Dad wears short shorts to teach daughter what she wears is everybody’s business and everybody’s approval proves her great worth.

Dad Wears Short Shorts to Teach Daughter a Lesson, Becomes Online Celeb (Sept 2013)

Thanks for sharing the link Nidaa

Image from here,–becomes-online-celeb-171218029.html

‘Mackintosh decided to give his daughter a taste of her own medicine by dressing just like her. He cut the legs off of an old pair of jeans and put them on. His daughter tried to remain stoic all through dinner and a game of mini-golf, but finally broke when they made a stop for milkshakes, refusing to get out of the car with him.’

He said, “I hope that young women everywhere understand their great worth. I will look like an idiot any day if that point gets across.”

So here are some comments that convey how women are supposed to understand their own ‘great worth’.

Comment 1:

My daughter gets upset when we won’t let her by ‘sexy’ clothing. We tell her modest is hottest. Her body is for her and her husbands eyes only. And hopefully she will find the guy that loves her modesty. We know God has that special someone for her. And as a mother of two older teenage boys they tell us exactly what they think when they see girls with booty shorts on and mid drift shirts they are thinking oh she looks so pretty. They are thinking she is trashy and easy. Thank God they choose modest girlfriends. And treat them like ladies. Love this dad!


Women’s worth. 

1. Why tell a young girl her body is everybody’s business and belongs to her future ‘husband’s eyes only’?  

Here is what Will Smith said, and I agree. 

How can you teach her that you’re in control of her body? If I teach her that I’m in charge … she’s going to replace me with some other man when she goes out in the world. ..She has got to have command of her body.

2. ‘Modest is hottest’ is contradictory – and both objectify women’s bodies and both are meant to control women’s sexuality. 

Eg. Bikini vs Burka: The Debauchery of Women

Why must an adult fit into somebody’s ideas of ‘hottest’?

Who decides what is “‘sexy’ clothing”? The same people who also decide who should not wear this “‘sexy’ clothing”

3. The teenage boys will be disappointed when they realise that many women may not value their approval or opinion. 

Eg. What do ‘Modest’ women have that their ‘Immodest’ sisters don’t…

4. The teenage boys are being given the impression that women who wear short shorts deserve their disapproval. How likely are they to blame women’s clothing for sexual assaults?

5. What if these teenage boys find short shorts ‘hotter’ than modest shorts? WIll they then ‘respect’ the women they are finding attractive, or call them sluts and try to like marriageable women who have been raised to seek their approval? What if the teenage boys are not interested in women? 

Eg. That special combination of beauty and innocence, the pretty inspires men to protect and defend it.

6. Will they judge, blame, shame, control and feel disappointed when they find that many women own their own bodies?  

7. Aren’t the teenage boys being raised with a sense of entitlement? 

Eg. Boy friends are new parents

Another comment:

Just like his shirt says “Best Dad Ever!” Why because he cares about the character and dignity of that little girl he hopes to give away on her wedding day!

IHM: Why make being ‘given away’ in marriage a given in that little girl’s life? 

Comment 3:

When i was a teenager i wore too much makeup. My dad walked past me one day and said…cute girls dont wear makeup. I have not worn makeup since. Funny part is my mom had talked to me about this but it didnt stop me from wearing makeup. This is why we need more GOOD dads in the home.

IHM: A woman’s worth lies in being found ‘cute’ by men?

Comment 4 – Not surprisingly,

I am a single man who admires a woman’s body but I do believe young women in school even university need to mantain decency in thier attire. Showing off all your legs and your butt cheeks is not at all attractive…it’s disgusting !

What makes some teenage sons and daughters grow up believing that women were created to make men’s world ‘attractive’?

How about – You don’t owe prettiness to anyone.?

Related Posts:

“So why do we wear clothes again??”

A response to: Why we think women activists should change their attitude of “wear what you like”

The Miss Italia beauty contest has banned bikinis in favour of swimsuits.

Weird, funny facts about Misogynists.

 And how women’s bodies are different, so they need to be covered for their own safety.


It is neither correct nor wise to judge one generation with the values of another.

Do you agree with the points made by Mr. P.V.Indiresan (a former Director, IIT, Madras)?

My response in italics.

It is neither correct nor wise to judge one generation with the values of another.

I think it is wise, in fact essential, to acknowledge a wrong as wrong. If human rights were encroached upon, the values were wrong.

When I was young, in Southern India, Brahmin child widows would have had their heads shaved when they crossed the age of puberty.

Even if this was acceptable in that generation, it was wrong. It was stopped only because some people refused to accept it as the right value even though it was a value of that time.

There are even groups, both among orthodox Hindus and equally orthodox Muslims, who have prescribed what women should wear or should not wear.

On the other hand, I wonder whether the most ardent devotees of women’s liberty would wear topless or transparent dresses or even condone such behaviour among others.

Hence, strictly speaking, the protest is not about a dress code but about its rigidity.

The protest is about dress codes (or choices) made by some people for some other people, just because they are women.

Generally these dress codes are enforced by threats of violent assaults, intimidation and rapes; and blaming and shaming the victims for all of these. This energy needs to be directed towards conveying that sexual crimes would be taken seriously.

I had a British classmate who wanted to talk – merely talk – to an Indian girl who was his neighbour in London. He told me he dared not because she was modest; she dressed in a full length sari (in an age when miniskirts had come into fashion) and would not look at any one. Apparently, modesty has its own virtues and even authority. That point is probably worth noting by some of our modern girls.

1. ‘Our modern girls’ sounds condescending. 

2. How is it a virtue that this British classmate did not ‘dare’ to talk to her? Would it not be  simpler to tell someone, if one doesn’t wish to talk to someone?

3. Doesn’t this idea of ‘virtue’ isolate women? Communication can be empowering.

4. What happens if a man does approach her? Would that mean she is at fault for not following the dress and behavior code? Reminds me of this post by Small Town Feminist.

5. Why expect women to dress in codes to convey that they are not interested in conversations/friendship/fraindship/relationships/sexual harassment/sexual assaults etc? 

From this article: Moral ambivalence, then and now, P.V.Indiresan (The author is a former Director, IIT, Madras.)

Related Posts:

Those little walks…  – Small Town Feminist.

What the hell is difference between a homemaker and a porn star?

What exactly is bothering the person who made this comment? (in response to this post  – ‘What do ‘Modest’ women have that their ‘Immodest’ sisters don’t…’)

He doesn’t like the idea of women benefiting from ‘exposing’ their bodies, even if they are not being exploited, ostracized, stigmatized, traumatized or killed. Why?

He sounds more concerned that women might ‘expose’ their bodies and not feel ashamed of it.

I feel if women stopped being ashamed of their bodies being ‘exposed’ then it would become very difficult to humiliate women by stripping and parading them on the streets. Then maybe women too will (eventually) be seen as family members and not ‘family honor’?

Maybe then a rape victim would feel angry, disgusted, shaken, uncomfortable etc – but not ashamed if a rapist threatens to share an MMS clip of a crime he has committed?

And here’s the comment.

All you women want to expose your bodies and still claim to be a perfect lady. If that’s true what the hell is difference between a homemaker and a porn star. Both do the same damn thing. Just EXPOSE! I hate all your stupid excuses and justifications. A few handful of modestly dressed women are a billion times better all the rest put together.

Imagine if nude magazines are legally launched in India or maybe for the matter a legally functioning porn industry. We would be having celebrities in every corner of the country. Immorality and immodesty would be an integral part of everyone’s life. JUST IMAGINE HELL ON EARTH!

This world would be much better off without you FEMINISTS! A handful of modest feminine women are a billion times better than all the rest put together.

About the difference between a homemaker and a porn star,

1. One is seen as a working a woman even if she a homemaker, the other is seen only as a homemaker.

2. One might face stigma and be ostracized by the society, maybe even by those who watch her videos or photographs (even in the assembly).

3. One is more likely to be married than the other.

4. Both are generally assumed to be women.

Any other?

Related posts:

Aankhon Ki Sharam

Babe In Total Control Of Herself – B.I.T.C.H.

Should women go to this temple?

Sisters and daughters are requested to keep their bodies covered with clothes according to their modesty. Mothers are requested to make their pampered daughters  dress in modest clothes, if they don’t listen, keep them at home.

This picture was shared by Hrishikesh on facebook.

What kind of message does such a message give to those visiting the temple?

That, the way women dress is everybody’s business.

I also thought the tone of the message was arrogant and sarcastic, ‘apni laadli‘ translates to ‘your brat of a daughter‘.

I know I would not visit a place that does not seem to respect women and thinks I can’t decide what I should wear, because I am a woman.

Also, should there be a dress code for going to temples? If yes, should it be applied only to sisters and daughters? Don’t women devotees find men dressed in certain styles offensive? For example, no shirts and kurtas are compulsory for men? No instructions to behave in a ‘modest manner’ for Brothers and Sons?

Whoever put that notice also seems to believe the stereotype that  mothers are the weaker parents who the children don’t listen to.  (That children should be controlled by a father’s firm hand 🙄 and that spoiled children are a mother’s doing.)

Anju Gandhi and Desi Girl blogged about the need for creating special gods and places of worship where women are respected as individuals with intelligence, on all the days of the month.

Note: Ladli roughly translates to brat, can be used lovingly or sarcastically.

Slut Walk. And how women’s bodies are different, so they need to be covered for their own safety.

“Why is that a man wearing only his ganji and shorts can sit around with the entire family whereas you’ve never seen a woman of the house sitting around in her undergarments. That’s how we function,right?” 

Women of the house did sit around and work wearing nothing on top until as close as 150 years ago. And still do in some parts of the world.

Women redo their saris after long bus journeys, right on the bus stops and nobody cares (and nobody should).  Cleavages, shoulders and bare backs show all over North India, nobody even gives a second glance. In Haryana, women cover their faces, while the torso is exposed, nobody has any problems.

Then how is it that a woman in T shirt and jeans risks being seen as dressed provocatively?

It’s simply a matter of a society getting used to women dressing in certain ways. And that too can, and does change from time to time.

Take a look at these two examples,

1. Women in Kerala 150 years ago.

Some 150 years back the women in Kerala launched a feminist revolt for the right to cover their breast, women in Kerala were not allowed to cover their breast; mostly this rule was applicable to lower caste women, when someone from higher caste would come she should show her breast to cover ones breast was considered a sign of immodesty. Brahmin women can cover their breast while venturing out but at home they had to be topless, Shatriya women cant cover breast infront of Brahmins and lower cast women couldn’t cover breast infront of anyone. The cloth worn on lower part couldn’t be lower than the knee.

I think in most of ancient India women generally were topless, there are some mention about this is Kamasutra. If you think about the climate in India, generally hot and humid most of the time, I would say being topless is the right way.
Coming back to Kerala, what lead to the change in the topless trend was apparently the contact with the Brits. Some people converted to Christianity and as per European standards started wearing upper body garments, the higher caste people beat the shit out of such women, slowly the contact with Britishers and rest of India made topless out of fashion, women started feeling ashamed of being topless, it made them feel inferior.

Coming back to Kerala, what lead to the change in the topless trend was apparently the contact with the Brits.” [Link]

2. Women in Nagaland today.

Mr Balvinder Singh’s experience in Nagaland shows making rules about covering up a woman’s body, is the beginning of objectification of women, to ensure ‘excitement’ does not ‘turn into monotony’.

The men wore only a loincloth and the females wrapped just a shawl below their waists. The women folk of all ages were seen working in the fields, carrying fire wood or hay for the animals, pounding barley, washing clothes at village water points, knitting on hand looms (almost every house had a hand loom where the women would knit shawls etc) or attending to other such daily chores of life, wearing nothing on top.

While a small cleavage visible under the thin dupatta or through the pallu of a woman’s saree is certainly a pleasant sight for any man worth his salt, without harbouring any malafide thoughts in the mind, but there in the villages of Nagaland it was an anti climax to see the dangling pairs of bare boobs, available to look at in abundance in all shapes and sizes. Initially they were a cause of some excitement, which was natural , but gradually the excitement turned into monotony. I was reminded of the words of a famous poet that the ‘beauty that is veiled looks more beautiful’.” [Link]

Did the women in the above examples face more sexual harassment than women today because more of their skin was exposed? They didn’t of course. But why didn’t they?

What do you think, was the society more civilised then or were the men just used to women being dressed that way?

“So why do we wear clothes again??”

‘I wish one had the liberty to slap these kids to senses and send them back to kindergarten to be taught…”Why do we wear clothes again??”’ (From J’s comment here)

So why do we wear clothes?

1. For protection from heat and cold? Most civilisations that did not need protection from cold did not have rigid rules for body being covered up.

Did traditional Indian clothing have blouses or shirts? Men and women wrapped a dhoti or sari, children generally wore nothing. Body was decorated with flowers, ‘alta’, turmeric, sandal wood paste, kohl and jewelry, wanting to look good was not considered inappropriate.

When invaders arrived from locations where clothing was necessary for protection from extreme heat or cold, they also brought along the concept of ‘shame’ and modesty. In ‘Chokher Bali‘ the newly wed refuses to wear a blouse with sari, because it was too British (modern).

Once the society starts covering women up, Margaret Atwood describes how the threshold for what is found sexually attractive changes, soon even a glimpse of an ankle becomes sexually provocative.

One example: Pakizah has the hero falling in love with Meena Kumari – after he sees her beautiful feet. Was that love?

2. Do we wear clothes to look better – to look sexually attractive?

Was there this fear that if women did not cover up, men might stop finding a mere glimpse of a part of a woman’s body attractive? (Margaret Atwood, Handmaiden’s Tale)

Mr Balvinder Singh’s experience in Nagaland shows making rules about covering up a woman’s body, is the beginning of objectification of women, to ensure ‘excitement’ does not ‘turn into monotony’.

“The men wore only a loincloth and the females wrapped just a shawl below their waists. The women folk of all ages were seen working in the fields, carrying fire wood or hay for the animals, pounding barley, washing clothes at village water points, knitting on hand looms (almost every house had a hand loom where the women would knit shawls etc) or attending to other such daily chores of life, wearing nothing on top.

While a small cleavage visible under the thin dupatta or through the pallu of a woman’s saree is certainly a pleasant sight for any man worth his salt, without harbouring any malafide thoughts in the mind, but there in the villages of Nagaland it was an anti climax to see the dangling pairs of bare boobs, available to look at in abundance in all shapes and sizes. Initially they were a cause of some excitement, which was natural , but gradually the excitement turned into monotony. I was reminded of the words of a famous poet that the ‘beauty that is veiled looks more beautiful’.” [Click here to read the entire article]

3. To prevent offending the sensibilities of those who think covering up is a religious/social/cultural/safety requirement?

This is extremely subjective.

Some people find even the glimpse of a woman’s eyes offends their religious sentiments, some find sleeveless blouses offensive, for many only traditional clothing no matter how much it convers or reveals is acceptable.

Some think it’s okay to wear anything so long as one can ‘carry  it off’.

Most people simply resist any change. So in most places,  there are rules regarding not just skin, but also how much of which clothing should not show.

So the sight of boxers and bra straps offends some people.

For many other people’s legs (shorts, bermudas), calves, arms (sleeveless) and knees (skirts), midriffs (saris, lehengas), shape, curves (fitted clothing) are offensive.

In  India showing one’s back and midriff is acceptable when one is wearing a sari, but not if the outfit is Western. Nigeria disagrees! Read Nita’s post – ‘Sari an immodest garment?’

So it seems what’s okay in some societies is not acceptable in some other societies and the rules change with times, all the time. Most societies seem to accept and rigidly follow their current – generally unwritten norms.

How do these norms get created? And how do they change?

How is it that more of these rules apply to women?

Could these rules be a means to control women’s sexuality?

Why do you think do humans wear clothes?

Related Posts: 

The way a woman dresses.

No Jeans for an Indian daughter in law.

Not just a pair of jeans.

All teachers except Indian women can do their job well enough in Western clothes?

What women ‘choose’ to wear…

…continues to be everybody’s business.

‘Iranian sports bodies have now agreed the girls can wear caps that cover their hair but not their necks. The Iranian girls’ football team is to be allowed to play in the Youth Olympics.’ […]
In France those who force women to wear burka would be punished. […]
Belgium became Europe’s first country to vote for a ban on the full Islamic veil or burqa. […]
Burqua or Niquab have no place in Denmark. [link]
“…women’s rights and freedom of religion – what happens when they appear to collide? ”

The burka is to be banned. Those agents of medievalism who were hitherto forcing Canada’s Muslims into a medieval corner of segregation and isolation, have been challenged. – Tarek Fatah. [Read more]

Burka is often compared to the Bikini. Feminists feel both objectify women. Fundamentalists have strong opinions on both.

Some  people see the bikini as a threat to their culture.

Governments have considered the idea of banning the bikini. ( Another example, here)

For some jeans are unacceptable, some others think a sari is immodest, ‘in Nagaland where women remain topless in some villages. Well no rapes take place there and no eve teasing either,’ (Click here to read the article.)

No matter what a woman chooses to wear, somebody has a problem.

Burka as a choice.

Some feel a Muslim woman has the right to choose to wear a burka.

I recently chanced upon Tarek Fatah’s comment on this picture on Face Book.

Tarek Fatah: Imagine, there are liberal feminists in the west who defend the right of a woman to live under this horrid and cruel mobile prison.

Is this really about women’s choices?

Around 1987, BJP insisted, that if a widow volunteers to burn herself on her husband’s pyre, her choice should be respected.

The same voices object to women ‘choosing‘ to wear jeans, or women  ‘choosing‘ to marry out of community. It seems choosing to be burnt alive is about the only choice women should have.

Tarek Fatah, (Canada) says,

“The Canada I came to with my wife and daughters should not be a haven  for a medieval, misogynist doctrine that traps women under the guise of  liberalism and choice.” [Read more]

It’s true that liberal feminists support the Burka in the west.

There is also a concern that this  ban might set a precedence of the government encroaching on citizens’ civil rights.

In India those who oppose the burka, also object to  tight jeans and spaghetti straps. They might change their minds when they read this news.

Jury acquitted Nicholas Gonzalez because they felt, ‘Rape of woman in skinny jeans ‘not possible’.

Although, ‘Many folks have pointed out that it’s patently stupid to assert that skinny jeans cannot be removed without cooperation, and then even cooperation in removing clothing does not indicate consent‘.

Should women trust the Jury?

There are many who believe that women should choose to wear clothes  that guarantee not to provoke a helpless rapist to ‘offend their modesty‘.

This was impossible until recently. Crimes against women were committed, no matter what they wore.

But now I am sure the jury of six men and six women would vouch for the safety of skinny jeans?

[Note: The post became too long, I deleted some quotes to trim it a little. ]

Related posts:

The way a woman dresses…
What do modest women have that their ‘immodest’ sisters don’t?
The art of not being provocative.
Provocatively dressed.
She does not invite it.

Bikini vs Burka: The Debauchery of Women

I have received this link more than once. My first reaction was to ignore it in disgust, but when it landed in my mailbox a second time  I realised ‘Bikini vs. Burka: The Debauchery of Womenby Henry Makow Ph.D. was being taken seriously by some.

What Makow says is in black, my response is in red. I wish I could make this post shorter, but nearly every sentence made some baseless claims and required responding.

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka. Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

The bikini should be compared to the burkini.

The burka can be compared to a pair of jeans, a sari, a salwar kurta, a dress or a skirt. This is what women who do not wear burka wear when they go to shop, work, fetch water or drop their children to school etc.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed.

One has a choice to wear anything she finds comfortable, the other can be flogged for as much as showing a strand of her hair. These are the two extremes.

These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called “civilizations.”

Civilisations? More of a clash between a civilisation and another society that needs to stop flogging and stoning before it can be considered ‘civilised’.

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture.

It’s time the rest of the population was given the opportunity to protect and be at the heart of their own cultures. I am sure Muthaliks of the world would love to set good examples by respecting women and  leading peaceful, non violent, democratic lives.

Apart from stealing Arab oil, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

You mean women are forced to go grocery-shopping in bikinis? Or are they permitted to acquire education, take up jobs and if they choose to, give up their burkas without fearing a flogging or stoning?

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

Women’s wish and women’s convenience, not your love for their feminine beauty, should decide if they wear or reject the burka. The ‘feminine beauty’ happens to have a thinking mind and a heart full of (unfeminine?) desires.

Your love for feminine beauty having the power to decide how they dress is called objectification of women.

For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The dictionary meaning of ‘consecration’ is…  a solemn commitment of your life or your time to some cherished purpose ”

(religion) sanctification of something by setting it apart (usually with religious rites) as dedicated to God”

Does the ‘privacy and exclusivity of the domestic sphere’ help a woman live a life of her choice/liking (with the freedom she deserves as a human being)? What if she dreams of a lot more from her life?

Are dreams of running free on a beach (may or may not be in a bikini) considered condemnable or does she have a choice like any other individual? And if she does choose to run on a beach, does it mean that she’s any less ‘dedicated’ to the ‘domestic sphere’?

What if she is forced by circumstances to seek employment or self reliance? Does her ‘exclusive’ status come in the way of her achieving as much success as the next person with equal ability?

And what about the husbands ‘exclusivity’ to the wife.

The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

This was expected from women everywhere. As we became civilised, we started realising that women also need a partner who shares the nurturing and training of her their children. And ‘providing refuge and support to’ a partner frees both men and women from rigidly defined gender roles.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV.

And this bikinied woman knows she can continue to work, have children, marry and live even after thousands of male eyes have fallen on her bikinied self. And strut.

A woman is more than her skin and curves. She is a person. And every strand of her hair, every drop of her own blood, and every inch of her skin is all her own.

She can display it or cover it, feed a family by marketing it – it’s hers. Nobody is free to abuse her because she displayed more of herself than they approved.

A feminist, she belongs to herself.

Who should she belong to? To a man with a whip? Or to the moral police?

Wearing a bikini does not make a woman a feminist. Knowing nobody else can dictate what she wears makes her a feminist.

Feminists are well known for being against both beauty pageants and burkas, as both are seen as objectification of women.

And in a fair and just society, each one of us must belong to ourselves. Nobody is anybody’s property. Nobody must be taken for granted.

In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

She is in control of her own life and body. She can auction herself or she can buy the auctioneer.

It’s her life, her choices. She knows, like anybody else, she can even afford to make wrong choices.  She knows a single mistake would not be the end of her life.

Western culture doesn’t collapse if one woman displays more skin than some other equal adults can handle.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

Not just in the West, women are under pressure to fit into local ideas of beauty/sex appeal all over the world.

In traditional societies where a woman’s life revolves around her husband and family, looking good or being fair is considered very important and since this is not something a woman can always control, this can be traumatic. In a civilised society a woman should be able to lead an independent, happy life no matter how unattractive her husband thinks she is.

As an adolescent, her role model is Britney Spears, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Britney, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to “hook up” furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage.

Britney doesn’t need to teach her ‘she will be loved only if she gives sex‘. Something along these lines is actually taught to women in all cultures. This 1960s lesson in UK would be  still acceptable in the Middle East, even in India today and in many other parts of the developing world too. Many societies do not see marital rape as wrong even today. To find out how much she can ‘demand patient courtship, love and marriage’, watch this video. 🙄

As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does.

Assuming this applies to all the women who do not wear err… ‘modest clothing’ – how does it help a girl to know nobody until she meets her husband? How does it help her live a happier, more fulfilling life? How does it make her a better, more self satisfied individual?

There is more to a woman than who she sleeps with. She is a real person with dreams, fears, passions, ambitions, anger, humour, whims… can we stop seeing her as an object of sex please? Female Genital Mutilation is another form of this same obsession with sexual-exclusivity, virginty and sex life.

And I wonder why doesn’t the virginity rule apply to the rest of the population.

She loses her innocence, which is a part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

Noorjehan and Cleopatra – amongst the most charming women in history, were not ‘innocent’.  Both married emperors. Both had been married more than once.

The same ignorance that is said to add to her ‘charms’ puts her at the mercy of the not so innocent and worldlier humans.

I wonder, how is innocence lost when knowledge is gained, or from meeting people, or even from sexual experience? Does she loose it then, once she is married? Does that mean she becomes boringly experienced or ‘charm-less’ after she is married?

A guy who demands innocence is probably missing the person behind the charm. Intelligence, wit, humour, confidence, poise and knowledge (and not innocence) seem more reliable and longer lasting even if ‘charms’ is what a girl requires to ‘receive his seed’.

I suspect this is a convenient brainwash to ensure she never becomes ‘hardened and calculating’ enough to question or walk out of a miserable or abusive relationship. She may never learn what she is missing (warmth, support, humour, camaraderie) because she never meets any men except her husband.

And most importantly isn’t there more to a person than her ‘charm’ and ‘innocence’ and being fit for ‘receiving her husband’s seed’?  Can we stop objectifying her?

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice. Masculine nature is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

This is what little girls and boys are taught to believe, and it leads to a lot of trauma because a vast majority finds it difficult to fit into these rigid stereotypes.

This article, for example has no reason or logic (E.g. Men treat their partners or children like a hunter treats a prey?) – but it is written by a man. I have also read similar articles written by women. ‘Lack of reason’ I am afraid, has no gender.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in “oppression” and they should adopt male behavior instead. The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

Why not just be oneself? Why ‘adopt’ any feminine or masculine behaviour?

The society needs bold, confident women and gentle, caring men. There is place for everyone. A healthy society allows each individual to be their best, without forcing them to fit into stereotypes.

Hypocrisy and deception doesn’t work. How long can a person pretend to be someone he/she is not?

Women (or men) who do not wish to be parents should not become parents. Every baby should be truly wanted by the parents.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the “brave new world,” women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be neutered, autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Britney Spears? To low-rise “see-my-thong” pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they’d end the war.

Liberating women means liberating an entire society from the rules made by a few for their own convenience.

Women (and men) should be empowered to take personal decisions. Members in a healthy society do not (and should not) force their views on all other members. There is no compulsion in religion but all societies use religion as an excuse to control individual lives.

A healthy society would not condemn a teenager to prostitution if she is seen wearing low rise ‘see my thong’ pants or if she is pregnant before she is married. The purpose of civilisation was to ensure happier lives for all. In oppressive societies everyone is compelled to follow rules set or interpreted by a few.

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life.

Parenthood was err… prevalent even before ‘human development’ 🙄  Only after ‘development’ did we restrict it to matrimony.

All living creatures become parents, so perhaps they all become God’s surrogate…  🙄

The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

Pornography can never substitute for marriage, because marriage is much more than just sex.

Self obsessed? As in  Live-in relationships or same sex relationships? Forced marriages and child marriages worry me, but never self obsessed singles.

We are not meant to have a permanent “private” life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming “independent,” she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

A permanent mate is equally important for both men and women, and yet if one is to live a happy life, one must not depend entirely on finding this ‘permanent mate’. If one does not find or if one loses a permanent mate, life must still go on and happily too.

If a woman’s happiness depends on the presence of a ‘permanent mate’(husband/ boyfriend/ partner) in her life, it can make her insecure and unhappy. This insecurity can lead to an obsession with looking young. A woman, like anybody else, needs to be seen above and beyond her ‘sexual attraction’ and the ‘function of her fertility’.

Her long-term personal fulfilment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

And if she is divorced, widowed or remains childless then she has no fulfilment and happiness? Why not allow her to find a little more from her own life, just like everybody else does?

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

Feminism has given women the right to vote, it has made it easier for them to be self reliant. Feminism made women equal partners to their spouses, it got them custody of their children, it provided them the courage to fight against sexual harassment. It has made it possible for them to walk out on a man who has been unfaithful or abusive –  Feminism is good for the society. No religion and no civilised society can find anything wrong with any of these.

Modesty is subjective and obsession with forcing women to be modest and dignified (Izzat) leads to flogging, stoning, stripping and honour killings etc all over the world. Their obsession with a women’s clothing, sexuality and bodies  might make an average god-fearing citizen suspicious of religious leaders. 😐

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

The two cannot be compared 🙄 One has to walk on egg shells hoping she breaks no rules, the other can strut on a catwalk and knows, if she is wrong she can try again, and if she is right, she can rewrite the rules.

Comment moderation is enabled.

A guy who expects innocent charms is probably missing the person behind the charm.

What do ‘Modest’ women have that their ‘Immodest’ sisters don’t…

I read this article that teaches women how to dress modestly. The article recommends that women avoid wearing shirts that show anything below the collar bones, skirts and shorts that go higher than the knees, and tight fitting clothes.

The article says that women must not wear certain kinds of  clothes,  to prevent men (who may not be creeps or bad people) from being tempted to imagining what they look like beneath the clothes.

I am not convinced because I have read of many other men (who may not be creeps or bad people)  who will be attracted to the  sight  of a woman’s collar bones or ankles, or knees, or lips (with or without lipstick) or eyes lashes, or hair or the arc of her back. ETC.

If you read the comment section of “The way a woman dresses…” you will find capris or three fourths are also considered immodest by some men.  Jeans which the article says nothing against are considered suggestive by another commenter.

If you have seen Pakizah then you will know that even the sight of a woman’s feet is enough for some men to be  attracted to them.

Some other men think modesty is in the attitude and eyes, and not in the clothes.

So it does seem that modesty is a subjective term. It seems it is almost impossible for women to fit into everybody’s idea of modesty.

But more importantly how do women benefit from giving up free movement, comfortable clothing, the satisfaction of looking good, sunlight, fresh air, and a lot of personal freedom?

…In other words, what do modest women have that immodest women don’t?

They are told they have men’s respect.

Well, I am sure men’s respect is a very worthwhile thing. But seeing how millions of (immodest?) women are doing very well without this kind of ‘respect’, I really wonder if it’s time women stopped worrying about how men are imagining unprintable things about them, (because they find their clothing immodest) and started living their lives.

Thousands of women, (mothers, students, activists, nurses, athletes, journalists, engineers, construction workers, artists, actors, writers etc) are going about their daily lives without giving a thought to what every Tom, Dick and Harry is thinking when he sees them striding past.  They are all doing fine without fitting into every rikshaw-walla, coolie, clerk, politician, principal, army jawan and dhobi’s ideas of modesty.

I wonder who does a woman’s modesty empower… who do you think?

Related Posts:

1. What women ‘choose’ to wear…

2. Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work.

3. She does not ‘ask for it’.

4. Provocatively Dressed.

(who may not be creeps or bad people)

She does NOT invite it.

This post is in response to Chandni’s post on how girls are judged by the way they dress.
I have seen most people believe that if a girl is dressed decently she will not be harassed, molested or raped. So a burqua/chador/abaya should be the safest? It isn’t. Read what happens when you treat girls as objects, not as humans with their own minds, feelings and lives.

Pressure to wear appropriate clothing is a different issue, what’s appropriate for office may look too stiff on a dance floor. But pressure to wear clothing that shows they respect tradition and culture of the place in all kinds of weather is only for women. Tradition and Culture are the easiest ways to control women, or even a whole population. We need to use common sense instead walking on the trodden path.

Indian men gave up traditional clothing and switched to western clothing, warm blazers, trousers and shoes and socks, women continue to wear the saree even in shivering winters and dripping monsoons. Tabu struggling with her saree in the snow, in Namesake sums up the inconvenience/impracticality of following outdated traditional/inappropriate clothing. Churidaar and kurta which came to India with the Mughals was fine for their weather (Central Asia), Indian saree made more sense for Indian summers. Today, the saree is totally accepted, in fact respected in India, but in Pakistan the same saree is considered revealing! It’s less about how much is showing, more about does it indicate that the woman is breaking the norm. It’s like if she smokes a cigarette (does something most women don’t) she is loose, but if she smokes a bidi? Well many village women do that. No problem.

The belief is so deep seated that girls are told to dress and behave in certain ways to avoid male attention, protection becomes imprisonment very fast. And quite unnecessarily. What about child abuse? Custodial rape? Rapes of dalits by upper castes? I repeat, if clothing protected women from male attention, then Burqua clad women will face no male attention. Right? Read this.

Quite on the contrary, if women dress the way they like and men are made to understand that they will face legal action etc for harassing them, the harassment will stop. There is no other way. It’s not clothing, it’s not how a woman dresses, it’s the way the men think. A decent guy will look away if a woman is dressed in a way that embarrasses him, he will not pass lewd remarks. A creep will pass comment on a woman of any age, dressed in any way. My mother only wears sarees, and when you see her from her back you cannot make out how old she is. Once she heard two young boys , laughing and arguing “Mine, heh heh heh !”, “No Mine!” “She was in her fifties then, and she turned to see the faces of these boys, they took out their tongue to show embarrassment when they realised how old she was. Before she could react, they cycled away giggling shamelessly. And she was neither young, nor wearing revealing/nontraditional clothing.

Quoting Irfan EngineerPower wielding elite exploit helpless victims to satisfy their lust without any respect for dress code of any woman. The argument that ghunghat protected women from sexual lust of power wielding men will logically lead us to the conclusion that victims of rape are themselves responsible for the crime and invited the sexual assault as they were not properly clad. How do you explain rapes in police custody and sexual harassment at workplace in that case? Can one imagine a dalit landless labourer sexually assaulting an upper caste woman from a land owning family in a village however she may be dressed? Not because dalit males respect the individuality of the fairer sex but they know that the consequence of such a misadventure. What matters is, who is vested with power and social sanctions and not how one is dressed.’

Remember some of the reactions to the New Year Eve Mumbai molestation case? Our elite media, repeated many, many times, ‘Girls were skimpily dressed’.

Brothers hear parents tell the girls to dress appropriately to avoid male attention, and they assume it’s the girls who are responsible for any crimes committed against them. Boys are innocent, girls dress provokingly, boys get provoked! They cannot help it. How logical is that?

A city that is safe for everyone else is safe for women also. Compare Mumbai and Delhi. Crime and Law and Order situation overall, and crimes against women go together. So if we don’t want crimes against women we need to ensure our cities are safe. Covering them in full sleeved kurtas and heavy dupattas will not make any difference.

We women, (specially mothers) can make so much difference.
If we just stop telling our daughters not to invite trouble by dressing daringly, do tell her to be careful, the way you’d tell your son to be careful.
Teach her how to handle emergencies. Just like you would teach a son, without frightening or blaming her. And NEVER say, she invited it. No girl invites crimes against herself.
If she tells you someone misbehaved with her, do NOT blame her! She will never have the courage to tell you again, even if she really needs your help.

Edited to add: Do we realise harassment and eve teasing has serious repercussions for girls? They are not allowed to go to school and colleges because parents are afraid they will be harassed. Read about it here.

Added on Oct 14, 2008 – When CM of Delhi thought girls should stay at home after dark, read what Quirky Indian wrote here.


Related Posts

1. What women ‘choose’ to wear…

2. Sexual Assault Prevention Tips Guaranteed to Work.

3. What do ‘modest’ women have that their ‘immodest’ sisters don’t?

4. Provocatively Dressed.