hijab, hoochycuchee, young lady, or Yentl?
Well, I'm a father with two daughters, both of them trained as journalists at the University of North Carolina. I encouraged them in the pursuit of that adventuresome profession; I did not hold them back in any way from attaining education and proficiency.
This morning, I found myself comparing my two young ladies to a female personage of a different sort. It was the mental image of a Muslim woman with face half-covered and typical Muslim female garb.
This visage had entered my mind while reading MJ Rosenberg's post. I had checked out his link to Rabbi Pomerantz's statements, which had been provoked by our honorable President's recent speech in Cairo. Dr. Pomerantz mentioned the Muslim practice of requiring women to wear the hijab, or face veil.
I'm glad my daughters are not required to wear that getup, and I'm sure they were, are, pleased that it was not part of their growing-up restrictions. (There were some restrictions.)
But you know how the mind skips around a bit. The next thing you know, while making this mental comparison between my girls and the sharia-clad gals, I'm thinking about Britney Spears. She was prancing in some video that I saw online way back whenever, a year or so ago, I don't know.
Anyway, here's something to think about: a comparison of three female images: 1.) a Muslim woman in traditional clothing. 2.) a typically modern, relaxed American girl in a dress or pansuit, and 3.) Britney Spears in...
Then I'm thinking about the difference between these three. And so I raised a few analytical questions about them, to whit:
1.) The image of the Muslim woman in traditional garb is a standard that is set forth by much of the Muslim culture. (T or F?)
2.) The image of the typical American gal is...she i what she is, free to be what she wants to be. (T or F?)
3.) The image of Britney scantily clad and writhing while millions watch is a standard set forth by: a.) American culture? b.) MSM? c.) her promoters? d.) right wing extremists? e.) left-wing libertines? f.) American foreign policy (de facto)?
Another image I encountered during this imaginative tour was: Barbra Streisand as Yentl serving tea and/or gefilte fish to a yeshiva student... <i>neither here nor there</i>
The culmination of this subliminal slide show is this: If you compare these three images of a womanhood, perhaps you'll understand why many in the Muslim world hate us and our exported American anything-goes attitudes.
Finally, one little question, food for thought. Dr. Suess might ask it this way: What would you do if your mother asked you?
Advertisement
Some of the things on this old long thread of mine might be of interest to you:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2006/06/muslim-women-dont-see-themselv.php
That was back in the day when we had software that let everyone track updates over a long period of time, and a bunch of us got in the habit of regularly posting things there when we found something interesting on the general topic you are addressing, knowing that the others would see it.
June 12, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you, artappraiser for the link to your three-years-ago-posting on this subject. I have read it; I have not read all the comments. Here is one response you wrote that rings especially true:
"In a way, it's all about prejudice about men, a belief that they are not as naturally capable of controlling themselves as women are, not as agreeable to "civilization," that is at the heart of a lot of these beliefs. That's why it fascinates me."
Yes, it is fascinating. Not only that. The ubiquitous sexual incitement, both natural and artificial, with which men are confronted every day in Western countries is incendiary.
The curse of pervasive sexual imagery is troublesome for men; it's cumulative effects lead to widespread dis-appreciation of women of true character, and downright abuse of many other women. So, as the article referenced in your old posting suggests, there is some authentic rationale to the Muslim position on this issue, appreicable from the female perspective as well as the male.
It is not unlike, for instance, the Puritan position. This is the western version with which I find some agreeement, since it is within a Christian heritage of which I am a contemporary part.
My wife and I have maintained a faithful marriage for 29 years; the voluntary constraints that I accepted as man of faith, and her love for me have proven effective against the onslaught of this artificially-constructed sexual hijacking that assaults men everywhere they go. No thanks to Hugh Hefner. Biggest mistake we American men ever made. Are you listening, Arriana?
If I were young and single I'd probably be crazy. (I once was.) The oppression is enough to drive a guy to a sharia environment just to get away from it. I'm kidding. I go to church instead; it's a pretty safe environment.
Thanks for your comment; I'll check out the other discussion on your previous posting.
June 12, 2009 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh and btw, in the title of this posting above, the "Yentl" image in my mind was not Streisand at all; it was Amy Irving playing some other role.
June 12, 2009 4:28 PM | Reply | Permalink