that only the “basely sexualizing . . . gaze” of Western men the only thing on the table? (This is a rhetorical question).

Anyone ever travel to East Asia? In the West, rules about male conduct toward women are written by females. In Asia, they’re written by men. (Not that I would complain, mind you) In China, a man can publicly grope a woman and the best she can do is smile and pretend to enjoy it. But of course this pales to conduct towards women the Arab world.

In Cervantes’ Don Quixote (written in 1605), there’s a part of the book where a muslim father allows his daughter to appear scantily clat before Christian men, under the rationale that Christians did not become uncontrollable at the sight of bare flesh.

Clearly, it is the West that has things to teach the East about treatment of women, but because poor treatment of women in the East is not within the Marxist politically correct narrative, it is conveniently whitewashed, minimized or ignored.

Tell MoHo to stick that in his … whatever.

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:22 pm 79. Kate:

She’s deranged.

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:25 pm 80. Roderick Reilly:

The most “liberating” thing about Burkhas is when terrorist men done them to escape an otherwise solid trap laid by American troops. It only works when they walk like girls.

Aug 31, 2009 - 4:27 pm 81. Steve:

It is a short step from the sublime to the absurd. To treat Muslim culture as politically correct is such a step.

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:13 pm 82. malclave:

“Many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualizing Western gaze.”

If a Muslim woman chooses to wear the traditional garb for those reasons, or really whatever reasons, then more power to her.

The problem is when she’s forced to wear it.

Moho, of course, prefers to subjugate women, to make himself feel like less of a gelding.

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:15 pm 83. thesix:

wolf is an idiot and this article demonstrates it perfectly. all i can say is, “wow.”

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:16 pm 84. McBride:

Moho what was it that galvanized Mullah Omar into action?Two warlords fighting to see who would be the one to deflower two twin boys from his village?So all the “Pretty boys” (they shave their faces and some even wear make-up,hence the name)that I saw in Afghanistan,and the muslim men propositioning U.S. troops to partake in the “Man Love Thursday” custom,weren’t there and never really happened?When I asked our interpreter what the guy was talking about,he said and I quote “women are for babies,boys are for fun”.Apparently this custom is wide spread through out the mid-east,but doesn’t get much press.To protect the muslim men’s “honor” no doubt.Now I know where you got your name from,the founding pederast himself.

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:28 pm 85. Mike2:

I suppose Naomi Wolf thinks it is liberating and the “ultimate feminist choice” as well to be stoned to death because a woman gets raped by her brother or uncle or cousin and of course it has to be her fault??

Wow, the drivel that comes out of the left these days!

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:43 pm 86. globalizer:

Can Phyllis, or anyone, help explain the great unmentionable elephant in the room, to wit, why so many secular, ethnic Jews are so eager to overturn Western, Christian culture–to the point that they are willing to ally themselves with misogynistic Islam? SDS was mostly ethnically Jewish, as are the ACLU, Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Apollo Project, and Obama’s Czar Corps. Our current Leftist government is staffed with them (Emanuel, Axelrod, Orszag, Bloom, Sunstein, etc. etc.) Many are children or grandchildren of real, old-fashioned 1920s,30s, 40s and 50s Communists. To those of us who have studied our Russian history, the onslaught really looks like the second coming of Bolshevism. (And, re Feminism, recall that the patron saint, Betty Friedan, was an ethnic Jewish Communist, too.) Can’t someone explain to those folks that American Christians really are not Czarist agents, nor did we cause the Pogroms? Why are they so eager to take out their revenge on us?

Aug 31, 2009 - 5:56 pm 87. kadams:

naomi wolf = drivel of an unemployed unsellable author.

Aug 31, 2009 - 6:04 pm 88. Dark Eden:

Let me guess… honor killings are very pro feminist too, right?

Aug 31, 2009 - 6:04 pm 89. Huntingmoose:

Perfect example why drugs and pot are so bad for you

each time you consume you become a bigger moron

i think we should exclude potheads from voting

Aug 31, 2009 - 6:29 pm 90. Dr Praxis:

Women covered head to toe make me hot. Real, real hot. Ms. Wolf might even get me going were I to see her covered head to toe in a burka.

Of course she’d have to carry a sign or something so I’d know it was her.

Aug 31, 2009 - 6:31 pm 91. Moho:

For stomach-turning sexuality I give you the Arabic Male.

I assume you’re speaking of the enormous endowment that we Arab Males are known for. Some of your women have indeed claimed that it often felt that it was reaching the stomach–hence your stomach turning comment. I had no idea that men such as you fantasized about it, but do as thou wilt. I have no problems with it. Imagine how it turns your stomach to the extent your pants allow.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:14 pm 92. Moho:

McBride thank you. Until this moment, I did indeed think that the Arab world was the only place where gay men existed. However, your constant focus on gay sexual themes leads me to believe that there may be many so called American straight men hiding a deep core of sexual man-lust within them. I for one congratulate you on your bravery. From what I’d heard, the people of your culture drag gay men from the back of their pick up trucks–even if they have conservative values! You are indeed a brave man, and I would be proud to call you a gay martyr when your countrymen come to torture and kill you.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:18 pm 93. hope4mankindinfreedom:

Why are all of the supporters of President Obama obsessed with legitimizing a Faith that openly practices slavery and advocates ethnic hatred?
It is kind of scary.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:29 pm 94. Leila:

It is so nice the way Muslim men never look at women in a sexual way. Why can’t all men be like that?

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:34 pm 95. Pragmatist:

This is what Winston Churchill said about Islam note the very pertinent words about OWNERSHIP of women. I wonder if our little air head Ms Wolf even knows about Islam at all apart from the pretty clothes. He was also pretty smart when it came to moonbat ‘libtards’ too of which ‘femenists are just a branch.

Winston Churchill,said : “Any man who is under 30, and is not a liberal, has no heart; and any man who is over 30, and is not a conservative, has no brains.”

Winston Churchill said, “An appeaser is one who feeds a crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.”

“How dreadful are the curses which Islam lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live.

A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property‹either as a child, a wife, or a concubine must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Muslims may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it.

No stronger retrograde force exists in the world.

Far from being moribund, Islam is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science -the science against which it had vainly struggled -the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome.”

~~ Sir Winston Churchill~~

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:36 pm 96. Pragmatist:

MOHO is an ARAB so that explains all the JEW HATING. So there you have it everyone dont trust ANY Arab.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:37 pm 97. Pragmatist:

By the way MOHO the Mohammedan can you explain one of the MANY things that puzzles me about Islam. In this life you punish Gays the Iranians even hang them.. But in the great ‘knocking shop in the sky’ which is Islamic paradise the men are provided with’Pearly Boys’ to comfort them so why the HYPOCRISY?

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:40 pm 98. Hank:

truepeers — The Naomi who has a husband at Al Jazeera, Naomi Klein, another looney leftist.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:41 pm 99. Calvin Ball:

dont trust ANY Arab.

Hold on to your britches, junior. If you can’t see what’s wrong with that, go put the dunce hat on, sit on the stool in the corner, and think about it.

Aug 31, 2009 - 7:45 pm 100. McBride:

So mohomed should I interperate that last response as a wink,wink,nod,nod,say no more?

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:06 pm 101. Colonel Neville:

Dear Phyllis: This is why we value and love you, the empirical facts and your courage in presenting them. And this is why we despise the laughable dangerous bankrupt moral gymnastics of a logical fallacy bankrupt like Naomi Wolf, an affluent clown, and a Marxist product sodden leftard liberal dhimmi boob in fraudulent clothing. While there are people like you and zombietime etc, I neverhave to woryy about reting from my shabby blogging. Colonel Neville blogspot com. [Rtd from blogging.]

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:12 pm 102. Hanan:

Naomi Wolf needs to grow up and get a clue. Salwar Kamiz are not at all on par with burkas, chador, abayyah, etc. They are in fact beautiful clothing that feels seamless and come in so many different varieties it is mind boggling. They also come in lightweight material to give relief against hot weather. I’m not an Indian or Pakistani and I love wearing them. Beautiful, comfortable, wearer friendly. And best of all, those who disagree are free to decline donning them.

On the other hand, Iran, e.g., forces ALL women to cover their heads and bodies whether Muslim or not, and periodically the local clothing police go on rampages to punish women for “bad hijab.” There’s no choice in this, Naomi, and Iranian women who would like to be able to choose what they like, just as you did on your little school field trip, are often jailed (or worse) for their opinions and clothing selections.

yes, many women do like the big black bags. Great, good for them. I wonder how many of them would keep wearing them after years of freedom to choose had been implemented, but ok, fine, let them wear those mobile prisons. making an argument for forcing women to wear them, however–and that’s what some governments do, wake up Naomi–based on reasoning individual women don’t support, subscribe to or swallow, is the kind of freedom of choice you supposedly are fighting for back at home?

I’m simply amased and disgusted at how you can survey the American landscape and find it oppressive whilst seeing nothing amiss in Islamic countries. is America perfect? Certainly not. But at least we are free to discuss openly how to remedy our problems and people aren’t policed on (for God’s sake) what to *wear* because some foolish woman writer thinks Muslims don’t commit rape, murder, sodomy, robbery, mental abuse, etc.

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:20 pm 103. BettyBlue:

Uh, Moho? How do you get from the fact that businessmen aren’t stoned for not wearing neckties, to your ranting about homophobia, and attacks on gay men?

I do not see the connection.

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:54 pm 104. seanmahair:

Mo ho said:
//I assume you’re speaking of the enormous endowment that we Arab Males are known for//

Actually since an Arab Male’s most favored plaything is a goat I’m reasonable sure the equipment needed for that is a size extra small. This is of course twice as big as his brain which is exponentially bigger than what passes for honor in his culture.

All kidding aside. I have little faith there is anything virtuous, of good report or praiseworthy in men who systematically, rape, abuse and dehumanize the women they supposedly care for but hey I just a stupid infidel who needs someone to beat her daily, so what would I know.

Aug 31, 2009 - 8:59 pm 105. BettyBlue:

In fact, I confess—I don’t see much connection in anything Moho says. (But he’s good for a laugh.)

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:01 pm 106. Moho:

McBride. As I said, interpret whatever you want however you want. Just make sure you clean off your keyboard later so that your wife’s fingers don’t stick to the keys.

By the way, for the rest of you. I’m embarrassed for you all to have to say this, but when one has no shame about what one is–be that Arab, Gay, Female or whatever–and when one accepts people for what they are in the same context, there’s really no way such insults come off as anything other than pathetic. I see a bunch of scared, bigoted closet-cases trying desperately to find a way to find legitimacy for their hatred. That’s your movement. I hope you’re happy.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:12 pm 107. Moho:

Calvin Ball–>
I’ll give you points for being a human vertebrate. But this whole thread is rife with the bs. You people are disgusting cowards, flocking to this psychologically damaged woman’s blog in order to legitimate your racism. It doesn’t fool anyone.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:23 pm 108. JR:

Proof that Wolfe, the supposed consumate feminist, really is just a democratic party SHILL.

Any feminist that can argue for the veil should turn in her NOW card and go hide her head in shame.

As a woman, I truly mean that. It’s all about selling her politics and has nothing at all to do with reasoned thinking. Naomi went around the bend years ago. She needs to just shut up at this point.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:25 pm 109. Judy, NYC:

i suggest naomi wolf slip into a tight pair of american style jeans. those loose rags enable overstuffing, ponderous belly, big fat thighs and veils, mustaches. it’s not pretty. and in wolf’s case, uh oh, too late.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:38 pm 110. Leaning Straight Up » Hey! Those Burqa’s and scarfs the Muslim women wear are really feminist or something:

[...] Phyllis Chesler sets her straight: Now that Wolf is no longer the doe-eyed ingenue of yesteryear, she sees the advantage of not being on view at all times. A Westerner, “playing” Muslim-dress up, Wolf claims that hiding in plain view gave her “a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.” In addition, Wolf believes that the marital sex is hotter when women “cover” and reveal their faces and bodies only to their husbands. [...]

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:56 pm 111. C. anderson:

Cozying up to Muslims helps Obama’s Mid-East agenda. However, Wolf plays herself for the fool because freedom-loving people know oppression when they see it.

Aug 31, 2009 - 9:58 pm 112. debbiesm:

I wonder how Naomi would feel if she had to cover herself in a burka all the time, for years on end. Perhaps then she would have a different opinion.

If you only wear it a little, it’s like wearing a Halloween costume, isn’t it? Fun and offbeat, but never oppressive.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:00 pm 113. Paul:

One of the more grisly practices that Arab culture imposes on its women is something that was not mentioned in Ms.Chesler’s fine article. Forced clitorectomies are very common in the Arab-Islamic world. How does Naomi Wolf want to put a happy face on that? I believe that according to Mrs. Murbarek (the Egyptan President’s Wife)
an actual majority of Muslim women in Egypt undergo this procedure.

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:28 pm 114. Thomas:

@86. globalizer:
You said:
“… those of us who have studied our Russian history, the onslaught really looks like the second coming of Bolshevism.”

You are right, but Americans cannot comprehend it’s essence: connecting ethnicity with particular cultural traits or customs is “un-PC” and severely censured in this society: it’s regarded as manifestation of pure Evil.

According to prevailing leftist dogma, there are absolutely no differences between nations and ethnicities; – the Greeks are not different from the Swedes and – apart from their skin color – Swedes are the same as the Zulus.

It’s called cultural relativism and part of the neo-Marxist mantra that holds strong, inescapable grip on this nation.
Eastern Europe however is different story because forebears of the individuals you introduced in your post, started their bloody Bolshevik rampage on the East from the Rhine river some 100 years ago, hence the people’s deep seated, reflexive aversion toward that particular ethnic group.

No wonder most of them ended up in the States as respected scholars, univ. profs, intellectuals! ha, ha and in turn, irreversibly poisoned whatever they set their sight on.

Unlike other places where people resisted their bloody rule, America is a fruit that fallen into their grip effortlessly. Now emboldened more than ever, they are ready to destroy this country in order to “Make it Perfect.”

Aug 31, 2009 - 10:39 pm 115. Moho:

Forced clitorectomies are very common in the Arab-Islamic world.

They may be very common in your imagination, but not in the Arab-Islamic world. If you have some proof or data to back up your fantasy, then provide it.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:15 pm 116. Noah David Simon:

where else did you think feminism would go? it was all about the identity ideas from the get go. did you assume that this kind of thinking could not justify abuse?

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:20 pm 117. Beema:

Phyllis, this article is spot as I can speak from my own experiences of living in the ME for many years. Strange as it seems, I have a very close relative who has taken up an identical post to that mentioned for the SA Air Force. This relative’s view of the country and its ideology has caused many an argument, me speaking from experience, this person from ignorance -I now await his future comments particularly as his first three months in the ‘magic kingdom’ proved utterly frustrating and disastrous partly due to terms of contract not being adhered to, in other words he has been lied to, something else I have experienced many times in this part of the world, as after all lying to the ‘infidel’ (a name given to us by muslims, who are of other religious persuasions and which I will therefore not use for myself) is permitted in islam – a very important point that all should remember when listening to interviews etc. I will look forward to reading MARY ROSS’S BOOK with relish! Women in the muslim world, particularly in the ME, spend their days preening at the beauty parlour and this is done in order that they can be permanenty de-fuzzed, clean and ready for any eventuality at any time of the day or night and if she is ‘not able’ to perform, the temporary wife is always permitted. People in the West need to start learning about the real islam as practised by devout followers and it is not nice to put it mildly. (Princess by Jean Sassoon will tell it all and is co-written by a Saudi princess). Regarding the importing of prostitutes, this is done all over the ME, so to anyone who is sceptical, listen to those who know instead of decrying the TRUTH. It used to be Russian prostitutes in Dubai, but current tastes are unknown to me but I have absolutely no doubt that it stil goes on. In London, where I come from, taxi drivers will tell you that they are often requested by Arabs to make a first stop to prostututes when being picked up from Heathrow – Islam allows it.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:29 pm 118. Persia:

Hello England’s Queen(s)! I could not even finish reading the Article that I am on the Floor warmly laughing. Thank you Phyllis Chesler for being there and for writing right What you’re writing. It is amazing How other Kind of Women (like the “Anti-Wrinkles-Burqa” Fans and the “Slave-is-Cool!”) can be – sorry – Silly! I love the Fact that there are (pulic) Clever, Bravehearted and Alive Women like you. Thanks G-d for that! [This is the only Thing which makes me praise G-d and Its Creation: otherwise - Altogether - I feel G-d created (still creating?) an inconsistent Trash]. Light, Love & Life to you, All.

Aug 31, 2009 - 11:49 pm 119. The Shadow:

Most feminists such as Wolf are Reds first, women second, and human beings last.

Marxists have long yearned for a vanguard that would help them destroy Western civilization and in Islam they have found that vanguard.

It is essays like this from leftists such as Wolf that prove that Socialism is a mental illness and the only cure is death.

Sep 1, 2009 - 12:46 am 120. truepeers:

#98 Hank

Thanks for correcting me. I’m bad with names.

Sorry, Naomi, I need faces or I’m lost.

Sep 1, 2009 - 12:51 am 121. Omar:

“Apologists for Evil”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4FpTvp0tgs

(The Anti-Burqa rant starts around 4:00)

Sep 1, 2009 - 1:34 am 122. fred:

If you only wear it a little, it’s like wearing a Halloween costume, isn’t it? Fun and offbeat, but never oppressive.

American fire standards need to ban the burka.

Smoking a cigar,
standing next to a hot stove,
or even living in California could cause spontaneous combustion.

Sep 1, 2009 - 2:05 am 123. Pragmatist:

Calvin YOU can trust Arabs if you want to but I have met very, very many Arabs in business and lived in and visited many Arab countries and I am yet to find a trustworthy one. Maybe I have just ben unlucky but I dont thinks so. But hey I am not a PC MC moonbat like you seem to be with my head in the sand and my arse in the air.

Sep 1, 2009 - 3:08 am 124. Pragmatist:

Calvin YOU can trust Arabs if you want to but I have met very, very many Arabs in business and lived in and visited many Arab countries and I am yet to find a trustworthy one. Maybe I have just been unlucky but I dont thinks so. But hey I am not a PC MC moonbat like you seem to be with my head in the sand and my arse in the air.

Sep 1, 2009 - 3:15 am 125. Martin Knight:

Paul #113

Speaking as a Muslim, I think you’ll find that clitorectomies are not an Islamic practice – in fact, as far as Islam is concerned it is forbidden – bid’ah (innovation in religion – which is a very serious sin indeed).

I think you’ll find that in the places and cultures where they practice these things (i.e. forced marriages, cliterectomies and burqa wearing) these are long held traditions that often predate Islam.

Islam expressly forbids marrying people without both parties’ consent, is agreed by top scholars to be against cliterectomies (because a woman should enjoy sex – it is actually a specific religious injunction upon all Muslim men to ensure that their wives are satisfied and it is a valid ground for the woman to seek a divorce if her husband does not do so), and there is no ruling that says women should cover their faces.

Sep 1, 2009 - 3:59 am 126. Rick:

Why is moho/homo allowed to make any comment he/she likes, but I, as a patriotic American, am censored when I try to respond to it’s continuous fecal statements? Is political correctness becoming the norm here ?

Sep 1, 2009 - 4:02 am 127. Garnet:

Naomi Wolf is misguided, but for future reference, Ms. Chesler: “incest” is not a verb, and donning a burqa obviously does not make these women “literally ghosts.” Please stop overheating your prose.

Sep 1, 2009 - 4:38 am 128. paul_unalaska:

Moho – I see you’re exceeding you’re troll quota for the day. ‘Eggcellent.’

You go onto list myriad of atrocities the U.S. leads regarding violence. I’m ’sure’ you’ve done the research and found all those incidents involved only white, North American born males, right? None of these incidents involved South American, Central American, Mexican, European, Asian, Middle Eastern, et al. transplants, right? You’re absurd.

The ‘Land of the Plenty’ allures all walks of life, suffice to say. Why, an ignorant person like yourself resorts to namecalling people as bigots, racists, homophobes, stupid, et al, on the computer. For you, that’s empowering. Pathetically true.

As for your dig on Ms. Chesler’s article, I suggest you do yourself a favor and not read it. You know, something taught to us when ~8 years old. Your idiotic scribblings are as insightful, helpful as if I decided to frequent DailyKos, Huffington Post or other like minded blogs.

The number of trolls on right leaning sites far outnumber the alternative. Apparently you’re truly that lonely for attention, albeit positive or negative. That be the case, I suggest you seek some help. Your ‘I’m here to insult people’ is counterproductive. I don’t believe Mohammed would approve. Heck, a pimply faced 13 year old wouldn’t understand nor approve.

Better yet, make your own blog and invite like minded people. You know, what this site offers, without the tiresome, ignorant banter you espouse.

Oh wait, I got it. Instead of sounding like a boob, go to college or like institution of higher learning. This way you’ll meet people from different cultures, societies, social networks and learn to speak with people from differing opinions, experiences. Not chastise those who disagree. It’s called dialogue.

Honestly, seek an education of SOME kind. With the hopes of being able to possess patience, knowledge to carry on a lucid discussion. The alternative isn’t productive nor relevant.

Sep 1, 2009 - 4:38 am 129. paul_unalaska:

I found this to be an interesting read on the Middle Eastern report site regarding some Middle Eastern men’s views on homosexual practices.

http://www.merip.org/mer/mer206/bruce.htm

Sep 1, 2009 - 4:45 am 130. Mike2:

86. globalizer:

Yes! Good post on the background of many American Jewish leftists. Now it appears that Obama’s actions against Israel is causing some pushback against the left in mainstream Jewish organizations. About time.

Sep 1, 2009 - 5:12 am 131. larry:

This is what lesbians do, their disability obsesses them into senseless outbursts, in this case she fantasizes this will get back at all those white males that have oppressed the fruits for years, and in his mind, Al Gore’s lisp excuses him from such behavior.

Sep 1, 2009 - 5:26 am 132. sue:

Big deal

American women think that eliminating their babies empowers them to have better careers.

What women in America impose upon their own children is far more vicious and barbaric that whatever happens in any Muslim culture.

We have no right judge, we are the butchers.

Sep 1, 2009 - 5:35 am 133. Lynn:

“I see a bunch of scared, bigoted closet-cases trying desperately to find a way to find legitimacy for their hatred. That’s your movement. I hope you’re happy.”

From your mouth to Mohammad’s ear. Yes from his grave, I think he is rolling with happiness. Fourteen centuries and the movement still going strong.

Sep 1, 2009 - 5:55 am 134. SYD:

I submit that … somehow, we Second Wave Feminists have gone very wrong in the upbringing and education of our Third Wave daughters.

I think it has to do with the message we sent that they “could do anything they want to.”

We meant well. Really we did. But… they have gotten the wrong message and Naomi is a perfect example.

Saudi and DNC goodies aside… From “you can be what you want to be” this young lady has extrapolated “all women are making free-will choices and we dare not question them.”

How do we get our daughters back? Or, is it too late??

Sep 1, 2009 - 6:02 am 135. Timothy Furnish:

Moho, are you in the pay of CAIR or just yet another of the Islamists’ useful trolls, er, idiots who works gratis? Forced clitorectomies are common in Sudan and Egypt, the latter of which certainly falls within the ambit of the “Arab-Islamic world.”
Imagine, dear readers, if you will, that a prominent right-wing commentator opined in support of, for example, the “liberating” values of, say, Amish long dresses and bonnets or Catholic nuns’ habits. Methinks Moho and his ilk would be less quick to defend the views of such “neanderthal Christians.” But of course in the Leftist mindset, Christianity and its offspring Western civilization are the only truly oppressive systems, whereas Islam and Islamic societies are ipso facto liberating by their very nature. That’s the reigning Leftist paradigm, and no injection of reality and logic will dislodge it.

Sep 1, 2009 - 6:28 am 136. UK: POlice searches for burqa-clad bandits « Tea and Politics:

[...] Men also want to feel sexy under a burqa. [...]

Sep 1, 2009 - 6:29 am 137. J-Man:

A Veil is progressive now? This coming from the group that thought bras were oppressive???

Sep 1, 2009 - 6:33 am 138. Moho:

I’m ’sure’ you’ve done the research and found all those incidents involved only white, North American born males, right? None of these incidents involved South American, Central American, Mexican, European, Asian, Middle Eastern, et al. transplants, right? You’re absurd.

This comment reveals about as much about you as anyone needs to know. Stupid, bigoted, barely literate, lacking any grasp of reason or ability to understand the world.

Sep 1, 2009 - 7:26 am 139. Thomas:

Geert Wilders FITNA! Learn about murderous Islam!

Watch the movie on you tube:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7967729051644802984

The true face of Islam by a valiant Dutch defender of our civilization against these invading hordes.

Sep 1, 2009 - 7:50 am 140. Rashputin:

I’ve been mulling over this article and reading the comments from the usual suspects who parrot the liberal line, and I’ve reached an important conclusion.

It’s obvious why the left thinks even the most horrible rap music is an art from, the women on the left love the idea of someone overpowering them, raping them, smacking them around, and in general treating them like a Ho. Whatever liberal women say is good, liberal men will naturally agree is just great. To put in in liberal terms, maybe we should be listening to what liberal women “are really saying rather than what they’re verbalizing”.

No matter what line of crap some may parrot, anyone who finds some liberating feminist good in the Islamic treatment of women is not only mean, they’re probably insane as well. Even the parrots recognize that which is why they’re sinking to ever more rabid name calling here. They’re projecting what they think of Naomi onto those who disagree with her. Even a parrot can’t be that unbalanced, so they must be getting paid or rewarded somehow for continuing to defend the indefensible.

Regards

Sep 1, 2009 - 8:21 am 141. Timothy Furnish:

Hey Moho,
Still waiting for your response to my riposte. Can you bring something other than ad hominems to the fray?

Sep 1, 2009 - 8:43 am 142. Ronnie Schreiber:

I wonder if Naomi Wolf has ever been as apologetic for the gender roles of traditional Judaism as she is for Islam.

Sep 1, 2009 - 9:30 am 143. Moho:

Furnish. Control F Moho.

Sep 1, 2009 - 9:45 am 144. The Editrix:

Goodness, aren’t you shooting at a sitting duck? Chesler said pretty much everything that is to say about Wolf’s whisked mice droppings, and she wouldn’t be Chesler if she wouldn’t say a tad too much. And here am I, thinking this is a CONSERVATIVE website. What about the fact that Chesler disses the traditional Western role of women and likens it to the role of Muslim women? For Chesler there is only one alternative to Islam: HER very own brand of feminism.

“In addition, Wolf believes that the marital sex is hotter when women “cover” and reveal their faces and bodies only to their husbands.” If you forget about the face bit, what is wrong with that? That is not Islamic, but something that should be held high where conjugal faith and honest women are valued.

Oh by the way, did I ask whether this is a CONSERVATIVE site?

But this is best: “Now that Wolf is no longer the doe-eyed ingenue of yesteryear, she sees the advantage of not being on view at all times.” That is first an assumption and second an ad hominem, and to both an academic ought not to stoop, even if she is doing a journalist’s job here. It sounds more like the post-climacteric bile of a jealous old crone. However feverishly she may be “anti-Islam”, Chesler is STILL the one who said: “mother-women give up whatever ghost of a unique and human self they may have when they ‘marry’ and raise children” (quotes in the original), and the anti-jihad movement must be pretty desparate if they embrace somebody like her.

Feminists won’t save the West, folks! NO feminist will.

Sep 1, 2009 - 10:11 am 145. myth buster:

I don’t doubt that many of these girls do like wearing the burka. I don’t care. It would be fine if they were wearing burkas of their own free will, without duress, but so long as women are beaten, raped or killed for not wearing one, it is a form of oppression.

As for this not being a part of Islam, that is in itself an indictment of Islam. Even if Islam does not specifically endorse things like honor killings and clitorectomies, it does tolerate them. When Christianity spread through Europe, Christianity didn’t embrace human sacrificial rites performed by pagans, nor tolerate their continued existence. Rather, the Christians banned those practices and saw to it that these abominations stopped. If Islam is so noble, why does it not even try to eliminate this brutality?

Sep 1, 2009 - 11:00 am 146. whyyeseyec:

Michael Savage is correct. Liberalism is a mental disorder. There is no other rational explanation for their behavior and thoughts…

Sep 1, 2009 - 11:27 am 147. Lili von Shtupp:

Ah, Naomi, you took the easy way out! You played dress up in a relatively relaxed country. No one was likely to whup yer ass if you didn’t wear it.

Why don’t you give a burka a spin in Saudi Arabia, on a July day, preferably around 1 pm? (No ducking into an air-conditioned shopping mall, either. Take a nice long stroll down the street. And remember….no driving yourself downtown!) Yep, it’s a bit more extreme than what even the locals wear, but I doubt their religious police will disapprove.

If your hubby works for Al-Jazeera, I’m sure they could pull a few strings and get you into Riyadh for a bit. If playing dress-up like a little girl in Morocco freed you from being a sex object (which, ironically enough, you did everything you possibly could do in your now fleeting youth to be taken FOR a sex symbol), just imagine how ecstatic you would be after an hour long stroll in this most liberating costume of all!

(BTW, she’s too late to the party if she wants to extol female circumcision. Germaine Greer beat her to it years ago, and she’s a far better writer.)

Sep 1, 2009 - 12:00 pm 148. Die Burka: ultimative feministische Wahl? « abseits vom mainstream – heplev:

[...] Die Burka: ultimative feministische Wahl? 1. September 2009 at 21:04 | In Geistesgrößen, die Welt+Islam | Leave a Comment Tags: Linke Phyllis Chesler, 31. August 2009 [...]

Sep 1, 2009 - 1:04 pm 149. Merivel:

What looks from Western men? In London, it is not the Western men that stare, not even the proverbial builders who are supposed to wolf- whistle at “anything female that moves”. Guess which men stare lasciviously, as if they never saw, let alone touched a woman? Those stares are so intimidating, that I can well imagine all women having to cover themselves sooner or later in London areas where Western men constitute a minority, just to get home in peace.

Sep 1, 2009 - 1:37 pm 150. Blackwater:

We should force her to wear one in the middle of summer in the desert and beat her and threaten to rape and kill her if she complains. Then maybe she’ll wise up. Also it will be illegal for her to talk to men who aren’t her husband and it will also be illegal to date or marry a non-muslim man. And she won’t be able to leave the house or travel without her husbands permission who has 3 other wives. And oh yeah, if she tries to go to school we should throw acid in her face. She also will have to obey every single thing her husband says and does if she doesn’t want to be beaten. And her testimony in a court of law will be worth half that of a mans. Let’s see how she likes all that.

Sep 1, 2009 - 3:55 pm 151. James:

I have a lot of adult students from the Middle East. Many of the non-Muslims among them refer to women in chadors as “mail boxes”.

So, while women in those scary costumes may not be viewed as SEX objects, they are definitely viewed as objects.

Sep 1, 2009 - 7:51 pm 152. MiamaMan:

[86. globalizer:

Can Phyllis, or anyone, help explain the great unmentionable elephant in the room, to wit, why so many secular, ethnic Jews are so eager to overturn Western, Christian culture–to the point that they are willing to ally themselves with misogynistic Islam? SDS was mostly ethnically Jewish, as are the ACLU, Soros’s Open Society Institute, the Apollo Project, and Obama’s Czar Corps. Our current Leftist government is staffed with them (Emanuel, Axelrod, Orszag, Bloom, Sunstein, etc. etc.) Many are children or grandchildren of real, old-fashioned 1920s,30s, 40s and 50s Communists...}

Globalizer, you forgot the one and only Noam Chomsky.

Anyhow, this has been discussed 'round here many times. Let it be explained by a great Jew himself, the one that The Gipper gave the Presidential Medal of Freedom shortly before his death, Eric Hoffer, who, in his opus "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements", page 44, wrote:

"Thus the modern Jew became the most autonomous of individuals, and inevitably, too, the most frustrated. It is not surprising, therefore, that the mass movements of modern times often found in him a ready convert. The Jews also crowded the roads leading to palliatives of frustration, such as hustling and migration. He also threw himself into a passionate effort to prove his individual worth by material achievement and creative work".

Sounds familiar?

- Soviet leaders inordinately Jews: Kaganovich, Litvinov, Kamenev, Trotsky, Yagoda, Zinoviev, and on, and on.
- At first they flocked to Mussolini's fascism.
- They would have made great Nazis if antisemitism was not part of the Nazi platform.
- Now the flock to Obamanation, to help Acorn, for "change" and the "future" and "to help the poor" ha, ha, ha.

Sep 1, 2009 - 8:06 pm 153. Bookworm Room » Obama again celebrates putting women in hijabs and niqabs:

[...] would benefit from reading Phyllis Chesler’s response to her inane article, in which Chesler emphasizes the reality for the vast majority of those Muslim woman wrapped up in [...]

Sep 1, 2009 - 8:26 pm 154. Bronson:

Lynn at 8:40 on Aug 31 mentioned “Cover up ladies! Your just too hot for them. Men would not be able to control themselves with your unimagined beauty! Oh! your hair, your neck, your elbows, your knees, your ears, all horrible temptations for the uncontrolled desire of the lecherous western male who can’t treat you like a ‘real’ person.”

This cover up custom points not to the uncontrolled desire of western males but to that of Muslims males. If western males were the problem then muslim women would only cover up in western countries but that isn’t the case. The custom was imported from muslim countries.

After 1400 years of benefiting from the true religion they are still as lustful as a dog that catches the smell of a bitch on heat. But what can one expect when their religion encourages the to view women as having unassailable power over them by means of the sexual power.

Their crowning glory, i.e. the woman’s hair, represents that power, so the men must be shielded from it. The power of Self control is something they decline to strive for.

Sep 1, 2009 - 8:27 pm 155. Bohemond:

Ah, so Mojo is a Muslim! Well, that explins a lot. Like his psychopathic need to attack, assault, wound (to the extent he can with a mere keyboard)- and his general hatred of all that is good and decent.

And his taqqiyah- trained mind can’t help spewing such utter tosh as “we have the worst rates of incest, pederasty, murder, rape, assault, drug use, spousal abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, hate crimes, etcetera” He can’t help it. A complete lie, but as a good little Muslim he knows that lying to the infidel is not only permitted but encouraged.

BTW, Moho, you might want to check out the incidence of rape in Malmo, Swedwen, over the last decade as it became a colony of the Ummah. Especially the most common “defense” offered by the Religion o’ Peace perps- “all Western women are whores, so it isn’t rape.”

As far as I’m concerned, wearing burqa/chador/niqab publicly in the West is as blatant, and odious, a form of nonverbal hate speech as a Klan hood or a swastika armband- except the hate billboard is not directed at any particular minority, but to all Americans, all Westerners, all humanity. Such women (or the men who force their chattel so to do) should either doff their body-bags along with their Dark Age shit-culture and join the civilized world, or go home to whatever flyblown Sharia hellhole spawned them.

Sep 1, 2009 - 9:16 pm 156. Moho:

As for this not being a part of Islam, that is in itself an indictment of Islam. Even if Islam does not specifically endorse things like honor killings and clitorectomies, it does tolerate them. When Christianity spread through Europe, Christianity didn’t embrace human sacrificial rites performed by pagans, nor tolerate their continued existence.

Oh my god. You are a dangerous idiot. I just hope that no woman has been hard up enough to let you impregnate her. The thought of your genes replicated in even the smallest dose sends shivers up my spine.

Sep 1, 2009 - 10:16 pm 157. Moho:

but hey I just a stupid infidel who needs someone to beat her daily, so what would I know.

Your low opinion of yourself may explain some of the treatment you’re complaining about from American men. You don’t have to take it sister, there’s thousands of abuse lines in America for some reason. I don’t understand why, since apparently all of the abuse is done by Arab men. But someone was thinking ahead, just in case American men might on the slightest off chance mistreat a female. You’re in luck!

Sep 1, 2009 - 10:19 pm 158. Andreas K.:

In Germany the so called “feminists” and others usually say that the burqua is a symbol of religious self-determination worn by muslim women in Germany.

Because muslim women are given a choice? Yeah. Right.

I’ve reached the conclusion that most “feminists” today are just wannabes. They’re “feminazis”. They don’t care about women. If they would, why are all those feminist organizations silent when yet another girl is brutally murdered by her family simply for wanting to live like western women? That happens all the time. They’re always silent. Why?

Because they don’t care about women. That’s why. They only care about their own power and influence over other women and about being able to say “We are right. We are always right.” They don’t care about choice either.

For me the true goal of feminism would be that the woman can chose her path without interference. Choice. That’s it.

I’ve read what German “feminists” say about women who chose to have children and drop their careers in favor of family. It’s disgusting. They’re behaving like nazis.

Is it really a surprise that they support burquas and other symbols of oppression? Is it really a surprise that they’re falling for lies, which they know to be lies? No, it’s not. Ultimately all they care about is power. And right now kissing up to islam is “in” among the left wing (well, it always was, the left and islam have a lot of things in common: oppression, the hatred of the Jews, etc)

But they never care about women.

I always say: if they’re so keen having this in our country, why not make them live in Saudi Arabia for a year and “enjoy” sharia law?

So we men sometimes see women as “sex objects”. Ok, I admit that. I do that too sometimes. Honestly people, what’s so bad when seeing an attractive woman and look after her thinking “Yep, she’s cute”. or whatever else? Looking isn’t so bad. I’m not going to run after her and rape her simply because of that (the one who will most likely do that is the muslim man, especially when the woman is not veiled, then it’s used as an excuse; that said, some time ago a Norwegian politician told women in Norway that if they don’t want to be raped by -muslim- immigrants, they should adapt to their dress code.)

But don’t think women are any different. I’ve worked with women a lot (often being the only guy in the group) and women are checking out men just like men are checking out women. I think it’s normal. It all comes from our “animal” part. We look for the one specimen of the other gender that may be the best choice for producing offspring (after all, we are still primates.)

As for pornography, well, it’s as old as mankind. Just like prostitution. The thing is, if someone choses to do this on her (or his, it happens) own free will, it’s fine. Who am I to judge? Forcing people to it is, of course, not right and should be fought wherever it’s found.

Back to the veiling.

It’s forced on women for no actual logic reason. All in the name of “religion”. And, of course, for men to execute power over women. How pitiful must a man be to need something like that?

The woman I love is strong, intelligent, independent, she knows what she wants in life. Such a woman is a billion times more attractive to me than a submissive doormat, like muslim men seem to like them. If we’d get married and she’d suddenly start behaving like Marabel Morgan suggests (I actually read the book years ago, it was horrible), I would ask her if she has gone completely mental.

Let me go back to the sex object for a second. I would never see the woman I love as a mere sex object. Why? Because she has personality. She has intelligence. The classic sex object for me is the typical bimbo. Pretty but stupid. And, honestly, what else are you supposed to do with such a woman, other than casual sex? Same can be applied the other way around. There are men who’re handsome but utterly dumb. Again, what else is one supposed to do with someone like that, other than casual sex?

I love that certain woman because there is more to her than just physical attraction. Without that she would be utterly uninteresting on the long run. Without her personality and her intelligence she’d be nothing of further interest.

You know, I still think it all comes from the simple fact that muslim men aren’t “real” men. Real men aren’t afraid of strong and independent women. We become friends with them, work with them and, who knows, marry them. And then we’ll have a bunch of kids with them, who are just as strong and independent as their mothers. Period.

By the way, before I end this long rant, I’ve long since decided that I want to take paternal leave once we have children. She will take maternal leave and if I can I will take paternal leave after her. Why? They are also my children. Parents come in pairs. We’re a team and teams work together. I have a certain responsibility towards my children as father. And well, I want to spend time with my children. Is that so bad?

Sep 1, 2009 - 11:46 pm 159. Gekkobear:

What a great day for feminism.

Finally Naomi has decided that she can’t be free while having to make all these tough decisions.

I’m sure if she weren’t allowed to drive, or to vote, or to hold a job, or go anywhere unescorted she’d be loving it. Finally free from the difficulty of needing to think for herself, and only needing to obey the directives of others she could really be free.

For a given value of “free” of course.

Sep 2, 2009 - 12:07 am 160. Why Naomi Wolf Loves the Burqa « NewsReal Blog:

[...] on behalf of persecuted Muslim women, has made mince meat out of Wolf’s arguments in her recent superb piece in Pajama [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 12:21 am 161. naomi wolf:

Ms Chesler, Naomi Wolf here. I hase sent you a personal email as well. Your piece is filled with falsehoods and misrespresentation of what I wrote, which you refuse to reproduce fully so readers can judge for themselves. It is a shameful set of flat out lies and I insist you correct the record. As you know well, I never said the burka is`sexy’ and do not promote it. As you know, my piece made the point that Muslim women face serious oppressions such as honor killigs and I noted that many Muslim feminists wish the West would focus on those issues rather than prioritize what they are wearing. I made the point that it is useful to listen to Muslim women rather than assume we know what is most meaningful to them. And I noted that many think that Western norms are oppressive. By the way, I did not advise Gore on what colors to wear — I was an advisor on wmen’s issues such as flextime and social security; and I do think the balance of your personal attacks on me are deeply unworthy of someone of your stature. I am happy to have a serious debate about these issues whenever you like but not based on falsehoods. You must correct this shocking mischaracterization of what I wrote at once and I am very disappointed to see you twist my words. Standing by to address this issue with accuracy and based on the written record – Naomi Wolf

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:58 am 162. MiamaMan:

Moho:

Du, kranken welpen IslamoSS. Paki nach hause kommen, bitte. Die Juden werden sie früher oder später, meine liebe. Ha, ha, tragen sie ihre Burqa mit stolz.

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:30 am 163. CJ:

Naomi,

Ms Chesler didn’t have to mischaracterize your words. She provided the link for us to read directly. I read your piece and Ms. Chesler hasn’t said anything that can be construed as inaccurate. Perhaps you were simply inaccurate in your descriptions and writing.

Why do you come in here saying that she refuses “to reproduce fully [your piece] so readers can judge for themselves” when the link is plain as day right here?! Could it be that you didn’t want your feminist, pro-burka stance so widely read?

Sep 2, 2009 - 9:45 am 164. Rashputin:

naomi wolf – (161)

If you think Ms Chesler mischaracterized your words you better check the link she provided. Maybe someone edited what you wrote prior to posting it and you’re looking at something that wasn’t actually posted. If that is not the case, then I’m afraid you didn’t do a very good job of saying what you intended to. I found that Ms Chesler fairly characterized your article and drew her conclusions and comments from it appropriately.

Furthermore, even in your statement that the article portrays your piece unfairly, you say we should listen to Muslim women on the topic in question. You must have been very selective in which such women you spoke with or whoever was introducing you to Muslim women was very selective in who they were introducing you to.

Rather than London, I suggest you visit Pakistan where women are regularly attacked and beaten, attacked and disfigured, violently raped, or murdered, for not wearing appropriate Muslim dress. Being able to decide to wear something and finding that choice liberating is all well and good, but being threatened with physical violence and rape for not doing so is a whole different matter. You’re ignoring that distinction in your effort to get with the, “Be Kind to Extremist Muslim Jihadist” program. How odd how you and others spin out articles related to Islam and Muslim society completely lacking in perspective as Ramadan approaches. Some might think it was your own personal payment to the Barbary Pirates.

Regards

Sep 2, 2009 - 10:25 am 165. Bob Smith:

Phyllis Chesler – well said.

Naomi Wolf – you are an intellectually corrupt, western hating, victimized whining feminist. You need a vacation. Try a few weeks is Saudi Arabia.

Sep 2, 2009 - 10:38 am 166. Sam:

“As you know, my piece made the point that Muslim women face serious oppressions such as honor killigs and I noted that many Muslim feminists wish the West would focus on those issues rather than prioritize what they are wearing.”

If you did, your editor deleted those portions, as no such things are mentioned in that article.

You mention that Westerners cite those coverings as repressive, but the only “oppression” you suggest muslim women are subject to is having to “[measure themselves] against the standards of models in magazines” or being “on display all the time”. At most you make a general suggestion at the very end of the article that “[I] do not mean to dismiss the many women leaders in the Muslim world who regard veiling as a means of controlling women.”, but there is not the least other hint of any other repression, and certainly no denunciation of it. Rather all you have is a denunciation of the West for considering veiling as repressive.

Maybe you should discuss the issue at length with said editor. That, or perhaps reconsider the “shocking mischaracterization” of the contents of your article that you are making. If instead you feel the need to “twist the contents” in the face of the “written record”, then one has to seriously question any assertions you make about your intentions with the piece.

Sep 2, 2009 - 12:30 pm 167. Nation of Cowards » Blog Archive » On The Utter And Complete Uselessness Of Modern Feminism!:

[...] slaps the endlessly odious Naomi Wolf due to Mz. Wolf’s endlessly inventive ability to stink up any venue whatsoever… The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 1:37 pm 168. Rebecca Cantrell:

As I have said, I have always hated being leered at by men, especially when I was young and “doe-eyed” and I wouldn’t mind having a socially acceptable way to send them this message. Also, I’ve been in situations that ended in heartbreak that might not have if people where allowed to have mulitiple marriage partners. As Naomi Wolf said, “choice is everything.” Muslim women can decide for themselves.

Sep 2, 2009 - 2:18 pm 169. Rory:

This article is filled with creamy, majestic pwnage. Viewing the monstrously repressive burqa as some sort of “freedom” for the women trapped underneath makes sense only if you consider not being beaten by your captors (the actual effect of removing your burqa, or going out unescorted) as a kind of freedom. The “nuanced” Stockhold Syndrome afflicting modern day so-called feminists who decide after 20 minutes of play-testing that Islamic repression of women “isn’t really that bad” is deeply alarming. I’ve never seen so many supposedly intelligent, educated, enlightened women try to defend a sadistic, medieval practice that isn’t even actually condoned or required under Islam! In other words, even the religion itself has nothing to do with it — a fact blissfully lost on the ranks of liberated Western women contorting themselves into knots to avoid “offending” another “culture”. In the rock-papers-scissors calculations of leftist thought, apparently Islamic religion trumps feminism, even for feminists. Of course they’d scream bloody murder if Christians tried the same thing, but that’s another post entirely.

Sep 2, 2009 - 3:02 pm 170. solsticewitch13:

Wolf is a moron,, another LIBTARD, who is a total dhimmi for the BARBARIANS!!

Muslim men,, are pigs,, they marry little girls,, they force women into GARBAGE BAGS!!
They cut up the most private flesh of little girls,, because they are so twisted about sex,
the natural interaction between the sexes.

These men are so twisted even a women’s hair,, is just too sexy for them,
and being the animals that they are,, they just cannot control it.

I am a harley rider,, I walk around in my bustiers, and tight jeans,,
and our CIVILIZED men in the west,, do not harrass or yell disgusting things
at me, the way these primitive people in the medieval east harrass women.

Heck,, where I live,, it’s LEGAL for women to walk around TOPLESS in public if we want.

Veiling is POLITICAL ISLAM folks,, they think they are BETTER than we are,, but the
truth is they are not.

Wolf is a DHIMMI, and is also a traitor to our very civilization. She probably believes,, the LIE, that islam is the religion of peace.

Islam is war,, divides the world into dar al islam and dar al harb (the land of war, infidel lands),
and I am SICK of their never ending WHINING,, time for the Infidel West to stand up and say ENOUGH!!!

solsticewitch13

LAN ASTASLEM

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:01 pm 171. Janis:

Hey, I have an idea — you know what would keep me from having to endure male leering?

BLINDFOLDS ON THE MEN. Howzatgrabya?

Why the hell should I be the one inconvenienced by habving to wear the blindfold HE needs on MY body?

Is that unfair to men? Well, why is it expected for girls to wear the stupid things if men are the ones who can’t control themselves? I guess this is too complex for Naomi’s tiny little addled brain to follow.

How about this: MEN STOP LEERING BECAUSE IT’S RUDE, and we all go ab out our normal daily lives.

Sep 2, 2009 - 4:12 pm 172. No Naomi Wolf, You Apologize « NewsReal Blog:

[...] No Naomi Wolf, You Apologize 2009 September 2 by Jamie Glazov Naomi Wolf is “simply appalled” at my “misrepresentation” of her disposition toward Muslim veiling on my recent NewsReal blog. She has asked my boss, David Horowitz, to “remove this falsehood from your site and correct the record.” She has also made similar demands of Phyllis Chesler, who has also touched on Wolf’s totalitarian odyssey in a recent Pajamas Media piece. [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 5:00 pm 173. Big D:

Let me take a quick inventory. Naomi Wolf, Maureen Dowd, Helen Thomas, Rosie O’Donnel, Sandra Bernardt…too many dried up, frustrated harpies to count. These shrews have no choice other than to project their own useless lives on the general population in a feeble attempt at “misery loves company”. Only in America could angry, talentless, bitter, ignorant, arrogant, self-absorbed twits like these enjoy success and freedom…so they attack the source of their wealth, success and freedom like the spoiled rotten brats they are. Their frustration stems from a catch-22. They are unpleasant, so they are not attractive to normal human beings, which makes them more bitter and unpleasant, which drives away even more normal human beings. Soon they are left ranting their bile at their fellow travelers, who lap it up, regurgitate it, embellish it and re-publish it in the lefty rags that only they read. They live in a toxic bubble of their own design. They are miserable, pathetic skanks. I hope they all have a steady supply of batteries. The only ‘men’ that would get near them are neutered metro-sexuals that enjoy being trampled on by tramps.

At least they are amusing in their insanity.

Sep 2, 2009 - 6:21 pm 174. Ellen K:

Pressing females to veils is forcing an unnatural condition upon them in order to reinforce male dominance and ownership. While I don’t object to hijab, chador is deliberately restrictive with the sole purpose being to make a woman invisible. Out of sight, out of mind. BTW, you may want to read up on the various cultural phenomenons related to women’s roles in Islamic nations. Many countries no longer allow work visas for young women going to Saudi because of the abusive nature of virtual slavery in all its nastiness. Once again, the role of women as nothing more that objects to provide pleasure, without rights or personality. And yet this religion looks the other way when well placed Muslims are violent, abusive and murderous toward their own wife and children. Nice culture, but think I’ll pass.

Sep 2, 2009 - 6:34 pm 175. Jenn:

Humorously, the Google ad that pops up on this page is for “Quality Jilbabs.” The site features a number of saucy Middle eastern ladies covered from head-to-toe.

Sep 2, 2009 - 6:46 pm 176. Steynian 379 « Free Canuckistan!:

[...] FEMINITWIT– The Burqa: Ultimate Feminist Choice? …. [...]

Sep 2, 2009 - 6:49 pm 177. Blackwater:

Didn’t she claim to have a vision while “meditating” where she turned into a 13 year old boy and sat next to Jesus?

Neurotic psycho much…?

Typical mentally challenged lib tard.

And LOL at wanting an apology. No YOU owe women EVERYWHERE an apology for protraying the plight of muslim women as “sexy”.

Moron.

Sep 2, 2009 - 8:17 pm 178. FreeMeNow:

I hate to trash another woman so I will not but I must say – she needs to understand that her opinion has been met with other opinions snd there is no way in hell she is going to win this one.
NO way! She needs to back off and thank God she got away as undamaged as she did! You were kind to say the least!

BettyJean

Sep 2, 2009 - 10:20 pm 179. Marion L.:

In graduate school, I learned to ask 3 main question about social phenomena:
1. Who pays?
2. Who benefits?
3. Who really decides?

Who pays for stringent gender-based dress codes? Ultimately, all women pay, even when individual “choices” within a larger system of contstraints are made.

Who benefits? – Patriarchal male officials – whether they push the abaya in
Saudi Arabia or unrealistic pressures to be a size two in the U.S.

Who really decides? – Until we eradicate misogyny, it will be men who really decide far more often than women.

Sep 2, 2009 - 10:48 pm 180. Patricia:

Folks, there is a great little video on YouTube called “Ban the Burka.” It’s the best commentary on this atrocity that I have seen – do check in!

Sep 3, 2009 - 12:41 am 181. A Wincingly Awful Article «:

[...] [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 2:02 am 182. arild:

Naomi Wolf:

1. That women ought to be titillating towards their husbands, indeed, that it is their “duty” to be so, is not an axiom of a “different cultural regime”, somehow morally equivalent to the “Western” regime.
It is one of those oppressive axioms TRUE feminists (unlike perverse traitors like yourself) from the 18th century fought against here in the West.

2. Women who need to clothe themselves into invisibility in order to feel “empowered” as individuals, are either sick, brainwashed individuals themselves, or surrounded by sick men.
You KNOW Naomi, that here in the West, whether you wear a bikini or a dressgown, or even being tucked up in winter’s clothing, the vast majority of men will treat you as an individual, and not only as a “sex object”.
Even when they are sexually attracted to you, they STILL regard you as an individual.

3. YES, Naomi, in a culture in which women are totally clad up, men will get dizzy at the sight of a little bit of skin.
If you do not understand that, I suggest you study debates on this from the Victorian age.
It is ALSO true that if men see an ABUNDANCE of female skin, they will get used to it, which is not the same as your ominous-sounding “reduced libido”.

They learn to COPE with the attractiveness of the naked female, in particular, they learn that one might well enjoy the sight, even signal that one enjoys it, but that anything more than that is “verboten”, unless the woman herself agrees to it.

This is what is called to mature into a healthy, adult male.

In contrast, Muslim males, due to the pathological veiling of their women, never grow beyond adolescence.

That a 13-14 year old boy’s dick hardens and splutters at the sight of just an allusion towards female nakedness is NORMAL, that this condition lasts for the rest of that individual’s life is deeply pathological.

So, you disgusting traitor of humanity, will you apologize for your vile article “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality” and rejoin the realm of decent human beings?

that is my challenge to you, Naomi Wolf.

Sep 3, 2009 - 4:45 am 183. arild:

To Naomi Wolf:
1. “Your piece is filled with falsehoods”
2. “and misrespresentation of what I wrote”
Name ONE of them, Ms. Wolf, if the article is so filled with it.

3.”which you refuse to reproduce fully so readers can judge for themselves.”
A direct LIE on your part, Ms. Wolf, since she reproduced a link to your article. I read that piece of yours.

4.”It is a shameful set of flat out lies”
What set of flat-out lies are you referring to?

5. “and I insist you correct the record.”
That would indeed be warranted, if your allegations 1,2+4 are justified.
6. “As you know well, I never said the burka is`sexy’”
Indeed you did not. Nor did Phyllis Chesler say you said this.

7.”and do not promote it.”
Indeed you did not. Nor did Phyllis Chesler say you did.

8.”As you know, my piece made the point that Muslim women face serious oppressions such as honor killigs”
A point Phyllis Chesler duly noted.

9.”and I noted that many Muslim feminists wish the West would focus on those issues rather than prioritize what they are wearing.”
Indeed. And Phyllis Chesler justifiedly attacked you for having that idiotic distinction.
Your insinuation, however, that “the West” prioritize condemnation of forced dress codes at the COST of not speaking about other oppressive features, is a flat out lie on YOUR part.
Even worse is your insinuation that Phyllis Chesler is engaged in such shameless prioritizing.

10.”I made the point that it is useful to listen to Muslim women rather than assume we know what is most meaningful to them.”
What Muslim women did you bother to listen to, Naomi Wolf?
Those that didn’t like the dress code imposed upon them?
They didn’t make it into your artivcle, at least.

11. “And I noted that many think that Western norms are oppressive.”
And? What is the relevance of that?
IS it oppressive that a Western women thinks nothing of one day to dress up in a bikini, and the next being demurely clad in a trouser+sweater outfit?
Should we even care what brainwashed Muslims think of this type of FREEDOM?

Sep 3, 2009 - 5:27 am 184. Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian:

I was one of the first bloggers to write a post about this piece: “Phyllis Chesler punksmacks Naomi Wolf — couldn’t happen to a nicer girl.” However, my trackback does not appear in the comments here. I have checked to ensure that I used the right link and procedure to trackback. It looks like I have. So I don’t know what the problem is. However, I provide photos of the shalwar kameez, chador (with a link so you can order yours today!) and burqa for readers who are interested.

I am skeptical that the Muslim women Wolf interviewed were in a position to say anything critical of their situation. It would be amusing to see if Wolf would be willing to spend a week in a burqa to explore how it affects her self-image and sexual relationship with her husband — and the random Muslim men who will feel entitled to kill or rape her if she gets any of the burqa/veiling requirements wrong in their presence.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:30 am 185. Runa:

@Lynda,
Its “shalwar kameez” or “Salwar kameez”.

There is no such garment as a “Kalwar shameez”.

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:37 am 186. The Chesler vs. Wolf Feminist Death-Match… | Little Miss Attila:

[...] Chesler responded to Ms. Wolf over at Pajamas Media, pointing out the obvious links between the women’s slavery [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 9:58 am 187. DavidN:

I don’t get the whole point of Wolf’s article. What’s the similarity between a western woman going to a relatively moderate, even liberal, Muslim country, and wearing a burqa for a week, and a woman who’s born into a society such as Saudi Arabia, where she has no choice as to what she wears, where she goes, what she does, and who she associates with, *FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE*!!!!!!! No choices, no options, no alternatives at all, just do what you’re told. It’s the functional equivalent of a journalist who wears prison garb for a week, and lives in a prison cell…at the end of his “research” for the article, he’s going home in street clothes. You maybe get a small inkling of what it’s like but the idea that you “understand” is ridiculous.

Sep 3, 2009 - 10:00 am 188. Calvin Ball:

Who really decides? – Until we eradicate misogyny, it will be men who really decide far more often than women.

In Muslim countries, yes. That excuse doesn’t work here. It’s entirely within the power of western women to control what western women wear, and what sizes they wear, etc. Don’t blame it on men when women chose to conform to the media’s idea of what men want.

And also, I think you left the media and the fashion industry out of this; they’re the ones making lots of money off of manipulating women into starving themselves into looking like adolescent boys. But it’s easier to blame “men” or “the patriarchy” or “misogyny” than actually thinking.

Sep 3, 2009 - 1:23 pm 189. “Feminist” Naomi Wolf thinks oppressive hijab garb is sexy « The Confluence:

[...] Phyllis Chessler of PamajasMedia very aptly sees Wolf as channelling Marabel Morgan, author of the 70’s guide for proper wives, The Total Woman. Marabel Morgan lives! In the mid-1970s, Morgan advised wives to greet their husbands at the door wearing sexy clothing and/or transparent saran wrap with only themselves underneath. Her book, Total Woman, sold more than ten million copies. According to Morgan, a Christian, “It’s only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him.” [...]

Sep 3, 2009 - 5:11 pm 190. Jamie Glazov is an intellectual heir of Eric Hoffer — Cynthia Yockey, A Conservative Lesbian:

[...] a blogospheric fit over the punksmacking that Dr. Chesler administered unto her on Aug. 31, “The Burqa: the Ultimate Feminist Choice?,” which did not take and had to be repeated on Sept. 2, “Wolf Demands an Apology, [...]

Sep 4, 2009 - 1:06 am 191. Arild:

As it happens, Marabel Morgan DOES live.
According to Wikipedia, she is 72 years old now:

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

Sep 4, 2009 - 9:27 am 192. Rebecca Cantrell:

I wrote some mildly disagreeing comments about this piece and they don’t seem to have been posted. Am I to understand that only people who agree with the views expressed can comment?

Sep 4, 2009 - 5:48 pm 193. R. Alazar:

Wolfe makes me wonder whether there might not be a niche market for some nice black-and-white striped pajamas modeled after the Nazi death-camp uniforms. You *can* put them on and feel free …

Sep 4, 2009 - 9:28 pm 194. AK:

Moho, # 156: Someone else said: “As for this not being a part of Islam, that is in itself an indictment of Islam. Even if Islam does not specifically endorse things like honor killings and clitorectomies, it does tolerate them. When Christianity spread through Europe, Christianity didn’t embrace human sacrificial rites performed by pagans, nor tolerate their continued existence.”

Mojo’s response: “Oh my god. You are a dangerous idiot. I just hope that no woman has been hard up enough to let you impregnate her. The thought of your genes replicated in even the smallest dose sends shivers up my spine.”

What an eloquent, well-researched and referenced, intellectually comprehensive response! It really just confirms my opinion of the Muslim male as a complete Neanderthal (I’m probably doing the average Neanderthal a grave injustice here…), obsessed with offense and violence and riddled with (sexual) inferiority complexes.

Sep 5, 2009 - 2:29 am 195. And this is the new “feminism“? « Tea and Politics:

[...] Chesler writes about this: Most Muslim girls and women are not given a choice about wearing the chador, burqa, [...]

Sep 5, 2009 - 8:11 am 196. Omar:

As for the “FGM is cultural” meme, it’s only partially true. While FGM does pre-date islam, Mohammad had the opportunity to outlaw the practice, but refused to do so in a well known hadith. Also, the Shafii school of islam holds that circumscision is obligatory for both men AND women and with a few exceptions, the practice of FGM across the world roughly follows the distribution and influence of shafii islam (e.g. Indonesia, which had no pre-islamic history of FGM before the advent of islam, is dominant shafii.)

Sep 5, 2009 - 8:21 am 197. arild:

You have a post at no. 168, where you, quite appropriately, states that men’s leering gazes is offensive to you.

Is that the post you thought wasn’t here?

Sep 5, 2009 - 8:40 am 198. Egypt Steve:

I agree completely the veil is a sign of oppression. It is self-evident that the fewer clothes women wear, the freer they are. I hope for a day when all women are completely free. Except for the****. Down with the patriarchy! Naked women today, naked women tomorrow, naked women forever!

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:20 am 199. Egypt Steve:

@Myth busters: Ask Joan of Arc about how Christianity abolished human sacrifice.

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:27 am 200. arild:

“I agree completely the veil is a sign of oppression”

It is, Steve.

”
It is self-evident that the fewer clothes women wear, the freer they are.”

Illogical, Steve.
It does NOT follow from the FACT that the veil is an oppressive custom that oppression cannot exist without the veil.

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:37 am 201. Kaycie:

This is a broad, disingenuous response to a subtly nuanced article. Shame on you, Phyllis Chesler, for inciting fire where there is no smoke.

I wonder how many of your commenters bothered to read Wolf’s article for themselves.

Sep 5, 2009 - 11:12 am 202. One or two notes on feminism, from the Second Wave set… « Valentine Bonnaire:

[...] did a follow up on this by reading this article by Phyllis Chesler, and she speaks with the kind of feminist voice I can understand in terms of how Second Wavers [...]

Sep 5, 2009 - 11:36 am 203. Egypt Steve:

@arild: I take it then that in your opinion social and even legal pressure in western society to cover up *some* parts of the female body (pubis, nipples, etc.) are logical and not oppressive? What makes western standards somehow logical, and only theirs oppressive? I think women in the Amazon rainforests who go about free and naked would shake their heads at your self-imposed mental enslavement.

Sep 5, 2009 - 1:33 pm 204. arild:

“I take it then that in your opinion social and even legal pressure in western society to cover up *some* parts of the female body (pubis, nipples, etc.) are logical and not oppressive?”

Yawn.

Since you evidently don’t know what a mistake in logic is; in particular, what elementary logical fallacy you made, there is no point of debating with you.

Your laughable idea that “logical” is some sort of anti-thesis to “oppressive” speaks volumes of the deficincies in your thought processes.

Sep 5, 2009 - 4:28 pm 205. Jonathan:

Chesler writes:

“Marabel Morgan lives! In the mid-1970s, Morgan advised wives to greet their husbands at the door wearing sexy clothing and/or transparent saran wrap with only themselves underneath. Her book, Total Woman, sold more than ten million copies. According to Morgan, a Christian, “It’s only when a woman surrenders her life to her husband, reveres and worships him and is willing to serve him, that she becomes really beautiful to him.”

Please don’t represent half truth theology, Ms. Chesler. Morgan was a crackpot who had more secular power than spiritual. She repackaged the sexual revolution in Christian wrappings and sold lots of books.

For one thing, Christian surrender she wrote of is strictly voluntary, and it has no official government policy nor clerical threats backing it up. Christian women aren’t told that their salvation depends upon how well they perform as marital slaves.

For another, Christianity is based upon EVERYONE being a servant to one another, wife, neighbor, stranger, etc. Humility is prized, as is kindness. This “Golden Rule” has no counterpart in Islam. We may not always live up to it, but it is an ever present pin prick in the consciences of those who have consciences.

Women’s lib has longed played upon the falsehood of equality, when it was really about undoing American traditions and creating another victim class for Marxism to exploit.

Sep 5, 2009 - 4:29 pm 206. arild:

“This is a broad, disingenuous response to a subtly nuanced article. ”

Subtly nuanced?

If Naomi Wolf had visited a Roman farm of old, she would have met scores of slaves who would have genuinely felt that serving a great lord was a very fulfilling life, and that one shouldn’t facilely condemn slavery. Rather, one should be nuanced about it, and only focus on some of those abuses that slavery occasionally led to.

Sep 5, 2009 - 4:32 pm 207. Egypt Steve:

@arild: I note that you can denounce what I say, but you seem unable to refute it.

But I take it, then, from what you say as to my incorrect opposition of the terms “logical” and “oppressive”, that you believe western standards for what parts of the body should be covered are either logical and oppressive, or else non-oppressive but nevertheless illogical? How can it be non-oppressive to be socially/legally compelled to do something (i.e., cover your nipples) that you seem to think is illogical, if one is aware that it is illogical and wishes, but is unable to, defy social convention?

but enough snark and trollery, which is obviously going over your head. My real point is this: all the right-wing posturing about the rights of Muslim women on this site rings totally hollow when I know that all of you are the first ones to put on that big foam “number one” finger and chant “USA! USA! USA!” when the President (be he Bush or Obama) orders more Muslims to be bombed. If you really cared about Muslim women, you would not advocate that their brothers, sons, fathers and husbands — along with themselves, their daughters, sisters, and mothers — be slaughtered in the hundreds of thousands so we can have cheap oil and the Israelis can have another gated community in the West Bank.

And my subsidiary point is this: Socrates said the unexamined life is not worth living. Jesus said that it was pointless to try to remove the speck from your brother’s eye when you had a beam in your own. You are oblivious to the oppression of all kinds, major and minor, in this country — of men, of women, of adults, of children — and your main agenda is your smarmy, phony advocacy for Muslim women is to wallow in fantasies of ethnic and national and cultural superiority. But you’re scared to death to look in the mirror and see this country and this culture as they really are. Too bad for you.

Sep 5, 2009 - 10:03 pm 208. Black Fury:

As a middle-aged woman, I thank my lucky stars every day that I was born in the West and not in some Sharia hell-hole.

I am free to dress as I please. If a man wishes to look, that’s his perogative, a look never hurt anyone. I don’t walk around in shorts and tank-tops, I simply feel myself too “old” for that kind of thing (but still feel comfortable in jeans and t-shirts.)

And as I was freed late last year from a long but unfortunate relationship with a mentally-ill man with, well, proto-Islamic attitutes, the fact that another man could see the unhappy expression on my face and posture allowed me to meet a very nice man who treats me as an equal, and who is polite and considerate and makes me very, very happy.

No one can see you cry beneath a burqa, and the bruises are better hidden than with Western clothing. Get my drift?

Sep 6, 2009 - 4:37 am 209. What to Wear, OH What to Wear « Rational Reposte:

[...] [...]

Sep 6, 2009 - 6:59 am 210. arild:

Steve
1. Concerning logic:
To assert, given (veil implies oppression), that (non-veil implies non-oppression), as you did, is to make the logical fallacy known as “denying the antecedent”, or, equivalently, to “affirm the (contrapositive of) the converse”

That you do not know what logically valid inferences are, and confuse them with non-valid ones, makes you into an intellectual turn-off.

But, for others, I’ll make a few points nonetheless:

2. Cultural arbitrariness of clothing

This is trivially true, both in the type and amount of clothing. But arbitrariness on its own does not constitute “oppression”.

3. Indicator of oppressiveness of particular clothing habits:
A good indicator of possible oppressiveness of clothing habits, is the average “distance” between PUBLIC clothing habits and fully PRIVATE clothing habits.
In one’s own private space, secluded and shielded from the gaze and judgments of others, the only type of oppression that still might linger is self-oppression (that term is NOT self-contradictory, as I will aim to show).
On basis of that, we may look at a few relevant points:
a) Customary clothing of genitals, is that “oppressive”?
i) IF it were so, we would expect that once wholly on our own, we would with great relief shed our clothes and bask in our naked glory, that had to be concealed from the censorious eyes of our oppressive, surrounding society. Also, we would privately feel a twinge of envy for those primitive, NON-oppressive societies where public nakedness was a matter of course, non-oppressive precisely because they can, without censure, display their nakedness in full public view.

But, the vast majority of us do NOT shed our clothes, even when we are completely by ourselves, and I have yet to meet anyone who regards the customs of nude tribes with other than indifference, mild amusement, or quizzicality. Never envy.

ii) Presence of self-oppression?
Is, perhaps, our custom of wearing clothing fully in private the result of an interiorized oppression of our true being, that even in our solitude, we do not dare to take our clothes off?

IF that had been true, we would expect that the very thought of shedding our clothes in private caused us acute embarassment and feelings of shame.
This seem to have been the case in certain body-negationist milieux within the Church, where the body ITSELF was considered sinful, and nakedness the very worst fact about it.
Yet, such attitudes are extremely rare today, and if we were to ask others (or ourselves) as to why we remain clothed in private, the genuine reason would be that we want to.
That that reason is genuine, is quite simply gauged by the fact that we do not consider the idea of walking about naked in our privacy as something dangerous or shameful, and on occasion, we do so, without feeling the slightest guilty about it.

Clothing in private is just one habit in our repertoire, that we prefer, nakedness is another, that we do not abhor, but finds little reason to indulge ourselves in. If we had lived in another, equally non-oppressive culture, the relative commonalities of clothed-in-private (by us common) vs. naked-in-private (by us uncommon) might well have been reversed.
iii) Clothing of genitals in public: An act of oppression?
From the above, it would be absurd to affirm this, since in our entirely private life, we are comfortable with wearing clothes. That the “reasons” for remaining clothed can be said to multiply once we move into the public sphere, we are not necessarily thereby suddenly becoming oppressed, precisely because we feel free and comfortable in clothing to begin with.
b) Average distance beetween public and private clothing.
In the West, the clothing we choose to wear at the kitchen-table, or in the sofa watching television and in other such private settings will most often be the same clothes as the one we sit in a cafe at, at the bus stop or at work, or strolling about in.

This is NOT the case with clothings like the hijab, niqab or burka.
These are PUBLIC garments that women are all too glad to shed once they are on their own, or within that circle of intimates in which her private clothes are permissible to be shown.

That is to say, the average DISTANCE between public and private clothing is much greater in the Islamic world than in the Western, meaning that the role the censorious gaze of the Other plays in determining how/why we choose our appearance can be seen to be all the more potent (and, therefore, readily more oppressive)

4) Concerning public/private clothing split, reasons for shedding of “outer garments”:
In the West, we also, of course, has the concept of outer garments, but these are rarely worn due to consideration of modesty.
Others abound, for example the desire not to get your inner clothes stained, to keep them dry, or we wear more clothes outside than inside in order to keep warm. None of these reasons can be regarded as oppressive.

5. Motives for particular public clothing: Self-expression vs. self-effacement
In the West, why, in general, do we pick out some particular clothing?
There are numerous reasons for this, but a particular class of motives concerns the capacity of clothing to express our personality and our mood that day. Furthermore, insofar as there IS a difference in our public and private clothing, we choose to “upgrade” ourselves when we get out among others:
We shed the dirty pants we like to wear, and take on a clean one instead, women use a bra to uphold their sagging breasts (something they don’t bother with in private), a fat person chooses some loose-fitting nice gown, rather than the T-shirt under which the rolls of fat peek out in private, and so on.

That is, we MAXIMIZE our appearance, in order to seem attractive and self-confident towards the others we are about to meet. We display our individuality and declare our self-worth for the whole world to see, and approve of.

Facial covering in particular, however, is the complete opposite of this. Here, the individual woman is SUBMERGED in the category/collectivity of “Woman”, something that is to be tolerated, but not to be appreciated for her own distinctive individuality.

Our biology is so geared at reading facial expressions, our face is the most individualized part of us, that to cover this up is to limit our attitude towards the world to the emotional range of fear, mistrust, hostility or disdain.

These attitudes are of course something we may cultivate WITHOUT facial covering (not the least by means of facial expressions!), but benevolence, trust, self-confidence, indifference and so on will be the more common range of attitudes displayed by means of Western modes of clothing.

Thus, facial covering is de-individualizing, and for that very reason, de-humanizing, both the one covering herself up, and those around her.

6. Forms of social reprisal of divergent clothing habits.
This point is so trivial (but not unimportant!!), that it doesn’t merit much comment:
The manners in which a western society treats those who diverge in public clothing&appearance are so mild and unoppressive in comparison with those faced in the islamic world, that it would quite simply be perverse to put these forms of pressure as of equal, “oppressive” status.
Everybody KNOWS this, but leftists and islam-apologists like Steve try over and over again to obscure this unavoidable fact.

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:55 am 211. Robert:

Can someone please fill me in. I am a male and fairly well read. I have degrees in pyschology and in philosophy and I have a healthy IQ and Yet I am simply dumbfounded by women like Naomi Wolf. I keep wanting to understand how and why a woman with her beliefs and aims exists over the long run. I can understand writing a book or too that is controversial and also wrong headed, but starting with that whole paranooid rant of Naomi Wolf predicting how we were about to lose our democracy to the bush power base to now with her focusing on minor issues of cultural difference in the middle east as a way to america and christianity bash while she is living with some of the world most oppressed women in the world? I just do not get it. OK, so I can see how she who is obviously very neurotic about sex, sexuality, gender and may have in my humble opinion even been abused, I can see her finding the anonymity of the more comfortable version of the required female garb liberating, but why bother to publish that when you are supposedly there as a feminist activist. I read her actual full article and it was not that what she said was so crazy it was all the major things she bothered to leave unsaid. Well there was on super offensive thing she did say and that was how all Christianity was so anti sex. while I will not deny there are some sects of in particular non existent historical Christianity that are very anti-sex But how can she not know that the most famous Pope of recent times John Paul the second made his name by publishing a number of pro sex and sexuality exploration books so long as it was within the context of marriage. And that is Catholicism, hardly the most progressive of the mainstream christian Churches. I mean is she just a sell out? and I really wonder? Because I do not know but her ideas are just so incredibly out there and not backed up by all the facts and yet she shows evidence of being a very intelligent lady with good research skills. I would love to hear theories on what makes her think and publish the way she does? Is it disingenuous careerism? Is psychological baggage? Honestly I just really do not get how a person who makes a living testing the bounds of american’s civility cannot see the inherent hypcorisy of supporting regimes that if she was a native under any of them, she would be covered and more importantly bound and gagged and yet this fact does not phase her at all. It niether forces her to reflect on how lucky she is to be an american woman nor doe it temper her own positive feelings she had from being in a gender segregated and covered society. Love to hear some ideas

Cheers, Rob -

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:09 am 212. Jenna:

When the US media tells me to dress like a slut, wear makeup, dance to Lady Gaga’s pantsless raves, and put on heels higher than a teetering toothpick, I feel subjugated. Sometimes it would be nice to wear a low cut top when it is hot outside and not get my chest stared at. I want to go to my university and be respected for my efforts at education, not that I’m wearing shorts and v-neck to escape Houston heat on my bicycle. Hell, I even wonder if most women these days cultivate anything outside of their looks before they turn into shriveling old biddies who never recieved a quality education and waste all their money on botox.

You are all mis-interpreting Naomi Wolf’s piece. Period. SHE NEVER EVEN SAYS BURQA IN IT. Did you even READ what she was writing about?! There wasn’t even a reference to Iraq or Afghanistan. She was in MOROCCO.

She was simply saying that women in veils and headscarves feel freed in their distinction from sexualized beings. The difference in perspective makes alot of sense – I would wear sweat pants everyday if it meant that no one made a pass at me. I’m an attractive and athletic young woman, but all of that nonsense fades; then what are you left with? Ability, values, education, and pride if you’ve been lucky enough to make them a primary goal. Guess what? Alot of women CHOOSE veils. They also can CHOOSE not to. This article doesn’t deal with forced veiling, please for the love of god read the damn article and stop infering your own BS. The woman was making a point about a culture that most, if not all of you, will never understand. Even if you feel like it is repression, they don’t. My Muslim friends think that my clothing options at Dillard’s are repressive. They also wonder how I can walk around in a bikini and not feel like I’m being objectified. Open up your mind people.

Sep 6, 2009 - 11:13 am 213. arild:

“When the US media tells me to dress like a slut, wear makeup, dance to Lady Gaga’s pantsless raves, and put on heels higher than a teetering toothpick”

No, Jenna. The “US Media” doesn’t tell you that you should dress like a slut.

Rather, Jenna:

1. IMAMS tell you that you are a slut if you wear make-up
2. IMAMS tell you that you are a slut if you wear high heels.

You have, quite simply, been brainwashed by them, and YOUR worst sin is to regard those women who DO wear make-up and DO use high heels as contemptible sluts.

Shame on you for your fascist attitudes.

The rest of your lies and wacky self-justifications is not worth any comments.

Sep 6, 2009 - 12:11 pm 214. Naomi Wolfe: Pro-Burqa « Calvin Freiburger Online:

[...] September 6, 2009 — Calvin Freiburger Hat tip to the Other McCain for alerting me to this piece by Phyllis Chesler, which smacks down a recent article in which Naomi Wolfe hails the burqa—yes, [...]

Sep 6, 2009 - 3:56 pm 215. Cristy:

It is kind of sad just how racist your post is. Also, why do you and your commenters feel the need to attack Naomi Wolf personally rather than just context her ideas? Generally that is a sign of a weak argument (as are all of the generalisatons, inaccuracies and hyperbole).

Sep 6, 2009 - 8:50 pm 216. Jenna:

Dear Arild, holy crap you are an idiot. The worst and most laughable part of this whole thing is that you think I am Muslim. Definetly a caucasian Southern girl cannot think this way! Gasp! Think of your children!

I am not Muslim and it wouldn’t matter if I was. I am a woman. Until you open up a Vogue magazine, you are definetly completely useless in proclaiming you know anything about how the American media tells me to dress. My worst sin is to do anything I’m told to do by my contemporary culture’s marketing campaigns – do it, it feels good. Buy this, you need it. Sex and money bring you happiness, don’t you know? Do your hair. Wear makeup. Wear this dress. You’re young, no one wants you when your old. I’m getting my PhD in clinical psychology, so please, let’s skip the fact that if you are ignoring you own country’s desire to sell you sex, you’re out of touch.

Also, I enjoy that you’re hiding behind “I simply won’t attack anything you’ve said because your Muslim and probably not that intelligent”. Just admit your afraid and it would be much easier. You see, I don’t resort to ad hominem attacks – unless you’ve sufficiently aroused my hate so much that I’m called to remind you of your crappy place in life. Oh wait, yeah, I think I just did.

Shame on you for believing your own BS. Now go get a sandwhich and a new car and make yourself happy.

Sep 6, 2009 - 9:06 pm 217. arild:

As you confirm with this post, Jenna, you are a despicable fascist.

i) Women who use lip stick are not sluts, as you assert them to be.
ii)Women who use high heels are not sluts, as you assert them to be.
iii) Models in Vogue are not sluts, as you assert them to be.

You are a vile, fascist demonizer of other women, whether you happen to be Muslim or not.

Sep 7, 2009 - 2:34 am 218. arild:

Your stupid “social analysis” ought to have been reason enough to kick you out of the PhD programme, because, lady, you don’t belong in that mental league!

Do you know what an ADVERTISEMENT is?

It tells you of a product someone wants to sell.

Thus, there will never be any advertisements for non-sales.

That is why you see advertisements for lip-sticks, but not advertisements for “not buy lip-stick”

There is no big conspiracy out there, Jenna, trying to control your mind *****

Just a number of salesmen doing their best to make a living.

Sep 7, 2009 - 2:51 am 219. Mary Jackson:

I’m the Queen of England.

I wish you were!

I’ve been away for a week and missed Naomi Wolf’s sentimental – and wholly unoriginal – twaddle on the veil. A Marie Antoinette playing shepherdess, she has no understanding of Muslim women’s lives. Hasn’t it occurred to the dozy bint that women who say they are happy to wear the veil are, at best, making a virtue out of necessity, and at worst under threat of honour killing?

Well done for socking it to her.

Sep 7, 2009 - 3:03 am 220. arild:

“. Hasn’t it occurred to the dozy bint that women who say they are happy to wear the veil are, at best, making a virtue out of necessity, and at worst under threat of honour killing?”

And this, Mary, highlights precisely why the testimonials Naomi got should be given low value:

Naomi ought to think about what might have happened to one of those women in her “women’s only”-session if she had disagreed strongly with the other women present.

In an oppressive society, people do NOT trust each other, and will sell out their neighbour if only to avert the oppression to cruch oneself.

Sep 7, 2009 - 3:45 am 221. Jenna:

I) I never said women who wear make-up are sluts.
II) I never said women who wear high-heels are sluts.
III) I never said women in Vogue are sluts.

Read my post. I said, “When the US media tells me to dress like a slut.” Which you never retorted. Which you never even attacked. You took one word from a singular sentence divided by a comma and applied it to my entire post. Congratulations. Your application of irrelevant adjectives and nouns makes you seem like the putz you are.

Wow, man. Just wow. No wonder you bring up words like facism which have no place in this debate. You honestly have no concept of what that word even means, but I’m glad you can throw it around to make yourself seem intelligent.

Facist:
1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
2 : a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

I did not exalt any group above the individual, nor did I sway towards strong dictatorial leadership. THAT is what facism means, you DOLT. How am I a facist if I hate everybody and the government? I bet you’re just another example of the kind of person who listens to only once news source? Am I right? Yeah, probably am. Open up your freaking mind.

There are such things as non-advertisements, they are called public messages. “Don’t buy drugs” sound familiar? Oh. My. God. You are an idiot. A moronic twat who creates a world based purely in fantasy to satisfy your own Islamaphobia. How’s that going for you again? Wasting HOW MUCH time on this website trying to bring everyone down? In my own estimation you’ve spent at least 8 hours on here angrily stamping your feet and spreading manure. Don’t you have anything better to do?

AND THAT, Arild, is how you present a case, and then attack your oponents; which, by the way, I am still waiting for you to do. I don’t think it is gonna matter anyway. You see, I have this wonderful thing called A LIFE. And it is a holiday. So feel free to retort – just know that I pwned you, and don’t give a crap what you say.

Sep 7, 2009 - 9:56 am 222. Techni:

Don’t you need exposure to the sun for certain vitamins?

Sep 8, 2009 - 12:31 am 223. arild:

“How am I a facist if I hate everybody and the government?”

Okay, I was wrong.

You are a ghoul, rather than a fascist.

Goodbye.

Sep 8, 2009 - 5:37 am 224. Dusan J.:

I’m so glad to learn that Naomi speaks for muslim women “Many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated …” Define “many”.

Why to go to Marocco to experience burqa. We have examles in US and Canada.

Reluctance to wear hijab linked to teen’s slaying? TORONTO 12/12/07
– A slain Muslim teen whose father has been charged with murder apparently chafed at the prospect of wearing traditional religious garb, but members of the Islamic community warn against anyone using the tragedy to vilify the headscarf known as the hijab.

http://nosubmit.blogspot.com/2008/10/cic-blames-victim.html

Sep 9, 2009 - 12:45 pm 225. Naomi Wolf finds support in Debate About Women’s Rights in the Muslim World « NewsReal Blog:

[...] August 31 Phyllis Chesler wrote a piece at Pajamas Media challenging an article Naomi Wolf wrote about veiled Muslim women for the Sydney Morning Herald. [...]

Sep 9, 2009 - 4:01 pm 226. Annabelle:

I can’t believe the amount of Islamophobic nonsense on this page. There is a difference, a very big difference between those women who are being forced to wear some sort of veil- who we should support in their fight. And those who want to wear it- who we should support in theirs. Pushing your definition of what subjugation is on women from a different culture is truly colonial. Get over it, there are different cultures in the world, all women don’t find modeling a bikini liberating. Clothes are not the most important issue in many Muslim women’s lives. The Muslim women around me find the veil a non-issue, since none are forced to wear or not wear it. They have real fights to fight, such as fighting polygamy, the patriarchal interpretation of the scriptures and inheritance rights. So why don’t you let those intelligent muslim women – yes there are intelligent muslim women though in your black and white world you deny it(such as those in Morocco who have made great strides in amending personal law and are fighting on) get on with their business of fighting what is important to them rather than sidetracking them with this stupid issue. Forced veiling is equivalent to forced deveiling. Its somebody else telling you how you should look and what you should do with your body, and whether it is a man, or a contextless western feminist it is just as despicable to a womens human liberty.
PS Just a few things to point out. Not all arabs are patriarchal. Not all muslim men are. Forced circumcision is cultural rather than religious.

Sep 10, 2009 - 4:08 am 227. The Atheist Conservative: » The chador shall set you free:

[...] just that. Phyllis Chesler – doughty warrior on the feminist battlefield – has been arguing with her. Anyone who has read the testimony of Ayaan Hirsi Ali must surely find outrageous Wolf’s [...]

Sep 11, 2009 - 3:59 am 228. arild:

“Forced circumcision is cultural rather than religious”

Complete nonsense, on several grounds.

1. First off, religion IS a part of culture, not something outside of culture.

2. There certainly exists specifically religious precepts for circumcision.

In the Shafiite sharia manual, “Reliance of the Traveller”, female circumcision is deemed obligatory (whereas the Hanbali and Hanafi schools regard it merely as recommendable). See section e4.3.

the Shafi school is dominant precisely in those regions where female circumcision is pre-dominant.

Sep 13, 2009 - 5:41 am 229. The Fight of the Century: Chesler vs. Wolf « Fatemeh Fakhraie:

[...] 2009 September 13 by Fatemeh Phyllis Chesler and Naomi Wolf have gotten themselves into a battle royale over…the [...]

Sep 13, 2009 - 9:35 pm 230. Sarah:

Wearing a bikini has never save a woman from being incested, battered, stalked, gang-raped, or maritally raped nor does it stop her husband from taking multiple girlfriends or from frequenting brothels.

It has NOTHING to do with clothing! On either side.

Get a reality check, please!

Sep 14, 2009 - 2:02 pm 231. Annoyed:

To quote Carl Ernst, “Muslims are human beings.” This seems to be a fact lost on the majority of submitters here. Sure you may think it ludicrous that I (and Carl) make such a statement because it’s so obvious, but how much do you actually, really, truly, believe it. When it comes down to it, how often do you say, “those people,” or “all Muslims…” or “them.” It’s always “us” versus “them,” a regular “clash of civilizations.” It’s the “them” that perturbs me. Forgetting that there are real people behind all of this. Dehumanizing a people is a sure step to thinking them unworthy of consideration, of humanity; thinking of yourself as the superior being is dangerous and reminicent of Nazism (Hitler’s Aryian race anyone?). And yes, I’m sure many will scream out that they’re not dehumanizing anyone, and that what I’m saying is twisting other people’s words. Well, that too seems to be the agenda here. I argue that while you’re not consciouslly doing it, the suggestion is present.

The amount of generalizing and stereotyping I’ve read in the comments is appalling. Fact: there are approximately 1 billion Muslims in the world today. Are some people here seriously suggesting that all 1 billion of those people (approximately the population of China) think and act the same way, and believe the same thing. That they’re all a faceless drone, in full submission to Allah, or Muhammad, or the Taliban or whatever? No. It is impossible for 1 billion people to have the same views, and stating that they are “brainwashed,” or that Muslim men are the ones who are more likely to rape a women and use the fact that she wasn’t wearing the proper covering as an excuse, is cringe-worthy. Statements like these group ALL Muslims into one room and label it the same. People are different. And, not to fall into my own trap, I’m not suggesting that everyone here is saying these things, or believes these things. And that’s just my point. Just as you don’t want to be lumped in with certain radicals, I’m sure, holds true with the majority of Muslim poeple.

Sure, there are problems in the Muslim world, but there are problems everywhere. Sure oppression of women is an issue in the Muslim world, but it is elsewhere too. I’m not for one minute suggesting that because there’s oppression elsewhere we should ignore what’s happening in the Muslim world, but the general feel I’ve detected is that somehow the Muslim world needs to be fixed, and we in the all knowing West are the ones to do it. What makes us so damn special? Democracy? Yeah, that’s a perfect system. Our higher morals? Umm, what higher morals? Our superior past? Erradicating entire peoples in order to built up your supposedly perfect society, is proof enough that there’s something wrong. Colonialsim? Certain people bringing their idea of “civilization” to other people and forcing it on them, is wrong. Colonialism and imperialism are dangerous, damaging realities of our past and should in no way be repeated. The only good that colonialism brought was a career for all the soldiers of the future, fighting a war started by their ancestors. And even that, I say tongue-in-cheek.

Assuming that you know what’s best for an entire culture is ludicrous. Assuming that an entire culture agrees with what you think is best for them is even more so. Just because a person does not conform to the standard that you have, does not make them a nonperson; it makes them an individual. An individual with their own thoughts, opinions, and beliefs.

I found the NW article to be a terrible piece. What she said was, I think, not very helpful. It followed the same problems of generalizing an entire population and steroetyping a culture based on a few case studies. This is wrong. I was actually very disappointed, but the Chesler piece did no better.

Finally, the one thing that I would be very interested in seeing are actual, tangible facts and statistics about all the assumptions, postulations, and statements made here; on both sides. It’s easy to say that such-and-such a country has the highest rates of such-and-such a crime, but I’m still waiting for the statisitics to prove either side. I’ve never been a contributor before, but the generalizations made here by the majority of contributors is unfortunate. Educate yourselves, and I don’t just mean from the sources that you know will agree with your preconceived notions. If you’re on the left, read from the right; if you’re on the right, read from the left. Challenge your thinking, think outside the box, put yourself in someone else’s shoes. Go to sources that you would normally not agree with, just to see how they relay an argument. That’s what I’ve done here. I definitely don’t agree with much here that is said, and the comebacks where a person insults another person’s intelligence, sexual prowress, spelling, political affiliation, governmental view (i.e. fascism, marxism, socialism) as well as the name calling, are child-like and not conducive to helpful dialogue. I fully expect this type of response to come my way, but I’ve already said my piece about how helpful and mature it really is.

Sep 15, 2009 - 8:23 pm 232. The Permission to Narrate « Nuseiba:

[...] [...]

Sep 19, 2009 - 2:08 am 233. Zu Gilad Shalit und der „Videocassette“ « Letters from Rungholt:

[...] haben sich prominente Feministinnen öfter der Verteidigung der Burqa als Ausdruck weiblicher Autonomie gewidmet, als dem Kampf gegen die Rekrutierung [...]

Oct 3, 2009 - 2:26 am

Write a Comment

Name:	(required, displayed)
Email:	(required, not publicized)
URL:	(optional, displayed)
Comments: