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 Women’ by 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.