The black burka, or the white burka? So many decisions.......

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 11, 2006 8:16 AM

This would be a boring fashion show. So what if you have different color tents? They're still tents.

Clothes should set you apart from other women. You should feel great when you put on new duds. Do your hair, your makeup.

There is nothing interesting about these "fashions". These poor women.

Posted by: freewoman at July 11, 2006 8:21 AM

While it is important to have a certain amount of modesty, this is just too much.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 8:22 AM

Horrors! Her hands and toes are visible.

Posted by: jay at July 11, 2006 8:22 AM

Wow! I want to order one for all my wives. :-)

Posted by: Elric66 at July 11, 2006 8:26 AM

Michelle Malkin: THE BURKA IS OUR FRIEND.

Posted by: Shy Guy at July 11, 2006 8:28 AM

I want to invest in Mighty Mo textiles today.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 11, 2006 8:31 AM

Didn't we have some soldier of Allah post here yesterday that he's never seen a burkha in any Islamic country?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 11, 2006 8:43 AM

What did he think? Burkha's were an infidel plot to smear Muslims?

Posted by: Elric66 at July 11, 2006 8:45 AM

Is it not a crime to hide one of God's greatest creations?

This makes me sick!

On the other hand I have it on good authority that many mo's are homos (not that there is anything wrong with that - courtesey Jerry Seinfeld), and also paedophiles.

I am deducing they are also mysoginists! (sp?)

Ihave enormous sympathy for the Afgani women: they have been through enough.

Posted by: Gramfan at July 11, 2006 8:50 AM

Well, this is what the UK and France have to look forward to.

Posted by: Elric66 at July 11, 2006 8:52 AM

As a normal man I do take offense at the muslim veil.

They wear the veil to protect themselves against the eyes of men.
I understand they protect themselves against men who don't have their sexual drive under control, but apart from the Jack-the-Rippers this only is the case with muslim men - after all, this is the religion that promises men an eternal hard-on in heaven, plus the virgins.

Being a normal westerner, I take offence: I don't want to be lumped together with men whose transscendence is defined by the erection in afterlife.

Posted by: FreeSpeech at July 11, 2006 9:00 AM

Didn't we have some soldier of Allah post here yesterday that he's never seen a burkha in any Islamic country?

IIRC, whoever it was said "in the Middle East". I'm not sure what the point of the comment was - it seemed to be unrelated to the discussion in the thread. Maybe it was a game of definitions - for example:

Burqa

Chador

Who cares? At best this could only be a pointless argument about the degrees of male jealousy and hysteria in different Islamic societies - who is more (or less) pathological than whom.

Over at Little Green Footballs someone did once quote a passage from Robert Louis Stevenson about a visit of his to Egypt. He writes of seeing girls walking around quite naked and attributes it to the "negligence of the East" - or some such phrase. That's a bit more interesting insofar as it suggests that left to themselves people can forget even extreme demands placed upon them. I guess that it no longer possible with modern communications and petrodollar-financed Radicals stalking the world.

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 9:06 AM

Looking at the pic of this 'fashion show' did not amuse me. It gave me the creeps. Lately these tents have this effect on me.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 11, 2006 9:17 AM

If non-Muslims ever criticise these dalek costumes, or the black ghost costume you get in the Middle East, the chances are that some Muslim will retort: but "your" women go around in bikinis.

Yes, all year round, on the buses, in the office or shopping at Tesco, we all wear bikinis, when not actually naked.

This is as silly as the toothpick myth discussed on another thread. As silly as the idea that the Jews didn't turn up for work on September 11. But it is widely believed.

Posted by: Interested at July 11, 2006 9:18 AM

On a more positive note: fat chicks look good in burkas.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 11, 2006 9:18 AM

Many a true word spoken in jest.

Which countries search most often for online pornography? Islamic ones:

Google Search: "sex" - by region

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 9:22 AM

Yes, the fashions are quite awful, but it's a start, as they wouldn't have been able to do that several years ago. I'm sure it was quite a thrill for the designers to be able to put on a fashion show. Think baby steps here. You can't expect them to be allowed to go the full monty. Maybe in 10 years they'll be able to show fashion more accustomed to our own, sans burqa.

Posted by: Bonniea at July 11, 2006 9:23 AM

Is that the Versace collection? Very HOT!

Posted by: JanuaryMan at July 11, 2006 9:25 AM

Yes, all year round, on the buses, in the office or shopping at Tesco, we all wear bikinis, when not actually naked.

Do you recall Gadaffi's comment on the Motoons, Interested? He said that Mohammed was drawn surrounded by women in burqas, so perhaps an Islamic cartoonist should draw Jesus Christ "surrounded by naked blonde Scandinavian women".

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 9:25 AM

O.T. - bad news amid all the hilarity: bombs in Mumbai (Bombay).

MUMBAI (Reuters) - Blasts hit moving commuter trains on Tuesday in three suburbs of India's financial hub, Mumbai, a police official said.

"There have three been blasts in Khar, Santa Cruz and Mahim," said the official in the Mumbai police control room.

Another police official said that the blasts occurred in moving trains. No further details were available.

CNN said several people had been injured in the blasts.

Blasts hit commuter trains in India's Mumbai

Let's hope there are no fatalities. My condolences to any Indians reading the board.

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 9:35 AM

There are multiple casualties. Looks like a nasty one. The festival season started today in India, and it is during this period that muslims target Hindus. Expect more.

Posted by: arjun.sevak at July 11, 2006 9:39 AM

Osamakillr, this is not a new trick - the Arab terrorist used it in Deir Yassin.

I hope they do not invite horses to such Islamic catwalks - it would definitely end in a stampede of these Muslim chicks by teh frightened horses!

Posted by: Polish infideless at July 11, 2006 9:40 AM

The burqua is such useful attire for not being recognised: you could rob banks or foil cctv cameras in one. I'm surprised young male Islamic terrorists don't wear them all the time.

Posted by: wallyUK at July 11, 2006 9:45 AM

HUGE EXPLOSIONS - OUR INDIA OFFICE SAYS CHAOS OUTSIDE - HUNDREDS DEAD - TROOPS CLOSING STREETS - PEOPLE REPORTED WITH CHEMICAL BURNS

THIS IS BIG !!

Blasts in India financial capital

At least three explosions have taken place in the Indian financial capital, Mumbai (Bombay), police say.
It is not yet clear what caused the blasts and police are not confirming the location of the explosions, which occurred during evening rush hour.

Some reports say at least one of the blasts took place near a train station. Unconfirmed reports speak of a number of casualties.

There have been a number of bomb attacks in Mumbai in recent years.

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 9:45 AM

Yojimbo, you mean to tell us that Naseem's kids and neighbors are all committing haram by searching for internet porn? LOL! Well, at least Pakistan is number one at something!

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 11, 2006 9:46 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5169332.stm

Here's a link for the INDIA EXPLOSONS

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 9:46 AM

Arjun, I hope you, your family and your friends will all be ok. My prayers are with you.

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 11, 2006 9:51 AM

Also in India - "Suspected Islamist militants killed seven people ... in "a series of grenade attacks in Srinagar".

Srinagar attacks

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 9:51 AM

Read Ayaan Hirsi Ali on the nature of this not so much puritanical as qur'anical dress code, and what it means. Then compare with the so-called Muslim "feminists" such as Leila Abu-Lughod (of Columbia Univeristy -- what did you expect?), celebrating the "portable seclusion" that the burkha provides.

Whenver these "Muslim feminists" sense that Islam itself may be implicated, may be under attack, they beat a quick retreat, rally round Qur'an and Sunnah, and tell us a number of things:

1) There is no misogyny in the texts. If the Infidel audience knows better, then everything from misinterpretatin (that "toothpick" idea), to feigned ignorance ("I'll have to check this, I've never heard of the Hadith you quote.") are used to deflect criticism.

2) There may be some apparent misogyny, but Islam represents a great advance, in its treatment of Islam, compared to what was practiced in the time of pre-Islamic Jahiliyya. Muhammad had wives who were energetic businesswomen, so how could one claim that Islam sanctions the mistreatment of women? Polygamy makes sense in a world where men die off (yes, come to think of it, it does, and if Muslims are killing every non-Muslim male and seizing the women, then polygamy makes sense, doesn't it?).

3) Aisha wasn't six when Muhammad first saw her. Aisha wasn't nine when he married her. She was nineteen, or eighteen, or nobody knows. Please show me those Hadith you have just quoted -- I've never heard of them. Didn't royal families in Europe give their daughters in dynastic marriage at the age of 12? So what's a few years? That story about Aisha's toys, and her being on the swing -- prove that that is one of the authentic Hadith. Stop talking about Aisha. Put the story in context. Yes, Islam is true for all time, and Muhammad is the Perfect Man for all time, but still -- context. In any case, even if Khomeini happened to reduce the marriageable age of girls to nine, what does that have to do with Muhammad? No, it's just a coincidence -- there you go again, being islamophobic.

4) Women love the burkha. They hate being the cynosure of all eyes. It's such a relief. It's like being in your own little shell, even as you move about in public. What could be better? Don't knock it unless you've tried it. Why shouldn't men insist on this? We all know what men are like, don't we? Beasts. Beasts that must not be aroused. In the privacy of your own home however, just the way the Infidel secretary takes off her glasses and shakes out her hair and lifts up her skirt in those 1930s screwball comedies, a Muslim woman can take off that burga and -- va-va-va-voom.

5) So many excuses. So much nonsense to feed the Infidels. So many ways of keeping them off the real scent. So little time.

Posted by: Hugh at July 11, 2006 9:54 AM

TWO MORE EXPLOSIONS !!

MASS CASUALTIES REPORTED IN INDIA -

Reports coming from our Indian Office of huge clouds of yellow smoke all around the streets.

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 9:57 AM

from above

It is not yet clear what caused the blasts

I suspect centex and a cellphone, both coming from somewhere in Iran. Just a guess.

Posted by: exsgtbrown at July 11, 2006 9:57 AM

Hugh,

Are you trying to be sarcastic here?

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 9:59 AM

CHAOS IN INDIA -

MORE EXPLOSIONS REPORTED.

Indian Stock Exchange Closed.
Rail Network around Mumbai closed with reports of hundreds, (maybe thousands), killed and injured.

Emergency services are unable to cope.

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 10:02 AM

This is not funny, as I have many friends in India, all Hindu an Sikh of course.

May God - or Gods bless them and help them.

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 10:04 AM

Again, I dont understand why anyone in the West would care what Muslims do to their women. It
is not in our interest to enlighten or save the Muslim world.

Posted by: george_rem at July 11, 2006 10:05 AM

FIRING REPORTED ALONG INDIA - PAKISTAN BORDER
Unconfirmed reports of mass troop movements on the Pakistan side of the border.

This is getting scary now...

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 10:06 AM

Delhi is on high alert:

http://www.hindu.com/thehindu/holnus/001200607111972.htm

Reuters now reports:

The local CNN-IBN news channel said at least 15 people were killed in one of the blasts at Matunga station in central Mumbai.

At least 15 dead

Posted by: Yojimbo at July 11, 2006 10:07 AM

I know my reports are OFF TOPIC, but this is big.

Until Robert clocks these EXPLOSIONS IN INDIA, I had to inform you guys on this (very important fashion show thread).

Sorry,

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 10:09 AM

FYI, everyone:

I am aware of the explosions in India. I will not post about it until there is some definite indication that it was a jihad attack.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 11, 2006 10:19 AM

Sorry Robert,

Blasts came from inside the carriages.
Who else could it be?
Ahh.. forgot about those darn Buddist Terrorist Monks and thier Jew killing Budda.

Posted by: Churchill1938 at July 11, 2006 10:23 AM

Churchill,

You know and I know who it probably was. Be that as it may, I did not want to give our enemies any "rush to judgment" ammunition.

I have just posted an AP story noting a similarity to the modus operandi of Kashmir jihadists.

Cordially
Robert Spencer

Posted by: jihadwatch at July 11, 2006 10:26 AM

The Bombay blasts are on the TV now - separate explosions in 7 stations. 15 dead confirmed.

Prime suspect: Lashkar-e-Toiba, a Pakistani terrorist group.

All in first class coaches. Target: the better-off Hindus. Most muslims don't travel first class.

Posted by: Dunk at July 11, 2006 10:28 AM

"Lashkar-e-Toiba, a Pakistani terrorist group"
Translation: muslims

Posted by: Bohemond_1069 at July 11, 2006 10:44 AM

A lot of Jihad/dhimmi-related news sound like they were invented by The Onion. This one is no exception.

Posted by: Jesus Christ Supercop at July 11, 2006 10:47 AM

My hearfelt sympathy to India and the victims of these recent bombings...

From high fashion, to low life bombings ect, to wildfires in California. Islam is on the march. There is nothing new about that. Whats 'new' is that they now want to do it in style. Soon a new line of jihadist fashions will appear on the net. 'Invisible Clothing for the discriminating Jihadist'.
Invisible clothing will not mean the jihadist will appear naked, it means that his style of dress blends in, making him invisible to the infidel masses. From the power of invisibility he will be able to strike before the enemy knows what hit them. Invisibility has long been the weapon of choice for jihadists, but now they can look good while invisible. Allah is really cool like that. Think of Allah as the chief fashion designer for Islamic jihadists. There are a few drawbacks. No matter how one is dressed in the California forests, a couple of muslims wandering around in the woods are visible. If nothing else, the lions, tigers and bears can see them. Well maybe not tigers, but lions and bears are in abundance...snakes too. It would be better for the muslim fire bugs, if they were arrested by the forest cops, than bitten by one of those snakes. Then there is the problem of hunters, who shoot anything that moves. All in all, I would advise muslims to stay out of the California woods, no matter how they are dressed.

Posted by: duh_swami at July 11, 2006 11:05 AM

Not suprised that this new terror attack took place in India. Since India is now becoming much more better off and is pose to become an ecconomic power in the 21st century, do not be suprise that the Muslim jihadists will do all they can to derail this country's ecconomic progress.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 11:17 AM

duh_swami,

In the CA forest fire situation, when it comes to the hunters, if they see that there are jihadists, they may try to shoot them not just only because of anything that moves but also because they would be hunting jihadists fire bugs.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 11:22 AM

If Marshall McLuhan was right and the medium is the message, then the medium of Islamic fashion speaks very directly: Women are incapable of defending their modesty without a man to protect them and without clothing that shows the world that they belong to a man. The medium of Islamic fashion also speaks to the innate lack of self-control that men are subject to but somehow are not entirely responsible for. It thus becomes the duty of women to cover up and failing to do so only means that they are "asking for it." And then there is the message that is also projected, one in which one's identity is hidden from view. When other threads on this site discuss the formation of women's "martyr" (how I hate the appropriation and misuse of the word) brigades, how convenient to not only have a way to move dangerous materials about, but also hide one's identity in the process.

The medium is the message: Islamic fashion hides more than just the physical body. It hides freedom of choice with a veil of enforced virtue.

Posted by: Chatillon at July 11, 2006 11:30 AM

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/print.asp?page=2005%5C12%5C10%5Cstory_10-12-2005_pg4_4
Threats to kill women not wearing their tents. Oh but the hijab is a blessing!
/yeah right.

Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 11, 2006 12:05 PM

The burka was created by a culture of men who look into thier own mothers eyes and see only the potential they have to become a whore.

JLP

Posted by: John Lee Pedimore at July 11, 2006 12:10 PM

It's just wonderful to wear a tent.
http://www.time.com/time/photoessays/2006/muslim_fashion/

Posted by: Carolyn2 at July 11, 2006 12:11 PM

I'll bet those muslim males would certainly change their minds if the women carried a gun under their burkas. If she saw one of these males coming at her for not being properly dressed ...KABOOM!

Posted by: freewoman at July 11, 2006 12:14 PM

Bonniea writes: "Yes, the fashions are quite awful, but it's a start, as they wouldn't have been able to do that several years ago."

But according to the Reuters article, the women modeling these fashions were not native Afghan women. They were foreign women brought to Afghanistan to model for the fashion show. Even having Afghan women walking around in burqas in front of an audience was apparently too extreme for Afghan tastes.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 11, 2006 12:16 PM

"I dont understand why anyone in the West would care what Muslims do to their women. It is not in our interest to enlighten or save the Muslim world."

The West should care about any and all manifestations of a pathology that is the heart of Islamic culture. This pathology has two sides:

1) Islamic supremacy

2) Hatred of the West (and the Rest of the world).

And these two sides directly foment terrorism and jihad.

So, we should care not in order to change the Muslim necessarily, but in order to know our enemy. Also, besides caring or being warily knowledgeable, it is also an edifying pastime to jeer and mock the many varieties of backward deformities as Muslims display.

Posted by: Television at July 11, 2006 12:17 PM

Another observation about burkas: it has been said that the baggy clothes of urban hip-hop and rap fashion is directly related to being able to conceal guns which figure into the daily life of that subculture. Similarly with burkas, it's easier to conceal strap-on bombs.

Posted by: Television at July 11, 2006 12:20 PM

Funnily enough Mary Wortley-Montague, wife of the british ambassador to the Sublime Porte, 1716-18, thought all this covering up wasn't such a bad idea. Being able to walk past her own husband in the street without him recognising her seemed to appeal, while quite respectable ladies in Istanbul were in the habit of visiting shops, usually owned by jews, where both men and women could enter and behind which rooms could be rented by the hour. An aristocratic woman like her might get away with something like that dressed as a black ghost but it would have been far too risky in London. Besides her introduction of smallpox innoculation to Britain she is mainly remembered for her description of being surrounded by several hundred naked women in the hamam: something which, for some obscure reason, caught the imagination of several young male European artists and eventually resulted in a famous painting by Ingres. Her letters are an intersting read and can be downloaded at:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/17520

Posted by: wallyUK at July 11, 2006 12:36 PM

HEFTY bag stock soars!

(And mascara makers', also.)

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 11, 2006 12:36 PM

I can certainly see why the "burqa" makes more sense than shorts and a tank-top on a hot summer day. I would much rather sweat like a pig than stay cool and comfortable; and I wouldn't have to worry about shaving my legs any more.

Where can I get one!

Posted by: champ at July 11, 2006 1:07 PM

Yojimbo wrote:

Which countries search most often for online pornography? Islamic ones.
...............

I can believe this. When I was a student at Berkeley in the late Seventies I worked one summer at the International House cleaning rooms. We had visiting scholars from all over the world. It was always interesting to see what they left in the rooms for me to clean up when they went home.

A number of the guys left girlie magazines. This wasn't unusual. Usually they were very soft-core. I noticed that Japanese visitors, for instance, tended to leave a *lot* of mags, mostly with pictures of blonde girls in bikinis, that sort of thing.

But visiting scholars from the Middle East often left *huge* caches of stuff, alot of it *very* hard core, some it rather disturbing. I didn't want to stereotype, but it was an obvious pattern, and I'm sure most of them couldn't even think about taking any of this stuff home with them.

Posted by: gravenimage at July 11, 2006 2:15 PM

Whats the betting that the Paris Fashion Show will look like that by 2070?

Posted by: Spirit Of 1683 at July 11, 2006 2:27 PM

Spirit Of 1683-

Actually, I would not be surprised to see a Burn Your Burka Day (Savage once said this) in the not too distant future. I'll bet there are plenty of Muslim women (especially in non-Muslim countries) who woluld love to burn their burkas and call for freedom for women in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere in the Arab and Muslim world. They are there.

Make no mistake of it-much of this jihad crap is a collective unconscious fear that Muslim women will do exactly what I am writing about here. As Thomas Edison once said (noting that several inventors often (at the same time)applied for a new patent of a very simialar idea): "Thoughts are in the air."

Posted by: Frank at July 11, 2006 3:10 PM

I was sitting with my C-130 crew on a small airstrip in northern Saudi in the summer of 1996. We were waiting to pick up US military passengers from a small listening post on the Iraqi border. It was 126 degrees in the shade and hotter on the ramp. We drank as fast as we could just to keep up with the sweat. A medium-sized civil jet landed and I watched about 40 sheiks deplane. After they had made their way into the terminal about 1200 feet away, their women deplaned. They were in full black burqas. They walked and in some cases stumbled across the tarmac. By the time they got to the terminal it was obvious that many were in severe distress from the heat. We, of course, couldn't help them or it would have caused an international incident. I’m a southern boy and I was raised to open doors for ladies so having to watch that spectacle without helping was hard. It did teach me a lot about the people we’re dealing with.

Bottom line: these clothes are not a fashion, it's not cute or progressive or funny to have a fashion show with them. It's simply a form of subjugation and it’s pathetic.

Posted by: FreeBohemian at July 11, 2006 3:42 PM

FreeBohemian,

You got that right. I just do not understand what these folks fine it interesting in these burkas. They are just simply oppresive clothes to oppress women in the Muslim world.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 3:55 PM

Bigcatgirl, I think in Afganistan, the government tells the women what color to wear. And red is a NO NO. Red means power and women certainly aren't allowed any of that! I would think the fashion show was such a farce. How can there be a fashion show with tents? REEE-DICULOUS!!!!!

Posted by: freewoman at July 11, 2006 4:07 PM

Where are the bra-burning 'womens-lib' and 'womens-rights' advocates when it comes to this insane Mummenschanz-

...or are they all in favor of this madness?

Fed up of 'sensitive' men, feminine types who are too full of 'understanding'...?

Posted by: sheik yer'mami at July 11, 2006 4:12 PM

freewoman,

Also I think red is also view over in Afganistan as a reminder of the Russians when they were communists under the old Soviet Union. Also they do not want to give TOO MUCH POWER TO WOMEN.

Posted by: bigcatgirl13106 at July 11, 2006 4:21 PM

spirit of 1683-

I would bet France reaches this level by 2050.

Demographics, my dear Watson, demographics.

Q.: Do blind Muslim women have to wear these, too?

(I mean literally blind.)

Or do they then just get rid of the eyeholes altogether?

(Maybe that's the future of women in Islam.)

Off to ASK THE IMAM.

Posted by: profitsbeard at July 11, 2006 4:58 PM

profitsbeard-

Really funny. LOL.

Posted by: Frank at July 11, 2006 5:03 PM

Freewoman and Bigcatgirl--

I think Bigcatgirl is onto something with the color red as a reminder of the USSR. By complete coincidence yesterday, I happened upon a 1985 issue of National Geographic that had an article on Kabul; it mentioned the fact that Coca Cola ran into trouble in Afghanistan at that time and changed its can color from red to (Islamic) green.

Posted by: Shinoliite at July 11, 2006 6:19 PM

Shy guy – from your Michelle Malkin link:

“The caption in the print edition reads: "Photographer Kate Brooks went from Iran to Oman to capture the diverse fashions of Muslim women."

"The diverse fashions."

“Brooks' multimedia photo essay at Time.com plays like an apologia for sharia law.”

I couldn't agree more with Malkin. How craven can you get?

"Bottom line: these clothes are not a fashion, it's not cute or progressive or funny to have a fashion show with them. It's simply a form of subjugation and it’s pathetic.
Posted by: FreeBohemian"

Agreed!

Last weekend I stumbled across an article which happened to say this about the health effects of burkhas:

"Furthermore, the mandatory act of wearing burqas itself causes health risks. They are so heavy and enveloping that they restrict women's activities by making it difficult for them to move. The simple act of walking outside becomes hazardous because the mesh opening severely restricts women's field of vision and they are unable to see their path clearly. In addition, burqas are linked to hearing loss, skin problems, headaches, cardiac disorder, asthma, and also can contribute to mental health problems. PHR revealed that the Afghan women who participated in its study demonstrated alarmingly high levels of mental illness: 97% displayed symptoms of major depression, and 86% reported signs of anxiety. These problems are linked to the oppressive conditions imposed on women and are significantly aggravated by the constant stress of restrictions on their movement and confinement to burqas."
http://www.wcl.american.edu/hrbrief/06/2taliban.cfm

The insanity of wearing a burkha in the desert heat (as Freebohemian's post describes)is self-explanatory but it is literally inconceivable to me to imagine wearing a burkha in our more balmy western climate where a woman would have to live her entire life never feeling and enjoying a crisp, sunny autumn day (like we have on the east coast) or the full sensuous experience of a day at the beach, enjoying the sea breeze and salt air. Its part and parcel of the same mentality that cuts off a woman's clitoris so that she can never experience sexual pleasure.

This is sick and its a measure of how far the western so-called progressive press has fallen that it would describe such a life-denying display so casually and cavalierly, as a "fashion show". The female (western) models who took part in this show should have refused to do so as a matter of sheer principle.

Posted by: Caroline at July 11, 2006 7:47 PM

Or how about this? Seeing as how Muslims still practice slavery in Africa, I assume there is probably some sort of distinctive clothing which identifies such slaves. How about Calvin Klein get together some of his hottest black male models and march them down a runway in Sudan wearing the latest, distinctive markings of a black male African slave. Then the "progressive", oh-so-hip western press can write it up as a "fashion" show.

Posted by: Caroline at July 11, 2006 7:56 PM

george_rem writes: "Again, I dont understand why anyone in the West would care what Muslims do to their women. It is not in our interest to enlighten or save the Muslim world."

First of all, it helps put the Muslim world on the psycho-moral defensive. Secondly, it helps put our side on a higher moral plane. Thirdly, there is always a hope--a hope--that dissident or oppressed factions within a Muslim society may rise up or resist the regime.

This is no different than when the U.S. stood up for the rights of Soviet dissidents like Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn during the Cold War. The best defense is a good offense--put your enemies on the defensive. Both in the war of ideas as well as in the military sense.

And it's no different when we defend the rights of apostates like Abdul Rahman to practice freedom of conscience in Muslim states without fear of execution or other reprisal.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 11, 2006 8:11 PM

sheik yer'mami writes: "Where are the bra-burning 'womens-lib' and 'womens-rights' advocates when it comes to this insane Mummenschanz-...or are they all in favor of this madness?"

Read "The Death of Feminism," by Phyllis Chesler:

Because feminist academics and journalists are now so heavily influenced by Left ways of thinking, many now believe that speaking out against head scarves, face veils, the chador, arranged marriages, polygamy, forced pregnancies, or female genital mutilation is either "imperialist" or "crusade-ist." Postmodernist ways of thinking have also led feminists to believe that confronting narratives on the academic page is as important and world-shattering as confronting jihadists in the flesh and rescuing living beings from captivity.

Making common cause with multiculturalism meant abandoning feminism's stand against the oppression of women in the Third World.

Making common cause with the Democratic Party meant allowing Bill Clinton to take liberties with his interns that feminists would have regarded as sexual harassment before he became President.

Making common cause with the ACLU meant abandoning feminism's stand against pornography which they used to regard as degrading to women.

And making common cause with peaceniks meant that when the Bush Administration decided to get rid of the Taliban regime, one of the most oppressive to women on earth, the feminists were forced to oppose military action against the Taliban.

Posted by: Steven L. at July 11, 2006 8:18 PM

Steven L. - great post. And here's a link to an interview with Chessler about the book that you cite:

http://www.phyllis-chesler.com/articles/witness.htm

Posted by: Caroline at July 11, 2006 9:06 PM

I think this is an important topic for many reasons:
the article posted (Deborah Orr) was published in the Independent newspaper, a pro-multiculturalism. very liberal rag. For it to be printed shows a shift in British thinking.
The Burka is the soft underbelly of the male dominance within Islam. Men make a political statement when their women dress in these walking prisons.
Confront the men who force their women (and children) to wear these clothes.
Challenge any feminist to condemn the burka.
introduce ordinances banning the burka from school and public places
The crush Islam lobby may describe these actions as pointless, but our goal is to rob Muslim men of their politically legitimacy, and to empower Muslim women. this will lead to change.

Posted by: albion at July 11, 2006 10:02 PM

George-rem wrote:

"Again, I dont understand why anyone in the West would care what Muslims do to their women. It is not in our interest to enlighten or save the Muslim world."

In this comment, I very much see where you're coming from as I think that this is a sentiment that has been presented here many times before, not the least by Hugh, who has persistently advocated what I think of as a Tao approach, whereby we seal the Muslim world off, in a sense and let the Tao take over to the point where the Muslim world is capable of coming to terms with the reality of its own creation, outside of our interference,,,or not... in which case it would presumably implode from within.

I am now very much in favor of that approach.

But I wouldn't take that sentiment so far to the extent of claiming that we have no reason to "care what Muslims do to their women".

Actually I do care. Very much so. I think the question is what we can reasonably do to help them and what is the best way to do that and also how do we avoid the trap of getting caught up in "saving" people whom we may realistically not be able to save.

One thing which I think is very important to note about this "fashion show" is that these were apparently not Afghan women. Rather, as I understand it, these were all western models on this runway as Muslim women wouldn't or couldn't take part. Additionally, a good deal part of my objection is Time referring to this as a "fashion show".

In short, this is all about western interference (western models modeling these burkhas) and about the western press (which should know better) lending legitimacy to this Muslim oppression of women (they can't even be their own models for these fashions?) by describing this fiasco as a "fashion show".

We have to walk a fine line between caring and not caring in a sense. We have it make it THEIR responsibility to change and in the long run I think that IS caring. But to send western models over to Afghanistan to model burkhas when their own women are unwilling to do so and then to write that up in the western press as a "fashion show" to me represents the opposite of caring, because it actually serves to LEGITIMATE the Muslim's world's oppression of women. That's my complaint. And in addition, there's the sheer gall that this same press thoroughly mocks western Christian women who merely choose to stay at home and raise their children instead of going out and getting a fulltime job like these reporters who celebrate a burkha fashion show staged by western models in Afghanistan. Good God. The sheer, bloody hypocricy alone is utterly galling.

My disgust for the hypocrisy of the western press aside, there's a right way and a wrong way to care. And we have no business caring so very much (in the wrong way) that we end up legitimizing the Muslim world's oppression of females.

Posted by: Caroline at July 11, 2006 10:24 PM

It's hard not to laugh, but I think at least among Afghan women something human is attempting to emerge from the horrors of life in Islamia. I doubt, though, that this is going anywhere.

Posted by: pythagoras at July 11, 2006 10:53 PM

Wow! My wife just saw me looking at the picture of that model above and told me to quit looking at porn. How dare this runway model flaunt herself like that. Some good, decent, young Muslim might see her exposed hands and right eye and be tempted to leave the madrasa for a life of decadence. Shame! Shame! Shame!

Posted by: Provoslavni at July 11, 2006 11:59 PM

Provoslavni

You left out her exposed feet. I condemn Robert for turning Jihadwatch into an Afghan porn site.

Posted by: Infidel Pride at July 12, 2006 1:58 AM

maybe it's really their disgusting smell that sets them apart? either way, a tent is a tent none-the-less. eat a cheeseburger i can see the bones protruding in your feet.
~brutal

Posted by: brutalhonesty at July 12, 2006 4:40 AM