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

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And you stop bitching about our women dressing like this:

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

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......

 

A beautiful quote - I love it

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

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

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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:

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

 

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 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.

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.

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.

 

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

 

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

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?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

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:

Post #53:

I'd be interested in reading your response.