Dean's World

Interesting article.
I will quibble with one of its main points though, which I feel is summed up by the last sentence

But in the West, many women wear bikinis to try and attract the attention of men. And in the East, many women are forced to wear burka, especially cruelly oppressive versions. In that case, both are wrong and immoral[1], and this is why I claim that they are equally oppressive.

I'm not going to get in the sociological aspects of this argument, but I will note that if a woman doesn't want to wear a bikini she is not beaten or honor-killed. So no, they are not equally oppressive. And, while you didn't say this, they are also not even remotely equally repressive.

A woman wearing a bikini because she feels society expects it of her and woman wearing a burka because she will be savagely beaten, maimed or killed are not even the same sport much less the same ballpark much less equivalent.

The problem I have with the Dutch law is that it's a one size fits all. While I would think that many women would not want to wear that, I'm also sure that many do.
But the motivation for that might akin to the motivation that Aziz posits that makes western women wear bikinis.

I just don't like heavy-handed, nanny-state assaults on freedom.

many women wear bikinis to try and attract the attention of men

Here's a concept that may strike you as outrageous and/or unbelievable, but often, women are capable of having thoughts that do not center around men. We think about science, politics, sports, art, our children, our classes. For most of the day, we're not thinking about men at all.

Here's another mindblower - for the most part, when women are planning our work/play/bathing outfits, we worry more about the approval of other women. If you wear brown shoes with a black dress, men don't care, but women do - and they will comment.

Sometimes, women will swim in bikinis because they like to. Sometimes, women will swim without bikinis because they like to.

If Western women were obsessed with men and their approval, we'd wear things that attract men's attention - high boots, fishnet stockings, miniskirts, low-cut blouses, bright colors. How many Western Women dress like that outside of a red-light district?

If women are obsessed with men and their approval, but in a negative way, they tend cover themselves with unatractive sacks.

I just don't like heavy-handed, nanny-state assaults on freedom.

me either, as I hope my essay made clear (that was pretty much the main point).

I wrote this back in June, 2001. I stand by every word I wrote:

I'd like to strangle the person who first started using that ugly term "sex object", at least the way it's used today by the sex-haters. I know that its original derivation is from grammar, "subject-verb-object", as "I [subject] love [verb] you [object].", which is what sex is all about. Nothing (excuse the pun) objectionable there. But "object" also has, and is intended to have by the sex-haters, the connotation of something inanimate and faceless, to imply that sex, sexual desire, reduces someone (usually a woman) to becoming an "object" in that sense. It is ugly and is intended to be ugly, to make sex seem ugly. I note that they have no objection (pardon the pun again) to women or others being "objects" of pity -- their idea of "love" -- so it is not really "objectification" that they hate but sex, sexual desire, sexual passion, sexual love, beauty. I say again: Up With Beauty!

Mary, I made exacty that same point in my essay - that the bikini is not an instrument of oppression is chosen willingly.

Yes, but you misunderstand the reasons why the choice is made. You say: "The bikini and the burka are so far to the extremes that they meet again. They both serve to reduce women, from a person, to an object. In the case of the burka, that object is "slave". In the case of the bikini, that object is "sex". The burka is forced upon women, for fear of consequences, whereas women are induced to wear the bikini, out of desire for consequences. But in both cases those consequences are to please males."

That's where you're wrong Some women on the extreme ends of the spectrum (women who hate and/or fear men vs. women who want to attract lots of men, often for business purposes) dress with only men in mind. Most don't.

Most women dress to please themselves, or to impress other women. It's not hard to get the attention of males, but women are their own worst critics.

You say: "One of the major flaws in Jim's argument is unstated but implicit assumption that the bikini is an expression of female power - but in fact, it's an abject surrender. Is it really true that women have to strip down to two strategic strips of cloth just to excercise their power?"

For the most part, the only people who are 'forcing' women to wear bikinis are women. Men have very little to do with it. So, who are we supposed to be surrendering to?

The buhrka is meant to limit women's power to sexually attract men. The bikini is meant to amplify that power to the maximum extent possible.

The buhrka is often mandatory. The bikini is always voluntary.

One of the strange realities of modern life here in the west is pretty much exactly what Mary said--most women dress for each other. I consider this simply extraordinary behavior, but I've seen it verified over and over again. Men usually don't care.

I take issue with the notion that women only wear burkas for fear of being beaten by men. That is likely true in some places but is unlikely to be universally true. And I am quite certain that women have every bit as much to do with enforcing the burka rule in oppressive muslim societies as the men. Maybe even moreso. We tend to see these societies as "male dominated" without acknowledging the enormous power women hold in family life in those cultures--and those are cultures where family is more important than anything else.

In her extraordinary book When She Was Bad: Violent Women and the Myth of Innocence, Patricia Pearson made the startling discovery (one of many) that in societies that practice "honor killings," in the vast majority of cases the man committing the killing was strongly urged to do it by his mother, sister, or wife, often more than one of them. Which does not make him innocent of course, but shows the profound complexity of addressing such an issue.

In short, it is doubtful the women in these societies are simply weakling victims. Many will be active perpetrators and accomplices.

Also, except for the draconian "wear this sack over your head or we'll bash you with bricks" variety, I have no more problem with the head scarves and such than I do with the clothing requirements of orthodox Jewish women, or some of the Christian sects which, for example, expect women not to cut their hair or the even odder Christian sects wherein the women all keep their heads shaved and wear wigs. (Yes, there really are Christian sects like that.)

In any case... I'm curious to find a picture of what the Dawoodi Bohra women's attire. There don't seem to be any online.

I take issue with the notion that women only wear burkas for fear of being beaten by men.
I knew I had phrased that poorly. Obviously that's not universal. But it is happening in Britain and Germany.
While those are not solely for not wearing the burqa, it is the same mindset.
As for the point that you are not beaten for not wearing a bikini, thats blindingly obvious. How is it relevant?

Because you said, In that case, both are wrong and immoral[1], and this is why I claim that they are equally oppressive.
They are not equally oppressive if one is entirely optional and the other is, at least occasionally, required on pain of beating, disfigurement and/or death. I just don't see any way you can say that. I was not going to talk for women, but mary did so I'll just re-note her point that many women wear clothes for other women. Why do you think Cosmo is full of pictures of women? That magazine is nearly as good as Playboy. Much better than Sear's catalogue.
So I don't think you can equate the two. That was my point.

Menace: Go back and look, I think you'll find it you look through the Afghan election photos you saw women voting in a variety of garb, including the head-to-toe burkas.

Mike: Uhm, I've read more than one story of women who were forced to dress in certain slinky attire by men who wanted to view them as trophies. I've even known one or two who've gone through that.

Dave: Nah, watch and pay attention more closely. They're doing it to impress or defy each other most of the time. Even middle aged and elderly women do this, constantly judging each other on what they wear while the men remain almost entirely obvlivious to most of it except when young and on the prowl.

There is a wonderful expression that Muslims need to learn: when in Rome...