She seems to have been working this angle for quite a while:
https://www.newsreview.com/sacramento/my-hijab-my-self/content?oid=29420

Seems similar to the many women (usually feminists) who say "I dress for myself", "I dress for my friends", "I don't dress for men to look at me".

So I read the article and apparently everyone is supposed to completely ignore the fact she is a Muslim but also embrace and celebrate it? It's extremely racist and rude to even ask her what her experiences as a Muslim reporter in Trump era are but she also frequently feels compelled to write articles about it.

I HHHHHHHHHHHHATTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEE the hijab ok? I think it is the internalization of patriarchy and misogyny. I think it is an utterly disgusting piece of clothing that dictates your worth with a false sense of modesty that is unnecessary in this country. I hate the historical aspects of it. I want to throw up every time I see a woman wear one. You've been brainwashed by a shitty desert religion that has very little philosophical merit. It's ugly, it's stupid and I don't have to respect or like your culture I just have to tolerate it.

And I hate that because we are both women I am supposed to defend that utter piece of garbage piece of clothing. You have a right to wear it and I have a right to think you are a silly woman in a country that allows you the privileged of holding on to your antiquated beliefs while also basking in academic success.

If a reporter wants to ask you what being a Muslim woman is like you put your big girl pants on and realize that it is their job. Ya know the very one you have?

I like long skirts, and have one I really like that's a bit full and is a muted multi-colored print. I wore it to a meeting of a volunteer organization, and one of the other attendants made i a point to remark more than once about my being 'in princess mode today' in front of everyone assembled. Women really don't tolerate a lot of deviation from whatever's in style at the moment.

Check out this sicko Australia cleric using his daughter to demonstrate the hijab -- and how he talks about a child wearing too-sexy clothes (normal playclothes for a western child):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WACdAGrcYpw

Here's a related link from Suzanne Lucas, the Real Evil HR Lady:

https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/no-megyn-kelly-should-not-have-worn-that-dress.html

No, Megyn Kelly Should Not Have Worn That Dress: We can't control some things about our appearance, but we can control our wardrobes.

And one more -- related link, on Austrian head of state's call for all women to wear hijabs in solidarity with Muslim women. Sick, considering why hijabs are worn and the pressure by Muslim men for women to wear them (including murdering women who don't or won't).

https://twitter.com/amyalkon/status/858085054735540225

But...I suspect these women don't get much flack.

http://cdn.activly.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ce2589f3dd72b0cf0c93ffa9e5f05ef3.jpg

But then again, they don't suggest that all women should wear that style of clothing...

On the Amish, not sure why this is all in italics, but:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2010/11/settle-sore-1.html

At this point, a wiser approach would be a more Amish one -- and no, I don't mean tossing all your lightbulbs, donning a bonnet and churning butter. They have this practice called "Rumspringa" -- a "running around" period for Amish teens to dabble in modern culture: smoke, drink, date, and wear zippers. Experiencing what's out there helps them make an informed decision -- whether to stay modern or go back and live Amish.

But then again, they don't suggest that all women should wear that style of clothing...
___________________________________________

True. The Amish don't proselytize, which is likely one reason why outsiders find them so appealing, to a degree. (Same goes for Christian Scientists, I think.)

But...about 1 in 4 young Amish people leaves the community. As in, they risk never being able to speak with their friends and family again. Doesn't sound like a very healthful - or healthy - environment to grow up in.

But they're sure to notice and remember one thing about me: my headscarf.

Sweetie, perhaps you're giving yourself too much credit in the memorability area. I'd wager there are more women in headscarves in modern America than there are women wearing "evening dress skirts -- floor-length, shimmery things" as daywear. And you know what? Both are fine.

I'm a nondescript fellow, yet I have a tattoo that, when visible, is likely to be a descriptor. ("The burger? It goes over there to the guy with the ____ tattoo.") It's no different than "the lady in the headscarf" or "the woman with the spangly skirt."

That said, Spencer's essay is ridiculous, and as many complainers about "victimhood status" do, he sounds like a whiner.

Doesn't sound like a very healthful - or healthy - environment to grow up in.

Two parents.
Education.
Chores.
Get to be an actual adult and be permitted to make your own life decisions.

So horrible.

Hijab makes every woman look the same. Especially when worn with shapeless or drab and baggy clothing. Isn't that actually the point? Modesty as defined by a lack of pride in one's looks in public?

But...about 1 in 4 young Amish people leaves the community. As in, they risk never being able to speak with their friends and family again. Doesn't sound like a very healthful - or healthy - environment to grow up in.

lenona at May 1, 2017 8:20 AM

On the optomistic side, they keep three out of four? Wow. I bet the Catholic church would be envious of their success rate.

There is a lot to be said for an extended family system, and religion that doesn't rely on intimidation and brute force to keep members in the fold.

Once, at the big annual social psych conference, I was in the room they have for press when a journalist and author I know walked in. "Why, you're wearing a ball gown!" she said.

It wasn't meant as a compliment.

This damn clip by Family Guy everytime:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hmlPtRu1SQ

Darth, as I understand it, few Amish children are allowed to go past 8th grade. Not good. As Richard Dawkins (and others) pointed out, you don't see adult outsiders flocking to BECOME Amish - and that's likely one reason why.

Isab (and Darth) do you not know that it's typical (and pretty much required) for Amish parents to SHUN any child of theirs who leaves the Amish community - unless that young adult repents and returns? *I* call that intimidation, to say the least. I doubt the punishment is quite as extreme for Catholics. After all, unlike with the Amish, it's perfectly normal for Catholics and other religious types to move a few hundred miles away from their families AND be somewhat private about their new adult lives, whether or not they're still actively worshiping or sticking only to the company of those who share their religion. So even if more than 1 in 4 Catholics leaves the church (I have no idea what the figures are), they can often do it discreetly without losing most of their loved ones. I.e., they can have the best of both worlds. The Amish can't do that. That's not exactly being "permitted to make your own life decisions." Even if it's not as much of a prison as some Mormon circles or the Quiverfull community.

I like ankle length skirts and dresses (my mother considers my style of dress "too Amish". If I could pull one off, I would totally grow my hair superlong. Yet I am a member of no orthodox organized religion.

I see a lot of women in various forms of long skirt and scarf. But the hijab makes me uncomfortable, because it covers everything, not just the hair. For me, the problem with Hijab isn't the covering of the hair, so much, it's the covering of the ears and neck. It's like they're denying their connectivity to the world in any way - like by blocking the sight of that skin, they're making themselves less human. I understand keeping a space away from the secular world, and trying to put eroticism and physicality as something just for private. But not the total denial of the outside world.

"Isab (and Darth) do you not know that it's typical (and pretty much required) for Amish parents to SHUN any child of theirs who leaves the Amish community"

Im somewhat a student of the Amish, and other religious sects. Shunning is rarely as final or as widespead as you seem to think it is. There are many different Amish orders, some with loose rules, and others with tight ones.

If you read state law, you will find most states dont require education past the eight grade. The Amish comply with the law.

The Amish have their problems, but in most respects are no worse than any other fundamentalist Christian sect and a great deal better than many (like for example the Mormon polygamous sects who declare all their wifes other than the first) to be single women so they can engage in Welfare fraud)

One of the reasons they dont recruit, is because the language of the Amish is German. Without fluency in the language, it is impossible to fit in.

Isnt it great we have those kind of freedoms in the US? I am perfectly free to shun my family members and stop supporting them if they violate my values by becoming a heroin addict or commit some heinous crime that lands them in prison.

Hope you arent suggesting* there ought to be a law* to prevent me from doing that?

Frankly I would pick the Amish to raise my kids over the Public schools indoctrinating them into PC *Lenona*' think.

If you read state law, you will find most states dont require education past the eight grade. The Amish comply with the law.
____________________________________________

That's hardly the point.

Did you really think I was suggesting the Amish were doing anything illegal? Legal doesn't mean something is right or even harmless.

Plus, MY dislike of many American schools, both private and public, would come from the fact that regardless of income level, it's pretty common now for high school students (and younger students) not to read in their spare time for FUN, in part because almost every family has video games now. Including those families that wouldn't dream of letting kids eat candy every day (or even every week) but who don't see any similarity. Doesn't mean that Amish kids are going to be any better read in literature than non-Amish kids.

Plus, according to Sue Bender's 1989 memoir "Plain and Simple: A Woman's Journey to the Amish," the rate of suicide and mental illness is just as high among the Amish.

Just replace "hijab" with "yoga pants" and "journalist" with "teen girl" and the story still works.

"That's hardly the point.

Did you really think I was suggesting the Amish were doing anything illegal? Legal doesn't mean something is right or even harmless."

Well it actually *is* the point because most of us prefer bad outcomes that result from individual freedom to the equally bad or worse outcomes from some sort of government policy that aligns with some bureaucrat's preferred child rearing practices.

I also don't place a higher cultural value on *reading literature* as opposed to being a really good carpenter. The carpenter gets my vote as a more useful member of society than the Lit professor.

The Japanese have many of the same issues, but they are still, in spite of the alcoholism and suicide rates, much better on average at transmitting a workable set of cultural values to their children than most Americans

In every one of your Skinner box prescriptions for socializing children, the implied threat that *government knows best* and should be channeling your personal preferences, is ever present.

I never consider the government to be particularly wise. Just that parents who yank their kids out of school after 8th grade generally do it for reasons that just aren't good enough. (The Japanese certainly don't do that, as you know.) Same goes for refusing to vaccinate.

If kids don't have a good work ethic in general, don't blame it on the schools. Schools cave in to bad pressure when most of the PARENTS exert that bad pressure. Another example would be not dealing with bullies properly because the parents of the bullies often threaten to sue.

And while non-Amish 8th graders may (or may not) know as much about American history as Amish 8th graders, I doubt most people would agree that you don't need to read any history books that are above the 8th grade level to be well read in history. Or politics.

I've said before that we DO need to work a LOT more on allowing young people not to go to college if they'd rather work in some non-academic career instead, since college debt can be terrible. However, young people shouldn't be pushed into blue collar jobs that take 60 hours a week or more if they WOULD prefer more academic jobs. Also, not going to college shouldn't be an excuse not to read.

From John Waters:

“You should never read just for "enjoyment." Read to make yourself smarter! Less judgmental. More apt to understand your friends' insane behavior, or better yet, your own. Pick "hard books." Ones you have to concentrate on while reading. And for god's sake, don't let me ever hear you say, "I can't read fiction. I only have time for the truth." Fiction is the truth, fool! Ever hear of "literature"? That means fiction, too, stupid.”

Letting these kids pursue non-academic post-seondary educational opportunities means having an economy that can support that as a career choice.

Germany's economy depends upon mid-size companies (Hidden Champions) to keep its manufacturing sector alive and provide manufacturing jobs.

Excerpts from the HBR article:

A further pillar of the Hidden Champions’ competitive strength is the unique German dual system of apprenticeship, which combines practical and theoretical training in non-academic trades. The Hidden Champions invest 50% more in vocational training than the average German company.

Tax advantages are another reason. The high taxes on assets in France and the inheritance tax in the U.S. prevent the accumulation of capital necessary for the formation of a strong mid-sized sector.

The key word is "letting." Not "leaving with with almost no choice." Being cut off from your family is too scary for many, after all.

(For the record, I DO understand that we could live more easily without the upper classes than without the working classes. The long fable of Ivan the Fool - told by Tolstoy - illustrates that well enough. Doesn't mean Aesop didn't have a point in the fable about the "idle" belly being essential to the working hands and feet.)

From "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins:

http://evolbiol.ru/document/640

...The Supreme Court was asked to rule in 1972, when some Amish parents in Wisconsin withdrew their children from high school. The very idea of education beyond a certain age was contrary to Amish religious values, and scientific education especially so. The State of Wisconsin took the parents to court, claiming that the children were being deprived of their right to an education. After passing up through the courts, the case eventually reached the United States Supreme Court, which handed down a split (6:1) decision in favour of the parents.142 The majority opinion, written by Chief Justice Warren Burger, included the following: ‘As the record shows, compulsory school attendance to age 16 for Amish children carries with it a very real threat of undermining the Amish community and religious practice as they exist today; they must either abandon belief and be assimilated into society at large, or be forced to migrate to some other and more tolerant region.’

Justice William O. Douglas's minority opinion was that the children themselves should have been consulted. Did they really want to cut short their education? Did they, indeed, really want to stay in the Amish religion? (Psychologist) Nicholas Humphrey would have gone further. Even if the children had been asked and had expressed a preference for the Amish religion, can we suppose that they would have done so if they had been educated and informed about the available alternatives? For this to be plausible, shouldn't there be examples of young people from the outside world voting with their feet and volunteering to join the Amish? Justice Douglas went further in a slightly different direction. He saw no particular reason to give the religious views of parents special status in deciding how far they should be allowed to deprive their children of education. If religion is grounds for exemption, might there not be secular beliefs that also qualify?

The majority of the Supreme Court drew a parallel with some of the positive values of monastic orders, whose presence in our society arguably enriches it. But, as Humphrey points out, there is a crucial difference. Monks volunteer for the monastic life of their {331} own free will. Amish children never volunteered to be Amish; they were born into it and they had no choice.

There is something breathtakingly condescending, as well as inhumane, about the sacrificing of anyone, especially children, on the altar of ‘diversity’ and the virtue of preserving a variety of religious traditions. The rest of us are happy with our cars and computers, our vaccines and antibiotics. But you quaint little people with your bonnets and breeches, your horse buggies, your archaic dialect and your earth-closet privies, you enrich our lives. Of course you must be allowed to trap your children with you in your seventeenth-century time warp, otherwise something irretrievable would be lost to us: a part of the wonderful diversity of human culture. A small part of me can see something in this. But the larger part is made to feel very queasy indeed...

(snip)