After Time Magazine did an on line puff piece extolling the virtues of burkhas, Michelle Malkin came back with a video attacking that piece. To be honest, I don’t think it’s a very effective comeback to the “burkhas are good” implications in the Time piece, consisting mostly of silly rock videos. However, very early on, there’s footage of two women trying to eat and for that alone it’s worth watch.
My two thoughts on burkhas, in no particular order:
1. They’re misanthropic insofar as they imply that men — especially Muslim men — are such uncivilized beasts that they can’t be expected to hold their sexual urges in check around women.
2. They’re misogynistic in that they hold women responsible for men’s failings (as described in No. 1, above). They dehumanize women. They damage women’s ability to function, whether it be to eat (see the video) or to get necessary Vitamin D from sunlight. (In Israel, the veiled Bedouin women had higher childbirth mortality rates that have been tied to bone deformities arising from Vitamin D deficiences.) Burkhas also give men an excuse to visit the worst abuses on women, whether it’s beating them for showing an ankle, or forcing them to die in a burning building rather than allowing them outside without a burkha.
And my one question:
I haven’t read the Koran. I have however read in a treatise about Mohammed’s life that he mandated that his women (wives and daughters) be veiled and segregated because he was afraid that that he could be politically attacked by people who leveled sexual slanders against these women. By veiling and isolating them, he precluded that type of attack. Is this true? Is it true that the Koran itself does not mandate this type of covering? I can’t quite get my brain around it but, if it’s true, I find it exceptionally perturbing that Muslim women — and, if Islamists have their way, eventually all women — must be denied sunlight and individuality because Muslim men are modeling their behavior on their Prophet’s politically driven decision regarding his own family.
Filed under: Uncategorized
BW – Do you know why I can’t open pictures on your blog. I don’t have this difficulty anywhere else?
Re: Vit. D. There is growing concern about the overuse of sunblock too.
The video suddenly popped in. Go figure.
WIthout a military sphere of protection and lethality, anyone who fights against burkhas will be assassinated like Theo Van Gogh, and there will be no ability for women to become liberated.
When people don’t care, they will argue that things can be done, don’t hurry it, military force won’t help, and so on. When people do care, they do care about urgency. When someone loves freedom enough to accept the invasion forces of a foreign country, that is proof testament of their love for liberty. Isolationists love their own liberty more than anyone else’s, their own security more than anyone else’s. Therefore, isolationists will always prioritize their own needs and feelings over anyone else’s.
It is the human instinct, to always be suspicious of strangers. Parochial small towns see a lot of this. Bad things happen, always blame the stranger(s). Strangers don’t matter, family matters. Cosmopolitanism fights against this parochial poison of the human soul. The Iraq War is an attempt on the macro scale to fight this looking towards the navel phenomenon in human affairs. There’s a lot of people who will never lift their heads.