'Complete Proof' within the Islamic behavioral variance 'spectrum' women being 'free' to choose their own clothing style is a lie and why.
Freedom to take away Freedom and worse this is your conclusion?
You support a belief/ethical construct you become responsible for all its outcomes such beliefs/ethics inform not just the ones you would like to.
"The attacks - there have been at least four in the busy city in central Iran in recent weeks - appear aimed at terrorising women who dare to test the boundaries of the Islamic dress code.
The crimes coincided with the passage of a new parliamentary bill that allows private citizens to enforce "morality" laws."
Acid attacks in Iran sharpen row over Islamic dress and vigilantism Reuters BY BABAK DEHGHANPISHEH BEIRUT Wed Nov 5, 2014 10:24am
The Islamic 'Freedom to Choose" for women and Other - "remain silent and wait to be killed" or "speak up and then be killed".
"I had two options. One was to remain silent and wait to be killed. And the second was to speak up and then be killed. I chose the second one. I decided to speak up," Malala said.
Malala's Moment: Nobel Winner Speaks Out OSLO, Norway — Dec 10, 2014, 5:03 PM ET By DANICA KIRKA Associated Press
As we can see above more critical is what mere clothing is utilised to signal and reinforce, Muslim girls womens place in the Muslim embedded hierarchy and the nature of the condition such that nowhere within exists the Freedom to Choose this is only relatively available to those Muslim girls and women who exist within an Other dominated space whose laws and conventions provide relative degrees of justification, authority and protection for such relative independence from the Islamic norm. Even then existing in Others dominated space makes no difference.
"the AFP revealed they were uncovering more cases of trafficking that were related to forced marriages. Police had more than 20 active investigations into alleged forced marriages, with 18 cases involving females aged under 18."Sydney girl, 9, feared sent to Middle East for arranged marriage SMH December 2, 2014 by Megan Levy
The absurdity of determining you simply have to "tailor our (Western derived girl women construct) education to these girls" to go against their own Muslim cultural constructs framing them infant-child-adolescence could only be successful if they were removed from the Muslim culture altogether.
Conceptualizing the Islamic Personality Model, Abdul Kadir Othman, Muhammad Iskandar Hamzah, Nurhazirah Hashim, Faculty of Business Management, Universiti Teknologi MARA, 42300 Puncak Alam, Selangor, Malaysia
Allowing this multicultural strategy of 'continuous battle' not only in regards Islam with pedophilia but the terror Islamic/Muslim culture brings as well, acceptance of any cultures infamy at any cost as a justifiable price for acceptance of a dangerous notion because we are all humans we have to therefore accept the cultures within which humans exist and behaviors are formed however detrimental these behaviors may be as valid, worthwhile is a price I believe not one girls oppressed life is worth nor is the loss of one life worth the price.
Just one woman able, by the justification and authorisation of the Islamic construct of women, to be forced by violence, the implicit/explicit threat thereof or bullying peer group pressure to conform to such a subject construct determines what about your multicultural definition of Freedom?
You cannot change what a person believes but you can change how they get to believe what they believe. Which means?
To be sure you have changed an individuals belief system what does it require? Education? At what point in the cultural education infant-child-adolescence given the cultures own inherent defensive content of the lack of efficacy of Others rational model, its alignment and reinforcement mechanisms of group of institutions can you really hand on heart claim education is the answer? Meanwhile how many more victims have you enabled by such a fruitless exercise, if just one under my measure of fruitlessness has to suffer as a result? The battle of distraction with your own complicity continues under a 'good', education, the victims continue, this is your answer?
If the Islamic/Muslim cultural codex construct of girls women does not change within the culture itself, ethics values which are determined to supersede Others ethics values in the same space and the power to effect this space in the critical infant-child-adolescence moral developmental time frame, which major part lies outside Others control (even though some Other fallaciously believe otherwise) and importantly understanding the alignment and reinforcement mechanisms increase in effectiveness as the Muslim culture grows to enable more altruistic enforcers to come on line, globalization supercharging altruistic enforcers control, how can you even start to justify an external Western ethical value construct will have any impact other that at one fringe of the radical-liberal-moderate-very dedicated/pious-radical Muslim behavioral variance?
You simply start playing with statistics as David Kilcullen did in Iraq to declare victory, leaving the Islamic/Muslim construct of Other on the Iraqi ground and so the victims still keep coming. The same with leaving the Islamic/Muslim codex construct of women in the Public Square not only do victims keep coming the numbers are increasing, yet you continue with the failed basis for policy not-Islam where clearly psychology your own area of expertise determines it is impossible to be otherwise.
Continuing with the same methodology you now become responsible for the appearance of each new victim, as inevitably there will be, and worse you know this to be true with your determination of the requirement for a 'continuous battle'. Your 'education' is another 'glossy brochure' you have simply transferred the 'glossy brochure' content and put it in to a different mode of information transference 'classroom' given it a different label 'education' to distract yourself from the fact the 'glossy brochure' is 'education' with exactly the same ethical values you will be providing in classrooms.
You simply do not see why both approaches will fail for the same reason - not Islam - you intervention is not only too late it does not remove the cause and the alignment and reinforcement mechanisms which remain in place - you continue to deal with symptoms. And inevitably you will declare a feel-good victory based upon small changes in a small square as did David Kilcullen in Iraq. The victims still keep coming and as we allow Islamic/Muslim culture to flourish unchecked the political space changes to enable even worse.
How is it a secular ideology with the same genocide and misogynistic constructs would be and are restricted from accessing the Public Square for very good reason yet a religion with the same constructs with the same inevitable tragic outcomes are not?
Is it worth the tragedy to have such an ideological construct of women in the Public Square freely able to be imbued within each new generation to enable in any cultural behavioral variance the following:
"An abusive husband who strangled his wife with her scarf after complaining she had become "too Australian" and had asked for a divorce has been jailed for 22 years.
In sentencing him, Justice Betty King rejected Azizi's claims that his wife was violent towards him and their five children.
Instead, she accepted Azizi emotionally and physically abused his wife over their 14-year marriage and he could not accept she had rights, including the right to leave him if she wanted."
The right to choose? "too Australian"?
A cultural codex construct of women which via analogy enables what definition of Islamic 'freedom' - 'servants. Like animals'. You wish to support a cultural codex which enables such analogies to be enabled even in part? This is a 'good'?
"Although the Taliban fell from power in 2001, much of what they decreed regarding women continues to hold sway, explains female parliamentarian Azita; most progress for women is limited to urban areas, and in remote areas little has changed for women who often endure violence and abuse: “They are still like servants. Like animals. We have a long time before the woman is considered a human in this society.”
The Underground Girls of Kabul: The Hidden Lives of Afghan Girls Disguised As Boys by Jenny Nordberg – review "A five-year study into the practice of ‘bacha posh’ sheds new light on oppression in Afghanistan" The Observer Sunday 2 November 2014
It is not only here in Australia the exact same codex informs the same. Yet you persist not-Islam. Then what is this other culture driving such behavior as we know there has to be one.
"Upon arrival into the town of Langsa (Indonesia), I witnessed a routine street raid. A checkpoint was set up and within minutes dozens of women were being pulled over.
The female sharia officers interrogated the women about their clothing.
The most senior wanted to make certain I was clear that it is women’s responsibility to prevent what she described as ‘crime’.
“Women who wear tight clothes are inviting bad things to happen to them, such as rape,” she told me. “If a man doesn’t see anything he won’t feel lust. Women invite it. Their curves arouse men’s lust.”"
On patrol with the 'Sharia Police' SBS By Patrick Abboud 31 OCT 2014 - 5:28PM
Look this woman in the face, because such a woman definitely exists even in Australia as elsewhere, and say "I gave you Freedom, be thankful.".
By determining such a construct as an acceptable ethic with the political beliefs and actions it informs do you really believe your acceptance such a negative construct apply to other than yourself this will not in time and space have a negative impact upon your own relative independence?
"The militants had ordered her to put on a veil, and then killed her after returning and finding she was still not wearing one, the relatives said."
Somali woman killed for not wearing veil, relatives say BBC 30 July 2014
“Frankly, I wish it was not worn but we are a free country, we are a free society and it is not the business of Government to tell people what they should and shouldn’t wear,” he said.
'I wish it was not worn': PM (Prime Minister Tony Abbott) on burqa Yahoo7 and Agencies October 1, 2014, 12:47 pm
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott better make up his mind, do Australians have a society that is 'free' or 'half free' and 'half subject'. Clearly cultures tell people what they should and should not wear, its the relative degree of independence, the political ramifications as well as the psychological.
Clothing is not without political content, meaning. Particularly in this case for women not only within the Muslim community, but as well has real implications of the inherent negative political construct impacting upon the way non-muslim women are treated.
Also if one simply looks at the image above what psychological trauma and cultural conditioning would a female-child-adolescent-adult need to be subject to, to accept such a subservient state relative to Muslim man. Does such a cultural process at arriving at such a state inform freedom to choose compatible with Western Democratic ideals regards womans place in society?
Are given the inherent cultural enforcement mechanisms and psychological state required to adhere to such a paradigm subject to Mans 'leadership' and women being inherently responsible for Mans own sexual feelings, to what degree can Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott given what is written above the image and below it still maintain in good conscience this construct is compatible with any 'free' society.
For me the burqa is a sign of subjugation, upsetting and abhorrent and should never be allowed into the Public Square. It is the same as allowing without immediate censure SS Nazi uniforms into Australian streets and the Australian Parliament. This 'Freedom' for advertising a misogynistic construct so detrimental to women's position and I would contend even possibility of security of women given views of some Muslim Men of women who do not hide their sexuality sufficiently, Muslim and non-Muslim women. A demand Muslim men clearly do not place upon themselves.
Freedom to enable infant-child-adolescent-adult women to be culturally subject, is not Freedom.
Iran makes it compulsory for women to wear headscarves, with religious police often deployed on the streets, cracking down on those who they deem to be wearing the hijab incorrectly or not wearing it at all."Iran’s media shy away from unveiled medalist Trend 16 August 2014, 22:30
'She has not broken a single law:' Brother of woman imprisoned for attending a volleyball game in Iran speaks out
"Ms Ak Shamari recently posted pictures on Twitter of a man kissing the hand of a long-bearded Islamic cleric.
She commented on his beard and said: “Notice the vanity and pride on his face when he finds a slave to kiss his hand.”
In another tweet last month, she said she had been called “immoral and an infidel because I criticised their sheikhs,” referring to religious or tribal leaders.
She recently appealed to King Abdullah and the interior minister over the case of two women who, she alleged, were arrested by religious police for taking a taxi driven by a man"Saudi Arabia arrests female activist for insulting Islam November 1, 2014 Updated: November 1, 2014 09:23 PM
Islam informs what definition of Freedom for women?At last a spark in the darkness.
Recognition as chains around the neck of a slave freely worn or not represents a political status of subservience unacceptable to Human Rights as they have been developed as of 2014. So its is with the mark of shame of Muslim veil-burqa of subservience to the 'leadership'/ownership of Muslim Man."The European Court of Human Rights has upheld a French ban on wearing face-covering veils in public, rejecting arguments that the measure violates religious freedoms.."
France: European Rights Court Upholds French Ban on Veils By ALAN COWELL JULY 1, 2014
"Authorities in Karamay banned people wearing hijabs, niqabs, burkas, or clothing with the Islamic star and crescent symbol from taking local buses, the Karamay Daily reported."
China city bans people with large beards or Islamic clothing from buses AFP August 6, 2014, 3:46 pm
At last the Chinese Government are starting to realise displaying affiliation to a genocide construct and subjugation of women are the tools of cultural enforcement of adherence of an evil construct of Other and women. Allowing such displays to continue sends a terrible message that the Chinese political elite accepts that such Islamic/Muslim constructs are acceptable.
'Complete Proof' within the Islamic behavioral variance 'spectrum' women being 'free' to choose their own clothing style is a lie and why.
Those women who support such a condition of 'freedom' existing within the Islamic codex are the most heinous perpetrators of an obscenity upon their fellow gender.
Women In Solidarity with Hijabs campaign aims to unite Muslim and non-Muslim Australians
PM ABC By Natalie Whiting Updated 3 Oct 2014, 5:07pm
"TWO female teachers from the Islamic College of South Australia have gone to court to fight against being unfairly dismissed based, in part, on their attire being considered inappropriate.
The teachers were sacked last year by the West Croydon school, which issued a warning to all female teachers - Muslim and non-Muslim - to wear a hijab head scarf or face the sack."
Furious debate as teachers at Islamic College of SA's West Croydon campus ordered to wear hijab or face sack INVESTIGATIONS EDITOR BRYAN LITTLELY ADELAIDENOW FEBRUARY 13, 2013
Even non-Muslim women 'forced' to wear a 'standard' Muslim hijab or face cultural exclusion - Are these women being allowed to choose 'freely' their own dress style even within a Western Democratic space? Conform or else! Is this 'Freedom'?
"Two thirds of legislators call for steps to ensure women correctly follow dress code...
Police in Tehran earlier this month launched a new drive against non-compliance of the female dress code. Officers were deployed on the capital’s biggest roads, and women — drivers and passengers — checked."
Iran MPs demand stronger veil law enforcement, June 15, 2014 Gulf News
"Both need to understand that whatever the culture, the woman has the right to decide what she puts on her body and the right to walk out wearing whatever she wants without being subject to harassment.” We Must Put an End to Street Harassment, Morocco World News Friday 13 June 2014 - 12:13 by Saba Naseem
"“You know, I wasn't always wearing the hijab. At first I was harassed every time I went out, sometimes it was awful and just too much to bear. Then I wore the hijab and thought now that I’m a bit covered and more modest in the way I dressed, harassment would stop or at least diminish, but it didn’t. Then, I felt all guilty about it and was wondering maybe it’s me, maybe I’m not well covered and maybe I’m still a source of “fitna” and I felt very bad about it. I decided to wear the full niqab, no more colors (very dark colors, mostly black), and no more clothes that shows the figure. I felt and still feel very good and at peace with my decision, but I would lie if I say that harassment stopped because it didn’t. I still get the harassing gazes and the harassing words about my eyes (though my face is covered). But at least, I feel that it’s not my fault.”" Sexual harassment in Moroccan streets, who is to blame? Thursday 14 February 2013 - 22:42 Moroccan World News
The Hidden Truth
"Viral video sparks concern in Saudi Arabia over harassment of women" Indian Express
I have just seen another article which questions the veracity of the notion a woman actually freely chooses to wear the "hijabs and niqabs". It is this article - Shariah Police Intensify Raids Prior to Ramadan Jakarta Globe By Nurdin Hasan Jun 12, 2014.
"The province’s shariah police, known as Wilayatul Hisbah, has roped in the police and the military to help in the raids, to be held “day and night to minimize shariah violations” — but which are targeted almost entirely at women wearing clothes deemed too figure-hugging...
We usually raid cafes where we find men and women who are not muhrim” — related by blood or marriage — “alone together,” he said. “We give them advice and if they fight back, we will take them to the office for further processing.”
'Alone together' the logic particularly 'Alone' in a cafe really is an Islamic cultural insanity.
Alone: having no one else present; on one's own. etc. "she was alone that evening" synonyms: by oneself, on one's own, all alone, solo, lone, solitary, single, singly; unescorted, without an escort, unattended, unchaperoned, partnerless, companionless.
Unless this 'cafe' is intent on making no income by having 'No one' in attendance such an assertion 'Alone' lacks credibility. These actions are once again to control women's sexuality to enforce Mans ownership nothing more - Man enforcing such a construct with the help of Muslim women - how disgusting.
Clearly from a relative psychological position surely there has to be greater cultural pressure for women to conform to a 'standard' not equally demanded of Man. This article proves this to be a false claim?
No cultural pressure at all on Muslim girls/women to conform to a cultural standard of 'purity'? Completely free without cultural pressure?
|Which inform depraved image and ethics and which inform purity of image and ethics?|
"Islamic State jihadist Diana Ramazanova, 18, blew herself up while detonating grenades in front of the Istanbul tourism police station last week. ...
'On the contrary, she was even depraved. In Moscow, Diana worked in the restaurant at the Kursk station. I always scolded her for wearing short skirts.'"
Pregnant teen suicide bomber who blew herself up at Turkish police station was called 'depraved' by relatives for wearing short-skirts before marrying ISIS jihadist By WILL STEWART and SIMON TOMLINSON FOR MAILONLINE PUBLISHED: 17 January 2015
Clearly the dress changed from Muslim perceived depravity to one of Muslim perceived purity for Islamic State jihadist Diana Ramazanova, 18 what do the associated Islamic ethics associated directly with this change of dress inform? Purity?
Islam via Muhammad's Quran textual codex clearly demands women submit to a draconian clothing regime relative to Man.
Both Men and Women are determined Quran SURAH 24.30/31 "..should lower their gaze and guard their modesty..". Equity, not at all.
As Mohammed then goes on in the Quran SURAH 24.31 to demand women not Man conform to a stringent dress code "..they (women) should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands -close relatives, small children and eunuch slaves ("male servants free of physical needs"). Also restriction upon any 'intentional movement' on behalf of women perceived "to draw attention to their hidden ornaments."
So not only are women subject to continual cultural examination as to their success or failure in meeting the Muslim dress code to hide 'beauty' and hidden ornaments, in other words suppress the mere representation of femininity, they are also subject to continual cultural examination as to their success or failure of meeting the Muslim 'intentional movement' code which may "..draw attention to their hidden ornaments.".
As one can see from the article above Sexual harassment in Moroccan streets, who is to blame? Thursday 14 February 2013 - 22:42, Moroccan World News, the reality is these demands on women relative to Man are a very subjective sever psychological construct upon women, as it places women in a position where it can be claimed as it is by the behavior by Man in the article, Women either by failing to meet the appropriate Man Muslim (Mohammed) dress code or 'intentional movement' code can be and are subject to harassment and even as we know much worse.
Not satisfied with dress code and an intentional movement code Mohammad (Man) determined to set a 'speech code' to hold women accountable for their '..too complaisant of speech, lest one in whose heart is a disease should be moved with desire..' It is the women who are now responsible via her speech for inciting Mans 'desire', Man is not responsible for his own passions. Woman are to 'stay quietly in your houses, and make not a dazzling display.'. And the Man, is Man to do the same? Just four walls for Man?
This is the heinous point at which women are blamed from sexual harassment to rape and as can be seen above by the personal experience of the woman in Moroccan Sexual harassment in Moroccan streets, who is to blame? there is no amount of 'outer garments' which gives the right of Muslim women in reality, not wishful thinking, to be safe from sexual threat from Muslim men. For the text above unfairly puts the cause of sexual attack upon women for even if Muslim women are completely covered by 'outer garments' their mere movement can be subjectively (as there is no precise definition) interpreted as 'intentional movement' of a sexual nature and therefore Muslim women can be determined as arousing Mans desire and therefore not adhering to Gods law. Imposing such a construct upon women not a heinous act and a self-serving construct for the Men who created it and more to the point the Men who take advantage of this Muslim construct of women today?
Why would a Man determine a 'dress code', 'intentional movement code' and 'speech code' is a 'good' regards women but not Man? Ownership 'known' and Control of women's sexuality by the individual Man and cultural Man via threat. The ever present threat for non-conformity inherent in SURAH 33:59 being determined as ".. guilty of evident unseemly conduct, the Punishment." in this case non-adherence under Quran SURAH 33:59 of being 'molested'.
Why is this?
Have Muslim women adhering to the constructs demanded above, by the Mohammad (Man) defined 'dress code', 'intentional movement code', and 'speech code' ever stopped to think - "Hang on a minute, a Man wrote these rules of cultural behavior for women, could it be as in real life Man was/is after something for his own benefit, to excuse certain exploitative Male behavior under the Man made cloak of divine authority?"
Why is it Mohammad has made no similar demands on Man, himself, not "to draw attention to their hidden ornaments." or Mans 'beauty' or Mans speech? Man cannot by his 'beauty' or intentional movement or speech incite sexual desire within women or even other Men?
If as a Muslim woman or Muslim Man you have experienced such desire means clearly an inequitable rule exists - for the 'sin' is the same and why it came to be is the same - as inequity exists someone individual and/or group had to benifit and another individual and/or group had to lose from such an arrangement.
You may claim even after considering and ignoring the arguments and examples above at least a billion persons are of the same mind, this is not proof you have not all been tricked into believing a nonsense as current psychological research clearly proves. As the Chinese proverb states it only takes five persons to say a Tiger is in the market place for it to be true. For some it only takes one.
You are that gullible? I cannot claim to be any less but only hope to be able when push comes to shove to be able to accept I have been mislead once someone has revealed an inconvenient truth as to my existing beliefs.
The shaming and blaming of women for harassment even rape, even personal and other societal catastrophes for not adhering to imposed cultural dress constructs revolve around Mans desire to control women's sexuality and enforced individual (husband, father, brother, uncle, ...) and Muslim cultural ownership of women as one would fence in and brand a cow or horse or ass - Freedom to be subject to such a construct strikes me as rather obscene.
The notion of the construct of Muslim Mans 'leadership' is in fact ownership justifies Muslim Mans enforcement measures and oppressive subjective setting of 'dress code', 'intentional movement code', and 'speech code' which is adaptable in time and space to maximise the benefit to Man.
A Muslim woman may claim they are free to choose to wear the veil etc or not, but this is completely dependent upon non-islamic external cultural ethical constructs being able to inhibit Islamic Muslim normative enforcement mechanisms to stop the Islamic codex construct of women being enforced - Islam allows nothing. This can be seen in operation with the examples given in this examination of the Islamic notion of 'free' regards womens dress choice.
The degree Others secular no-islamic secular philosophical codex constructs of women 'are enforced' relative to the women's specific cultural foundation codex within the Public Square will determine the degree women from such cultures are enabled to break with inequitable and damaging cultural codex constructs.
The nature of the 'freedom' of choice is a non-islamic derived Freedom, not an Islamic, a Freedom which is circumscribed in time and space by the extent Islamic normative enforcement mechanisms can be applied within any Public Square.
The political elite in any society determining such an Islamic construct of women is a 'good', by for instance portraying the veiled woman Muslim as a 'good', is doing a very great disservice to not only women but humanity in general for it promotes a societal construct which seeks to chain not free based upon an inequitable irrational construct - such constructs inevitably have more than one evil attached. Once one is chained who is next, for the justification however insanely derived for one now exists, why not another, and another as or more evil construct enforced as 'normal' from the same culture?
This is why SBS's 'Join In' imaging, by presenting a Muslim women wearing a veil as a societal 'good' is so very destructive to womens rights, and the potential for Muslim women to break away to a cultural codex which enables maximised independence - it is a disturbing disgusting act of pure vandalism against the potential of women to achieve a flourishing life - pure cultural relativist pathological altruism.
So a woman claiming it is her choice to wear a veil or not is a choice enabled by the secular not the religious. One may argue it does not matter. They would be wrong because the choice in itself is circumscribed, what may be able to be chosen this week may not the next, the mere fact the veil is a part of the choice represents a real cultural demand to conform in force in the Public Square, otherwise the veil as an option would not exist in the mind of the woman.
There is no such thing as Freedom only the relative independence fellow humans (cultures) and Nature enable at a particular point in space and time.
Yes in a culture a slave may argue slavery is good and they are quite happy being a slave - it is a cultural artifact but does this make it right, a 'good'?
All cultures build palaces based upon an 'Architects' design (cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar ( messianic) templates) some only have four walls within which women are able to realise their 'full' potential - Men have?
Simply stating 'it', harassment and demeaning of women, happens elsewhere one has to be concerned how 'it' is relative to a current women's cultural ethical circumstances within the whole cultural behavioral variance not simply the so called 'good' end.
For women have to live under the whole cultural Male behavioral spectrum derived from the cultural codex, to take simply the 'good' end and say therefore everything is 'right' with the culture is a dangerous lie under which women have to exist.
One must then ascertain although 'it' happens in Other cultures is the spectrum under which women have to suffer better or worse? Is another cultural codex offering a greater chance overall for a women to achieve a flourishing life despite the fact 'it' has not been completely eradicated in Other's culture?
If 'it' is much less in the Other's culture a true test of the nature of your own culture is to attempt to change cultures, move palaces - if this is relatively dangerous - you have your answer.
Muslim women claiming they freely choose and Islam enables them to choose freely what to wear when Muslim women themselves are forcing other Muslim women to conform to an Islamic 'standard' template is gross hypocrisy and even worse it perpetuates women's subservience to Man and effectively limits woman's capacity to achieve a flourishing life. And worse enables Man to continue to blame women for Mans own atrocities against women. This is what you are enabling.
"Those who defend the right of women to wear the niqab under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure. Those who oppose it under the banner of secularism and the oppressive nature of the niqab are making their own assumptions about Muslim women’s motivations."
I was forced to wear the veil and I wish no other woman had to suffer it By Nesrine Malik 8:02PM BST 20 Sep 2013
Nesrine Malik's argument contains a conundrum, particularly since the whole article is proof the last quoted sentence in the paragraph above has to be a false assumption - Muslim women’s motivations, as are Muslim Mens are culturally derived 'dictated by social pressure' consciously or otherwise. Therefore a Muslim women may determine wearing the hijab or any other Islamic cultural clothing artifact are 'freely' chosen where clearly it cannot be and the observation from a secularist or religious perspective such Islamic clothing are an oppressive construct is not negated by the mere fact those being subject to it believe it to be otherwise.
It is the same as proposing a slave is satisfied with their circumstance and therefore it is 'right' the slaves view should be respected. Slavery in this slaves case should be accepted as a good and no censure for such a construct should therefore be enabled across society - Liberty of the idea of slavery should be respected. I would suggest 'often dictated by social pressure.' must be changed to 'dictated by social pressure.' and the second quoted sentence be removed to reflect reality in space when subject to the Islamic codex construct of women Muslim women, and even at times as we see above non-Muslim women, being 'free' to choose their own clothing style is a lie.
This is the whole point of this site Muslims and their erstwhile supporters cannot cannot have it both ways - either Islam informs woman's 'Right' to freely determine their own clothing code or it does not - clearly just with only the evidence above Islam in time and space does not allow Muslim women and even at times non-Muslim women to freely choose therefore Islam does not. In fact Islam can clearly be shown to be utilising harsh measures to enforce womens conformity which are not applied in the same measure to Muslim Man.
When cultural foundation codex creates a cultural ethical construct it necessarily sets up the obligation to enforce within the culture and given there exist many cultural codex constructs for the same entity and/or interrelationship which may be diametrically opposed within the same space and time mechanisms to justify and authorise process against Other's ethical codex construct of the same entity and/or interrelationship. One would expect as the lack of justification, equity, enabling exists for any entity and/or interrelationship within a codex, such as the Islamic codex construct of women, the more draconian the methods either detailed within the cultural codex textual or via cultural codex exemplar (messianic) templates developed in proportion to the irrationality of the construct itself will exist within the Public Square.
The degree these cultural codex can be enforced within the Public Square is dependent on the relative enforcement mechanisms able to be developed relative to Others capacity to nullify them. Assuming in time a heinous construct of inequity will not in time become accepted as a cultural 'right' and that somehow it is an intellectual 'good' to enable the following to be publicly supported in Society
"Honour killings are the murder of women deemed to have brought shame or dishonour on their family.
Uthman Badar was scheduled to argue that such acts are seized on by Westerners as a symbol of everything they dislike about another culture." -
Festival of Dangerous Ideas: 'Honour killings' talk cancelled Alexandra Back, Michael Koziol SMH June 24, 2014
is extremely dangerous for it sends a message the political elite have determined its allowance into the Public Square as an acceptable construct - one simply has to reflect does such allowance increase or decrease the chance of honor killings now occurring in society by allowing someone to say the objection of the 'West' to honor killings is based upon ignorance and bigotry against other cultures and not upon the complete injustice and inequity relative to Man it informs?
I repeat words and sentences are not strung together for no purpose they as the cultural foundation codex informs action.
"One Australian community worker says women here (Australia - anywhere Islam exists) are at risk too, and she recently had to talk a father and son out of killing a family member ."
Activists horrified over 'honour killing' | SBS News May 28, 2014
"A mother of three from Manchester was murdered by her "jealous" husband because he believed she was "too westernised".
Rania Alayed case: Wife murdered by 'jealous' husband 4 June 2014 Last updated at 15:04 BST
"too westernised"='too independent of Man' we are to excuse this notion to enable oppression even in our own space?
To propose the veil and upwards in severity of dress is in no way integral to the paradigm of creating the 'subservient' female and nor connected directly to the Muslim behavioral variance enforcement mechanisms all the way to Honor Killing needs to be proved. For clearly the codex of subjugation exists the enforcement mechanisms to make sure the codex construct of female are acted out each day exist.
Utilisation of "I am intelligent therefore I as a woman in wearing Islamic cultural ascribed clothing have made a rational decision to do so, therefore what I am wearing is not an oppressive construct." misses the point the level of any persons intelligence or the degree their decision is rationally derived (even from an external cultural perspective) has no bearing on whether or not a person is able to determine from their own cultural perspective the degree they may be subject to an oppressive cultural construct.
Firstly there is a clear misunderstanding of what rational means, an example of this is the determination terrorists are in the main rational beings - not insane outliers. Most people who see the horrific Muslim derived genocide across the Middle East and Africa would determine such acts as irrational. Outside the norm. The trouble is these persons are no different than you or me, as psychologist researchers looking into why 'ordinary' German persons became involved in Nazi inspired atrocities discovered. They simply are utilising some cultural model reference points driven by cultural rewards and punishment which enable these behaviors to be manifest.
"When we describe one of our friends as rational, we often want to imply that they are dispassionate, logical, thoughtful, and in control of their actions.
Muslim women who determine they are feminists cannot be Muslims at the same time as a slave cannot be half free. Which half? Intellectually anyone may understand the reasoning behind feminism as one would understand the mechanics of an engine but this does not make you an engineer. It is behavior which counts.
“I know her, and her (cultural) position is more important to her than speaking the truth to (cultural) power,” he said.
Oct 22, 2010 ... (CNSNews.com) – The head of the U.N. Population Fund blames stereotyping for the perception that Islamic societies are “backward” when it ...
"The Middle East and North Africa:
The Middle East and North Africa region has closed 59% of its overall gender gap this year. Compared to 2006, the region shows a very slight improvement, despite the fact that the Middle East region experienced a decrease in its overall score compared to last year. The region ranks the lowest on the Economic Participation and Opportunity and Political Empowerment subindexes with, respectively, only 39% and 7% of the gender gap being closed. Thirteen of the twenty lowest performing countries on the Labour force participation indicator are from the region as are eleven of the lowest on the Estimated earned income
indicator. Seven of the lowest countries on the Political Empowerment subindex are also from the region. One of only two countries with a score of zero on the Political Empowerment subindex are from the region. On the Educational Attainment subindex, the region is in fifth place (before Sub-Saharan Africa). The region holds the fourth place on the Health and Survival subindex." 2013 Global Gender Report
Islam as a ideology (islamic cultural foundation codex (textual and exemplar (messianic) templates) informs what type of reality for women where Islam is able to take control of the political space - Liberty, Equality, Fraternity for ALL?
This is what the SBS broadcaster is promoting in Australia as a 'good'. The SBS fails to understand a cultural foundation codex which contains a misogynistic and genocidal construct allowed and promoted within any Public Square will in time and space inform the same. Clearly it is and has everywhere else and just as clearly the Islamic cultural enforcement mechanisms are intensifying within Australia - it is inevitable. For SBS to claim it is different in Australia and Australian laws will stop such behavior ignores the reality National Laws elsewhere have not stopped such behaviour as Muslim behavior in Australia itself clearly is showing with child marriages and development of a growing number of actual Muslim terrorists and supporters of the same within Australia itself.
The image in promoting SBS Join In with a Muslim woman draped in an Australian flag who proclaims wearing Muslim ascribed clothing causes her to be regarded as unintelligent is a misunderstanding of the nature of cultural indoctrination. Yes of course it is wrong to determine merely by skin color, clothing, secular or religious affiliation ones level of intelligence.
The fact is IQ has nothing to do with whether or not you realise you are subject to a cultural construct which is demeaning and in fact dangerous to the associated gender. Decision making process formed in the main from 1-5 age based upon pleasure and pain dependent upon cultural codex (textual and exemplar ( messianic) templates) reference points and probability of cultural pleasure and pain being applied is what determines if you allow yourself to be subject to or involve yourself in the most draconian of cultural constructs and processes such as genocide against Other being perpetrated even by Australian Muslims now in Iraq.
Also such a process of cultural indoctrination leads to a consistent, constant, cultural behavioral variance, any changes from this variance are due to Others ethical construct blockers or enhancers within the Public Square - the culture itself only allows behavior outside the cultures behavioral variance to the degree its enforcement mechanisms both for internal adherence as well as external acceptance can be fully realised.
What is happening in Australia as these enforcement mechanisms are being realised - you see no change in Muslim social enforcement - none at all? No increasing pressure for internal and external attacks against Other nor cultural pressure for Muslim women to adhere to Muslim dress code? No increasing political pressure for Australian laws to align with Islamic?
Being Albert Einstein or a mere mortal makes no difference - the point is, is it 'right' given the development of philosophically derived human rights reference points as of 2014 particularly regards women and Other that we continue to allow females from whatever culture to be convinced they are subject ALL THEIR LIVES to Mans 'leadership', continue to wear the shame of that subjugation and Other continue to be increasingly at unambiguous risk?
Consider the fundamental purpose of clothing - "it protects us from the elements."
Now ask yourself what "elements" does a women 'believe' intrinsically via cultural indoctrination a women needs to be protected from on the way from no veil - to burqa? The weather? Or M..... or even more to the point fellow W...?
Intelligent maybe who can tell, unacceptable in a society which believes in Liberty, Equality Fraternity for ALL? Or do we cross out Equality and Fraternity, simply determine Liberty to be subject to whatever cultural ethical construct you like despite the terror and major schism it enables.
"Sunni insurgents issue guidelines in mosques on how clothes should be worn to prevent women 'from falling into vulgarity'"
Iraq: Isis warns women to wear full veil or face punishment Reuters in Baghdad, The Guardian, Friday 25 July 2014 14.21 BST
As we have seen above for only a small number of examples Islam informs inforced cultural adherence to the veil through to the burqa via peer group pressure, political elite pressure, parental pressure, Man pressure framed by the Islamic cultural codex - to claim therefore Islamic culture does not force women even those who claim and may even believe they are free to choose is clearly a lie.
"Nicky Morgan will use her first major speech to highlight the danger of extremism in Britain's nurseries after 'Trojan Horse' scandal...
Dozens of children were said to have been tasked to act as “religious police” to report on staff and pupils who spoke “out of turn” or wore “inappropriate dress”."
Toddlers at risk of extremism, warns Education Secretary By Matthew Holehouse, Political correspondent 10:00PM BST 07 Aug 2014
The "new' Turkey - 'Women know thy place!'
How many so called 'moderate' Muslims elected this Man to represent them - moderate? Compared to what? Misogyny as a Muslim cultural norm?
"Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has faced a new outcry over his attitude to the media and women after he branded a prominent female journalist a "shameless woman" and told her "to know your place"." APA August 9, 2014
Again I ask under such a cultural construct are Muslim women or in fact non-muslim women also in the same space really 'free' to do what they want to do?
Is this so called 'freedom' under Erdogan to become more 'free' or less 'free'?
It is clear there is no such thing as freedom only the relative independence fellow humanity via their cultural codex allow at any point in time and Nature enables.
"The US-based watchdog Freedom House downgraded the status of Turkey's media from "partly free" to "not free" in May." How you can be half (partly) free and half (partly) a slave at the same time really is an absurdity.
"It is ironic that a man of God who opposes women being told what she should wear wants to do just that — tell women what not to wear." said SUSIE O’BRIEN
I find them threatening and scary, but the burqa should not be banned SUSIE O’BRIEN HERALD SUN SEPTEMBER 11, 2014 4:33PM
What I find much more disturbing:
It is ironic that a woman who opposes women being told what she should wear wants to enable just that.
SUSIE O’BRIEN supporting a Man derived construct, if you care to read the Quran that is designed to protect Mans property listed in the same list as his donkey - woman. I think SUSIE O’BRIEN had better read the Quran reflecting that the construct of women was written by Men, what do you notice?
No advantage for Man for devising such a construct? A God gracious and merciful determines one human subject to the 'leadership'/'ownership' of another is gracious and merciful?
Free to choose - really? Ever heard of conditioning, peer group pressure, cultural altruistic enforcers? Cultural enforced behavior sub-conscious, conscious adherence developed from mirroring and direct ill effects of not doing so to avoid cultural censure?
The women currently in ISIS publicly whipping fellow women for not 'freely' choosing to wear the symbol of Muslims women, for not conforming to a symbol of submission to Mans 'leadership'/'ownership' are different in what way from those in the streets of Western Democracies wearing the exact same symbol applying cultural peer group pressure upon other Muslim women?
There is also clear evidence women have been killed for not conforming - no pressure on women even outside borders in this globalized world to conform or else? Psychologically these Muslim inspired and Islamic codex justified and authorized violence and other public displays of varying degrees of enforcement and punishment have no impact on women - Muslim women are indeed psychologically free without any pressure to conform to the Muslim woman 'norm' cultural derived stereotype.
Change the Architect and Builder or Change Nothing.
Ban the Burqa? The Argument in Favor by Phyllis Chesler Middle East Quarterly Fall 2010, pp. 33-45
"With that empowerment, women entangled in extremist groups are far more difficult than men to de-radicalise and reintegrate into their communities, said Fatima Akilu, executive director of the Neem Foundation, a nonprofit group aimed at countering extremism in Nigeria."
Lured by power, female extremists prove hardest to help: expert, By Ellen Wulfhorst, Reuters, Thu Dec 1, 2016
As evidence exists "Women more likely than men to affiliate with a religion" The Gender Gap in Religion Around the World, Pew Research, March 22, 2016 despite the fact men tend not only to be responsible for the initial creation of religious texts-ethics-morals-values-beliefs-motivation and social/political methodology, control of its interpretation and social/political implementation which determine woman as subject and the control of women's autonomy-sexuality primarily residing under man's dominion-leadership, there is growing evidence women-mothers via cultural-personal parenting style-have a significant influence over the nature of their children i.e. the degree they may exhibit callous-unemotional trait or even a child's attitude to mathematics, one has to therefore challenge the notion women simply undertake roles in altruistic swords of their culture simply because of the relative power they may attain compared to their previous context within the same religious paradigm, as women it would appear have a significant role in creating prejudice-motivation of the cultures radicals-terrorists in the first place who walk straight from their families, communities and institutions and women tend despite men's dominance across the whole ideological-religious paradigm to take an active role in the promotion of the ideology-religions worldview. Which means women have as much dedication to the cause if not more than the radicalised-terrorist men they create from their jointly adherend to cultural codex-script.
One has to question therefore the notion women-mothers are determined as non-combatants when their role is to create the radicals-terrorists traits-predjudice-motivation for the cultures within which they exist, for the ideology-religion they adhere to and worldview they support.