If it was about the baby....there would be social programs to take care of the baby

[Horse with no Name]

If it was about the woman...there would be an ERA.

The younger women need to take heed...this is about maintaining control and male dominance.

They don't give ten shits about your baby, or you. Wake up before it is too late.

[Pat Riot]

1. It's like Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaiden's Tale" nt

[joeybee12]

2. KNR

[KittyWampus]

3. Well, there's enough DU'ers who support the sick, misogynist cultural artifact called "burqa".

So the problem goes quite deep.

[valerief]

6. Not real DUers but trollers. nt

[demwing]

9. Really? how many DUers support the Burqa? Enough?

how many does "Enough" mean?

Oh and you obviously have proof of all this, right?

[KittyWampus]

10. Certainly. In fact, someone just this morning was doing this. I will not call out specific DU'ers

BUT, if you doubt my assertion you are welcome to start a thread on this subject and see for yourself.

[demwing]

11. No. As the accusor, that's your job, not anyone else's

Clearly, you don't have any proof at all.

[KittyWampus]

12. YOU CANNOT CALL OUT OTHER DU'ERS. And I'm not "accusing" I am observing

the reality on DU.

There are substantial numbers of DU'ers who support the wearing of burqas.

[riderinthestorm]

13. Here's a link to just one thread out of many. The burqa wars on DU are epic

I can't believe you've missed them. And yes, quite a few DUers support this garment designed to erase women from society. Shrouding them forever in public.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1014544090

[KittyWampus]

18. Thanks, I am trying to stick to rules & avoid posts getting hidden.

[MH1]

21. They're there. There are burqa defenders on DU.

I have seen them too. And I can tell you, even if a close examination of those posts showed it was actually only ONE individual DUer defending the burqa, and others were really defending hijab or some other less extreme covering ... it would still be MORE THAN ENOUGH.

[antigone382]

70. For the record, defending the burqa is not the same as defending freedom of expression

I detest what the burqa represents, as much as I detest what KKK robes represent. I don't think I have the right to tell anyone not to wear them. The First Amendment right to freedom of expression is an absolute core value of our society. I will continue to use my first amendment rights to advocate for social justice, including gender justice and racial justice. But I will not restrict anyone else's right to expression.

[classof56]

16. I don't, if my vote counts.

In fact, prior to 911 I had been so disgusted and angry about the Taliban treatment of women (Jay Leno's wife was involved in a project addressing that issue), I came close to supporting the "War on Afghanistan" for that reason alone. I am still disgusted and angry, but seems clear our "war" did nothing to undo that horrible situation. Not to mention the ensuing death and destruction...

[totodeinhere]

17. It's not a case of "supporting" burqas. And I think that we can all agree that no woman anywhere in

the world should be forced to wear one against her will. But at the same time there are many devout Muslim women who voluntarily wear burqas for religious reasons. And in the case of women like that it could be construed to be a freedom of religion issue. If we outlaw the voluntary wearing of burgas then I cannot support that. But at the same time I would enthusiastically support laws which make it illegal to require the use of burqas.

[KittyWampus]

19. there is NO RELIGIOUS REASON to wear a burqa. It is a cultural artifact, that's it.

[totodeinhere]

20. But some women believe that there is a religious reason to wear them.

Are you going to dictate to them what their religious beliefs should be? They should have the freedom to practice their religion as they see fit whether you personally agree with them about it or not.

Edit - And even if it's just a cultural artifact they should have the right to adhere to that cultural artifact if they want to as long as they don't infringe on the rights of others.

[riderinthestorm]

25. We can and do outlaw cultural practices that masquerade as religious

like FGM.

I think societies have every right to evaluate whether new customs arriving into a culture should be a part of the public square.

And fwiw, I think the burqa "infringes" on the rights of women. The women who wear them are effectively relegated to second class status by the garment which denies them full equality in the workplace, society and more.

[azurnoir]

33. And tell us please exactly what religion is FMG a part of? :)

[SunSeeker]

34. It's not officially a tenet of any religion, but mostly associated with Islam, like the burqa.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/10/qa-female-genital-mutilation

[riderinthestorm]

38. Thanks. I won't duplicate your answer. nt

[azurnoir]

39. here's what HRW really says from your link (associated with Islam is your interpretation not HRW's)

9. Does any religion condone the practice of FGM?

FGM is practiced among some adherents of the Muslim, Christian, and Jewish faiths. FGM is also practiced among some animists, who believe in the existence of individual spirits and supernatural forces. It is erroneously linked to religion, is not particular to any religious faith, and predates Christianity and Islam. However, some adherents of these religions believe the practice is compulsory for followers of the religion. Because of this flawed link to various religions, and specifically to Islam, religious leaders have an important role to play in dissociating FGM from religion.

For example, while FGM is practiced in Egypt, which is predominantly Muslim, it is not practiced in many other countries with predominantly Muslim populations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The association of FGM with Islam has been refuted by many Muslim scholars and theologians who say that FGM is not prescribed in the Quran and is contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

10. What is the worldwide legal status of FGM?

Countries with laws or regulations against FGM include Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Djibouti, Ghana, United Kingdom, Guinea, Sudan, Sweden, and the United States.

Canada, France, and the United Kingdom also have existing laws against assault and child abuse that cover FGM.

Governments that support FGM eradication include Benin, Burkina Faso, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Cote d'Ivoire, Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gambia, Guinea, Kenya, Niger, Senegal, Sudan, Tanzania, Togo, and Uganda.

http://www.hrw.org/news/2010/06/10/qa-female-genital-mutilation

[riderinthestorm]

42. Uhm, what part of this are you not understanding?

'However, some adherents of these religions believe the practice is compulsory for followers of the religion. Because of this flawed link to various religions, and specifically to Islam, religious leaders have an important role to play in dissociating FGM from religion."

[azurnoir]

43. what part are you hoping is overlooked could it be this? again from your link and my snip

For example, while FGM is practiced in Egypt, which is predominantly Muslim, it is not practiced in many other countries with predominantly Muslim populations, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan. The association of FGM with Islam has been refuted by many Muslim scholars and theologians who say that FGM is not prescribed in the Quran and is contradictory to the teachings of Islam.

[riderinthestorm]

44. I'm not arguing its religious. I KNOW its cultural. That some women believe its religious

however was the argument I was addressing.

The link stipulates that.

You and I are in agreement I believe.

[SunSeeker]

48. Are you saying FGM is associated more with the adherents of some other religion?

If so, what religion would that be?

[azurnoir]

49. perhaps you should the origins of this subthread and then get back to me okay?

[SunSeeker]

50. You've got a word missing there, not sure what you mean.

If you are wondering how we got to this subthread, it appears the OP invites the answer that religion is the reason, or at least the justification, for horrific mysogyny. I consider abortion bans, FGM and burqa requirements horrifically mysogynistic practices which are justified by invoking religion. FGM is outlawed in the U.S., but Catholics and evangelicals use their religion to justify complete abortion bans, even in cases of rape and insest. FGM and burqa requirements are most often associated with Islam. It is a fact:

According to the United Nations, it is estimated that over 130 million women have had some form of FGM performed on them. This practice is often associated with the religion of Islam, and is most often perfomed in Middle Eastern and North African countries. In both of the African nations of Somalia and Djibouti, 98% of women have had this procedure.

https://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/jc.htm

And although the Qur'an does not mention FGM, the Prophet Mohammed’s Hadith contains several references to it:

Despite these differences, a commonality exists among these African groups and their reasons for practicing
female circumcision: Islamic and other African religions are one of the primary foundations of female circumcision in Africa.

The sources of the Islamic faith are found in the Qur’an, the Hadith, the consensus of the entire Islamic community, and the ijihad. There is no reference to female circumcision in the Qur’an. However, the Prophet Mohammed’s Hadith contains several references to the practice. Furthermore, a number of non-recorded, religious fables describe the early foundations of female circumcision in Africa.

http://lawandreligion.com/sites/lawandreligion.com/files/Platt.pdf

Again, if you think I am wrong and you have authority/links to the contrary, please get back to me okay?

[azurnoir]

51. No I know you are not wrong my first contact with FGM was among Eritrean women

who are Christian, but the idea that FGM is related or a part of Islam is sort of popular with some

[SunSeeker]

52. Either it is fact or it is not.

When you say "the idea that FGM is related or a part of Islam is sort of popular with some," this suggests the statement is a flight of fancy by "some" small minority of people. That is not the case. As you acknowledge, FGM is in fact mostly associated with the Islamic religion, your personal experience notwithstanding. You offer no authority/links to the contrary.

[azurnoir]

54. lol if you wish to potray FMG as a mostly Islamic thing then be my guest, doesn't make it true

as I said my first contact was FGM was with Eritrean women, if wish wish to disbelieve that fine doesn't make a whit of difference to me

I can not link to personal acquaintances, sorry

[SunSeeker]

55. Well, is it true or not?

There is no "bait and switch" here, just you refusing to aknowledge whether something is a fact.

[azurnoir]

72. I'll leave you to your beliefs

they seem to comfort you

[SunSeeker]

74. I see you don't want to discuss the facts.

And no, I don't take any "comfort" that FGM is most associated with followers of Islam.

[freedom fighter jh]

35. If murder masqueraded as a religious practice . . .

it would still be banned and no one would think twice about banning it. FGM is not murder, but it's enough of a violation of rights so that its injustice is obvious, at least if it's done on a child or on a woman who does not consent.

A burqa, on the other hand, is clothing. It does no physical damage, at least as far as I know. A woman wearing a burqa today can wear pants or a dress tomorrow. Like any piece of clothing, a burqa can express where its wearer wants to be in the world.

A woman should not be *forced* to wear a burqa. But she should not be prohibited either. There is an argument that says women in some places will be forced to wear burqas as long as burqas are legal. The problem there is not the burqa, it's a society that allows anyone to force a clothing choice on a grown woman.

[riderinthestorm]

37. We can and do make laws about what women can wear in public.

I can't go topless in Chicago - its illegal.

Why must the misogynistic burqa, that's designed to erase women from society, be immune from scrutiny and public debate about its value in our culture?

And if you don't think that's harmful to women than I have a bridge in NY to sell you...

[freedom fighter jh]

40. Agree: The burqa should not be immune from debate.

So let's debate it.

For both sexes, there is a minimum to the clothing you can wear, for reasons of decency. That doesn't apply to a maximum.

I'm not trying to say anyone *should* wear a burqa. I wouldn't be caught dead in one myself. But why should it be illegal if someone wants to wear it?

And why would anyone want to wear it? Maybe a woman was raised that way and she is too old to feel comfortable with anything else. Why should change be forced upon her? My grandmother came from a time and place in which women didn't wear pants. She was fine with me wearing pants, and she used to buy pants for my mother, but I never saw her wear pants herself. She simply chose not to change, even though many women her age did change. Her choice.

Think of an old woman who was raised to wear a burqa and always wore one in public. Then maybe her country gets liberated or maybe she comes to the United States. What's the better message to send her: "You better not go out with that burqa on; you could be arrested for wearing it" or "Ya know, you don't have to wear that thing anymore if you don't want to"?

People object to the burqa because so much misogyny often goes along with it. Outlawing the burqa won't make that misogyny go away.

[riderinthestorm]

41. Sorry but we can and do outlaw cultural practices we find problematic

and it does tend to work.

Outlawing spousal abuse (a cultural AND religious thing for some religions), setting up shelters, making hotlines available, those things work. Should we NOT do these things or have these laws because well, sooner or later the guys will just give it up as they assimilate?

No. We have made a decision as a society that we MUST outlaw these things. And we enforce it. I don't have any problem outlawing any cultural or religious practices that denigrate women, relegate them to second status, harm them etc. Sorry I don't. The burqa erases women from society. Its very design means there are jobs they cannot do, things they cannot do, places they cannot go - ie, relegates them to second status.

Just no.

Your point was that we shouldn't "tell" women what to wear. I was responding to that point. We can and do tell people what they can wear. Nobody objects. Its because we have agreed as a society that those are the standards we want in our public square. I believe the burqa is colliding with western values about face covering and the inherent misogyny. I don't have any problem with it likewise being regulated.

[freedom fighter jh]

45. What are you sorry about?

"Cultural practices we find problematic" is pretty broad brush.

Spousal abuse is against the law because that's one person inflicting harm on another. A woman wearing a burka is one person making a choice about her clothing.

Yes, government tells people what to wear, but within limits. There is societal agreement that too little clothing is indecent. Students in school are not allowed to wear, say, dangling jewelry in a shop class or anything else that might cause danger. But government does not tell people what to wear without a pretty good reason; if it did, pretty soon no one would wear anything but a uniform. I agree with you that if someone else were telling women they had to wear burqas, that would relegate them to second class status and erase them from society. But I haven't heard anyone suggest that American women be made to wear burqas.

You say you believe the burqa is colliding with western values. I believe it's within our western values to let everyone express their own values.

[riderinthestorm]

46. So here you have it demwing. You were wondering and here it is.

Agree to disagree freedom fighter jh.

You obviously don't see the garment as the despicable misogynistic shroud designed to erase women that I do. And you obviously don't think that the garment's inherent flaws aren't a "good enough reason" to make laws about it, even as the government makes laws prohibiting the much more natural state of toplessness for women that would be empowering.

So okay with the misogynistic garment.

Not okay with empowering toplessness for women.

Got it.

I'll leave you to have the last word. I'm done with this subthread. Its gone so far off OT I'm unwilling to go any farther off the OP's point.

[freedom fighter jh]

47. I'm glad you're done with this.

because I've had enough of being told what I think and see, all while you avoid responding to what I say.

[antigone382]

71. By that standard, should we outlaw KKK robes and hoods?

I find them abhorrent, along with all that they represent. The attitudes of the KKK are certainly harmful to people of color (and I would argue to the wearers of the robes themselves). I don't think the KKK has any value in our culture, and I would love very much to live in a world where no one wore such robes, and no one espoused the values that they represent.

I also don't think that a society that has free expression as one of its first and most fundamental rights can justify banning the wearing of KKK robes, or even the advocacy of KKK positions. Our personal expression is given to each of us, and we must use that to challenge expressions which we find harmful or backwards. I include the wearing of the burqa--by women who *choose* to wear it, rather than women who are *forced* to wear it--in the same category.

[riderinthestorm]

76. Wearing a KKK costume is NOT the same as wearing a burqa daily

everywhere you go in public, for the rest of your life.

Wearing a KKK costume is more akin to Halloween - costuming for a special event, and certainly not typical or tolerated well in a civil society. These types of examples like the bridal veil or Jacqueline Kennedy's mourning veil only highlight the differences between what a burqa/niqab represent and these examples.

Furthermore, you seem to think we don't already have laws restricting what women can wear in public. We do. Nobody seems to think twice about the laws that have been around forever about what women can wear, or not wear, in public.

You know, I was trying NOT to derail the OP with a burqa discussion. I think the pictures of women shrouded and disappeared were an analogy for the OP's point, not meant to be "the point".



If we're going to make this about burqa/niqab, I guess it helps to kick this excellent OP but it does seem OT....

[antigone382]

78. I know that we have laws restricting clothing.

My point is those laws are very clear and very specific regarding what they ban. I don't really think that frequency of wear can be specifically legislated; how do you legislate that it is OK to wear an offensive item for a day, but not for more than a day, a month, a week, a year? Who keeps tabs on how often the offensive item is worn? Who asserts that a woman who might wear a burqa one day is inevitably going to wear it for the rest of her life unless legally prohibited from ever wearing it?

My cousin converted to Judaism and wore head coverings for a year. Then she got tired of it. I know another woman who converted to Islam and wore a veil for a few years before taking it off. I myself wore a head scarf for a day to protest hate speech directed at an Indian friend of mine (who is not Muslim and who was only wearing the head covering because it was cold). A burqa wearer in our society who has the choice to wear the burqa also has the choice to take it off; and my guess is that she would be likely to do so--and if not her, then her daughters.

My point is that you seem to keep coming back banning burqa and niqab based on what you think they represent. What they represent is immaterial to whether individuals have the right to wear them.

In any case, I respect you as a poster, and I do understand the wish not to derail the thread. I answered the points you made in the last post, and in respect I will not reply further unless you wish to continue the discussion by bringing up other points related to it. I am also welcome to a PM conversation if that interests you.

[antigone382]

61. Would we prevent an individual woman from having the procedure done on herself?

My understanding is that we ban families forcing their female members from going through the procedure. I'm pretty sure if an individual woman, for whatever reason, wanted to undergo a procedure for FGM, she would be allowed to do so. We allow all kinds of bizarre body modification, including piercings, the permanent removal of pubic hair, vaginal reconstruction, and even the reattachment of the hymen, so I'm pretty sure if a woman could find a doctor to do the procedure on her she would be legally allowed to do so.

I am not saying it is likely, but it is an important distinction; what a woman chooses to do with her own body, including her own clothing choices, is not for me or anyone else to dictate.

[SunSeeker]

53. Some women believe in FGM based on their religion/culture. Yet the U.S. bans FGM.

Do you think those women should be allowed to practice female genital mutilation in the U.S.?

[totodeinhere]

56. No of course not. Freedom of Religion has it's bounds. But come on.

Wearing a burqa isn't anything like FGM. It's a red herring to compare the two.

[SunSeeker]

57. FGM erases female sexuality. Burqas erase women as individuals.

Both practices are horrifically misogynistic, much like banning all abortion, a practice associated with the Catholic and evangelical Christian religions in the U.S.

[totodeinhere]

58. FGM mutilates the body, is painful and invasive, almost never voluntary,

it can be life threatening, and it's irreversible. But wearing a burqa doesn't have to be any of those things. As I said I do not support forcing women to wear them, but if they choose to wear them of their own free will, even if it is misogynistic, it's something that they are voluntarily imposing upon themselves. When it comes to the women's movement, it's all about choice. Only the woman herself can choose whether to have an abortion or not. It is her choice and hers alone. So why don't we also allow women the choice of either choosing to wear a burqa or not?

[SunSeeker]

60. Choices, voluntary or not, which harm women and society need not be allowed.

The practice is horrifically misogynistic. If a women is raised in a very religious family that requires burqas, how voluntary can such a choice be? No sane person would "voluntarily" choose to essentially blind themselves and erase themselves from public society, particularly if they are living in a western country where not wearing a burqa will not result in you getting stoned to death. It can only happen by religious/family compulsion. And it is not victimless. It harms women, it takes away their independence. And it can be life threatening. Imagine a woman trying to cross a busy street in a burqa..with kids in tow? It is insanity. And that is without even getting into the law enforcement issues of allowing people to walk around masked in public. It is a barbaric, mysogynistic practice that harms women, whether it is voluntary or not.

[antigone382]

62. They should not be forced into it, or allowed to practice it on other women.

However, if an individual woman wants to have her vagina pierced, tattooed, reconstructed to look more "appealing," have her hymen re-attached, have her pubic hair waxed, shaved, and/or permanently lazered off, and/or temporarily replaced with rhinestones (it's called Vajazzling), OR undergo a procedure similar to FGM for the sake of her own perceived self-actualization and/or self-expression, I don't think her right to personal choice and bodily integrity ought to be infringed because I do not agree with or understand her decision.

[SunSeeker]

63. Wow, do you know what FGM entails? Hint: it ain't "bodily integrity."

We stop people from jumping off bridges. We outlaw FGM. Because we are a civilized society.

[antigone382]

64. I know what it entails...but fair point regarding FGM.

And I suppose that we do prevent extreme physical self-harm. But an article of clothing is not self-harm, and an individual who chooses to wear that article of clothing should be allowed to do so. I don't care for bonnets either but I'm not about to snatch them off the heads of the Amish.

[SunSeeker]

66. A bonnet or a hijab is very different from a burqa. They don't blind you like a burqa.

They don't hide your face or prevent you from seeing a car as you're crossing the street with kids in tow. A burqa takes away a woman's independence, it is not just "an article of clothing." It is a hiding shroud. It is barbaric.

[antigone382]

68. That is one way of distinguishing things.

Another way might be to say that any head covering is likely to be uncomfortable, awkward, and intended to assert a woman's second class status. Another way of distinguishing things might be to say that stiletto heels are intended to limit a woman's mobility and set her apart as a sex object. None of these arguments change the fact that the First Amendment implies rights to self-expression.

This doesn't mean I like burqas. I detest KKK robes, swastikas, and other paraphernalia of hate groups. However, I believe in the right to individual freedom of expression, and as such I cannot support the banning of these items, as much as I abhor them.

[antigone382]

65. To clarify:

What I dislike is the lack of historical context in which these discussions always take place. There is a reason many are suspicious of Western efforts to "save the oppressed women of the world." Saving brown women from degenerate and primitive brown men has been an argument of colonizers since the imperial era began, and one that has justified actions that have had terrible consequences for both men and women in colonized cultures...here is one article that discusses some of the issues at play here: http://www.loonwatch.com/2013/03/stop-saying-targeted-killings-protect-muslim-women/

People like to act like the moral issues involved are simple and clear-cut, that the bad guys are easily identifiable and the victims are in agreement regarding who their victimizers are. That is not the case.

[SunSeeker]

67. This has nothing to do with drone attacks; I'm talking about the wearing of burqas in the west.

I would not tell the women in the middle east to take off their burqas. It would get them killed. But here, in the United States, if they came here voluntarily, I assume they do not see us as their "victimizers."

[antigone382]

69. Nevertheless, First Amendment rights trump all other considerations, as far as I'm concerned.

As I mentioned before, I detest KKK robes. They represent a philosophy and a worldview I find beyond contempt. I cannot, however, support making them illegal.

[SunSeeker]

75. That is not the law. Speech has limits, as does religion. nt

[antigone382]

77. I did not say speech had no limits. I am referring to the First Amendment rights we do have.

And except in very specific and clearly spelled out circumstances, wearing an article of clothing is one of them.

[etherealtruth]

36. I have had the same observations you have had regarding burqas

[azurnoir]

73. so the Islamic woman on thr thread telling someone that she has

occasionally worn a niqab (face veil) not a burqa (they are interpreted as being the same by 'liberals' here) by her own choice is sick, a troll as you said in another comment?

Or am I who stated that it should be a choice for women that's right do you understand the word choice, are sick I'm a troll?

[treestar]

4. It must be awful to be in a country going backward

I remember how it happened in Pakistan and the female professionals were sent from work. Doctors having to go home because now women can't be doctors.

Just sad.

[BobbyBoring]

5. It is awful

I just never thought it would be US!

[valerief]

7. We are in that country--the U.S. nt

[LWolf]

8. Irony. nt

[calimary]

14. Yes, TRULY! I HATE what's happening in America!

That's what's happening HERE. A hard-assed yearning to take the country backwards. And some of it is succeeding, at least temporarily.

Which is confusing to me sometimes, when I see teabaggers are out there whining and sniveling about how they want "their" America "back," obviously meaning the 50's before all these crazy "rights" had to be taken into account. Seems to me these folks actually OUGHT TO BE staunchly pro-union if they really want that kind of scenario to return! Consider this about those precious 1950s that they long for, where blacks knew their place (as your waiter or doorman) and women knew their place (at home with their nice house-dress, heels, and pearls running the vacuum cleaner) and Latinos knew their place (behind the doors in the back of the restaurant washing the dishes) and gays knew their place (completely silent and invisible), and Daddy was the sole breadwinner - because his paycheck alone was plenty enough to support the average wife, two-and-a-half kids, dog, and station wagon parked in the driveway of the nice house in the suburbs with the white picket fence. Daddy's economic virility very likely arose from his being a member of a union that was able to bargain with the company for decent, livable wages and benefits.

[freshwest]

22. That IS the GOP jobs plan! Half the workforce at home; others at slave wages; yes, they mean it.

There is no mistaking what the plan is. And the ones who believe they will benefit by that state of affairs think they will be sitting pretty just as they did in the past.

And they had unions then, but some didn't allow 'the others' in. It was a cultural thing where people did not always unite, even though some did.

The GOP speaks openly of putting women back in the home, dependent on their spouse, no need for public education as the mothers can do that at home. They consider this to be the natural order of things. If one doesn't fit into that way of life, they can FOAD.

There are so many parts of society pushing this, not only churches, but media and amateur sociologists. They have an answer for everything.

The fact is, the official unemployment problem would be gone and the money for those in it would increase, with the women at home and the others kept invisible. That is how it was done for centuries. Brute force and no voice.

Not expressing this very well, but I'm getting ready to go out. The way the Taliban treats women trying to be educated and without spouses, the sale of children in many poor nations to the sex and labor market is a reality.

I've never seen anything that reminds me so much of those girls trying to go to school in Afghanistan, as the accepted sight of women running the gauntlet to get to a clinic in America.

it's the same message - stay in your place, in your home, or we'll kill you. I think that's what a great deal of the rape culture is about, as well. If a girl or woman was kept locked up, she'd only by raped by one man, and they would not call it that.

Gotta go.

[Horse with no Name]

23. You said it perfectly

Thank you!

[BlancheSplanchnik]

28. [phone]. You are so right

I think your grasp of the social order is amazing, fresh. I always see a much broader picture--and gain a deeper understanding--from your posts.

[happyslug]

15. I notice NO RURAL PHOTOS, and something like 80% of the population was and is RURAL

http://foodsecurityatlas.org/afg/country/socioeconomic-profile/introduction

Thus the first set of photos are from less then 20% of the population.

I also notice no one over age 30 (except maybe one teacher) and except for one photo, no males. So we are talking about less then 20% of the population.

Sorry I can take pictures of women in Burgas in the US today, that does NOT mean ALL women in the US are wearing them. The same for the first set of photos, just because the photos shows women wearing 1960-1970 style clothing, does not mean anything more then a small population was dressing that way. Worse, these may have been the ONLY WOMEN dressing that way (The Soviets were very good at staging propaganda photos opts, once Stalin was dead and buried).

[MADem]

26. Iran was like that too, though.

In the rural areas, as well as the cities, those who did wear chadors wore lightweight ones in the hot weather (in the winter they go to heavier fabric because the things can double as coats) --they were more like bedsheets and they wore way less clothing than they do now.

Even in the Holy City of Qom, where one would expect very conservative dress from everyone, I saw more than a few women, pre-Khomeini, wearing the "see through chador" and short sleeved tee shirts with their bellbottom jeans and platform shoes.

[Enthusiast]

24. Kicked and Recommended! nt

[TBF]

27. It's always about control. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. There's a scene in "The Power Of Nightmares" where there were mass protests against the Islamists.

[JoeyT]

30. I thought this thread was going to be about pro-lifers. n/t

[DhhD]

31. Now hidden child brides too.

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/child-brides/sinclair-photography

[blackspade]

32. No shit!

Anti-choice, anti-birth control, anti-food stamps, etc.
All aimed at controlling women.

There is no real concern for fetuses or babies. The rethugs would step on the neck of a baby if it was between them and a woman taking a birth control pill.
Despicable.

[jasond54231]

59. That's what I've been saying for years

The only thing the Repubs are interested in is maintaining a patriarchal society where women are basically slaves to their husbands. Thankfully, more Americans are waking up, and fighting back against these women-hating neanderthals.