Hmm, your trackback link is giving me a 404

So here's a manual one.

I have maintained for some time that Mohammed was not gay enough to have come up with the idea of the abaya. No man (at least not a straight one) would have thought of this. This design is obviously the work of a coyote-ugly woman with a body reminiscent of a bartlet pear in attempt to level the playing field.

Is this the crotchless abaya?

According to The Proud Family, it's good for covering up those bad hair days.

I can't remember the other reasons she gave as to why she wore it, but it was a whitewash.

The logic used by the Dutch minister is flawed. Covering up can be very liberating. Just look at our screen names. You don't know me from eve (or possibly adam) because I've covered up my true identity.
Not only that, but my signifigant other, a former actor, rhaps waxotic about acting in a mask. Claims it is most artistically liberating.
And Sandy's right. No make-up, bad hair and not caring what people think of your dress... very liberating.

The point is that that's your decision, made by you alone, not made for you by outside forces.

We're talking about why western, non-Moslem, women might find the burqa liberating. You men wouldn't get it because you haven't been judged by your appearance from birth on. If all women MUST be covered up, there'd no pressure to look your best to run out for a loaf of bread. We could all pretend we're gorgeous, well dressed and perfectly groomed under our robes even if the truth is far different.

Moslem women who are forced on the pain of death to wear a burqa are far from liberated. Their plight is a disgrace and the women's movements worldwide are to be condemned for doing nothing to ameliorate their suffering.

The abaya and any like garments treat a woman's body like it is nothing more than a dirty thing that can only be lusted after and therefore must be covered up.

Only problem is the lust doesn't go away. Don't believe me. Then explain why Saudi Arabia has such a huge issue with sex slave trafficing, or why the Iranian government in the name of "moderation" allows men to have "temporary" marriages so that fornication/adultry is not technically being committed. When the temporary marriage has come to an end if the woman is pregnant she is then pregnant and unmarried. Anyone want to guess what happens to that "liberated" woman?

God have mercy on people who cannot tell the difference between being hidden and being liberated.

Excellent idea. We can save women from the opression of trying to look good all the time (here's a hint ladies, if you're good looking you don't need makeup and sexy outfits, and if you're a cow all the cosmetics and clothes in the world aren't going to make you pretty). How about repealing women's sufferage so they won't have the opression of actualling thinking on political topics. In fact lets just outlaw all women's education altogether, that way they will be freed from the drudgery of math and the tyrrany of science.

Actually it would be sexist to give only women this kind of freedom, and since I'm a nice, self-sacrificing guy (almost Christ-like, you could say; though without the long hair, beard, or the Aramaic) I will take up the burden of being the world's only intelligent person (some days it already feels like that). All you have to do is exactly what I tell you. Then you can all be truly free.

You men wouldn't get it because you haven't been judged by your appearance from birth on.

That's a load of crap. Both sexes judge each other based on apperances. It's human nature and not confined to only one gender.

If you feel you have to get beautified up to go to the store for bread and eggs, that is your problem and says more about your self confidence than anything else.

The abaya = liberating like putting masking tape over your check engine light = well maintained car.

If they want to liberate the women, how about teaching the men how to respect them as human beings?

"(here's a hint ladies, if you're good looking you don't need makeup and sexy outfits, and if you're a cow all the cosmetics and clothes in the world aren't going to make you pretty)"

Well, for one thing, most of us are somewhere in between goddess and cow, and we can tell you from experience that clothes, makeup and hair do make a difference.

For another, back in the day, I used to hear guys all the time saying they liked women who looked good without makeup, like Meg Ryan or Sandra Bullock. I was usually able to supress my laughter. (here's a hint guys, that naturally perfect look requires a lot of time in the makeup chair, followed by airbrushing.)

That said, I gave up a long time ago on dolling up to go to the grocery store or whatever. I pretty much quit that when I started working out regularly and found I had to run errands on the way home from the Y. I got over the feeling that I was naked without eye shadow. Now that's liberating.

"Well, for one thing, most of us are somewhere in between goddess and cow, and we can tell you from experience that clothes, makeup and hair do make a difference."

Trust me sweetie, it only makes a difference to other women. I can tell you from experience that men genuinely don't give a damn. MMDeuce is spot on.

This is real simple. Women are liberated from making themselves presentable when they leave the house if they are required to be swathed from head to foot in a black shroud when they stop out the door.

That's what they would be liberated from doing. We're not talking about gussying up for a date. Men aren't judged on their appearances in the same way as women are. This isn't debatable and nobody is suggesting that it's a good idea to be liberated by being forced into sharia only explaining why it's "liberating."

Only a seriously disturbed woman would convert to Islam and I understand that many who do find they have made a very bad mistake, but getting out isn't as easy as getting in.

Some people do indeed find the abaya quite liberating.

What I was attempting to point out was the flaw in the logic on the part of the Dutch minister. She finds the abaya liberating because she had to wear it, had to wear certain colors and patterns to be identified for her Islamic sect, reminencent of gang colors, I think.
I was attempting to point out that what she defines as liberating is actually pigeonholing her in the Islamic society. Not liberating her by allowing her more freedom.
And for the record, I gave up lipstick for clear gloss last summer and have never looked back!! Very liberating.

I think that the abaya would be liberating in the same way that I found BDU's liberating.

Actually, the more I think of that the more sense the analogy makes. Because while it really was very nice to defer all clothing choices and consequences, in other ways military service is extremely constraining.

Trust me sweetie, it only makes a difference to other women. I can tell you from experience that men genuinely don't give a damn.

Precisely. While the runway model look is pleasing to look at, generally men equate such appereance with high maintenance, both from a makeup and pocketbook perspective.

The cute next door girl look is what guys generally fall for.

I think that the abaya would be liberating in the same way that I found BDU's liberating.

Yes, when I was in the Air Force, picking out what to wear was pretty simple. I'd go to the closet and say, "Hmmm, I think I'll wear something blue."

Many years ago, I was talking to a college classmate who went to a Catholic high school. She said that it took her over 30 minutes each day to figure out what to wear because she'd never had a choice while in school. All I could think was, "Why bother?" It just isn't that important except to the vain or the insecure.

"Trust me sweetie, it only makes a difference to other women. I can tell you from experience that men genuinely don't give a damn. MMDeuce is spot on."

I agree that it does matter to other women. And women know what efforts other women have made or have failed to make.

What I'm saying though, is when you see a cute gal, you just think "cute gal." You don't know how she got there, or what she would look like if she "let herself go."

It seems that, for some women (the converts to Islam), it's a matter of choice. A choice between converting and wearing the headgear (etc.) of Islam, or helping to change their nation's gun laws to be more like Vermont. So, the can carry them on their person and be prepared to defend their rights. ALL of their rights. Which means willingness to kill those who would kill them as infidels.

There is no going back to those days before 9/11 (or 3/11 for Europe). Sept. 10 or March 10 only exists in the mind.

Arms or abaya. Those are the choices. Infidel men have had the choice made for them. Only the ones in denial continue to live in a Sept 10th world.

Trust me sweetie, it only makes a difference to other women. I can tell you from experience that men genuinely don't give a damn. MMDeuce is spot on.

A staggeringly foolish statement.

Denise is correct.

Denise, I appreciate what you're saying, but again I think you're confusing what women think and what men think. Men are not influenced by delicate, subtle choices in makeup, clothing, and hair. We're not paying enough attention for that.

For example, you claim that when a guy sees a cute gal he thinks "cute gal." You're wrong -- that's what a woman thinks. When a man sees a cute gal, he thinks "nice rack" or "nice ass", followed immediately by "I bet she'd be fun to have sex with". If he thinks her face is pretty it's because of bone structure and proportion, rather than the subtle blush of artfully applied rouge. The only thing he'll notice about her hair is that she has some.

But what about the hours she spent selecting a dress that doesn't make her ass look big? Wasted effort. It's her ass that makes her ass look big. The incremental changes that clothing provides are too small to be noticed by a man -- though I grant that they'll be noticed by other women.

All of which means that it's other women that make women spend hours working on hair, makeup, and clothes. Men don't give a damn, because they're too simple to notice such things. You want to make men think you're more attractive when you're out in public, spend twenty seconds padding your bra with kleenex.

DRB -- You can't have it both ways. If you are too blind and simplistic to notice what a woman has done to make herself more attractive, then you can't claim that it is too subtle to matter. Some measures can have pretty dramatic effects.

Here's an example:

http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/10yearsyounger/episode/diane/diane.html

Sorry I don't know how to do links.

Interesting site.

In addition to the one above, DRB, tell me which you'd be more apt to notice in the following links--the before, or the after:

http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/10yearsyounger/episode/celina/celina.html

http://tlc.discovery.com/fansites/10yearsyounger/episode/joni/joni.html

I'm sure as hell not defending the abaya. But the notion that men don't respond to the right application of makeup, clothes and hairstyle is just horsecrap.

I'm sorry LNS and denise, but your links don't support your conclusion. The conclusion I draw from the links that you two provided is that neither Diane nor Joni are attractive (either in their "before" or "after" pictures) and that Celina is attractive (both "before" and "after").

Your links actually undercut your argument and support the original one made by MMDeuce. That is: if a woman is pretty she doesn't need makeup and special hairstyles to make her so -- and if she's ugly, makeup and hairstyles won't change that.

Celina is good looking. Diane and Joni are not. No amount of makeup and hair-styling (or lack of same) will change that. Sorry.

Ah, the veil. Allow me to interject my thoughts as a true feminist. While I am an overweight, sensualistic, bearded male writer, I still consider myself an advocate of that, the superior gender. My three divorces have delivered to me the requisite humility to be a male feminist.

First, don't confuse Islamic tradition with tribal culture. The latter predates the former by thousands of years. It's tribal culture that strives to control women to such a vile degree, and Islam, which in Mohammed's day was downright feministic in its attempts to moderate the ingrained tribal misogyny, actually went a long way to liberate women. This claim sounds grotesque in light of the deviation of Islam practiced in, say, Taliban Afghanistan (anyone with sympathies for the Taliban should see the film "Osama," which has the most horrifying closing sequence I've ever witnessed on film, but then I have two daughters), but it's no less true for being so dissonant.

The veil can be seductive. In its day it was something of a sex toy because it forced you to imagine what lay underneath. It was a type of mental foreplay. It was very sexual in a healthy way. Anyone who dismisses the sexuality of the veil needs to read Baudelaire's letters from his North African travels. (On a side note, what ever happened to belly dancers anyway?)

But the misinterpretation of the veil, it's metamorphosis into the imprisoning burkha, is more a resurgence of tribal culture and has little to do with Islam or Mohammed. It’s more about fundamentalism, which is a phenomenon that is more cultural than religious in nature and is spurred by rapid changes such as globalization. The ultimate example of the barbaric controlling of women in the Mideast is the practice of honor killing. This tribal practice, the ultimate form of woman-control, predates Islam by thousands of years. Indeed, Armenia, the world's first and longest-standing Christian nation, was rampant with honor killing and still is to this day. It's a barbaric custom that needs to be purged from our Mother the Earth for all time. The imprisoning veil also needs to go. The Islamic veil can stay. The veil as used by the dancers in Baudelaire's letters I hope will catch on again someday.

Kindest,

BT
http://browntroutsnextbook.blogspot.com

I can understand the thinking behind the “burkas are liberating” statement.

Burkas are “liberating” in the same sense that communism and socialism are “liberating”.

To some extent, all of the above free the individual from the need to make decisions, and accept responsibility for their individual actions.

It’s a meme that’s very common amongst those on the left.

My first thought re: burkas and such -- which are required by a *patriarchal* society, even if women then willingly assume it based upon indoctrinated learning-- is: What, men can't help themselves from raping women not covered from head-to-toe? Either they are lust-crazed animals without control over their primal urges when exposed to the unwrapped female form, or they are using it as a control/repression methodology.

It is nothing short of evidence of repressed freedom (experienced by males), expressed as domination of a stronger gender over a weaker one.

You know how in our society it is pretty well understood that many abusers/killers manifest their tendancies early-on as animal abusers? It allows repressive regimes to maintain control over males in the general public, by then allowing the men a safety-valve in expressing those resentments as control over women.

You can make light and joke, and there will always be women willing to undertake such a yoke, but it is a very ugly aspect of human nature -- both as expressed by the repressive governors and those willing to deny their resentments by focussing them on a weaker victim.

Should have no place in the 21st Century.

I am an American female living in Germany. I am not
Muslim. I am a Christian and would never think of
becoming Muslim.
I had a babysitter that converted. She was a
gorgeous, blond, tall and thin. She hated the catcall
she would get. Especially from the Italian men. Once
she started covering she felt she could now peacefully
walk down the street. Many women(not to mention the
girls) dress very slutty. The clothes are mad that
way. Many of the men are quite rude. But if you
cover you gain a certain amount of respect from men.
It is like wearing a nun's habit. Well, that's the
way I see it.