Is this demeaning to women?

make...when they are not even allowed to know there are other choices.

If a woman is given the tools necessary to be autonomous and chooses to adhere to these cultural practices, I am fine with it. However if a woman is denied these tools by an oppressive culture that denies her autonomy (for example, by not giving her an education or other tools that could empower her with a realistic option to exit if she chose to), it is bogus to say that she has freely chosen these cultural practices.

:toast:

The nun chooses her garments. The women in the OP cannot choose in many countries - the choice is made by the men in power.

:shrug:

eom

Didn't the nun choose? Muslim women can't choose?

is that a covered woman is accepting, consciously or not, the idea that she needs to conceal *her* body because some man somewhere might be roused to ungovernable lust by the sight of her hair or her curves. If men are so weak-willed in certain places or viewed as such in certain societies, maybe *they* should run around in blindfolds instead of making their women cover up. What it comes down to, as so often with religious ideals, is that a woman is property and must be protected unless someone tries to steal her, thus lessening her father/brother/husband's worth. Her body is not her own, her honor is not her own, her life is not her own. And when a woman asserts that she does belong to herself -- get out the stones!

As for the nun, she's wearing what was uber chic for a matron in the 14th century. An awful lot of nuns don't wear the full regalia -- and Mother Angelica is borderline camp anyway. Britney's over the border and living in some uncharted territory.

Something about it screams, "we're here, we have vaginas, deal with it." Call it rude, call it faux-shocking, call it stupidly outrageous, but there's something about it that strikes me as delightfully subversive.

Now, if only George Clooney and Ewan McGregor (offscreen) would follow suit ...

Wanna get publicity in the US? Flash the camera! Now, THAT's a situation that is demeaning to women.

that's Paris.

point of order.

Do a Google search.

i've been on dates with pantyless women - it was enjoyable - but i never asked them to climb out of a sports car.

stage mothers, send your daughters to FINISHING SCHOOL.

I'm betting you can still find them via google...

Because all I can think about is all the young girls who look up to Britney and Lindsey and want to be just like them. Somewhere on a third-grade playground there's no doubt a little girl climbing on the jungle jim or swinging on the rings sans panties. That's not right.

The most demeaning things we have to deal with in our own society are standards set by men and taken too far by some of the women.

If I did, no idea what I'd tell them.

This theoretical little girl you're talking about - is she really on a jungle gym in a dress?

I remember wearing shorts under my dress or tights so I could climb and swing without worrying. And with skirts and dresses making a fashion comeback, you can bet little girls will be swinging and climbing in them. My daughter (now 22) did the same. We are both very modest women and rather proud of the fact actually.

:)

all about sex as a commodity.

At least Madonna seemed to be about her own pleasure.

Madonna teased, but only took it all off for her Sex book - which, well ... the world has made its judgment.

The paparazzi who took the Lindsey & Britney flash photos? They have a less likely chance to get paid for the photos by an entity that will publish them as is. Instead, the nudes travel across the net for free, stymieing commercialization efforts.

It's been a couple of weeks since the last flash and here we are still talking about it. That's a hell of a lot of free publicity!

And somewhere at Penthouse there's an editor who's pounding the desk over the money they aren't making off it.

Not necessarily anyway.

But Britney already made a fuss about being overtly sexual but being a virgin.

women to any great extent... They are not a monolith by any means (nor are Muslim men, either, btw). Many very westernized, highly educated Muslim women from throughout the world DO CHOOSE (and I can assure you they are NOT under the thumbs of their husbands, fathers, brothers)to veil--even while living in the US, Britain, Europe. Having worked and lived in several Arab countries (including Saudi Arabia) and visited many non-Arab countries and had the opportunity (as a female) to have many a candid discussion with local women largely in English (or my highly broken and deficient Arabic), I can only assure you that this is a stereotype in Western culture. Yes, women are dramatically held back in some countries, but it is far from universal.

I used to date an Iranian young woman when I was in college...


My point was not intended to be a universal one...



But one can not ignore societal pressure which is almost as strong as the force of law....

I am afraid that argument breaks down when you look at the numbers of Muslim women--many single and for all the world living as any feminist westerner in the US, Britain, Europe. Yet many ELECT to veil. :shrug:

If you talk with them, you might find how much REVERSE Societal pressure they face in western countries NOT TO VEIL.

women also take their female children in to get "cirumcised." Are those things demeaning to women?

Women also "choose" to be strippers and hookers. Demeaning?

are made willingly. THAT used to be a progressive value...

No more or at least not if they don't fit with our notion of what is appropriate? :shrug:
To compare it to a truly harmful behavior--either to self or others {i.e., comparison of self-election to veil to foot binding (or I suppose next, female circumcision)} is just incredible. I find this attitude appalling.

Which religion and its practices do we bash next?

Given the anti-Amish bashing that went on here after the school shooting, I guess I should not be surprised.... Sadly, we truly are a culturally ignorant and insensitive country, it seems.

Sometimes societal pressures force women to make "choices" that are not in their best interest. The best examples are the ones I gave earlier: foot binding and genital mutilation. They were/are cultural and religious "choices" that should not be respected because it hurts--maimes women.

Covering women from head to toe and a prohibition of education and freedom is not something the women are "choosing" willingly. You are minimizing the effect of these religious practices that are designed to keep women as objects, as property. These attitudes that are reinforced societally and religiously lead to the death and maiming of women (daughters, sisters) who do not live by the strict guidelines.

I do not believe that it is progressive to allow the subjugation of women under the guise of "religious choice."

No one is free from societal pressure.

Understanding the Veil in Islam, Western Societies
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6402349


Muslim Women, the Veil and Western Society
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6416784

Choosing to wear the veil is not the same as doing damage to your body.
We don't understand the culture or the meaning of the veil to them and can't judge it through our views.

I think piercings and tattoos are mutilation and I really hate seeing young girls with full sleeves and "tramp stamps", but if they are 18 or 21 and have made that choice, so be it.

I think magazine covers with ultra skinny models are demeaning to women, but some people can't live without their monthly subscription to the same magazines. Whatever flips their switches.

I think Catholic mass is freaky and scary and the statues are creepy! But Catholics love that stuff. I think Pentecostals who speak in tongues and jump up and down while they pray are nutty and weird, but whatever floats their boat.

Live and let live I say. I'm sick and tired of being told what to do, say and feel, and I'll be damned if I will be a party to forcing my beliefs upon another. I'm really sick of all this bullshit.

I find all of those things demeaning. But had I lived in ancient China and my feet had not been broken and bound until I couldn't walk, that would mean I was a commoner and had to actually use my feet. In many circles, that would have been a shameful embarrassment. Is that wrong? I think so. But I have never lived in ancient China, so I can't make any judgment. If I had lived then and had the opportunity to have my feet mutilated and have servants carry me around while all the common women envied my tiny feet... I dunno...

Take oaths of obediency, while we're at it.

from wearing the habit?

I surely didn't see any.

Nuns take an oath of obediency. They are trained to accept their inferiority to priests. And yes, that's something I would find demeaning.

But they are part of a closed or semi-closed society. The church does not attempt to enforce this dress code onto the larger, non-clergy population. No Catholic schoolgirls were ever allowed to burn alive in their dorms for not wearing a veil.

In my old Catholic school, nuns were given the choice of whether or not to wear the wimple & veil on the school grounds. The younger ones all chose not to. And no one disapproved of them or threatened to stone them for it.

Your comparison is so far off-base it's laughable.

So did I. But we're not here to talk about my sex life! :silly:

This seems to be something that many people lose sight of, that the women who wear the burka or hajib are coerced by men and sometimes their 'sisters' to don these garments. Nuns choose to wear a habit (and sometimes not these days).

The whole thing about dress and culture annoys me, especially when dress is mandated by either religion or government according to the dictates of peopl who think public beatings are a good idea.

FYI - many muslim women do have a choice. The issue is not the clothing, it is the lack of choice. Forcing a woman not to wear a certain type of benign clothing is equally oppressive.

I missed that.

Without that bit of information, I personally do not judge the photo as demeaning. Judging without that bit of info would put me in danger of hurting myself from jumping to conclusions. ;)

and our culture is always better since we agree with the rationalizations for our behavior.

In my lifetime, I remember that all nuns had to wear 'concealing' garments.

For the same reasons that I was appalled that nuns had to hide themselves, I'm appalled that women anywhere have to hide themselves.

All of the "big three" monotheistic religions are demeaning to women.

actually I agree with you, but I still recognize that that woman chose to wear her habit.

And most of the nuns I grew up with now have changed to regular clothes, with little veils that are almost caplike.

But the penguin suits? Please -- It's the Catholic Berka.

and there weren't laws passed against it.

It's just a bunch of bigotry, caused by the fear of attacks after 9/11, which has motivated the people of America and Europe to take notice. I'm pretty damn sure that no one was worried or worried much about the hijab before 9/11, but now it's a massive outcry. It's nice if people really did feel that way before 9/11, but I think many of the men and women now criticizing Muslims for this are probably not the type of people interested in woman's rights, but in hatred.

(the outfits)

Of course the Catholic church is known for being patriarchal and misogynistic. Similar attitudes that seem to drive the Muslim garment (and such ideas that women shouldn't drive).


But - nuns choose to be nuns - and even nuns aren't wearing such getups these days.


You're comparison would be like if all women had to be nuns or something - or at least that that was the only respectable role (while men were allowed to do/be whatever).

is demeaning to both God and humanity.

Without her habit, wimple, and/or veil?

Yar!

I'm far from a prude but what would morivate a young woman to dress like that...

Would you want your daughter to think it was okay to flash her private parts because Britney did it?

I'm sick to the teeth of these celebrity skanks.

It was exquisitely poor judgement...

What could she be thinking?

(Hmmm...) Ease of access? :eyes: She's too young to assume it's incontinence, so ... :shrug:

Trash.

I live in a mobile home park and have not seen any of the young women here dress like that.

-:)

6 inches above my knees and I always kept my "parts" covered.

I resent it too RebelOne. I'm sorry.

And I am a woman. The way we dress does not matter. It is the fact that we are able to freely choose how we dress that matters.

For having my tonsils out. From the picture offered, I see no reason to assume any sort of coercion was used on the woman. I see no evidence of where she lives or how she lives. I see only a beautiful young woman.

Demeaning? Not with the scant info available. Hell, she may even be an actress in costume for a role she CHOSE to take ;)

is that many people will say if it is a personal choice it is ok...
But is it really?
Certainly a person choosing this for themselves involves more personal power and self-determination than if it is imposed by some patriarchal force with the threat of violence to back it up.
But..
these women are still "slaves" to the ideology at the base of this.

For instance we "support" their "choice" to wear the islamic head wear yet still think women, in the Christian fundamentalist view, who buy into the male dominated Christian culture's views that their role is to be subserviant, baby factories, and nothing more than "slaves" to their husbands.

Someone please explain the difference to me. I have my thoughts about it, but want to hear from others.

Basically my question is... Is it really a choice if the cultural pressure is so immense, even if their is no obvious threat of violence if they choose not to wear it?

you summed it up nicely.

I find cultural conditioning an amazing subject.

What really is freedom?

Great job, BoneDaddy.

You might be surprised at the answer.

Of course, I hear some stagnant localities lack diversity.

I have asked a bunch of muslim women. I have the good fortune of working in a very multicultural school and we have teenagers who wear the hijab.

I had a great student of mine who couldn't even shake my hand due to her particular sect's views about contact with men. I didn't consider it that big of a deal and certainly respected her culture. I just found this bright, sensitive, and caring young woman to be bound so tightly in a culture that barely gave her room to breathe. And she accepted it whole heartedly.

Is she a victim of conditioning that began 18 years ago? or is she making a free and conscious choice?

What do you propose to DO about these young women? Deal with them as humans? Or continue to condemn them & their culture?

where did you ever get the idea that I am condemning their culture?

There are many things I like about Islam, but like any organized, institutional religion, there are many things I don't. It is not either/or or mutually exclusive.

Some things are wrong about ANY culture, they are not perfect and criticism of some of their mores, practices and actions is not a global attack on them as much as it is a criticism of the underlying ideology.

And I do not need to defend myself to you. If someone cannot ask honest questions with open dialogue to help make sense of things, then we are not that progressive.

Let me put it to you this way. Female genital mutilation is part of a tribal practice among many african tribes. Does this horrible practice deserve condemnation, or should I just be warm and fuzzy like you and accept everything from every culture as OK?

I don't.

If you don't need to defend yourself to me--why are you being so defensive?

Obviously not, but on the continuum of oppression, forced veiling with the threat of "honor killings", disfigurement, and social devastation, it certainly isn't the milquetoast you are suggesting it is.

Your whole point was that my criticism was "condemning her culture" as if questioning the practices of that culture was somehow hands off or taboo. Which led me to the "obvious" extreme example of cliterectomies to show you that ...yes, we do criticize the practices of other cultures and pass judgement upon them.

What is your problem with me anyway. I have gotten into disagreements with you before and it seems that if I say black, you say white. So what is it BB? What really is YOUR point? Can your throw your argument into the ring or do you just sit back and criticize others?

And can't recall any previous conflicts with you. (There's that defensiveness, again.)

You say that you are a teacher & that you have Islamic students. Do you let your feelings against their religion color your interactions with them? Or do you just teach them to the best of your ability--girls & boys, too? Education is their best chance for improving themselves, whether or not you agree with their choice of headgear.

Or--do you look at the girls with visions of "disfigurement & social devastation" dancing in your head? Do you think the suburban daughter of a neurologist (or two neurologists) has the identical background of a goatherder's daughter in rural Afghanistan?

Do you obsess about the perceived backgrounds of all your students? Or do you just keep an eye out for evidence of real abuse? (As you should.)

I think you just like to act out your little fantasies about me as well of what you perceive me to be.

I don't need to explain myself to you. First of all it would do no good. You seem to have made up your mind about me already. This conversation had to do with freedom of choice about cultural norms, not individual students who I work with. You have never answered any of my pointed questions and instead create strawman arguments, conflate issues that have already been addressed and come to your own conclusions about my point of view that are often outrageous and very different from what I presented.

I am not defensive, I am perplexed at your lack of ability to follow, join in and participate in a conversation without sounding like a reactionary. You seem to have that pattern. I am willing to have a conversation with you, concede some of your points and talk. You have shown it is your way or no way and I need to see your exact point of view or else it is not valid.

As Islam joins with the modern world, many of the highly restrictive practices will decline. I think that may be happening with muslims in Western countries and the hijab becomes less a symbol of oppression and more of a culturalexpression. But until women are free to make that decision without fear of physical harm, coercion or social isolation, then it is not a free choice.

That's quite a compliment.

What I find astounding about people like you is that you see things in black and white. I acknowledged the wonderful things I find about Islam and I also addressed what I considered to be serious flaws in the ideology.

I do the same thing with Christianity, Judaism or any ism including capitalism, socialism etc.

It appears to me that you equate legitimate criticism of a cultures' inconsistencies, problems or irrational ideologies as an indictment of the entire people.

I have my serious problems with Christianity. Does that mean I HATE Christians or think their entire ideology is worthless....no.

Bridget...are you a feminist?
If you are, how do you reconcile the patriarchal system within Islam with being a feminist?

You misinterpret my observations about the patriarchal culture as an indictment of ALL women from that culture.

I find it incredible how people can lay waste to the evils of American culture, the corruption of the republican party, the hypocrisies of most Christians yet if we turn that focus of awareness onto another culture, it is suddenly taboo.

If you read my "problem with Islam" you would have seen that, but you most likely did not.

And instead of answering my questions and putting your own ideas out there, you sit in the shadows and just offer nothing.

Of course abuses should be criticized. But you've always saved your sharpest criticism for Islam--as well as for silly feminists, "PC" & those who don't realize that Christianity is the major religion in the USA.

All the Abrahamic religions are patriarchal at the root. Islam, as the youngest, is still raw about the edges. It is also growing, quite rapidly.

My own ideas? Try to support government policies that will not lead to future embittered generations who might join extremist causes. Relate well to the Muslims I know--although they are educated folks who don't need to be lectured. I can't do much, personally, to CHANGE Islam. Neither is it my place to do so.

What are you doing, personally? Besides fearing those of us who "sit in the shadows."

You really don't read what I write or if you do you superimpose your own ideas of what I am about onto it.

ONe, I don't fear you or anyone in the shadows.

Two, I agree with you about creating a climate where Islam can evolve and grow with the modern world instead of imposing our will upon them, that will never work.

Three, the road to success in the middle east runs through Israel/Palestine and success there will help with Islamic relations. The Palestinians should have their lands returned to them as per the 1967 agreement with full access and water rights. The creation of the Palestian state with full autonomy is necessary to healing the wounds we have helped to create.

Four, returning control of infrastructure to Iraqi's with a full military and contractor pullout.

Five, make it clear that any attack upon a Western country will be dealt with unbridled force and those responsible will be eradicated.

Six, using our Muslim allies who are moderate (Turkey, Jordan, Egypt) as mediators in addressing the civil war.

Seven, engage in talks with Iran, Syria etc.

Democracy will never work at the tip of a gun in the Middle East.

Feminists: I am a feminist. I believe in the full equality of women in all areas. What I do not tolerate are the "feminists" who are so ripe with bitterness that they make MEN and all things masculine the enemy. That is pure immaturity.

"PC" cannot be legislated and often times becomes extreme and cartoonish. I like the concept as a general way to respect people, but the thought and word police need to give it a rest.

YOu really do not read or at the least have the ability to comprehend what I am saying as you still seem to cling to things that I have either explained, addressed or answered.

You, on the other hand, do not answer my questions. I guess you are incapable.

Hurry, tbough. Those FemiNazis & Thought Police are on the way!

Edited to add: Your foreign policy suggestions seem fine. But--what are you going to DO about the parts of Islam that you hate. Start a Crusade?

I don't mean to be so harsh, but do you actually listen to yourself? You pick out things to focus on that I never said or wrote. Like I said I think you have some major hangups and see what you want to see.

When have I EVER said I hated Islam. I said there are inconsistencies, hypocrisies, and irrationalities in Islam like there are in any rigid system, especially the major Judeo-Christian, Abrahamic religions.

My problem has never been with the people of Islam just like my problem with Christianity is not the people. I have every right to criticize what is illogical, irrational, and backwards about religion, as do you. As do countless numbers of people on these boards. It seems that in your myopic vision any criticism of Islam is not allowed. I find that intellectually dishonest and silly.

What am I going to DO about it? Nothing. But I am nnot aive to the fact the Islam is part of the problem as much as Christianity is. The fact that these dictatorial, theocratic nations and sects can be very dangerous, a fact you seem to ignore of gloss over with cute lil platitudes.

I have repeated myself adnauseum, explained my views and you still don't get it. You still misinterpret and flatly make up shit. Do you have a learning disability or is this just a denial system in place?

Re-read my questions in my posts to you... I don't have the time anymore for your lil games.

Somehow, I can't remember yelling "Go, Mullahs!" or saying that Islam is perfect. And somehow you forgot those questions you kept saying I never answered.

You must be a great teacher!

of education has been poor. Your comprehension, basic understanding and ability to formulate anything close to an argument that makes sense is pathetic. YOu are out of your league.

And I am very much well loved and appreciated by my students, thanks.

AS for answering my questions. You obviously took the time to research my previous posts, why don't you simply look back at our dialogue and answer the question you avoided. I am not your gofer, do your work yourself. But then again, I don't expect good skills from you.

And it's obvious that you're fond of personal attacks. Somehow, I'm not hurt.

You have been personally attacking me since the beginning of this discussion, even when I tried to bring attention back to the topic, so I don't have much sympathy for you.

See, you are quite transparent. I can see your motivation and have met many of your ilk. You really have no argument, no point, and no real interest in having an "adult" discussion. You make assumptions, attack, use sarcasm and when someone calls you on it, you avoid, distract and create illusions. Then if someone really lays into you, you will play the victim, and my guess is that you have some real problems with men, who you take a passive aggressive, victim role. Pathetic.

And you've fantasized far more about me than I have about you.

I'm quite sure that you've met many of my "ilk." Women who don't have problems with "men"--just one man.

Just giving you a taste of your own medicine. How did it go down?

(I didn't swallow.)

I thought it was salty?

Our culture, as we all know, has a huge problem with women's breasts, for example. In the same way other cultures insist women cover their heads or faces because they're too exciting to men (at least that's how I've heard it explained), we have to keep breasts out of sight because they're too exciting to men. (Or too "disgusting," in the case of breast-feeding, which seems to cross both genders, unfortunately.)

On the other hand, women have a lot of cultural pressure to do things we consider "normal" in ORDER to attract men. Shaving our legs and underarms, not to mention genital areas, is actually pretty strange when you think about it. So are makeup and high heels; and ironically, the same breasts we can't bare on a hot day are lifted, augmented, padded, pushed up, etc...

Yes, men have cultural "pressures" as well, but I don't think they compare. At least men can take their shirts off, sport hairy legs, and wear flats on all occasions.

and thanks for the good answers. I guess we are all "slaves" to one degree or another, given that we all have societal, cultural and familial expectations we adhere to.

I was given the mixed blessing of a great rack, and the hardship of being raised Catholic. Spent most of my life dressing in a way to minimize them.

Now, finally, my attitude is, may as well make the best of it. Men who stare, rudely, and attempt to cover their shame for it are considered perverts by me. OTOH, those few who have the spine to say something along the lines of, 'that sweater looks great on you,' and give me a wicked grin are a joy to deal with. Those are the ones I'm least worried about doing something inappropriate or harrassing.

to dress a certain way. They object but are pounded emotionally and threatened with loss of privileges by their parents if they persist in trying to exercise their personal choices for attire.

They do not want to wear tight, strapless, revealing, sexy gowns for prom. They are not comfortable wearing such garments and feel oppressed because it is expected. In some cases, the pressure they face is horrible.

Just a little perspective to back your argument on the issue of cultural pressures a lot of Americans seem to miss. ;)

head gear?

When women enter many churches in europe they're required to cover their hair and shoulders.

Or any other type of atmosphere used by all members of society for non-religious purposes.

headgear is very similar.

While nuns' obedience and inferiority (as far as the church is concerned) is doctrine, the general female population is not required to dress like nuns. Outside of church, they are not pressured to wear veils.

It's silly to try to compare the two.

the head gear by women to be religious doctrine as well. So the comparison isn't so silly afterall. Unless Catholic doctrine is a better doctrine in some way. But, that is silly!

The difference is in what's required for clergy within the context of their office and in the outer world (where nuns are often seen unveiled and in casual wear), and in what's required of lay people, both within the walls of their religious institutions and ceremonies, and out in non-religious settings.


Apples / oranges.

It's an irrelevant, disingenuous, argument.

And maybe you can get a "gotcha" in there somewhere, is that it?

The question at hand is, is it demeaning for women to cover themselves head-to-toe in restrictive clothing for the sake of a religion that tells them they must do so at all times, in all public appearances, both to protect themselves from mens' evil and to protect men from committing evil?

It is demeaning to men and women both.

an individual, other than that individual.

or may not be demeaning to a woman raised in a culture entirely different from mine.

A couple of years ago a group of veiled women were seated in a restaurant at the next table. They all had small children with them, and seemed to be enjoying each other's company. I wondered where the husbands were when I realized that the four men a few tables away were the husbands. They had no contact with the women throughout the meal. They each paid separately, presumably for their own wives and children, because the women never saw a bill. The men finally got up to leave without so much as a glance over at the wives. A minute later the women rose and followed them out with the children.

Certainly not something I'd willingly go along with, but an interesting - if brief - peek at the workings of another culture.

is "is this demeaning" about a woman wearing veil/head garb.

The question isn't "is it demeaning for women to cover themselves head-to-toe in restrictive clothing for the sake of a religion that tells them they must do so at all times, in all public appearances, both to protect themselves from mens' evil and to protect men from committing evil?"

That would be another question.

and I think it is a question of degrees. If a European woman chose not to wear headgear the worst thing is she might not be allowed to practice at that church.

If an Islamic woman chooses to remove her hijab, she may very well be putting her life in danger in many Islamic countries.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"The modesty that is somewhat forced upon them offers protection from the aggressive half of the species."

yeah, they would be getting raped all the time if they were not wearing them. That is probably one of the most offensive, innaccurate and stupid things I have ever heard on DU.

If you go by the stats put out by a place like Saudi Arabia they have no crime, no spousal abuse, no HIV, no gays, no drug or alcohol abuse.....

Thanks for your response. I just get so depressed when this old canard comes up again and again that a woman's clothing is somehow culpable in her rape.

the lack of logic involved. I hear ya.

I have been sexually harassed countless times in my life by strangers and aquaintances. I have never been sexually harassed by strangers while wearing long winter jackets or baggy sweat shirts. I have been sexually harassed often by strangers wearing shorts and short sleeve or sleeveless shirts that are somewhat form fitting.
I think that there is some protection offered by wearing more modest, less revealing clothes. It shouldn't be like that. Men don't have to worry about being sexually harassed because they are wearing normal apparel as opposed to clothes that hide a significant part of their body.

Clothing has absolutely nothing to do with whether women are raped, except that some rapists will state that a woman's clothing looked like it would make her easy prey.

And this garb just shouts "prey!" The way many hijabs are fitted obscure peripheral vision. The long coats and heavy materials prohibit women from running effectively or kicking their assailant. The extra fabric gives an assailant a LOT of handholds to hold down the victim etc. etc.

I can't believe this kind of attitude exists within a progressive community like DU....
:puke:

in this city of 6,475,527. That's 60 women in one year. That's less than 1%. http://www.greatestcities.com/Middle_East/Iran/Tehran_city_state_capital/population.html

At least, according to this recent article http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/975997.stm

As opposed to the rape rate of the USA, which is at 31% according to this chart http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_01.html .

I'd say those hajibs work pretty well, which is why the women often prefer them. Making them prey? Hardly.

Protection? The women seem to think so.

The ME's interpretation of women's role in society, relationships and the culture make reporting rape, spousal abuse, incest etc. virtually impossible without serious if not fatal repercussions. Very few women speak out there which means that "official" reporting is useless.

Also, the hijab has nothing to do with protecting a woman and far more to do with enforcing her passivity and susceptability to abuse. The "magic" hijab theories which imply that women are somehow safer while wearing hijab are some of the most dangerous ideas out there. I am sick that anyone buys into them.

Has it occurred to you that the actual rate of rape in Tehran may be much higher than the reported?

As for the hijab being effective protection, well gosh wouldn't chastity belts work even better? Or why not just lock women in dungeons so they won't be out there tempting the men?

Jesus Christ.

function in that culture of distinguishying "good women" from "sluts."

A grad school friend of mine who traveled in the Middle East said that she was hassled constantly by men out in public until she put on a scarf to hide her blonde hair and sunglasses to hide her blue eyes.

So I think that a woman in one of those societies might wear a hijab or other covering simply to avoid being branded as fair game for any asshole.

Or read an interview with one? Or saw one who was in tears for wearing her veil?

What makes you think that their religious beliefs are any more or less valid than anyone else's, including christianity? Don't you believe these women have the power to make their own choices for the most part? There are many who do leave the constraints of their religion by choice. In particular, when muslim women move to western cities like London, the older women keep the old ways and their children rarely adopt the former culture.

Interesting you invoke your gods, but don't seem to have any problem denying them their right to reflect their respect to their gods in their own ways...

Perhaps you should speak with these women and get to know them before passing judgement. You can't rescue those who don't want to be rescued. They have brains and intellect and humor and warmth and respect and compassion and lives and families and many, many wonderful attributes. Don't think that these women aren't capable of making decisions for themselves about many things. That's rather disrespectful. It's not as if they're any less smart or capable than you are. They're not children or slaves.

Here is an excellent article from an iranian woman that is rather revealing, per se.

http://blogher.org/node/11971

you write: "We hear the occasional story but you can bet that the crime of rape is more prevelent in the US than in any muslim nation."

You obviously haven't been reading much about Pakistan recently.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6148590.stm
Pakistan votes to amend rape laws

Women protested outside parliament as the debate was held Pakistan's national assembly has voted to amend the country's strict Sharia laws on rape and adultery. Until now rape cases were dealt with in Sharia courts. Victims had to have four male witnesses to the crime - if not they faced prosecution for adultery.

Now civil courts will be able to try rape cases, assuming the upper house and the president ratify the move. The reform has been seen as a test of President Musharraf's stated commitment to a moderate form of Islam.

A woman is raped every two hours and gang-raped every eight hours in Pakistan, according to the country's independent Human Rights Commission. Correspondents say these figures are probably an under-estimation as many rapes are not reported. Campaigners say Pakistan's laws have made it virtually impossible to prosecute rape. Attempts to pass a new bill failed in September in the face of angry opposition.

in my mother's xtian fundamentalist religion--apostolic pentacostal--one church she attended for a number of years forbad women from wearing pants, jewelry besides wedding rings or make up to the church--even if they were out running errands and had to drop by the church to drop something off, they couldn't wear pants into the church. I remember once having to drop something off to her because she was at an all day conference... and one of the minister's wives had the gall to pull me aside and tell me that they don't allow pants in their church. I told her "and that's the main reason why I am not a member of this cult, I mean church. I don't buy into this crock of a religion of yours--I can attend the Catholic church around the corner in shorts and a t-shirt and sandals and no one would say a word to me about it. I'm not here to hear any messages you think Jesus has for me--I'm here to drop off something my mother needed and that's all. Me and Jesus gon' be alright."

I say all that to say that while we may think that we have all of this freedom to wear whatever we want--depending upon how desperately we want to fit into and assimilate into a certain sector of a particular religious society, if the woman wants to be accepted in that community, she has no choice but to forgo wearing certain clothing, jewelry and make up in order to be accepted if that church requires these outward manifestations to indicate the condition of their soul. Churches are notorious for not being able to accept anyone who goes against the grain. A young girl brought up in a religion of this kind has no choice but to do what her parents tell her, or else the parents will be ridiculed and ostracized because of how 'devilish' their daughter is.

Women who say they love being in polygamous marriages also don't cut their hair--that's a veil of sorts--do they have a choice in going to the salon and getting it cut and colored and styled?

The fear of not being accepted and instead being ostracized and outcast from a religious Christian community is the pressure that is put on women--who are already seen as sinful Eve-Jezebels to begin with--to conform without having to put on a burkah or a wimple, hennin and veil.

In your opinion.

What would you call it? Coercion, freedom of choice?

it becomes oppressive. Easy. IOW, you've got what amounts to a push poll here with the lack of options.

So you think that only if she is physically "forced" to wear headwear, that alone constitutes not having freedom of choice? What about coercion, fear of social isolation? They restrict freedom as well. What about being conditioned in a culture that forces women to take a subordinate position to men, never questioning authority and meekly going through life as a possession. Is that freedom in your eyes?

an opinion? It differs from yours. I'm not going to assume to know a person's motivation for how they live without knowing their background. I live near Dearborn, MI. I know several women (they work with my mom) who wear them as a sense of tradition/comfort for themselves, and then they'll show up to work on Tuesday without them. Some wear them because it encourages trust from their clients. I wear dresses because my husband likes me in them. I am not oppressed. I can wear jeans if I want. I choose not to on some days. Sometimes it really is that simple. :hi: <<<Here's a smiley..with my opinion.

if you refuse to go out in a dress? Comparing your choices to women who live in oppressive, patriarchal cultures seems a bit disingenuous

Sorry bout the Grumpy comment, I had alot of responses and thought you were the one who responded to me in an attacking way. My confusion.

husbands either. They choose to wear them for the reasons I listed above many times.

It's not disingenuous at all when you look at the women who choose to wear them. I completely agree that it is oppressive when forced, but many times it is choice, especially here.


A note on my username: It's based on a spoonerism, not the mood. I screwed up once and said,"That would make MrsGrumpy very Harper." and a username/nickname was born. My husband is actually quite even natured. ;)

No offense taken.

about Muslim women living in Western Countries but I am referring to Islamic countries with strict laws about dress for women. I am willing to say that what is an oppressive practice in some of these countries can turn into a rather innocuous cultural practice in Western "free" nations.

As long as a women has the option to wear or not to wear a hajib is my real issue. If she doesn't HAVE to but chooses to, that works for me. It is only if she HAS to upon the fear of some nasty consequence is what I am more or less referring to.

My problem was that this poll was not fleshed out enough. If that child were in class with my daughter, wearing that of her own accord (which is how I would tend to see it given my location) she is not oppressed. If she is threatened/shamed into it it is oppressive.

WE are agreed, hehe.

Kinda like the abortion issue for me. I am against forced birth and I am against forced abortion. I am against forced wearing of the hajib and I am against forced not wearing of the hajib.

wear the hajibs and veils, and aren't forced into subservience. People seem to think that most muslim women have no free will.

I'd say some first hand research instead of assumptions is in order for a lot of people.

It's as if the amish women and the hassidic women in the US choose their modest life of their own free will and the middle eastern muslim women don't?

The Amish and Hassidic women, that is. Nor do the women trapped in various polygamous sects around the country. When you are born into something and have your life circumscribed by religion and custom, you may not be aware of other options or may be too scared to attempt them. Choice does not happen in a vacuum and is heavily impacted by what you perceive the consequences of a given choice to be.

You say that others on this thread are making assumptions. Fair enough, but I think you are making assumptions, and imposing your cultural frame on others when you talk about choices, as though they are all made in the same context that you make yours.

family for not wearing make up and skirts? For gaining weight? For getting pregnant?

who choose to go against the cultural norm of wearing headgear in strict islamic countries. Don't be silly.

allowed. Like the USA.

and some have been killed. I believe the suffering of women in patriarchal societies/cultures can be addressed. Must be addressed. And blatent symbols of a woman's secondary status, like a veil, should be open to critique. In the Quran women are told that they are second to men, a "step below". Don't get me wrong, I am an equal opportunity religious basher - I find gender equality to be problematic in all of the biggies which is why it permeates so many cultures with prominent religiosity.

"Are there women who would be beat or otherwise punished by husband or family for not wearing make up and skirts? For gaining weight? For getting pregnant?"

Women in the US are routinely beaten by husbands and fathers for the very things you mention. You do know that, right?

violence. No one is free of societal pressure, and in every society there is the potential for coercion and intimidation.

for why those things happen?

pressures but don't recognize the pressures they themselves function under. It's very patronizing, frankly.

In a free pluralistic society people shuold have the right to make their own choices - even choices you don't like - in matters of conscience. You may think they aren't really making free choices because of their upbringing, but they experience no less societal pressuer than you do.

the threat of violence isn't the only threat they face, one that is perhaps even more significant to them is the threat of "dishonoring" their family (fathers and brothers mainly).

I personally do not see it as a personal choice with the amount of cultural/religious pressure that is brought to bear.

an abortion. Or wear a bikini. Or wear make up. Or don't. Or wear a veil.

No one is free from societal pressure.

My objection is to infringing on the rights of others to make choices in matters of conscience.

In America it is her choice, the girl in picture looks Somali, for many Somali women it is a gradual thing to go from the hajab to western dress, the closest thing I could relate would be going out in the first pair of shorts after winter, many people feel a bit exposed then too. The one American women I know, who converted to Islam when she got married,wore the hajab because she wanted to, but stopped when she found out that people thought her husband forced her to wear it. Kind of reverse discrimination.

Ditto the nun costume.

Looked at from a western point of view, it could be. However an Egyptian women I work with told me that originally it was a "protective" thing to, because men were sinful. If you think about when these laws were made it probably was true, in many cultures women are veiled, upper class Hindu women are also sometimes veiled. The term I've read is living in "purdah", literal translation behind the "screen". Hasidim Jewish women are requires also to cover their hair, and in Eastern Orthodox christan religions also the hair must be covered.

..

are wearing here is much more demeaning... To be hip and cool, one must wear shirts three sizes too small, pants that are so low on the hips, you can see their crack.... This is dictated by mostly men who set the standards of fashion..... In fact there is this unspoken demand for all women to be sexy or they don't count....


We get things mixed up here in the states sometimes.....


I did not make these rules, I only repeat what I see....

It is symbolic of religious oppression of women.

It is symbolic of the notion that men can't control their sexual desires, shouldn't bother to learn to do so, and shouldn't take responsibility or be held accountable if they don't.

When a man and woman are alone the third person is Satan...

A friend's son was dating a girl from an evangelical family. They'd go to dances where they were instructed to "leave room for Jesus."

Jesus = Satan?

I don't need a woman around for that.

some people who are against this are trying to force their own choice on them! "No! Don't wear that!!! It's demeaning to you!" See what I'm saying?

I think if they're happy about what they're wearing and they feel comfortable and safe that way, then it's perfectly fine.

is choosing to dress like that of her own free will, but given the power of religion, there is no doubt some element of coercion involved. I don't care what the women in this country who "choose" to cover themselves say about it being a free choice.

Oh, and do westernized women have the freedom NOT to cover up in certain Islamic countries?

Are women who have an audience with the Pope free not to wear a black scarf or mantilla?

... I would probably get arrested. I am forced to wear clothes in this country. Is that demeaning to me?

I guess I can't really say if the above picture is demeaning or not. I would have to question the person to see if they felt that way. In their minds, seeing women from America starving themselves and wearing next to nothing might be demeaning. :shrug:

I assume she's wearing it out of choice or cultural necessity and either way it's none of my business.

the limiting of choice and equality.

Just as any woman has the right to choose to wear an outfit such as the above, and just as the hierarchy of her religion has the right to try to brainwash her into thinking it's for her own good, I have the right to choose to disagree; I have the right to get up on a soap box and say, "That outfit has been forced upon you by people who believe human beings are inherently evil and view sex as evil. I call bullshit."

i know a couple of girls who 'dance' for a (very good) living- they definitely took the job by choice.

i could choose to walk around in a hijab and this would not be oppressive, but if i were required to by state law or by societal pressure, it would be oppressive

state law is another thing- but if it's a state law in a democratic society- then the case could be made for it being a choice as well.

sometimes men hold punishment for not obeying societal rules: rape for instance.

albeit a grim one.

free to choose is how i dress in the morning: i could wear a skirt or pants. the repercussions of wearing either is inconsequential.

but it is a choice, nonetheless.

Her husband had walked out on her leaving behind a mortgage and two kids. She had married him right out of High School and had virtually no marketable skills. The only job she could find that paid enough to take care of her family was dancing in downtown DC strip clubs. I would say that she was forced into pasties and a G-string.

or little isnt the oppression

not having a choice in the matter is the oppression

i have danced with g-string and pasties

not just a legal choice

in my opinion, belief and faith in ANY god is demeaning to the entire human race.

is pompous people feeling that they know what's best for everyone, and trying to force them to change.

Whether that's christians trying to convert non-believers, or people trying to "save" muslim women, or radical environmentalists, or anti-abortionists, or non-smokers, or those who want to ban transfats, or those who "disagree" with the gay lifestyle.

Let people live their lives. You live yours. If people are being killed or abused, fine, feel free to step in on their behalf. But if you don't like the way they dress or the fact that they walk 3 feet behind their man, so what. Shut up. Go away.

Where it was evident that the woman was telling him where to go! Or where they were just joking, like any (happy) couple.

Real abuse should be fought. I believe most shelters for abused women can use volunteers. Or at least contributions. And I believe they serve all sorts of women--even Christian white ladies.

I feel this one is:


Having to completely cover your face is abusive.




Aside from dress, the Arab suppression of women's rights is certainly demeaning and deplorable.

Which is more so?

this thread solves nothing.

was it not?

so, it depends upon what kinds of 'stones' are being used.

Words injur, too.

is that people judge others incessantly in here, Christian fundamentals, Republicans, the "other", yet God forbid we judge someone from another culture or legitimately question their mores, ethics or practices.

Cracks me up

Heaven forbid we appear intolerant of anyone but xtian and RW fundies.

and at least in my case I don't give a fuck what they do in their own lives -- it's their intrusion on others' lives I have a problem with.

But I suppose that there is a caveat. If a woman absolutely does not want to wear it but is forced to do so, then it would be. But, her face in not hidden as though she is a non-entity. I have no problem with this. I admit that the full burka makes me slightly uncomfortable. But, this? Nope.

Is a yarmulke demeaning to an Orthodox male? A turban to a male Sikh? A bindi to a Hindu woman? Are black wool suits demeaning to Amish men, and white bonnets to Amish women? Are symbolic undergarments demeaning to Mormons? Is taking one's shoes off, wearing socks only, in a Japanese Buddhist temple demeaning to everyone? And so on....

If any of the above, including the Muslim woman, are being forced to against their will, if they feel humiliated somehow, then it is degrading, certainly. If it is a matter of choice, following one's culture, and/or religious observance, and is their cultural and religious identity, how can those choices be degrading-- with no physical or psychological injury inflicted?

Sorry, the question posed seems patronizing and judgemental toward the wearing of Muslim garb-- or of women not like us (western-garb wearing, secular folk). Perhaps she and others in her community would ask whether secular women feel degraded under coats of makeup and over-priced designer garb, teetering on precarious heels, stuffing all their crap into sporty, stylish handbags? (And I would say to her in response, "Nope! That's my choice, I like my style, and I don't like your question!".

Anyway, I have a book (yet to crack open and it's due back at the library tomorrow!) on this subject- here it is on Amazon. You may find it interesting, since you have asked this question:

http://www.amazon.com/Face-Behind-Veil-Extraordinary-America/dp/0806527218/sr=1-3/qid=1166021742/ref=pd_bbs_sr_3/104-3767826-0385505?ie=UTF8&s=books



Book Description
For years, the image of the Muslim woman in America has been shrouded in secrecy, as mysterious as the face behind the veil. In this timely and moving book, journalist Donna Gehrke-White provides a rare, revealing look into the hearts, minds, and everyday lives of Muslim women in America and opens a window on a culture as diverse as it is misunderstood. "The Face Behind the Veil" is an insightful chronicle of identity and faith, a celebration of women who are changing the face of America and Islam.

hair had been coerced by his parents, would be teased mercilessly and called a nazi or mental patient. Cosmopolitan went as far as to say never date a man with a crewcut who isn't in the military.

Now a lot of us choose that hairstyle because it is low maintainence or we like the look, and because fashion isn't quite so rigidly conformist.

I get the impression that girls who wear that in the West and in Westernized Muslim countries are choosing it as an affirmation of "traditional values" just as fundamentalist Christian women might choose to wear skirts instead of pants or refrain from wearing low rider jeans that expose their ass crack and pubes.

It's not always a good match.

So which is more important -- tolerance of other cultures/religions or the demand for gender equality?

I'm pro choice.

That being the case, I find the poll question to be dancing along the line of intolerance.

choice of abortion, after all.

The vast majority of Moslems live in tightly clustered and monitored areas, and the social pressures to wear the hijab are pretty high. Cultural conditioning and societal pressure take away real "choice".

In France, most Moslems support the law banning religious symbols in schools including the hijab, because the social coercion factor from within their own communities had become too extreme. You can say they live in a westernized society and are "free" to choose but in reality their social world is very tightly monitored and rules about things like hijab are enforced.

There's also the problem of what kind of effect psychologically it has on girls and women to grow up and live with edicts that tell them their basic self, their bodies, are somehow "sinful" and must be covered. Or that they are the cause of men's sins if they aren't covered. This religion (well most religions, not just Islam) demeans women and the dress enforces their inequality - it makes sure women have to live with that every single moment of every day, imho which just can't be good for anyone's mind. If it's okay for western cultures to criticize cultural practices like forced arranged marriages (and rightfully so) but not okay to criticize the clothing, I'm not sure where people are thinking they can draw the line.

Are high heels and make up a choice?

Is every abortion a choice, free of any societal coercion or expectation?

We are ALL products of our societies and cultures, and we ALL must make choices.

Gender equality in a landslide. Anyone who answers different...I have to wonder about their true committment to liberal and progressive ideals.

I hope so.

and I have the feeling this is going to be like talking to a brick wall, but I'm going to try anyway. You are male and there's no way that doesn't cloud your view on this. You haven't had a religion tell you your entire life that you're inferior...that there's something wrong with you just because you were born female. You aren't the cause of all sin. You aren't the one who has to be covered up all the time to protect you from men. (And even in the US there is a lingering vestige of this in the way we always bring up what rape victims were wearing.) Note than men are not responsible for their actions...you are if you're female.

Almost every world religion has a history of oppressing women and continues to do so to some extent. Almost every world culture has a history of oppressing women and continues to do so to some extent. Women get little or no say in interpretting the rules of their religions or their cultures. Why then should I give any "cultural" or "religious" practice that harms women and reinforces their second class status a pass?

And I'm a gay atheist, so I have some familiarity with religious oppression.

I also strongly support abortion rights, because I believe in individual personal choice.

You don't need to give any religion or practice a "pass" to respect the right of a woman to make her own choice, even when you don't like her choice.

particularly when it involves religious nonsense that serves to demean half the human species. Whether or not a woman chooses (or thinks she's choosing) to participate in a religious or cultural practice is not the point. The point is the practice itself (along with the religion/culture that spawned it) demeans all women.

Though I think if you believe in a principle of personal choice, it ought to be consistent.

If that's what you believe, of course.

You have to draw the line somewhere when that choice hurts other people. For instance, I would chose to administer shovel beatings to a large number of the idiotic people I interact with on a daily basis. But I don't get to exercise that choice because it's not ok for me to harm others.

If you are not violating someone else's right, I think it's a matter of personal choice.

Beat the idiots with a shovel and go to jail (but feel justified), or don't beat them.

Since it's a situation involving the inherent denigration of women, it's logical that those who see it that way would find this "choice" to be problematic and demeaning to women. Speaking out about that isn't inconsistent at all with being pro-choice when it comes to abortion. Pro-choice when it comes to abortion is all about a woman's right to decide what to do with their body. Veiling the body via cultural conditioning/societal pressure/religious dogma, not so much. A woman's body is being controlled there through other forces not her own.

cutting their hair, or having abortion.

We are all influenced by societal pressure. Does that mean some choices are not totally free? Maybe, maybe not. The only choice you KNOW is not free is the one that is legally required.

psychologically, mentally or whatever. Freedom of choice is secondary when a particular kind of "freedom" is harmful.

is it in outlawing the veil?

mondo joe has been very consistent in his caveat of "personal choice". There are many American women who have chosen to convert to Islam knowing full well that they would have to cover their heads. That is a choice they have made; and, I have heard these women say that they find it liberating. You may not agree, but it certainly supports mondo joe's point of view.

I might have agreed with you many years ago. In some contexts, I still do. But, I had my eyes opened when working and teaching women across the Arab world: Syrians, Jordanians, Saudis, Egyptians, Lebanese, Kuwaitis, Palestinians, during working stints in Egypt and S. Arabia several years ago. These were professional women--largely physicians and very westernized and liberated by local standards. They were as different from each other, in their views, as they were with their male counterparts--who I was able to work with separately as a group (as a western woman, they were respectful to the point I felt I had no gender--but that's another story).

The bottom line though is that my talks with these women was extremely eye-opening. These women were able to immigrate if they wanted, were trained in Britain, Europe, the US and YES, they were able to leave their culture, their religion, their traditions--including covering. They were, of course upper middle class and well educated, but they do dispel the notion that there is any kind of monolith among Arab or Non-Arab Muslim women. They expressed the view that the negative western attitudes toward the veil--covering--the hijab--(that you have well described)as an attack on their culture.

Nonetheless, they expressed viewpoints on the role of women that many western women could find agreement with, but there is a real disconnect on this issue. While if women in the West were forced or expected to "cover," this would be the ultimate and I would likely erupt like a volcano. For many Arab women, to be forced to abandon the hijab would be akin to you, VelmaD and I, and other western women being forced to abandon our way of life--our core beliefs. To many Muslim women, western norms in terms of dress, are offensive to them and leave them feeling exploited. It would be amost like if WE were told to dress in only pasties, thigh high stockings and high heels each day--really! There truly IS a cultural difference and when those impacted do not wish change, our filters applied to their decisions may not be appropriate.

I think we are confusing the true incidents of abuse and inequality and injustice that are occuring among women in some Arab countries, as well as in India and China, and elsewhere--with the symbol of clothing. In some areas of some Arab countries, the two may coincide, that's true. BUT, Not all Muslims or Muslim countries are alike, in their viewpoints or the status of women. To confuse this, leads to the kind of cultural insensitivity that is rampant in the US--even, unintentionally, among some progressives.

Fascinating.

You don't have to wonder about me -- I put tolerance of differences in culture miles above gender equality. Feel free to label me any way you please.

you believe it's perfectly ok for a culture to treat women like seccond class citizens or worse? It's always good to know which people we cannot depend on to support the rights and equality of half the human race. :eyes:

If someone doesn't believe I'm fully human just because I don't have a penis...I have no fucking use for them. If that's intolerant...at least it's a better brand of intolerance that those people who think I'm less than human because of how I was born. At least I'm just intolerant of their thoughts (something they have control over) rather than just hating them for existing in the first place.

If you want to throw out an entire culture because of sexism, you need to start with your own.

Does that mean we have more right to speak about the issues? No. Frankly I welcome anyone who participates in furthering the discussion of how to help eradicate sexism in our world.

Where's all the hand-wringing about them? "Oh, those poor oppressed little women, caving in to social pressure!!1!"

Oh that's right...only Western women are assumed to be adults who can be trusted to dress properly. Pffft.

Try as you might, you cannot transform this thread into some bizarre 60s redux of the women's liberation movement.

I did not say that, nor do I endorse this. Just so it's perfectly clear to anyone who is still bothering to read this pissing match, the key here is personal choice. If a woman (or man) chooses to give up some aspect of personal freedom as part of her (or his) fulfillment of religious convictions or as part of belonging to a culture, then it is fine. If these restrictions are forced on her, then I don't support them.

I couldn't be more clear, and I've said this multiple times.