Does Western Women's Dress Sense Increase The Threat Of Terrorism From Al'Qaeda?

[iceaura]

I think there was a Pakistani in the documentary on Charlie Wilson's war who made the most apt statement:

"We don't care if your women underdress. Its you who are upset by our women overdressing"

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.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The second answer was given by a woman who was arguing against the wearing of the burka by women in the UK (The Big Questions, BBC1). Quite incredibly, nobody seemed to object to this statement. What's your opinion?

My opinion is, let their women walk around covered from head to toe by a black terry clothe burka; meanwhile our women can walk around in string bikini's or pasties. It's none of their business. If anyone expects us to respect their cultural practices, they should respect ours in turn.

So we'll not complain about your women dressing like this:

And you stop bitching about our women dressing like this:

 

[Norsefire]

*yawn* maybe religion, ALL religion, should be banned. religion is the cause of 90% of the worlds problems

Yes! Along with marxism and socialism


Anyway, as to the OP, I don't like either choices. I dont' want to see people naked, but they should be able to wear what they want.

 

[TW Scott]

*yawn* maybe religion, ALL religion, should be banned. religion is the cause of 90% of the worlds problems

Care to prove it is the religion itself that is cuasing the problems? Or is it more likely humans who use religion as a scapegoat?

As to the original question. What a man or woman wears should be left entirely to them in an ideal world . Government does not need to stick it's nose in that facet of our lives. If a woman wants to wear a burkha or just a thin layer of concealer it should not be a governemntal concern. Of course the woman wear the Burkha should allow temselves to be frisked and the veil removed at appropiate times. ie Enter a courthouse, being pulled over, being arrested, and such and so forth. Of course they should also reveal their faces for all forms of Photo ID. We require the same of the naked girl......

 

[Michael]

no, all morallity comes from the needs of the pack as the pack evolved. now that we have politics, science and human rights, religion is just as unnessary as the caves it developed in

A beautiful quote - I love it


religion is just as unnessary as the caves it developed in
- Asguard, Sciforums, 2009

 

[Crunchy Cat]

The second answer was given by a woman who was arguing against the wearing of the burka by women in the UK (The Big Questions, BBC1). Quite incredibly, nobody seemed to object to this statement. What's your opinion?

I wish there was a 3rd option in the poll... "Who cares about Al'Qaeda?".

 

[common_sense_seeker]

You didn't just combine two issues in one. You asked a question, and then made one of the poll options an answer to a different question.

It's like if you had asked "What color is a bannana?" and your options were "Yellow," and "Fashion".

I don't think it's quite that bad as other people as you can see have voted. There is an underlying reasoning of logic if that extreme muslims who wear the veil are talking on TV about the solution to the moral decline of women in UK society being the formation of a islamic state based on Sharia law, then so are extremist muslim men. We shouldn't let a blatant disrepect for normal moral decency be a easy visual stimulus for the deranged or for organisations with tendancies that could eventually lead to terrorism.

 

[DiamondHearts]

Both the choices are severely crippled in their assessment of the topic. What you really want to ask is whether Muslim women should be allowed to dress the way they choose.

The two issues are completely unrelated. Most people in the Muslim World do not necessarily care how Western women dress, but the promotion of sex in Western cinema is seen as having a negative effect on the youth. This leads to promiscuity and the rise in teenage pregnancies. Many Christians, Jews, and other religious people are also shocked by the sexuality which permeates American culture. It is not a healthy phenomena, and has disastrous social problems for the society.

Also, very few Muslim women actually wear the niqab (face covering), it is less than 1% of Western Muslims, yet needlessly attacked by Western media. Many Muslims see it as an insult on their culture and religion, and women see it as a denial of their natural right to dress the way they choose. Majority of Muslims don't wear it themselves, but will defend the right of any Muslim woman to wear it.

Basically, though, Muslims don't care one way or another how Western women dress in their own countries, as long as it isn't promoted in their nations.

 

[S.A.M.]

Doh, clearly its al Qaeda that is targeting women for their backward clothes sense. Notice how many weddings and homes they've bombed so far? Not to mention funerals, childrens schools and huts?

 

[DiamondHearts]

Doh, clearly its al Qaeda that is targeting women for their backward clothes sense. Notice how many weddings and homes they've bombed so far? Not to mention funerals, childrens schools and huts?

I guess they have learned to manufacture and use predator drones to propagate their fashion sense and denial of freedom. LOL

 

[PsychoTropicPuppy]

I don't think that terrorism was founded on the grounds of how..women dress. -_-
And I can't recall having seen Al-Qaeda saying something along the lines of "It's because how western women dress that we go around killing innocent folks!!!!!!!!!!!! *dumb face*"

Plus...why do people even care about what other people wear? As long as it doesn't physically harm anyone...

 

[S.A.M.]

I guess they have learned to manufacture and use predator drones to propagate their fashion sense and denial of freedom. LOL

Clearly, the drones are programmed to target exposed skin. Strip joints, look out!!!!

This gives a whole new meaning to the term "fashion police"

 

[DiamondHearts]

SAM, did you know there was a story in American media before the invasion of Afghanistan that the Taliban banned paper bags? Reported by the New York Times no less, without any sources. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/08/world/paper-bags-banned-taliban-tells-afghans.html

They must think we are so gullible. LOL.

 

[Asguard]

dimond: america sexually free? your joking right?

its not quite as bad as it could be but its not free by any standed

untill non OH&S laws on clothing and all laws relating to sex and sexuality apart from rape, age of consent and beastality laws are reppealed no country can be considered to be sexually free

 

[Challenger78]

The second answer was given by a woman who was arguing against the wearing of the burka by women in the UK (The Big Questions, BBC1). Quite incredibly, nobody seemed to object to this statement. What's your opinion?

Common sense says, no woman can walk around naked without the threat of rape.
I mean seriously, how fucking naive can you be ?

 

[S.A.M.]

SAM, did you know there was a story in American media before the invasion of Afghanistan that the Taliban banned paper bags? Reported by the New York Times no less, without any sources. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/05/08/world/paper-bags-banned-taliban-tells-afghans.html

They must think we are so gullible. LOL.

Why is that a surprise? Have you not noticed the lack of critical thinking skills in certain places? The title of this thread might be a good place to start with. Doh!

Note how stuff like this completely escapes them:

Thousands of Egyptian mourners marched behind the coffin of the "martyr of the head scarf" – a pregnant Muslim woman who was stabbed to death in a Dresden courtroom on Wednesday in front of her young son.

Sherbini, a pharmacist who was four months' pregnant and wore the Islamic head scarf, was involved in a court case against her neighbour after he called her a terrorist. She was due to testify when he stabbed her 18 times inside the courtroom in front of her three-year-old son.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/07/muslim-woman-shot-germany-court

 

[iceaura]

Basically, though, Muslims don't care one way or another how Western women dress in their own countries, as long as it isn't promoted in their nations.

It seems that by "promoted" you mean "in existence, in any way including pictures".

Whereas the Islamic oppression clothing worn by many Muslim women in Western countries, backed by lawsuits to maintain it and private schools to protect it, is not being "promoted", in your vocabulary - correct?

The two issues are completely unrelated. Most people in the Muslim World do not necessarily care how Western women dress, but the promotion of sex in Western cinema is seen as having a negative effect on the youth.

The choices available to Muslim women are directly related - they are at the center of the matter. The promotion of sex is much less directly related - Western women are not promoting sex by wearing jeans in the movies, for example.

And the question was not about "most people in the Muslim world", but about the specific motives of those Muslims directly involved in terrorism these past thirty years or so. Those particular Muslims do seem to be very concerned with women's clothing - the subject comes up a lot, in their speech and writing.

Also, very few Muslim women actually wear the niqab (face covering), it is less than 1% of Western Muslims, yet needlessly attacked by Western media.

The fact that such a custom, anywhere, is defended by so many among the other 99% of Muslims is revealing. The fundie's true colors show clearly there - hence its frequent use as an example.

Many Muslims see it as an insult on their culture and religion, and women see it as a denial of their natural right to dress the way they choose.

And many Muslims see "it" quite otherwise - especially since (you mentioned America specifically) no American woman is denied any such "natural right". Unlike, say, an Iranian, Saudi, Afghani, Pakistani, Algierian, etc etc etc woman.

Which is one of many areas of concern with the rise of more rigid sects of Islam in places like most of the Middle East and surrounds: not too many "natural rights" of women get much respect in the Swat Valley, eh? Foreign rockets on the one hand, cleric-led militias on the other. The rockets will go away.

 

[Asguard]

im yet to hear anyone, muslim, fundermentilist christan or snyone else explain why sexual repression (especially of women) is such a good thing concidering its only purpose was the demonisation of the worship of venus\aphrodity and pan (i think)\ whatever the Romen equivlant was

 

[Repo Man]

So do you think there is anything wrong in the way western women dress?

No, I don't. If it makes superstitious fanatics angry, all the better.

They are all in competition with each other, so it's not surprising that the lack of modesty in their dress sense is increasingly insidious.

If you don't like it, stop staring. LOL, "insidious". If women chose to wear virtually nothing at all in public, I have no problem with it. Why do you?

 

[Slysoon]

im yet to hear anyone, muslim, fundermentilist christan or snyone else explain why sexual repression (especially of women) is such a good thing concidering its only purpose was the demonisation of the worship of venus\aphrodity and pan (i think)\ whatever the Romen equivlant was

I attempted to explain this phenomenon in visceral_instinct's thread, Why is a woman's upper body "obscene"?. Here are my first two posts from that thread:

Post #23:

The standard all civilizations of past have followed is that a woman's entire body is obscene. Historically, in civilized cultures, not only have women's bodies been considered obscene, but from a larger perspective, women themselves have faced great discrimination and inequality as well. Perhaps the greatest civilization in history, mighty Athens, was as equally harsh and sexist against its women as it was brilliant and influential. We notice this same trend occurred in the Roman Empire, where Cicero's single line could describe the status of nearly all women in Ancient Rome:

"Our ancestors, in their wisdom, considered that all women, because of their innate weakness, should be under the control of guardians."

This same trend was again followed strictly by Islamic and Byzantine civilizations, and again during much of the unrivaled British Empire, especially during the Victorian era, which was one of England's most powerful and prosperous times.

In comparison, we notice the cultures which have treated women's bodies as equal to men's have been very uncivilized and tribal. This reality is easily observable even today as many sub-Saharan African tribes, or similarly, Amazon river tribes, feature women who roam with their breasts uncovered, and at times with their bodies naked all over. This is similar to how polygyny has existed in many extremely civilized and influential cultures, whereas polyandry has existed exclusively in uncivilized and tribal cultures.

The reason why civilized cultures have always considered women's bodies to be obscene and in need of constant cover, in addition to their greater need for a "guardian", is due to the role female promiscuity plays in the health of civilizations, which itself derives from female modesty. All historic civilizations have considered female modesty of foremost importance, which they attempted to ensure through so-called "sexist" authority (inequality) and concealment.

Post #53:

There is an inverse correlation between the health of a culture and the promiscuity of its females. This observation has been noted and studied aptly in various scientific and anthropological circles, and it has even been extended to apply to other animals as well. J. D. Unwin, a scholar and anthropologist of the early nineteen-hundreds, noted in his work, Sex and Culture, that historically, cultures both civilized and primitive alike have seen their health and prosperity correlate with female chastity. Unwin studied over eighty historical cultures, both civilized and primitive, and noticed the same trend occur without exception: as female promiscuity increased for an extended period of time, the culture in question became stagnate and eventually weakened or fell; as expected, as females became sexually repressive for an extended period of time, the culture in question expanded economically, intellectually, and territorially.

Unwin, being a Freudian liberal, did not have a reasonable explanation for his findings which would be supported by his “unsexist” liberal outlook. Unwin instead proposed that sexually repressive cultures use the mental or social energy they conserve from limiting sex to expand culture. This explanation, however, failed to take into account the sexist reality behind the matter: it is only female promiscuity which affects the health of a given culture.

Amongst hundreds of different species of bats, it has been discovered that larger testis means smaller brain size, and that large testis correlate with female promiscuity. Also, bats with larger brains and smaller testis tend to mate with females who are monogamous and non-promiscuous. Amongst cichlids, it has been observed that in species with promiscuous females, males produce larger and faster sperm than in related cichlid species whose females are monogamous by nature. This trend can be observed amongst human societies as well, as cultures expand when sexual repression amongst its women occurs for a long period of time. This expansion is due to intelligence. Species wherein female promiscuity is rampant tend to have smaller brains and lower intelligence than related species whose females are sexually repressive.

Science does not yet have a definitive answer as to why sexual promiscuity amongst females leads to smaller brain size and lower intelligence amongst a species, but one popular understanding is that the larger testis which are required amongst promiscuous species to allow for competition between males in impregnating females takes away from the species’ brain resources. As the brain and genitals of any species, especially in humans, is very resource dependent, intelligent people often tend to have smaller genitals, and unintelligent people the opposite. Relating all of this information to culture and civilization is simple: groups who have a high average intelligence will produce sophisticated cultures and expand them with time; if their intelligence eventually lessens due in large part to prolonged female promiscuity, their expansion will halt and their culture will deteriorate from what it was. Whether a culture, civilized or primitive, expands, weakens, or remains unchanged depends on how promiscuous its females are.

I'd be interested in reading your response.