Women with sexy eyes forced to cover up

  • Thread starter Thread starter Thankfulness
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Pretty sure it has little, if anything to do with protecting men from themselves. It’s centered around some warped idea of modesty for women. And protecting the honor of the men who own these women.
 
ASimon said:
Pretty sure it has little, if anything to do with protecting men from themselves. It’s centered around some warped idea of modesty for women. And protecting the honor of the men who own these women.
Click to expand...
The modesty isn’t for the women. They have the restrictions imposed because of an underlying conviction men have no self control. They mightn’t mean it to indite men, but it does. When women are forced to unreasonable ‘modesty’ men might not realize it, but it is an insult to men’s basic decency and self control as much as it is an insult to women’s freedom. These are not reasonable expectations of modesty. For instance, to allow girls to burn to death in a school fire because they didn’t have head-covering, is not a reasonable expectation of modesty! What I always see in these restriction, is what a poor opinion of themselves is revealed by the men who enforce and insist upon these restrictions.
 
I’ve never understood why the obvious answer isn’t for men to be blindfolded outside the house and led around by their mothers.
 
Thankfulness said:
couriermail.com.au/news/breaking-news/women-with-sexy-eyes-forced-to-cover-up/story-e6freonf-1226198476868

Now in Saudi, women must cover their eyes?

It is a severe indictment of men that men apparently are believed to have no moral fibre that they cannot even cope morally with a woman’s attractive eyes.
In 2002, female students forced to burn to death because they did not have proper head cover.
Click to expand...
I remember when that happened, I lived in Saudi at the time. It was atrocious, I remember everyone was horrified. So tragic, those poor girls.

Honestly I’m not surprised though. After four years living there they never failed to surprise me with their sheer lunacy.
 
Thankfulness said:
The modesty isn’t for the women. They have the restrictions imposed because of an underlying conviction men have no self control. They mightn’t mean it to indite men, but it does. When women are forced to unreasonable ‘modesty’ men might not realize it, but it is an insult to men’s basic decency and self control as much as it is an insult to women’s freedom. These are not reasonable expectations of modesty. For instance, to allow girls to burn to death in a school fire because they didn’t have head-covering, is not a reasonable expectation of modesty! What I always see in these restriction, is what a poor opinion of themselves is revealed by the men who enforce and insist upon these restrictions.
Click to expand...
You’re looking for “reasonable” in the wrong religion, friend. Any justification within Islam that women go around in cloth bags because men can’t control themselves is just lip service. When a woman is raped, they don’t stone the rapist to death for defiling himself and his honor (or that of all men). They stone the rape victim to death for being defiled and destroying the honor of her male owners.

These restrictions are only about protecting men to the extent that they can keep women from being raped and embarrassing her husband and father. And they couldn’t have less to do, in principle, with protecting women.
 
ASimon said:
You’re looking for “reasonable” in the wrong religion, friend. Any justification within Islam that women go around in cloth bags because men can’t control themselves is just lip service. When a woman is raped, they don’t stone the rapist to death for defiling himself and his honor (or that of all men). They stone the rape victim to death for being defiled and destroying the honor of her male owners.

These restrictions are only about protecting men to the extent that they can keep women from being raped and embarrassing her husband and father. And they couldn’t have less to do, in principle, with protecting women.
Click to expand...
Be careful. Especially in reference to this article - the Saudi’s do not represent Islam. They are Wahhabi - it’s like judging all Christians based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

I do agree that their attitude has less to do with men lacking control and more to do with blaming the women essentially for existing. Though I do see this to a lesser extent as a wider cultural attitude, even in the West.
 
Kaninchen said:
I’ve never understood why the obvious answer isn’t for men to be blindfolded outside the house and led around by their mothers.
Click to expand...
👍

I think you need to post that on every modesty thread on this forum.
 
PerfectTiming said:
Be careful. Especially in reference to this article - the Saudi’s do not represent Islam. They are Wahhabi - it’s like judging all Christians based on the Westboro Baptist Church.

I do agree that their attitude has less to do with men lacking control and more to do with blaming the women essentially for existing. Though I do see this to a lesser extent as a wider cultural attitude, even in the West.
Click to expand...
I see no need to be careful in this regard. I don’t necessarily judge what a religion is based on the practices of its most peaceful and civilized followers. I judge it from its doctrines and holy books (the supposedly perfect words of the Creator of the Universe). Compulsory veiling and ownership of women are both explicit in Islamic doctrine. That’s why I prefer calling them “fundamentalist Muslims” rather than “extremist Muslims.” Muslims are only ‘extreme’ when their actions and beliefs depart from the fundamentals of Islam.

If you’re a Muslim man who believes that his wife is a true equal to him, then I’m thrilled. I’m also wondering (to myself), what others explicit tenants of the faith they disavow, and to what extent do they consider themselves Muslim.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top