There was an article in this month's "O" magazine with a mother married to a Libyan man. Her daughter asked to wear the head covering when she turned 12 and the writer while acknowledgin that it turned her stomach also made excuses. Some of them went along the lines of not having to worry about keeping up with certain clothing trends or worrying about holding up your bikin bottoms while playing tennis. If only women wearing these burkas did it for their own reasoning but I think we've all come far enough to know that its not really a choice in their countries. And our female citizens whether going as reporters, soldiers, or tourists cover up out of "respect" for their customs when really we know they'd end up dead or in jail.

While I see the point I'm really not comfortable with the state dictating what one wears. The choice to wear a bikini or a burka should always be the person's choice not the state's. Once a government is permitted to control dress we have crossed a line that should never even be approached.

We can argue about that women actually making a choice or being forced fine. I'd rather those be dealt with on an individual level than legally restricting ones dress.

I had my live burka experience 2 weeks ago, when I took my son to a hospital here in Israel for tests.

Most Israeli Muslims are not that extreme. The more religious may cover their hair with wimple-like scarves, but the clothing is colorful and personalized, and often includes jeans and tailored clothing.

The burka was solid black, and negated this woman's presence as a person. She was not occupying the same space as the rest of us. Not a person like the rest of us.

Instead of sleeves, she seemed to have some kind of cape that covered her arms and hands. Thus limiting her ability to interact with the world around her, and further negating her human presence.

When her husband showed up he was showing chest hair from a short-sleeved fitted shirt, with pressed khaki trousers and nice leather shoes. His pre-teen son was wearing a tank top and clamdigger shorts.

"neither my family nor the state will ever force me to wear a bikini"

On the contrary, they will. If you go out in public and leave off
the bikini, you'll get arrested. Both arabic and western
societies limit the amount of body you're allowed to show. The
difference is one of degree, not of kind.

As long as we have our own puritanical dress codes, the best we
can honestly say is, "Well, we're not quite as bad as they are."

If Islamic society was puritanical, then Muslim men would not be strutting around like roosters, wearing shorts, & showing off their chest hair while their women were forced into black body bags. See Ben-David's comment. I've seen the same sad spectacle myself in Toronto. This deliberate blotting out of female humanity is very much a difference in kind, not just degree, between us and them.

"Dickey is right to say that "The real test of modernity, including our own, is tolerance"

Dickey is full of shit. Slavery, honor killing, clitorectomy, and the marriage of 9 year old girls to 60 year old men are still being practiced now, in the 21st century, but there's nothing noble about tolerating them.

Still, we Westerners live in glass houses. We forced cultural norms onto the women of the Pacific, SE Asia and Latin America, who typically did not cover breasts, when Westerners first arrived.
Are we so tolerant? Imagine a woman walking around any USA city topless.
Amy Alkon, who imagines herself to be an unconventional as she dresses unconventionally (the conventional way to safely express individuality) would never dare to go out in public topless. She wouldn't even want to, no matter how hot and sticky the day.
Self-censorship and repression--built into her brain by Western society.

"We forced cultural norms onto the women of the Pacific, SE Asia and Latin America, who typically did not cover breasts, when Westerners first arrived."

Oh my god, you are so right. There we were pushing them back into burning buildings because they fled without headscarves, throwing acid in their faces, groping them to determine if they were wearing appropriate undergarments, and honor-killing them when they went too bare.

Wait, that's right, we didn't do that at all. In Islamic countries that does happen. In ours it doesn't. We are far more tolerant. A woman goes topless in the states she'll be told to cover up and probably get a fine. Maybe she might spend a few days in jail (maybe) but she won't have acid thrown in her face. And a woman running out of a burning building without a stitch on won't be pushed back in until she covers up.

"Wait, that's right, we didn't do that at all." Actually we did (if by we you mean Western Europeans), we don't any more but we did. Which in Amy's book mean it's in the past and not a factor in the current discussion.

"Imagine a woman walking around any USA city topless." Breast feeding in public is protected in many states, so that is changing too. Publicly topless women is a topic that has been fought over in the legislature and no one got stone, burned, or blinded.

I have a strong interest in people being identifiable in public. I don't like masked men or women in banks, parks, or on the street.

If I am going to be mugged, then I want the mugger to face identification, even if that is only possible in the few minutes he/she was waiting on the street before attacking.

"Still, we Westerners live in glass houses. We forced cultural norms onto the women of the Pacific, SE Asia and Latin America, who typically did not cover breasts, when Westerners first arrived."

You mean 150 to 500 years ago? Yah, I'll cop to that plea.

If we weren't so freaking tolerant, we wouldn't have so many different kinds of people free to yell about how intolerant we are.

National Geographic, probably around 20 years ago, had a picture of a beautiful woman, who had been I think a Rhodes scholar.

She said she felt much more comfortable with the veil. In England, being a very beautiful woman, she faced a lot of, um, unwanted attention.

She said when she went home and put on the veil, she became instantly protected and secure, because no one said a wrong word to her.

Oh, yeah, I know, all the men and women here will say it was insidious brain washing. After all, Rhodes Scholars don't know anything, right? Hahaha hohoho heeheehee.

How many people know it wasn't that long ago when dress standards in the US included lacy veils that swung down from women's hats, and sometimes were made so the face was clouded. Women did pull those things down for privacy when they felt like it. I wasn't there, but I believe it was late 19th, early 20th Century. Any clothing historians here?

Of course, there is a big difference between a woman choosing to pull down that veil to hide her identity, and being forced to do it.

In the US, with freedom of choice for women, it is mostly men who are forced to do things they don't want to do.

Yes, yes, things change continually. We also put little covers around the legs of pianos and tables, and the only reason we have light and dark meat is because people weren't supposed to mention breasts and thighs in front of the delicate ladies.

We got over it. But the pendulum is close to the end of the swing, I'm afraid. It will start slowly swinging back. I figure I'll be dead before we're totally back to the Medieval period.

>>How many people know it wasn't that long ago when dress standards in the US included lacy veils that swung down from women's hats, and sometimes were made so the face was clouded. Women did pull those things down for privacy when they felt like it. I wasn't there, but I believe it was late 19th, early 20th Century. Any clothing historians here?

You don't need a clothing historian, irlandes.

I saw a pic of Lady Gaga with a full veil just the other day.

(Mind you, she wasn't wearing much else!)

I suspect a woman choosing to go about topless, even on a hot day, even on a beach, in America would be arrested.
The ever-crafty LAPD used to (and maybe still does) patrol Venice Beach in small ATVs in search of naked boobs, and I think thong bottoms. Girls had to cover up (older biddies like this story).

So, no, we do not throw stones, we incarcerate. Yes, we are better than Islam, usually.
But who knows, maybe the topless girls will be labeled "sex offenders" if they persist in wearing thong bottoms at the beach?

It is odd how universally American women accept the "no topless" rule, even as men strip off to wash the car. Women are creatures of convention, much more cowed by public sentiment.
But when visiting a beach in France, and they see nude boobs, then they get it. Sort of.

Still, you cannot say that conventional dress in Islam is repression, but that conventional dress in the USA is freedom.

We should set examples before blabbering about the foibles of others.

"We should set examples before blabbering about the foibles of others."

You first.

You could try reason and sense for awhile. You haven't so far - it's less attractive than the attention, I suppose, bad boy.

> Still, you cannot say that conventional dress
> in Islam is repression, but that conventional
> dress in the USA is freedom.

Of course I can; and I do. You'd have to be an infantile doorknob to believe otherwise.

"Still, you cannot say that conventional dress in Islam is repression, but that conventional dress in the USA is freedom. "

My great grandma was forced to wear the chador. She died because uh she wasnt allowed to be seen by a (male) doctor. So a dress code is certainly used as a social tactic by your peers....

Clothing has a very strong meaning about who you are as a person and what your role in YOUR society is. This excuse of being afraid of being leered at? Huh? I mean the Doutzen Kroes' of the world do it for a living and they seem perfectly healthy individuals.

> the Doutzen Kroes' of the world

I've never heard of Doutzen Kroes. Typical teen beauty, though those lips are suspicious... Butcha can't beat a name like Doutzen Kroes. I think it would be great if Doutzen Kroes and Crystal Bowersox went out for coffee and they wrote it up in People magazine. It would be like back in the day when people were suggesting that Lee Iacocca & Peter Ueberroth form a ticket to run for President & Veep, mainly because the bumper stickers would look so cool...

Iacocca / Ueberroth '88.

> So a dress code is certainly used as a social
> tactic by your peers....

Oh, c'mon, let's not give BOTU the comfort of imagining that you take his point. Let's review his principle again—

> Still, you cannot say that conventional dress
> in Islam is repression, but that conventional
> dress in the USA is freedom.

Now, where exactly does he imagine the conversation going after that?

Let's speculate!

First, I bet we're supposed to tilt our heads ever-so-slightly, as curiosity and wonderment collide in a flicker from our eyebrows. We're intrigued by this novelty, maybe even titillated! Hmmmm... What could he possibly mean by this? We'll have to ask him, and he'll be flattered.

And then he'll explain! He'll patiently, paternally spell it out for us, because we don't understand. He'll say: 'Well, you know, women in a America can't wear whatever they want without facing judgment, man'.

I'm pretty sure he'll append the "man", because there's a whole preteen-resentment thing cooking under here.

And we'll be amazed! We'll be expected to say: 'Geez, I guess that's true, though I'd never thought about it before. I guess the current of oppression in the boundaries to America's practical, playful, expressive, and commercially-rewarding grooming habits are, IN A SENSE, just as coercive and heartbreaking as those which compel women to wear the chador.'

We'll feel the illumination! Because, again, we had never compared these cultures in quite that way, or been as sensitive as BOTU has been to the heartbreak that happens to Americans who happen to miss fashion's cues or –and this is important– can't afford to track them closely enough.

So, like, we're all just a bunch of bigoted jerks, OK?... Because we have expectations from strangers in our social intercourse, just as do the meanest men who ever lived. Therefore, we're all killers on the inside... Bloodthirsty maniacs, even the children in our kindergartens.

And BOTU thinks that's kind of sad.

There's a poignant moment now, as he & we make silent, solemn eye contact, and we wait for him to show us the way to bold new tomorrow of mutual compassion and sustainable tolerance.

7:00am Thursday and I'm ready for a screwdriver.

"Still, you cannot say that conventional dress in Islam is repression, but that conventional dress in the USA is freedom." Yes you can. In a fundy country ALL women are REQUIRED to be completely covered. In the US ALL PEOPLE are required to cover their their genitals. Women are required to cover their nipples. If you can't tell the difference between pasties and a burlap sack I'm not sure I can explain it.

I'm very much all for letting people go as naked as they want.

vlad, one thing that has to be kept in mind is that tradition in the U.S. says that anyone who covers their face in public is up to no good. Other than some exceptions in the Old West where covering the mouth was accepted due to blowing sand, it's pretty much always been a requirement in U.S. society that people who go about in public show their faces, and that people who don't likely have ill intent. Consider the typical groups of people who went about with their faces covered: highwaymen, bank robbers, and Klansmen. Some Southern states still have laws on the books (seldom if ever enforced) that prohibit the wearing of masks in public, as an anti-Klan measure.

"I'm very much all for letting people go as naked as they want."

Oh, hay-ell no!

Why do you hate Wal-mart so much?

"Still, you cannot say that conventional dress in Islam is repression, but that conventional dress in the USA is freedom."

No, "YOU" can't BOTU.

"I" CAN and "I" DO.

You're using classic "animal farm" or "1984" reasoning, in which you redefine the meaning of words until they've lost their original meaning. The burqa is as liberating as conventional dress because both are standards, the violation of which incurs a penalty.

That is specious reasoning at best.

The Burqa is a total separation of a person from humanity, they become a mere moving shroud, no body, no face, and in the even MORE extreme cases, no EYES. Barely able to see, able to take only careful steps, she cannot so much as safely cross a street since her vision is obscured. And even where the eyes are allowed to remain visible and unveiled, so much of her is concealed that the face, what identifies a person AS a person, unique in their own right, is all but vanished.
The female clad as such has no identity of her own to any who pass her. She is a moving form and nothing more, and if she should dare to reveal her face? Reveal her hair? Reveal the contours of her body, and walk as you or I or any of our sisters or mothers or daughters take for granted, then she is deemed responsible for any harm that comes to her.

To remove the Burqa in that culture, that vile vile religion, is to INVITE any violation of her body be it by one man or a dozen, and she will suffer not only the horror of it, but punishment for baring so much as we might see of women outdoors in a New York winter. Penalties may range as far as, and I quote, "A bullet for every hair".

Yes we punish the failure to conceal some flesh. Our ways, our laws, acknowledge that nudity is sexual in nature, and in our culture, bare breasts are considered to be a sexual display. We prohibit their public exposure accordingly, while for men, its just practical on a hot day of outdoor work, and it has no sexual connotations. I think we'll all agree though, there are some men who should do everyone a favor and just keep their shirts on. *L*

Our ways impose the lightest of burdens on the fairer sex in how they dress in the public eye, and when it is pushed to its farthest limits, they don't fear gang rape, they don't fear being stoned or shot, and above all, there is the element of choice almost to the point of total nudity.

And if she chooses to violate the accepted norms in a public setting, the penalty is so light as to be laughed about over drinks the following weekend with her friends.

Her counterpart beneath the burqa, is a prisoner robbed even of her human identity.

(I'd find "Rhodes Scholar" more impressive if Hillary Clinton weren't also one)

"Oh, hay-ell no!"
After a certain size can you really see that speedo or bikini bottom? No you can't and you try very hard not to think about it either.

>>Her counterpart beneath the burqa, is a prisoner robbed even of her human identity.

That's not even the most awful part, Robert.

They can make you appear fat.

My younger sister, who is lovely and slim - but the shortie in the family - sent me a pic recently from Dubai. She was wearing one of the black numbers they provide for visitors to a mosque - and from the rear she looked like a sinister, big-bummed toad.

1. I totally agree with France's ban on the burqa: it's anti-social, period. Women wearing the burka do so in denial of society. Want to be anti-social? Stay home. Or go home. Rule #1 when you live in a country/culture other than your own: abide by its laws and customs (which shouldn't prevent you from retaining your own at heart, and in your own home).

2. Something that always astounds me is that women wearing the most conservative, restictive outfits often turn up to be the naughtiest ones. Just watch the "conservative" muslim princesses cruise the haute-couture streets of Europe, on the lookout for the most cocotte outfits (and who, btw, corrupted the essence of haute-couture). Same thing whenever I travel to North Africa or the Middle East, discovering the most redlight district-shaming, and well-faring, clandestine lingerie stores, hidden behind spice counters.

The whole thing is a scam. And a hypocritical one at that. They're no better than LiLo -- they just cover it with a veil.

Thank you for the great info, i'm going to write on this too!

Well planned out article! I only wish I had discovered it a few months ago, it would have helped solve a few issues.
K-Cups