Naked Breasts vs. Islam?
Facing grave danger since she currently lives in Egypt (Sahin lives in Germany, Malik in India as well as Pakistan), this young blogger has managed to draw attention to the increasing injustices women face in Egypt without demeaning herself along Western lines. But, again, there may be other ways to go about rebelling.
Veena Malik
We live at a moment in history in which worldwide a woman’s “looks” are more essential to her survival than ever before. Today, incredibly, women are being judged, paid, employed, and married as a function of how good they look in a bikini and a mini skirt or whether they wear a burqa or a head scarf. Women are even killed when they violate dress codes in the Muslim world.
If feminist ideas have indeed progressed and seized the imagination of the world, then having to conform to either highly eroticized clothing or to the shroud-like burqa represents a new kind of backlash against women’s freedom. At the very least, it is certainly a giant step backward.
Neither the bikini nor the burqa liberates or protects women. Rapists, harassers, and stalkers continue to attack women whether they are half-naked, “naked-faced,” or fully veiled. In the 21st century, Egyptian male mobs numbering up to 1000 went on“wilding” sprees. Recently, “wild” Egyptian men tore the clothing off working female journalists — both infidels and Muslims — and groped. One journalist, Mona Eltahawy, was sexually assaulted in police captivity; the men with guns also broke her arm.
Naked women abound. This does not mean they are powerful or free. Female prostitution and pornography as well as sex trafficking and female sexual slavery flourish in fundamentalist Muslim and non-Muslim countries and in heathen Western enclaves on both coasts of America and all across Europe. The number of women who are being repeatedly and publicly gang-raped in Africa has been steadily increasing. As of May 2011, two million women in the Congo have been raped.
Both clothing extremes denote a rather heartbreaking conformity and comprise a variety of health hazards. Both often affect a woman’s self-esteem in negative ways.
For example, I have mournful reservations about trendy-sexual clothing styles. I am concerned about the anxiety, eating disorders, drug addiction, and low self-esteem that often accompany girls and women who become obsessed with having an idealized, young, sexy, thin, and large-breasted appearance. Stylish but very high heels may be beautiful but women are falling in such shoes and breaking bones. They are also setting themselves up for later misery. In terms of surgery: girls and women at younger and younger ages are subjecting themselves to the knife so that they have more perfect facial features and bodies. At least $10 billion was spent on plastic surgery in America in 2011.
Alright. So is the “solution” to cover up completely? Is this also a fitting spiritual or religious statement about the importance of spurning outward appearance, material or pagan values, and dedicating oneself to God? If so, then why aren’t their male counterparts doing the same thing? Where are all the face-veiled mullahs? Ironically, when such men cover their faces and heads, they most resemble ninja warriors — or shrouded women. But this is male battle gear. What battle is it that women are fighting as they “cover up”?
A burqa is a sensory deprivation and isolation chamber which effectively deprives the wearer of communicating freely and easily with others. This is the precise function of the burqa. It is a moveable prison. One’s ability to speak, hear, and be heard is compromised as is one’s peripheral vision, sense of smell, and ability to eat or shop in public.
A society is judged on how its women are treated.
The oppressive repressive tribal death cult called Islam sucks big time – just does. THAT culture is NO culture.
Segue: We also need to stop preaching to our choir and get the word out to the unknowing and uncaring public. They must know and start to care.
NOBAMA IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!
Islam is a culture only in the microbiological sense.
Islamic Sexuality: A Survey of Evil
Sıla Sahin is Kurdish-German and she’s an atheist.
Aliaa Elmahdy is atheist too.
Just to understand Sıla Sahin, and Aliaa Elmahdy were Muslim fron birth, and became atheists. Is that correct? In the Muslim faith which gets the more lenient death sentence, nudity or rejecting the faith?
Neither. They get stoned either way. Islam doesn’t differentiate.
Both women and men should be free to cloth themselves as they wish, with no restrictions. If that means they choose to go naked in public, that should be respected.
That’s not feminism or sexism, but freedom of expression.
Any law either requiring or barring any mode of dress or undress is a law restricting freedom of expression, which is (at least in the US, as well as the UN charter) protected by fundamental laws.
As you say, rapists and similar criminals don’t care about how their victims dress, or how they look.
So any statement that laws requiring restrictive clothing (or banning revealing clothing) are meant to prevent rape are indeed nonsense. “public decency” laws are similarly nonsense, as what’s “decent” is subject to change and those same laws don’t put restrictions on speech or behaviour, only mode of dress.
Of course in the US, an excessively prudish country despite the veil of “naughtiness” that many of its inhabitants profess to cultivate (what civilised country would spend years of lawsuits and government inquiries about a nipple showing for a few seconds in a television appearance of a celebrity known for her antics?) such logic won’t go down well, but then the US is not much different in its mores from Iran in that regard.
There are still laws against indecent exposure in the US. You may interpret the Constitution this way; I don’t. In fact, the phrae “freedom of expression” does not appear there.
I’m not sure how she is interpreting the word “burqua”. Saudi Arabia is very extreme and primitive; I don’t mean 6th century, I mean uncivilised.
Are you sure a burqua always covers the face? I’ve seen Arab women here in Israel with colored burquas or black with silver thread – clearly intended to be attractive. One also sees women (not young ones either) in headscraves and Jeans, which I suppose is from the Turkish influence, where women traditionally wear pants. Cristian Arab women will walk around wearing basically nothing.
I thank the author for trying to bring some balance to the issue. I do not see how the problem is solved by women objectifying themselves. The West always has this tenedency to go to extremes.
Sorry, I didn’t mean to insult Cristian Arabs. I was referring to near the beach, and simply meant they may dress as their secular Jewish counterparts.
there’s different styles of clothing, what you’re describing is not the burqah but the hijab and niqab which leave the face free but cover the rest of the head.
And yes, in my opinion any law against “indecent exposure” is limiting freedom of expression, freedom in general in fact in exactly the same way as laws requiring specific styles of clothing (like the Taliban requiring burqahs).
I’ve nothing against laws prohibiting sex in public as long as they’re enforced equally against homosexuals as well (they aren’t, so as not to make homosexuals angry), but people should get the idea that nudity==sex==bad out of their heads and grow up.
Ms. Chesler,
You may not like the results of your sexually liberated (naked) women, but it was entirely predictable and predicted. You have a lot of nerve chastising those who told you what would happen back yesterday AND chastising those that followed your leadership today.
You reap what you sew.
Can we get an apology for what your political efforts have done for/to women in the US?
Sew?
Apologies for the typo.
I thought ‘sew’ was a clever pun, as in clothes.
Oh, yeah. It was. Ha ha.
The previous comment from “flabbergasted” stating “Oh, yeah. It was. Ha ha.” was NOT from the original flabbergasted. It is an imposter.
Just for clarity’s sake, let’s not assume my non-identity, okay?
Ms. Chesler,
You may not like the results of your sexually liberated (naked) women, but it was entirely predictable and predicted. You have a lot of nerve chastising those who warned you what would happen yesterday AND chastising those that followed your former leadership today.
You reap what you sew.
Can we get an apology for what your political efforts have done for/to women in the US?
What am I saying?
Incoherent juvenile bollox, to be frank.
Either one is free, or you are in control.
The everlasting equation is that you are free to dress as you like as long as I am free to react to it as I like, and there is no coercion involved.
And then there is the biological pushing through – women are programmed to demonstrate that a man’s seed will not be wasted on them (hench the show of sexual reproductive availability – often, but incorrectly, interpreted as ‘asking for it’), while at the same time the unfortunate female must select a mate who will support her offspring – a hard choice at the moment given the wasters that I see in the modern male(?)
It’s not easy to be a woman or a man at the moment.
ADE
Shazaaam!
And all along I thought they were programed to reject me…
So where can I download those nude pictures from?
I can’t form an informed opinion on this issue, unless I examine the material for myself.
Comparing mini skirts to head scarves and Playboy to purdah is nonsensical.
Most of Chesler’s reasoning is nonsensical. It’s a shame she’s published on this site. Her intellectual acumen is still well below par and her writing is poor, at best. She’s an old-school feminist abandoned by her “tolerant” peers, so she skulks over to those she used to hate (who welcome her with open arms to their credit).
Unfortunately, she’s still a man-hating fool with an empty philosophy. Her hatred of Islam is wrapped in her feminist idiocy, she has learned nothing from her failure and rejection. She’s dragging down the average quality of articles on PJMedia.
She shouldn’t be rejected because she’s a woman, she should be rejected because she’s a bad writer with bad ideas, as she always has been. The only difference between 20th century Chesler and 21st century Chesler is that today she’s washed-up and alone, clamoring for attention from anyone – even the people she hates.
flabbergasted,
Your critique on Ms Chesler only serves to portray yourself as a someone with very little to say. Why don’t you try writing something of what YOU think is appropriate and/or inappropriate with respect to freedom of women in the world today? Stick your neck out there and take a position on how YOU think things should be. It’s easy to criticize those who have the courage to take a stand. Are you afraid to take a stand yourself? Are you afraid that you will be treated as unkindly as you’ve treated Ms Chesler?
You don’t know who I am nor the work that I do so your arguments are, at best, ignorant.
“Why don’t you try writing…”
I have and I do, but my identity is irrelevant to the substance of my critique of Ms. Chesler. Perhaps you should focus more on my argument and less on my person (of which you know nothing).
The substance of your critique offers nothing of value. I think you’re a troll.
“how you think things should be”—Funny you should mention that, but doing this very thing is what got us here in the first place. Have you ever thought about the fact that it is this business of thinking about how things should be, and the active attempts at applying these thoughts to the world, that have resulted in most of the really truly terrible policies that have been implemented around the world? I am a religious person, but I know enough about human nature to recognize this tendency for what it is and call it the religious impulse. It is that part of us that desires a world that we can somehow perfect and gives us an urge to try and see it in practice. If we reach even a modicum of success it usually results in dramatically bad results. If you think a controlled and centralized economy is bad, just try the same thing on culture and mores. This is not to say that some cultures are not more morally strict than others, but when they are, those mores are not imposed from without, or by a minority that has usurped power, they are more or less arrived at spontaneously as a result of cultural history (read some Jaques Barzun).
Subtle coercion and applied freedom of association can do quite nicely in this arena. We don’t need morals police.
teapartydoc,
I’m not advocating “morals policing” here… if that’s what you think. Say what you want, humanity will decide what kind of world humanity wants. Nothing wrong with that as far as I’m concerned. People like Phyllis are trying to offer better alternatives. What alternatives are you an advocate of?
3. Disagree, but avoid ad hominem attacks.
You’re being rude, disrespectful and downright spiteful. Go get a push pop or something.
I’ve made no ad hominem attacks.
I stand by all of my statements as factually provable.
Rude?
Perhaps.
Disrespectful?
Yes. I have no respect for Ms. Chesler or her career.
Spiteful?
No.
I don’t like push-pops.
I can’t believe you just wrote that… She is very much on the money and it is you that is off the wall, not even close, out in left field so on and so forth.
Have you read her books?
Do you have any idea who you’re defending?
This is the ORIGINAL man-hater.
You attack me, assuming I’m a liberal, when Chesler is unabashedly an extreme leftist. Try looking into her past before you decide she’s someone you want to ally with. I’m not in “left field”, she is.
Women and Madness
Women, Money and Power
About Men
With Child: A Diary of Motherhood
You want to defend that bookshelf?
Do you actually think her description of Islamo-Fascist societies as a sexual Disneyland for men is “right on the money” (because that’s what she did in The Death of Feminism) or are you ignorant of her work?
Quite an impressive box of tools PJMedia has acquired…
so you think she’s right in calling for these women to go back to wearing burqahs because their protest against them makes them a target for “sexually obsessed men” or whatever? Which is essentially what she’s saying, because in those women’s culture anything short of a burqah would be seen as “indecent” and therefore haram, prohibited, intended to sexually arouse men and make them turn away from god.
These women took the step of making their displeasure with the situation of their peers known in the most extreme way possible for a Muslim woman, by stripping themselves of all clothes. They should be applauded for the audacity of that move, not berated (and especially not by someone claiming to champion women’s rights) for it as being “insensitive” and “indecent”.
I have never read a diatribe against a writer of an article, which so fits the attacker to a T. All this acrimony which he heaps on Ms. Chesler, an excellent writer and very far from a man hater, should be said about the writer of this comment.
David, when Ms Chesler can give me examples of Western women having their faces burned off with acid by Western men for not wearing a bikini I’ll grant her moral equivalence. Until then, she’s just another Leftard.
Extremes meet. To escape from one extreme, the nearest place to go is the other extreme.
I believe one’s bottom should be covered so as not to soil the furniture. Otherwise whatever? Climate also has something to do withit. Third degree sunburn is no joke nor is frostbite. Curiously enough the Spartans wore nothing so that they would not be sexually attractive. By the way as you sew so shall you rip. If you want to reap you have to sow!
Unfortunately these women will be killed by some stupid man in the name of his poor excuse for a god. May GOD protect these women, he has already given them more courage than any muslim man!
I just came in here for the pics. I am disappointed.
Chesler missed the whole point..
Sex is all in the mind..If she has a dirty mind that is her problem.
A muslim woman posing nude is an expression of disgust with the muslim treatment of women in general. A middle finger to Islam.. More power to this brave young woman.
Dear flabbergasted,
Before pointing fingers at Phyllis what she has done in US, consider what you have done. Phyllis articles provided the much required information in a politically correct media, a media on one hand says that it supports the rights of gay/lesbians/women and does nothing in exposing the sufferings of women, particularly the large scale suppression of rights of women in Islamic countries. Have you read Koran, Sira and Hadith. Have you read Will Durant, the famous American historian said about Islam. Or Samuel Huntington and others. Self styled liberals like you, Diana Eck must be suffering from some mental handicap, perhaps even sick in minds, when you spend so much energy railing against those like phyllis on one hand , you are totally indifferent to the suffering of millions whose suffering Phyllis is trying to expose.
Regards,
Sekhar
Before defending Chesler, you might want to read her work and look into her history. She does NONE of things you commend her for.
She is a major cause of the plight about which she now complains.
You call me a liberal. I am not, as is OBVIOUS from my previous posts condemning Cheslers’ LONG, militant, bigoted, feminist history as a LIBERAL.
You have obviously missed the content of my post. You’re just another ignorant fool reflexively defending the authors on this site without knowing what you defend.
You know nothing of me or what I have done. I am not indifferent to the suffering of millions as you suggest. You are completely wrong about my positions. I am not saying that Chesler is wrong to condemn Islam, I’m saying she’s wrong for portraying Taliban-style governments as some kind of male fantasy, which she has done in her books. Have you read them?
I have a copy of the Koran on my shelf, next to the Bible etc. Your comments are laughably STUPID.
flabbergasted said:
“I have a copy of the Koran on my shelf, next to the Bible etc. Your comments are laughably STUPID.”
You should try reading them instead of leaving them on your shelf.
Either one would show you the ignorance of your comments.
You’ve missed my point entirely.
I’ve read them, and the other texts referenced in the comment, as I implied in my response.
Congratulations on being an idiot.
I just checked my Bible and Koran, but I don’t see where they say anything contradicting my contention that Phyllis Chesler is a arch-feminist with a five decade history of man-hating.
I couldn’t find any references to Chesler anywhere, in fact.
Can you enlighten me as to where they prove my “ignorance”, gray man?
Thank you, Sekhar. Absolute truth. Men don’t really want to look at themselves and their own treatment of and attitudes towards women, so how can they honestly look at such torment of women in other cultures? They MUST not look at it squarely ‘in the eye’, or they may experience conviction of their own deeply-held attitudes that are kept much more hidden, mainly from themselves. Men of Islam, men of other cultures INCLUDING American, pat themselves on each other’s shoulders and tell each other ‘we are so good and kind and loving to women, at least as much as they deserve!’
Thank you for highlighting the anti-male tone of this article.
I guess all the conservatives defending Chesler hate men also!
An excellent German movie “The Baader Meinhof Complex” explores mindset the German leftist terrorists of the 1970s in all their loony antics. In one particularly hilarious scene we see the German lefties at a PLO terrorist training camp taking a break from learning bomb making and guerrilla tactics. The german women are lounging on rocks, naked, while the young Arab men stare at them with saucer eyes and open mouths. The Arab comandante orders the naked women to cover up, but they reply angrily that it’s their right and that they’re striking a blow against imperialism by being naked. The very stupidity of the leftist mindset is the actual subject of this movie.
And please! No more naked breasts in war protests! I’d like to keep my lunch:
http://www.zombietime.com/breasts_not_bombs/
Is this any way for cattle to be allowed to act?
My neighbors sometimes goes about in the head to toes thing. But its a very sleek slender head to toe thing with very pretty shoes. So she has not defeated prurient lust.
I still have a sick fear she will somehow managed to get a burkha over my beautiful beautiful beautiful daughters head. I cant get over that fear. Her husband wears sandals and has large fat feet and hairy calves. the less said the better she should dress him better.
Sorry, men, look at American women: what do you see walking around? Girls looking like hookers, although the poor things don’t realize what they’ve bought into. It’s all the same when Women are put into another class because they happened to be born female. Blame misinterpretation (suits men) of the Bible for this, as men-who-hate-women use Scripture (incorrectly and selectively) to try to keep women as doormats. It spreads to the whole society. Rebellion sets in, and this is what you are seeing in these girls of Islam. Low Self-Esteem, a sense of worthlessness simply because they are born women and can therefore do nothing at all about it, other than rebelliously flaunt their female-ness — which really shows self-rejection of Identity at the core of their true being, playing the ‘game’ of men (wives must be pure, but men really have fun with whores). Rejecting the god (or God) of their fathers (a baby-boomer historical generational thing) because they are rebelling against their own personal fathers who disrespected them, treated them differently and badly, etc, BECAUSE they were women, and call it ‘god’s will’. Unjust, unfair, un-loving, even emotiontionally and/or physically abusive to them (mothers included as women) BECAUSE they are female. World-wide.
WOW. A TWITterable post
Chesler’s not even a good feminist. She’s so devoted to the idea that image doesn’t matter that she’s the only writer on PJMedia I know of who hides behind a cartoon avatar instead of a photograph, with the notable exception of Zombie who publishes under a pseudonym for obvious reasons.
Chesler is over 70 years old, yet she’s still too immature to be honest. She presents herself as an angry lesbian in her early 30s. It’d be difficult to find more stereotypical iconography without typing “bull dyke clip art” into a Google image search.
…uses an avatar instead of a photograph….
Having watched about 30 seconds of the video interview of Ms. Chesler, I can see why. It seems as if the burqa was intended just for such “ladies” as Ms. Chesler, to prevent eyeburn to the general population while out in public.
does this comment have an ounce of intelligence?
I’m afraid you’d have to have some to understand it.
we must thank you for proving Ms Chesler’s point and outing yourself as a neanderthal sexist from a time long past- you cannot argue with Phyllis’ obviously superior knowledge and ideas on the topic, so you resort to trying to de-value her person as she describes. You disprespect her b/c she does not look like playboy bunny- and off course you droll over but do not listne to those women who do- piss off now- hold your little shriveled wing wang while you run from the mean angry old woman you fear so.
lol
You’ve avoided the entirety of my argument and gone straight for ad hominem with a side of cliche.
Pathetic, really.
What, exactly, have I written that lends any credence to your claim that I “disprespect her b/c she does not look like playboy bunny”. The only reference to her looks I’ve made is that she is afraid to show her face. I denigrated nothing other than her choice to use an avatar.
My critique is entirely substantive, substance you choose to ignore. One example: she portrays all men as wanting to exist in dominance over women.
She’s wrong.
I’m afraid they will regret this and their sacrifice will not equal their desired result. All for nothing.
My ex-wife is most of the way through her third husband now. I never could understand her love hate relationship with men. She is constantly at war. She calls it a war. She claims the war is between men and women, but I know the war is hers alone. I was the first husband and I know something of the other two and none of us were ever at war with her. Oh and yes do put on some clothes to keep the hair from getting everywhere when you go out in public.
The irony here is not that these women would be stoned, killed or jailed in their countries of origin but that our women’s organizations from NOW,naral or the rest simply ignore the plight of Islamic women since it does not fit the meme of the commiecrat party which they swear allegiance to.
The power of the female form and sexuality is nothing new. Women may use that for different reasons and always have.
Here is a rather old example:
2 One evening David got up from his bed and walked around on the roof of the palace. From the roof he saw a woman bathing. The woman was very beautiful, 3 and David sent someone to find out about her. The man said, “She is Bathsheba, the daughter of Eliam and the wife of Uriah the Hittite.” 4 Then David sent messengers to get her. She came to him, and he slept with her. (Now she was purifying herself from her monthly uncleanness.) Then she went back home. 5 The woman conceived and sent word to David, saying, “I am pregnant.”
2 Samuel 2-5
Batsheva knew exactly what she was doing bathing on her rooftop beneath the palace.
Many femminists were no less prudish than those who want to impose veils. They thought it demeaning for women to dress a certain way just to attact a man or express her sexuality. The Salafist would agree with them.
It was the femminists who replaced the term “sex” (there are two of them, male and female) with the more neutral “gender” because sex was somehow restricting womens freedom or something. As one writer put it when that debate was going on “Words have gender. People, bless their hearts, have sex.” The PC folks won that battle anyway.
I guess I do not understand the point of the article. She writes “In a sense, male fantasy, lust, and the desire to control women lurk behind both these forms of dress and undress”
“Lurking?” how does male lust automatically equate to a desire to control women? In the case of Batsheva she was clearly in charge. She got exactly what she wanted and her son became a king.
Feminism did not want to understand sexuality, rather to repress it or transform it into something else. That is why feminists have such a hard time confronting the repression of women in Islam. They want to control and pronounce judgement and cannot decide between the Burqa or the naked woman under it.
David was the shit.
Her second son became a king; her first son died as a result of that stunt.
Where’s Cowboy Logic when I need him? _He_ probably remembers Chesler from the good ol’ days when she wasn’t afraid to tell us what she really thinks of conservatives.
Perhaps he avoids Cheslers droppings, like I do, realizing exactly what they’re worth.
Chesler hates men, America, freedom, capitalism, conservatives…
But she also hates Muslims, so she’s great!
http://creepingsharia.wordpress.com/2011/12/20/pakistan-taliban-cut-breasts-off-woman-breast-feeding-child/
“We live at a moment in history in which worldwide a woman’s “looks” are more essential to her survival than ever before. ”
But the sexual attractiveness of women has *always* been essential to her survival. Men had strength (as a warrior), and, much later in human evolution, intelligence. A strong man could beat other men up and take their goods. An intelligent man might use wisdom or guile to control others. But from an evolutionary perspective, the only way for a woman to gain the goods of life was to attract a male as a sexual companion–the stronger and bigger, the better.
People comment on beautiful women who get “studs” as mates. Nothing strange there: it’s evolution at work. A woman looks for a physically *powerful* male, not an attractive or “nice” one.
The only thing odd here is that we find it odd. Thanks to Christianity, western culture developed the idea that women were to be treated as something more than sexual mates and bearers of children. They were to be loved, not dominated. We have discarded that progress in–what? Two generations?
“Thanks to Christianity, western culture developed the idea that women were to be treated as something more than sexual mates and bearers of children. They were to be loved, not dominated. We have discarded that progress in–what? Two generations?”
Exactly, and largely as a result of the efforts of Ms. Phyllis Chesler.
21th century woman
Upon review of the comment it’s apparent you may have been critiquing Zofo, in which case your post is valid.
If I’ve misinterpreted your comments to be directed at my statements, I respectfully withdraw and apologize.
However, I still take offense to the “neanderthal sexist from a time long past” illustration. Sexists have always existed and will continue to exist in the future. The same can be said of good men.
It also weakens your position to insult the male genitalia, makes you seem sexist.
I stand by my statements against Chesler’s ideas and my position that she is a poor writer (undergraduate quality).
Yep it is all us guy’s fault that women in a free country dress sexy. Totally our bad.
/sarc
I have to look at this subject as a man, a tired old fat man. If somebody saw me naked, especially in public, they would agree with me that it is in bad taste, even repulsive. Those same people would also thank G-d that there are laws keeping me clothed. Being that these laws are equally applied. They keep us from seeing naked women, probably beautiful, strolling down the street. Society has to decide whether they would like to look at me and throw up; however, also grant that right to a beautiful young lady and be awestruck. Its a real quandary.
Ooops, I feel like getting naked.
Sorry, no dice.
Whatever about the oppressive wankers in muslim society you can’t lay the hooker clothing that women choose to wear in western society on us men. The young girls who queue outside nightclubs looking like prostitutes are inspired by Beyonce, Katy Perry, Lindey Lohan, etc etc. I think the term is “role model” or something. Look to your own.
#23. rodguy911:
Thanks for a breath of sanity, Rodguy. Some really loony comments here.
Flabbergasted:
Take your meds, Flabby. You are a mousedick who expresses his fear of women by accusing them of man-hatred. You don’t read Hebrew, Greek or Arabic but you claim expertise in the Bible and the Koran. You make ad hominem attacks and immediately deny making them. Your comments about Dr. Chesler’s appearance mark you for a nasty, immature wanker. Your churlish and angry responses to rational criticism tell us you are barking mad.
Finally, flabby, spare us your literary criticism. You are no more a literary scholar than you are a Bible scholar. If, Heaven forbid, a nasty, sicko misogynist like you was actually representative of American conservatism, I would burn my Republican Party membership and join the Communist Party. I only wish you run into one of my three daughters one day. My babies would wrap your scrotum sac around your head and kick your ass around the block.
Spindok:
David an Bathsheba had their tryst well more than three thousand years ago. No Bible scholar misses the fact that Bathsheba was a whore and King David, who dispatched soldier Uriah to the front and certain death, was a murderer. Moreover, that a schemer like Bathsheba could not but have known that seducing the King could only result in her husband’s death.
The Rabbis chew over this business at length. The bloodline of the Jewish King Messiah and, indeed, the God and Savior of the Christians, is rooted in whoring, lechery, and cold blooded homicide with malice aforethought.
Why do you imagine that this Biblical narrative puts women in bad light? What are the odds that in patriarchal Hebrew society, Bathsheba’s marriage to Uriah was not entirely her choice? What mechanism other than marriage–through guile and treachery if necessary–was available to a woman in the ancient world intent in improving her station and lot in life?
Bathsheba was a common soldier’s wife who traded up for a king by bathing naked under the palace windows. Why are you shocked, Spindok? And why do you feel that Jesus Christ’s whoring great, great, great, grandma was a worse than Jesus Christ’s murdering great great great grandpa?
Or, for that matter, the matriarchs of the Moabites and Ammonites who got their father drunk in order to have sex with him so they could bear his children. The daughters of Lot are also Jesus’ ancestors by way of the Ammonite Rahab of Jericho and the Moabite Ruth, who were, respectively, King David’s great-great-grandmother and great-grandmother (Rahab’s son was Ruth’s second husband, the first having died without offspring).
Sorry, I posted my response without actually making a point. The point is that the Messianic bloodline is filled with men and women with checkered pasts or even downright evil. Some of the kings listed on that genealogy sacrificed their own sons to false gods. Conversely, there were also great saints in that bloodline who were responsible for great revivals. It’s a noble pedigree, to be sure, but not one without its rotten branches as well as some otherwise faithful people who royally screwed up. They’re human, just like us, and likewise subject to sin and called to repentance. Some did early, some only after doing something really stupid, and some hardened their hearts completely.
You’ve called me a lot of names, and criticized me for ad hominem. You began by calling me “flabby” and a “mousedick”, later you threatened vicarious harm to my scrotum and you say I’m immature. You attack me for not being a Bible expert (a claim I never made) and fault me for insulting Chesler’s looks, though I never mentioned them.
You devoted two paragraphs of your comment to insulting me personally, yet, you’ve made no remarks about the actual substance of my comments. I don’t even know what it is I’ve written that you disagree with.
I do read some Greek, though. You make many assumptions about that which you do not know.
I think naked gals look great.
What’s the problem? As long as you’re not stripping in public, it’s really nobody else’s business.
Hell, I’d pose naked myself, if I wasn’t afraid of causing permanent brain damage to unfortunate viewers.
You need to improve your reading comprehension skills.
Nowhere did I attack Chesler’s looks, nor did I make any ad hominem attacks. If I did, please cite them. My critiques of Chesler are entirely substantive based on her long, documented, unapologetic man hatred.
I never claimed to be a Biblical scholar, nor Koranic – but I have read them.
I don’t hate women, nowhere did say anything against women, just Ms. Chesler. Misogynist? How dare you!? You threaten physical violence against my person and say I need to take my meds? You don’t even know if I’m a man or woman.
You show me ONE thing I wrote that even approaches misogyny or apologize.
Try refuting my actual statements in the future.
Dear Flabbergasted,
I’ve enjoyed reading through the long thread of posts. I never really paid too much attention before, mostly because I don’t care what random internet strangers have to say, but your posts intrigued me.
I’m noticing a trend. Not just here, but everywhere. People read a thing, read INTO it through the lens of their particular ideology, apply a set of assumptions, then post a response. Most people actually don’t reply based on the material they actually read. They reply based on an emotional reaction. You’re referencing (frequently) a writer’s beliefs and political/sociological standpoints. Baseless assumption is that you’re male. Assumptions are that you’re on meds, otherwise there’s nothing to be off of. Emotional/illogical responses vary between insults and physical threats to genitalia you may or may not possess.
When someone comes along and pierces through the typical high-school argumentative BS with logic, critical thinking, and common sense it amuses me. Sometimes it amuses me enough to bother writing a response.
We conservatives are supposed to be the “enlightened ones.” I’d like to see our side act with a little more decorum and class. Namecalling and childish references to genitalia and the like is a little too “progressive” for my tastes.
So thanks for staying above board, Flabbergasted. And thanks for being logical. It’s nice to read about ideas, not silly emotional responses.
You got it: people reveal far more about what they want to believe than any dispassionate view of reality. None of them should play poker.
The hijab is stupid, but so is this overreaction.
I think women should shut up, sit down, open their legs and suck more c***
But that’s just an opinion
Don’t talk to your mom that way.
Hey Delia! Where you from girl? ;
You make the summarizing statement that “In both cases, a woman is viewed in terms of her sexual and reproductive availability.”
Uh, where did the “reproductive” part come in? The western exposure/titillation thing is fashion marketing, deliberately provoking sexual innuendo. There is no connection to reproduction.
I have yet to here a bikini ad or see a Cosmopolitan headline claiming “it makes better babies!” It has been a long time since I saw a woman evaluated for her reproductive prospects “She has good birthing hips. We can get a wet nurse.”
These Islamic women are being mislead like most people in the last couple of generations — they confuse fashion advertising with cultural value. And in Islamic and non-Muslim nations, including the US, too many people have let mass-media advertising denigrate historic culture with marketing ploys.
Posing for Playboy is done for two reasons — to beef up the resume (money and name recognition kind of exposure), and for the thrill of the taboo. An Islamic young lady exposing herself on mass media is knowingly courting death; deliberately committing suicide with delusions of martyrdom.
There are stories to be told. You are reading too much into these three stories.
I think the previous commenter was suggesting that the connection to reproduction is subconscious. The woman, by wearing skimpy clothes, is suggesting to a potential partner that she is attractive and healthy
Phyllis,
I have always wondered how women can say they are “empowered” by dressing and acting slutty (or engaing in prostituion or porn), but your comment that women are really just expressing their “power” (or dominance)over other women is an insight that I had never thought of before and it rings very true. After all, the only power a good looking young woman has over any man is based on HIS decision to defer to her in order to get her into bed. If there is no hope of this, or if he is in a position to force her in any way, there is no restraint on his part if he chooses not to exercise it..
Under Islam nothing is more evil or frightening than a pubescent female. Islam fears female sexuality. A wet vagina and a firm clitoris are the twin beasts of Babylon to those who yearn for the return of the Caliphate to rule the world under Allah and his pedophile messenger Mohamed. The very idea that a female may have sexual desires sets the towel wrapped around the head too tight, closet homosexual Muslim male into a tizzy. So choose Ms. Chesler, the burka or the bikini. Personally, I choose the bikini.
http://tinyurl.com/8yurmd3
“Its good, good, good like Bridget Bardo!”
I have seen all nude pics of Aliaa El Mahdy on her blog. But why all these do it?
Translation, please.
“Today, incredibly, women are being judged, paid, employed, and married as a function of how good they look in a bikini and a mini skirt or whether they wear a burqa or a head scarf.”
Somehow I can’t help suspecting that men’s appearance influences women’s decision about whom they will marry as well.
About the non-photo logo: it would be interesting to know who made that decision and why the choice was made to, shall we say, idealize the illustration?
Dearest dr. Chesler,
firstly (about your interview), I understand not why are you in favour of Hijab*, which is (somehow more than the burka/niqab/chador, please refer to Tawfik Hamid’s opinion about this) a banner for Discrimination (of several kinds).
Secondly thank you for this article (for your Reasoning Ability or free critical Thinking Ability), and I agree about the fact that women are not liberating themselves (and did not free themselves)
[from the sexist Cliché "KKK" (which means not Ku Kux Klan, but in German means Kinder Küche Kirche, which in English is Children Kitchen Church, and altogether means that a woman is considered an acceptable human being ONLY if she consacrate herself to the three "K", and to nothing else)],
by maliciously undercovering themselves, trying to attract sexual (sexually obessed) attentions from men/boys/males
[which simply is another (sexist) Cliché, which turns a woman/girl/female into a sexual object and/or an active prostitute, to be (ab)used and/or with whom to (irrespectfully) have fun].
It is falling from a (sexist, chauvinist) Trap to another (similar/equal) one.
Thirdly, the Egyptian nude self-portrait seems NOT to be of malicious, sexually obsessed, (undependantly of how pretty is she. Not to be forgotten that on her site there was anoter nude self-portait, that of her boyfriend, which UNFORTUNATELY got not advertised as much as the portrait of the girl, which, in my opinion, still is a sexist – mediatic – choice),
therefore I reward her – AND HER BOYFRIEND’S – picture(s) as true (fully unhurtful and mind/eyes opening) “bomb(s)” into a society which has become increasingly bigot/fundamentalist and/or (arabo islamically) ideologized
[yourself, in the past, you posted several pictures given to you by your collegue and/or friend Tareq Heggy, which showed the Hijabiziation* of Egyptian society].
Fourthly I can’t say anything about the Turkish and Pakistani self-portait(s), since I did not really see them, I ignore where were they published (though I remember seeing the Pakistani portait and thinking that it was beautiful and not really arousing. But not being a man/boy/male myself, I ignore what effect did it have on the masculine public).
Fifthly, responding to fews comments to your article, being an Atheist means something different than being an Agnostic or being interested in Spirituality, or being a Humanist, and I think that we ignore what these nude girls/women are.
[Einstein did not follow an institutionalized/organized Religion, but was religious, which means, he could have been (wrongly) called an Atheist, while he did not ignore Spirituality and he was a Humanist.
By the way: he was a Genious (and I think that his free critical Thinking Ability was among ... the causes ... of that)].
Sextly (beg your pardon: sixtly), I agree that Western society has become (too much) pornified (Pornography from ancient Greek means “Images of Prostitutes”, though ancient Greece’s prostitues were somehow certainly different from nowadays’ Western ones),
and that women/girls/females MUST be encouraged to show the best of themselves, BUT in a more metaphorical way (than concretely and maliciously displaying their naked bodies): they must be encouraged to develop their intellectual skills, and their human/Humanist ones, or so.
[In this sense, Hijab must eventually be banned: not through a Hijab Ban Law, but as a natural proceeding toward (spiritual) Evolution, and Enlightenment].
I wish you a lightful days and starry nights, full of Love and Beauty.
You’re free to wonder at a woman’s motivation for posing nude, but the real (as opposed to figurative) threat of death or great harm comes comes from Salafists, not Playboy readers. If you actually care about the rights of these women, one side is a real threat, the other is just something to talk and speculate about.
Jim Henley: “1) This would be a shade closer to true if western women who ever tried to wear something other than bikinis – like, say, a business suit – GOT THE SHIT KICKED OUT OF THEM FOR DOING SO. But there’s more: 2) We may feel very ambivalent about it, but women’s sexual power is real. In a REAL patriarchy, as opposed to a half-assed one, it’s practically the only power women have available. Afghanistan is a real patriarchy for sure, and the burkha robs women of their sexual power by design. That is its function. But we’re still not done. 3) A bikini-clad woman has a face. Men can see when she is happy, when she is sad, when she is cogitating, when she is pissed off and, especially, when she suffers. There are some sick bastards who get off on visible evidence of female suffering. But even most squishy sexists are as squeamish as the rest of us about seeing torment play across the face of another human being. This too is what the burkha takes away by design. There is simply no comparison that is not invidious.”
Midde least religion of ISlam is very backward good for 7 th century when wars were fought all day long.Because they wanted to loot and live. Today time have changed Technology has craeted jobs. You don’t have to loot and survive. Islamsi weomen were never in parda before new islam of mohammed came. Its time in this eara all should be free and live the way thyu want to live without hurting others.
Labeling Mona el Hawaty a journalist is exaggerating.
She is a pro-Hamas, anti-American Islamist who unfortunately found out that being a Muslim who wages jihad with the pen is insufficient when push comes to sharia shove.
This is one of those articles that tries to establish an equivalancy between two things that seem different on one level, but are really two sides of the same coin.
I think we’re talking about two different coins.
Western women are not dressing the way they do (however they dress) because they are being forced to by men. They dress the way women dress when they are NOT FORCED TO DRESS A CERTAIN WAY BY MEN. “Sleazy” dressing is natural, and is encouraged by women as much as men. It is what happens when women no longer feel motivated to telegraph their qualities as a wife and mother, but rather as a sexual partner.
It is an inevitable result of feminism and libaration, not a rejection of it.
I am not against either feminism or liberation, but they, like everything in the world, come at a cost.
I personally will take the cost of sleazy-looking women over the cost of forcing women into black sacks with (if they’re lucky) slits to look out of.
I get the feeling the Ms. Chesler wishes not that people should dress as they chose (in the West, they do, for better or worse). Rather, she wants them to dress as she chooses.
Well, there is this thing call personal choice. It involves people doing what they want. There are of course restrictions placed on behavior in all societies for various reasons. It really gets complicated sometimes. What is not complicated is the lack of effort by modern Western feminists to improve the status of women in the Muslim world. Their self centered hypocrisy is a lesson for us all.
Female youth, beauty, and fertility still haven’t gone out of style, and, until the technology gets to the point where men can completely bypass women when reproducing (The theme of the original Frankenstein novel), they are likely to stay in style.
BTW, why do women show off their bodies? Well, that isn’t complicated, either. They are advertising their desirability to men. This may come as a shock to some, but, good looking women get better offers. Unattractive women often have to fend for themselves in a hostile world. Welcome to the world of men, unattractive ladies. It isn’t bad once you adjust to the idea that you will get in this world only what you work for. And, if you marry, very likely he will be marrying you mainly for the material benefits he expects to get from you, either during marriage or from the divorce. And, if you have accepted the man’s lot in life, that will be fine with you.
>>> (joel) Well, there is this thing call personal choice.
Indeed, there is.
I am getting the distinct impression that liberals think free people natually chose to live their lives – and to dress – the way feminists want them to, and if they don’t, it’s because someone, somewhere (probably a conservative) has interferred with the decision making process in some way that is quite mysterious and difficult to prove.
But, despite being mysterious and difficult to prove, it’s pervasive and powerful.
We men are mighty clever that way. We get in your heads, make you dress like whores, and yet you can never prove we’ve done it.
Meanwhile, back in Afghanistan, women can quite literally point to the ones who make them dress like sacks of potatoes.
A good rule of thumb:
If you can identify your oppressor, and he (or she) will make you pay dearly for breaking the rules, you may actually be oppressed.
If you can’t identify him, and if breaking the rules comes with no penalty whatsoever (Has anyone had acid thrown in her face for trading up from sleazy to modest attire?), then your fellings of oppression may be a tad exaggerated.
All typos and grammatical errors in this message were put their by women trying to oppress me.
‘“Sexy” is nearly always sexist.’
So?
When it comes to engaging in sex, I’m totally sexist. I ALWAYS discriminate on the basis of sex.
What of it?
Exactly. There is nothing “inherently sexist about Playboy”. And it went downhill from there.
While lamenting conformity in women’s dress, this article appears to be advocating conformity. “?”
She lost me at: ““Sexy” is nearly always sexist.”
When Mother Nature itself becomes “sexist” you can automatically thrown it into the arena of the politically correct, overthought and overrefined stupefest called liberalism.
Just relax, let daddy take you home.
@51.
I don’t want to hurt your sensitivity, but sexist, chauvinist, misogynist, in this case, have the same meaning,
and this obviously has NOTHING to do with your private intimate relations, notably those meant to reproduce the gender (Humanity).
The above mentioned concepts have an impact on the public socio political asset of a(ny) society, this has to do with the way one (a community) rules society (public life).
In your case, about your intimate choices, you won’t be considered a sexist, quite at the opposite, and you’ll be considered a philogynist (friend of females).
[In case you are a male and in case you are not homosexual].
Women should be free to wear whatever they want to! Who are you to tell them what they should wear. Describe your opinion as your opinion, not as a criticism of their choices. I believe that faces should not be covered. Objectively, that is a security hazard. Beyond that, I would like to see “privates” covered. That is my opinion. If they want to wear string bikinis or cover everything but their face, that is OK. That is their right, unless they are in the military or some other organization that requires a uniform. I understand that we have decided to let Islamic ROTC members wear head coverings now. Thanks to the Obama administration! We must draw the line on military dress, but not civilian.
“I don’t want to hurt your sensitivity, but sexist, chauvinist, misogynist, in this case, have the same meaning”
No sexism means prejudice or discrimination based on sex, and when it comes to sex, I totally discriminate. If you’re a guy, you will never be considered sexy, and I’ll never engage in sexual acts with you, if you’re a gal you have a chance.
That’s discrmnation based on sex, and that’s sexist.
‘“Sexy” is nearly always sexist.’
Pretty much, unless you’re bisexual.
So what?
I am sorry to rehurt you, but such a discrimination based on sex(ual intercourses) it’s called etherosexuality, not sexism.
If you are a man and you’re sexist, most probably you’d hiddenly prefer to hang out with boys (somehow homosexual?) thank girls/women/females,
and/or you’ll consider women NOT AS EQUALLY VALUABLE PARTNERS within an etherosexual relation,
BUT RATHER AS … (sorry for being very crude) holes … to be selfishly (so to put it) enjoyed,
and/or as blow-up dolls (when it comes to sex. When it comes to ordinary life, as slaves, whose only aim in life has to be serving a man/male).
And I’m sorry to hurt you (again): but males can definitely be sexy. Which means, sexually (erotically) attractive.
In the end, Cupid, Eros, the god of Love [in the tale "Psyche and Cupid" described as a very beautiful/gorgeous one, and a god (!) in the amatory art], was a boy
[his mum Venus/Aphrodite was a female, and an enchantingly beautiful one].
Well, have a good and beautiful day and life.
>>> “I don’t want to hurt your sensitivity, but sexist, chauvinist, misogynist, in this case, have the same meaning”
I agree.
They all mean, “Offensive to someone who has, or is pursuing, a degree in a field with the word “studies” in it.”
The inventor of the “mini-skirt” made it because it would be easier to have sex with a woman without her being undressed.
To H.R.M. flabbergasted:
You seem to have too much idle time in your hands and very little to say or contribute. You may think of yourself as some form of grandiose intellectual. Why don’t you go and contribute your abundant knowledge in such forums that cater to petulant know-alls and leave “the rest of us” alone?
~UPDATE
FIGHTING STEREOTYPES IN THE U.K.: “That’s right: the men are identified and individually pictured, but for each female staff member there is a photo of a woman wearing a burqa, so that only her eyes are showing. Not only that, it is the same photo in each case; not a picture of the female staff member at all, but a generic image of a woman wearing a burqa.” So much for celebrating diversity. . . .
Instapundit
Clinically speaking, 14+ centuries of tribally marrying first cousins and sisters has left Islam nucking futs.
This is the Phyllis Chesler that we know and love!
Long live her brilliant mind and unfailing support of women.