• Why Jihad Watch?
  • About Robert Spencer and Staff Writers
  • FAQ
  • Books
  • Muhammad
  • Islam 101
  • Privacy

Jihad Watch

Exposing the role that Islamic jihad theology and ideology play in the modern global conflicts

Maoist Unisex Clothing Enforced in U.K — and the Sharia Connection

Sep 10, 2019 7:59 am By Jamie Glazov

[Order Jamie Glazov’s new book, Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us: HERE.]

Demonstrations have recently erupted at Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex (U.K.), where parents and pupils are protesting a new school policy that mandates gender neutral uniforms for students. Girls who now show up to school in skirts are sent home to change into trousers. If they refuse to change and try to enter the school, police are called. The new rules are, of course, a product of the Left’s agenda — especially in regards to its totalitarian “transgender” movement.

The new policy at Priory School is, naturally, being camouflaged with the excuse that the objective is to make transgender students feel more comfortable — and to also have an environment more conducive to “learning and teaching.” But it’s obvious what’s really going on: the Left is waging its traditional war on gender differences, which it believes are socially constructed by the evil white-supremacist capitalist power structures.

As we watch young girls in East Sussex being sent home from school if they commit the crime of wearing a skirt, it would do well for us to reflect on the foundations that serve as the impetus for this new utopian crackdown. The way that the Maoist Cultural Revolution in China imposed desexualized dress serves as a perfect example. Indeed, Maoist China imposed a unisex form of dress on its citizens, and it did so not only as a ruthless war on gender differences and individuality, but also as a calculated assault on the possibilities of private attractions, affections, and desires.

The central reality to gauge here is that desexualized dress satisfies in leftists their morbid pining for enforced sameness. It is crucial, in their world, to erase physical and emotional differences and attractions between people. In the utopian endgame, humans must all be replicas of each other and be completely devoted to the state — and to its all-knowing administering of “equality” and “social justice”.

It is no surprise, therefore, that western leftists were enthralled with the Maoist social engineering experiment. As I document in United in Hate, fellow travelers who journeyed to worship at the altar of the Maoist killing fields flew into ecstasy upon witnessing the unisex clothing.

Let’s recall a few examples:

American leftist academic Orville Schell adored China’s enforced mode of dress the moment he witnessed it. In his book, In the People’s Republic, he praised the “baggy uniformlike tunics” and wrote admiringly how, “The question of the shape of a person’s body is a moot one in China.”

Schell was very excited that physical attributes were subordinated in intimate relationships. He wrote that the Chinese had:

succeeded in fundamentally altering the notion of attractiveness by simply substituting some of these revolutionary attributes for the physical ones which play such an important role in Western courtship.

Schell also noted approvingly that, “The notion of ‘playing hard to get’ or exacerbating jealousies in order to win someone’s love does not appear to assume such a prominent role.”

America’s Shirley MacLaine joined Schell in being deeply enamored with China’s totalitarian puritanism. Like all leftists, she would have surely viewed any restriction on women’s attire or sexual impulses in her own society as “capitalist oppression,” but for the Chinese people, the suffocation of unregulated love and sex was a magnificent thing in her eyes. In her book, You Can Get There, she wrote:

I could see for myself that in China you were able to forget about sex. There was no commercial exploitation of sex in order to sell soap, perfume, soft drinks, soda pop, or cars. The unisex uniforms also de-emphasized sexuality, and in an interesting way made you concentrate more on the individual character of the Chinese, regardless of his or her physical assets, or lack of them. . . . women had little need or even desire for such superficial things as frilly clothes and make-up, children loved work and were self-reliant. Relationships seemed free of jealousy and infidelity because monogamy was the law of the land and hardly anyone strayed. . . . It was a quantum leap into the future.

For French leftist Claudie Broyelle, meanwhile, one of the key accomplishments of the Maoist revolution was the cancelation of the “privatization of love.” In her book, Women’s Liberation in China, she gleefully stressed how love in China was now to be expressed not through personal and selfish capitalist avenues, but only through “revolutionary commitment.”

Broyelle noted with profound satisfaction that good looks were no longer important for Chinese women. Unlike the sexualized image of women in Western advertising, she boasted how, in China, there was a different image:

on wall posters, in newspapers, on the stage, everywhere. It is the picture of a worker or a peasant, with a determined expression and dressed very simply. . . . You can see her working, studying, taking part in a demonstration.

Schell, MacLaine, and Broyelle never, of course, spoke of the brutal truths that stared them right in the face. They didn’t dare to ask: How could jealousy possibly arise, or infidelity be practiced, in a society where privacy did not exist and infidelity would land you in a concentration camp at best, and get you executed at worst? What if a Chinese citizen chose not to forget about sex and made his lack of forgetfulness evident? And what if a man or a woman wore clothes that did not de-emphasize his or her sexuality? What would happen to them? It is clear, of course, why these leftists never asked these questions — and why they also never visited a Chinese concentration camp to investigate who was imprisoned there, how they were suffering, and why.

The yearning for totalitarian puritanism that was witnessed among leftists in Maoist China does not mean, of course, that leftists are non-sexual. To the contrary, many of them are highly sexually promiscuous and also passionately active in promoting promiscuity. The issue here is what cause is being served. Women’s “sexual self-determination” is, for instance, adamantly supported by leftists if it enables their war against their own host democratic-capitalist societies — and if it can hurt the Judeo-Christian tradition. But if a totalitarian adversarial society is stifling women’s rights in this context, then leftists vehemently support that oppression, since they typically worship the particular tyranny in question and gleefully welcome the threat it poses to their own host society — which they hate and want to destroy.

It is important to remember how, some fifty years ago, the terrorist group Weather Underground not only waged war against American society through violence and mayhem, but also encouraged promiscuity — while forbidding private love — within its own ranks. This constituted an eerie replay of the sexual promiscuity that was enforced (while private love was outlawed) in dystopian novels such as We, 1984, and Brave New World.  All of this is precisely why the radical Left and Sharia supporters detest Valentine’s Day – since it is a day devoted to the love between a man and a woman, a bond that dangerously threatens the totality.

And so, we begin to understand why, just as the devotion to totalitarian puritanism played a central role in the Left’s solidarity with Maoist China — and with other vicious Communist regimes — so too it serves as a core component of the Left’s current romance with Islam. Indeed, Maoists’ unisex clothing rules find their parallel in Islam’s mandate for shapeless coverings — to be worn by both males and females. The collective “uniform” symbolizes submission to a “higher entity” and cancels out individual expression, mutual physical attraction, and private connection and affection.

Just as Orville Schell, Claudie Broyelle, and Shirley MacLaine were enchanted with the enforced Maoist dress that attempted to desexualize Chinese citizens, so too the new generation of leftists solemnly genuflect before the Islamic Hijab. The Hijab, like the Maoist uniform, attracts leftists by virtue of not only how it negates individuality and personal connection, but also how it reflects women being mandated to wear it under an adversary culture. Longing to submerge themselves into a totality where their own choices will be negated, leftists are always drawn to a totalitarian entity within which they can shed themselves of their own unwanted selves.

As I document in United in Hate and Jihadist Psychopath, all of this is precisely why leftists are today on the side of the Sharia-enforcers who persecute women who dare to not wear Hijab. To be sure, it is transparently evident why leftist feminists in particular callously turn their backs on murdered Muslim girls like Aqsa Parvez and heartlessly ignore the suffering Iranian women and girls who are today imprisoned, raped and killed for daring not to wear the Hijab.

And so, there is no mystery about what is currently transpiring at Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex, UK. The Left is simply continuing its Maoist Cultural revolution — just as it is faithfully emulating the ingredients of Sharia that it treasures most. In its hatred for humans, and in its unquenchable lust to control who and what they are, the self-appointed social redeemers of our time are now waging war on the femininity and freedom of young girls in the United Kingdom.

And in that evolving and accelerating utopian enterprise, they are succeeding frighteningly well.

*

Jamie Glazov holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the editor of Frontpagemag.com, the author of the critically-acclaimed, United in Hate: The Left’s Romance with Tyranny and Terror, and the host of the web-tv show, The Glazov Gang. His new book is Jihadist Psychopath: How He is Charming, Seducing, and Devouring Us. Visit his site at JamieGlazov.com, follow him on Twitter: @JamieGlazov, and reach him at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Share this:

  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on WhatsApp (Opens in new window)
  • Click to print (Opens in new window)
  • Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window)
  • More
  • Click to share on Skype (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Telegram (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pocket (Opens in new window)
  • Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window)

Follow me on Facebook

Filed Under: United Kingdom


Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Comments

  1. Westman says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 10:12 am

    McClain: “…. women had little need or even desire for such superficial things as frilly clothes and make-up…”

    “Broyelle noted with profound satisfaction that good looks were no longer important for Chinese women.”

    They seem to have forgotten another equally important and still current result of the “revolution” – there are not enough Chinese women available for marriage! Anyone who thinks that other means are not employed to evaluate the women or there is no selective competition for the women, is very delusional.

    An observation:

    Selection of a marriage partner is the most (quietly) racist, bigoted, and ideology-selective act that every human makes in a freely-selective marriage. Ask any Muslim why they married a Muslim. Ask any Liberal why they married a Liberal. Ask any Catholic why they married a Catholic. Ask a woman if she passed up a marriage proposal because the offspring might have the characteristics of the suitor.

    The next time a Liberal claims he/she is not bigoted, ask why he/she married into the same race, religion, culture, and an attractive appearance.

  2. somehistory says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 10:54 am

    MacLaine must be waiting on her next reincarnation in some “future” time where these Chinese tyrants will be duplicated elsewhere before she begins going without make-up, discarding her clingy, dresses with low necklines, and high heels. She’s also waiting for that fantasy day to stop drinking booze, or even soft drinks…she can’t decide if they are soft drinks or soda pop, such a nut case as she is.

    The clothing being forced on the young girls in the U.K. are not that different from moslim girls being forced to wear garbage sacks and face coverings. the goal is the same…oppression, forced compliance, and punishment for being attractive, or even just being female.

  3. FYI says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 11:39 am

    Apparently the NY Times recently praised Mao as “one of History’s great revolutionary figures” with his Great Leap Forward policy{or as I prefer to call it,the Great Leftard Leap Backward policy of the communists}

    It seems they had to delete the Tweet.

    But it kinda gave the game away:perhaps the NY Times should call itself Leftard News.

  4. jarmanray says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 1:11 pm

    I find it a bit hypocritic that Shirley MacLaine would support the dehumanization of women through the clothes that they wear when she appeared thinly clad in movies like “Erma La Douce,” “All in A Night’s Work” and my favorite, “Some Come Running” and many others where she used little to no clothing. She was beautiful and she wanted everyone to know it but now maybe since her body is not what it once was, she is a bit envious and contemptuous of ladies who enjoy being young and expressive.

  5. James Lincoln says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 3:58 pm

    Shirley MacLaine. She was cuter than cute in the 1960 movie “The Apartment” with Jack Lemmon.

    I have watched that movie every New Year’s Eve for years now…

    But…

    Is she now embarrassed by the way she dressed – and acted – for that role?

    • somehistory says

      Sep 10, 2019 at 4:21 pm

      For me, I find it difficult to get inside the head of someone who has said she /he has lived numerous lives as different people at different times.

      However, some people have the mindset that others should not have the freedoms they enjoy, nor the same privileges. This actress just seems rather shallow in her thinking, judging that doing without and dressing without any finery or enhancements…that many in richer countries and where the government doesn’t hold such a heavy fist of control…..is all these ones deserve.

      I don’t believe that she would wish to live that way. Much like al gore saying people shouldn’t use so many fossil fuels, when he gobbles them up unashamedly. I don’t think we will see her dressed plainly and in clothes that would hide her gender.

  6. Lydia Church says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 8:15 pm

    I would refuse to wear pants and keep wearing skirts and even cite medical reasons, such as yeast infections. I also refuse to wear high heels for health reasons as well.

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 10, 2019 at 10:05 pm

      I take your point, Lydia–but it should not come to this. Girls should be able to wear skirts as personal choice.

      I don’t wear high heels, myself, for the same reasons you cited–but I would never try to prevent others from wearing them.

      • Carolyne says

        Sep 11, 2019 at 5:49 pm

        Wearing high heels is akin to the old custom the Chinese had when they bound females feet. Young girls had the foot bones broken in order to make them only a couple of inches long. The purpose of this was because it made them walk funny which Chinese men found attractive. Women walk funny in four inch heels, too. What is their purpose? Actually high heels damage one’s feet for life. My feet are a prime example of that. If I could go back in time I would never wear high heels. However, girls are free and should be free to express their individuality through their clothing. But a few years of high heels will permanently damage your feet. This unisex foolishness has gone to far. Time to rein it in.

        • gravenimage says

          Sep 11, 2019 at 8:59 pm

          I take your point about long term wearing of high heels, which my mother suffered from. But if women want to wear heels I am fine with this–I would not want to see them banned. After an education campaign, very few women wear them all the time.

  7. Lydia Church says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 8:17 pm

    Yes, that connection is there. They want to transform everyone into identical and neutral minion robots with no identity. They want everyone to morph into one ‘transgender’ unisex expression.

  8. gravenimage says

    Sep 10, 2019 at 10:03 pm

    Maoist Unisex Clothing Enforced in U.K — and the Sharia Connection

    Demonstrations have recently erupted at Priory School in Lewes, East Sussex (U.K.), where parents and pupils are protesting a new school policy that mandates gender neutral uniforms for students. Girls who now show up to school in skirts are sent home to change into trousers. If they refuse to change and try to enter the school, police are called.
    ……………………

    *Police are called*? This is a nation that does not have enough police staffing to respond to Jihad terrorism, but that is available to go after girls wearing skirts? What sort of insanity is this?

    More:

    The new policy at Priory School is, naturally, being camouflaged with the excuse that the objective is to make transgender students feel more comfortable — and to also have an environment more conducive to “learning and teaching.” But it’s obvious what’s really going on: the Left is waging its traditional war on gender differences, which it believes are socially constructed by the evil white-supremacist capitalist power structures.
    ……………………

    Are transgender students even demanding this? (Not that this should be imposed even if they were, of course). But this seems unlikely to begin with.

    More:

    America’s Shirley MacLaine joined Schell in being deeply enamored with China’s totalitarian puritanism. Like all leftists, she would have surely viewed any restriction on women’s attire or sexual impulses in her own society as “capitalist oppression,” but for the Chinese people, the suffocation of unregulated love and sex was a magnificent thing in her eyes. In her book, You Can Get There, she wrote:

    I could see for myself that in China you were able to forget about sex. There was no commercial exploitation of sex in order to sell soap, perfume, soft drinks, soda pop, or cars. The unisex uniforms also de-emphasized sexuality, and in an interesting way made you concentrate more on the individual character of the Chinese, regardless of his or her physical assets, or lack of them. . . . women had little need or even desire for such superficial things as frilly clothes and make-up, children loved work and were self-reliant. Relationships seemed free of jealousy and infidelity because monogamy was the law of the land and hardly anyone strayed. . . . It was a quantum leap into the future.
    ……………………

    What claptrap–Communism in general, and Maoism in particular, sought to wipe out individual character.

    And Western women were never forced to wear sexy clothes–some do, and some don’t, and some do when they are in the mood. That is real personal choice.

    And no–totalitarianism is *not* a “leap into the future”–unless you foresee a future where choice is crushed.

    • Carolyne says

      Sep 11, 2019 at 5:55 pm

      According to a book written by Shirley MacClains’ daughter, for many years she gave her husband most of her income because he convinced her she was saving the world from aliens by helping him in his right to save the world. What an idiot. Nothing she says should be taken seriously, but it’s good for a laugh.

      • gravenimage says

        Sep 11, 2019 at 9:01 pm

        This is absurd if it is the case. But no one forced her to be this foolish.

  9. Linda Goudsmit says

    Sep 11, 2019 at 6:07 am

    Maoist unisex clothing designed to hide sexual differences is now being adopted in the UK. Why? It is the next best thing to the burka to deny human sexuality and gender differences! Totalitarian puritanism is just another level of suppression of personal freedom designed to shatter individualism, family loyalty, and award allegiance exclusively to the state.

  10. E Hall says

    Sep 11, 2019 at 7:06 am

    Oddly enough, baggy, unisex pyjamas didn’t stop the locals discovering what lay beneath them as witnessed by the population explosion in China and the brutal one child policy which followed.

    This totalitarian obsession of either completely bagging up women or placing them in ugly unisex pyjamas, instead of celebrating their beauty, seems to be more about the practice of a particularly perverted form of misogyny. It has nothing to do with protecting women from being seen or used as sex objects, only about enslaving them. Ugly clothing certainly hasn’t done anything to diminish the birth rates in these dictatorships but then again, these types of patriarchies also control women’s reproductive decision making.

  11. UNCLE VLADDI says

    Sep 11, 2019 at 8:44 am

    Forcing schoolgirls to wear baggy, “gender-neutral” clothing is also an attempt to enforce Koran Sura 33:59.

  12. Angemon says

    Sep 11, 2019 at 2:43 pm

    The new policy at Priory School is, naturally, being camouflaged with the excuse that the objective is to make transgender students feel more comfortable

    At the expense of girls, who won’t be able to wear skirts if they so desire. And transgender students too. Ups!

  13. John says

    Sep 12, 2019 at 8:13 pm

    Surely the way to counter that is to get all the girls at the school to come in a dress to all classes – every time – every day – every class. Surely the police will realise what a farce the uniform policy is and arrest the staff who are inforcing this gender-neutral clothing rule for wasting police time. Then get rid of the stupid danagerous lefties. Parents must fight this nonsence. If they don’t then all is lost.

    • gravenimage says

      Sep 13, 2019 at 12:05 am

      Hear, hear, John!

FacebookYoutubeTwitterLog in

Subscribe to the Jihad Watch Daily Digest

You will receive a daily mailing containing links to the stories posted at Jihad Watch in the last 24 hours.
Enter your email address to subscribe.

Please wait...

Thank you for signing up!
If you are forwarding to a friend, please remove the unsubscribe buttons first, as they my accidentally click it.

Subscribe to all Jihad Watch posts

You will receive immediate notification.
Enter your email address to subscribe.
Note: This may be up to 15 emails a day.

Donate to JihadWatch
FrontPage Mag

Search Site

Translate

The Team

Robert Spencer in FrontPageMag
Robert Spencer in PJ Media

Articles at Jihad Watch by
Robert Spencer
Hugh Fitzgerald
Christine Douglass-Williams
Andrew Harrod
Jamie Glazov
Daniel Greenfield

Contact Us

Terror Attacks Since 9/11

Archives

  • 2020
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2019
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2018
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2017
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2016
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2015
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2014
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2013
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2012
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2011
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2010
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2009
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2008
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2007
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2006
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2005
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2004
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • September
    • August
    • July
    • June
    • May
    • April
    • March
    • February
    • January
  • 2003
    • December
    • November
    • October
    • March

All Categories

You Might Like

Learn more about RevenueStripe...

Recent Comments

  • Mojdeh on Chief Rabbi of UK Says It’s ‘Alarming’ That 44% of Muslims Are Anti-Semitic
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Michael Copeland on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • Westman on New study reveals that Muslim religiosity strongly linked to hatred towards the West
  • gravenimage on Erdogan: ‘Turks must defend the rights of Jerusalem, even with their lives’ for ‘the honor of the Islamic nation’

Popular Categories

dhimmitude Sharia Jihad in the U.S ISIS / Islamic State / ISIL Iran Free Speech

Robert Spencer FaceBook Page

Robert Spencer Twitter

Robert Spencer twitter

Robert Spencer YouTube Channel

Books by Robert Spencer

Jihad Watch® is a registered trademark of Robert Spencer in the United States and/or other countries - Site Developed and Managed by Free Speech Defense

Content copyright Jihad Watch, Jihad Watch claims no credit for any images posted on this site unless otherwise noted. Images on this blog are copyright to their respective owners. If there is an image appearing on this blog that belongs to you and you do not wish for it appear on this site, please E-mail with a link to said image and it will be promptly removed.

Our mailing address is: David Horowitz Freedom Center, P.O. Box 55089, Sherman Oaks, CA 91499-1964

loading Cancel
Post was not sent - check your email addresses!
Email check failed, please try again
Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.