R-E-S-P-E-C-T

888 and I continue our debate on women's fashion:


888:
Slaves are shackled or otherwise controlled. Their loyalty is not sought neither its feared that someone else might woo them.

SR:
Even you here admit that women are very much free agents, not possessions. Their loyalty, as you say, must be sought. It is to be feared that someone else might earn their favour at any moment. They cannot, like slaves, be shackled or otherwise controlled.

888:
… where the freedom of women has to be curtailed, it is. there is no difference.

SR:
Can you at least explain how wearing a chador curtails their freedom? Why doesn’t it, as I pointed out, make them freer and give them more power than the men around them? Quite literally, it removes a power from men, but not from them—the power to see them. The onlooker has lost the ability to identify her. This gives her greater freedom to do as she wishes.

Why else do both thieves and fictional superheroes wear masks? Because it makes them somehow less powerful and more vulnerable?

888:
In case it is voluntary, then who cares? but is it? As far away as kashmir, women have been beheaded for not covering themselves or attacked with acid.

SR:
I’d like to see a specific case. I suppose it is possible that some woman, somewhere, has been beheaded by someone for not wearing a chador. As men have been beheaded for not wearing beards, say, or for not shaving their heads. But how widespread is it? Islam does not require the chador. It is almost unheard of for the law in any country to require it—and where, as in Afghanistan under the Taliban, the law has required it, similar dress restrictions have been imposed on men.

Indeed, why the uproar about restricting the dress of women, and never any concern about men having their freedoms similarly curtailed? Never mind Afghanistan; let’s look at the West. In modern America, women have more freedom of choice in what they wear than men do. If a woman is scantily clad, and a man looks at her, he is thrown into prison, as a Peeping Tom. If, on the other hand, a man is scantily clad and a woman looks at him---he is thrown into prison, as an exhibitionist. Is this sexual equality?

Even a man wearing a skirt or dress or makeup is very likely to face at least social condemnation. A woman wearing pants, traditional male dress, or not wearing makeup, faces no such criticism. Or if she does, she can promptly hale the culprit before a human rights tribunal. A man who works where there is a dress code is commonly limited, as I am now, to a long-sleeved shirt, full-length pants, shiny leather shoes, and a tie, all in sober colours. Women under a dress code can wear a much greater range of clothing—pants or dress or skirt, bright colours, jewellery, long or short sleeves or hem, and so on.

So too in the Middle East. A man who wears a chador is committing a crime. But if a woman wore a thobe, the male dress, people would probably just be amused. It would be cute.

How is it that more freedom is oppressive, for women?

There may be social pressure for women to wear traditional dress. (I’d suggest there may also be significant social pressure not to.) Nevertheless, we do not commonly feel that men are excused from responsibility for their own actions by the presence of social or peer pressure. Even “I was only following orders” is not a defense for men. Why should the rules for women be different?

Indeed, if you do insist that women cannot resist social pressure, and cannot be trusted to make their own decisions, you are saying they are incapable of managing their own affairs. You are mandating that someone will and must necessarily control them—it becomes just a question of whom.

888:
the 'sati' in India was considered 'voluntary', should it be allowed? I have no bias, but times have changed and any ideas that made sense in the past (for whatever reasons, probably lawlessness), do not make sense today, no they are unfair.

SR:
Short answer: sati should be allowed. If someone chooses to commit suicide, it is not the state’s business. Here is another example where we refuse to allow women to decide for themselves, but assume they are incapable of doing so.

888:
Escape permanently? you don't need to be invisible to do that, you need an assurance of something better to escape, you want an identity to escape. When noone in the outer world knows you exist, where will one escape? whats the value of a faceless person? in your books more than others. amazing.

SR:
The answer is simple: another man. You said it yourself. “It’s feared that someone else might woo them.” Being unidentifiable in public does not in any way prevent a woman from having an affair; it makes it easier. Nobody can catch her doing it.

888:
you are confused between the chadder and harry potter's invisibility cloak. under his cloak, harry potter is not seen but he's still harry potter. under a chadder you are seen and hence you are just a woman without an identity.

SR:
I assure you, under the chador, the woman is still whomever she is. She retains her personality and her identity. She has lost nothing. Similarly, if you close your eyes, the world does not cease to exist. You are affected, not the world.

If you want to honour someone, you give them more clothing. Even a sacred tree or statue, even a building like the Ka’aba—the indication of its sacredness is to cover it with something.

Conversely, what do they tell you about avoiding nervousness in an interview? Think of the person interviewing you being naked.

When several top generals in the German Army tried to assassinate Adolf Hitler, he tried to concoct for them the worst punishment he could imagine:

“One by one, after being stripped to the waist, they were strung up, a noose of piano wire being placed around their necks, and attached to meathooks. A movie camera whirled as the men dangled and strangled, their beltless trousers finally dropping off as they struggled, leaving them naked in their death agony. The developed film, as ordered, was rushed to Hitler so that he could view it…” (William L. Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, p. 1071).

The film was later shown to audiences throughout the Army.

Humiliating someone completely involves stripping off their clothes so that as many people as possible can see them naked.

Doing the opposite implies respect.