I doubt the first clause. The founders of the various Islamic terrorist organizations have always appeared to care very much about the influence of Western attitudes toward women, and objections to women "underdressing" seem to be very important motivating factors in all of this conflict. They show up at least as often and with at least as much emotional intensity or repetition, especially in the early going (1950s and 60s, if you read back) and now among the lower level media sources (before the upper level figures became more global media savvy), as anything to do with Israel. And the quote reveals a likely central issue: "It is you who are upset by ->our women <- overdressing". Who is the "you" to which he refers? And do you regard Pakistani women (everywhere on the planet, apparently) as belonging to that guy and his fellows? As for that second clause, meanwhile: in my experience almost no one in the West except the feminist intellectuals was upset in the least by exotic Middle Eastern women wearing shrouds, until recently. The common attitude was similar to that regarding footbinding in China or genital mutilation in Africa or widow-killing in India - "the natives" do strange things. When the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, MN, first set up its facilities to handle Saudi princes and their harems or families or whatever, almost nobody was "upset" ( some older female nurses who dealt with the women directly were known to mutter about the situation). The few ordinary (not overtly feminist) Westerners who were "upset" back then were those directly experiencing these practices and confronted with the human beings involved, rather than dealing in distant stereotypes of the benighted and heathen.