Greetings.

Thank you for your support. I support enlightened intellectual discourse amongst people of divergent perspectives. Slate seems to be one of the few forums wherein such discourse is a possibility.

Now, into the Fray....

konark_girl:

Nope, I'm not talking about being 'desensitized' in the sense of not finding women 'attractive'. But 'mystery' is simply part of the attraction -- as I keep repeating, in countries where you never see a female ankle exposed, that alone could drive men to wild arousal. In countries where ankles or knees are 'standard' it does not. You don't see crowds of men acting like chimps-in-heat on a Meditarranean beach where women are wearing bikinis, because those are 'standard' on a beach. And tribal men who are used to bare-breasted women in their tribes don't go nuts just at the sight of bare breasts.

Aha. You are advocating a level of desensitization. However, I found it fairly ironic that a woman is claiming how men should be socialized, yet feminists have the exact false complaint that men are the ones claiming how to socialize women. It is true that men can become 'desensitized', to a degree.

Its called: "familiarity breeds contempt" .

Do you know any tribal men? They may be uninspired by the breasts of their wives, or even the women in their village, but what about the next village? Or the village across the river? Or what about seeing the breasts of exotic, fair haired women from Europe? There's a particular line from a David Mamet movie Spartan: "the whole world loves blondes". What if those tribal men see blonde women from Sweden?

Me thinks Konark girl underestimates men.

konark_girl:

And as for 'covering' somehow preventing sexual assault -- come on, you know that's bullshit! Sexual predators are likely to take just as much pleasure in assualting a woman who is desperately trying to keep herself covered head to foot as some wearing a bikini -- it adds that much spice to the 'violating' because its that much more fun to tear off her coverings.

This quote, and two other comments have mentioned that the 'meaning' of the khimar (aka veil, hijab, headscarf) varies from person to person- perhaps some find it oppressive, others may find it a fashion accessory, and the original author showed that it holds religious significance. IF one chooses to accept individual interpretations as the measure of Islam, then yes, everyone may have different interpretations and they may be valid, ecspecially in their circumstances.

However, this is NOT Islam- this is secularization: that the human is the judge and authority over divine revelation.

24:31 "And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (must ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands, their fathers, their husband's fathers, their sons, their husbands' sons, their brothers or their brothers' sons, or their sisters' sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss."

The purpose of the khimar is to protect/support/reenforce modesty and chastity. It does actually cover feminine charms. So it does have a physical utility. It's also a symbol for the wearer herself, reminding her to seek modesty, rather than vanity, and purity rather than debauchery. Lastly, it is known that the woman wearing a khimar upholds a certain standard of modesty.

The fact that certain women hold different personal views of the khimar does not detract from its original purpose or meaning. As I mentioned previously, propaganda from ulterior powers that portray the khimar as 'oppressive' is actually an attempt to propagate a negative purpose and meaning, much like how some propagate that marriage itself is oppression.

The ideological conflict revolving around the khimar is the clash between the authority of the man vs. God's revelation. The problem is: man is inheritly flawed, prejudice, and limited. He is unable to foresee the effects of his empowerment and choices, compounding the effects of his decisions.

konark_girl:

Would you disagree that Muslim nations and cultures simply impose the laws that are the most 'convenient' for patriarchy, and ignore the rest ? For example, the restrictions that the Prophet (pbuh) placed on men taking multiple wives would actually make it almost impossible to do so. How many Muslim men follow those restrictions ?

I would agree that existing Muslim nations impose laws that benefit the regimes and their authority to the detriment of the people. Thus, they pick and choose laws, creating manmade hybridized systems. As for polygyny, its another topic. The Prophet (saaw) did not place impossible LEGAL restrictions on polygyny, he raised the standards of conduct by raising expectations of husbands towards wives.

konark_girl:

Its pretty much the same for all the coverings imposed upon women -- if I recall correctly, all that women were originally asked to do was to draw the veil across their breasts and not lewdly flaunt their charms. This relatively harmless and metaphoric instruction was later re-interprated to enable men to turn women into their 'property' and guard them well, and furthermore, to essentially place the onus of "being modest enough" upon women.

There are more concepts revolving family and social relations. It is your misinterpretation to percieve that it is only about "controlling women". The struggle in the Muslim world is to reimplement Islam in life based NOT merely on tradition, but on the ideological foundation. So yes, both men and women are required to be modest. It is the individual and systemic hypocricy which allows for men to engage in illegal sex with no repercussions, yet women doing the same are publicly scorned. It is the regime's support for 'urf- custom/tradition- which allows for hypocricy to prevail.