I think that may be a generalization too far, JanF.

>>Face hiding is generally an expression of shame across cultures - a kind of existential denial of one's existence out of a sense of unworthiness.<<

Equally, it could be an expression of modesty and privacy - a kind of existential affirmation of the right to the mystery of your individuality.

A case may be made for it to be, rather than "this most extreme form of loss of the self and loss of individuality", an extreme form of preservation of individuality.

Think of it this way.

Many "western women" have a problem with body image.

"All research to date on body image shows that women are much more critical of their appearance than men – much less likely to admire what they see in the mirror. Up to 8 out of 10 women will be dissatisfied with their reflection"

http://www.sirc.org/publik/mirror.html

What more effective way can there be than top-to-toe covering, to remove this from the equation, and enable you to feel super-comfortable in your anonymity.

I don't necessarily believe this holds in every case, but I offer it as a perfectly feasible and credible alternative.

Oh yes, Dan S de Merengue.

Here beginneth today's lesson.

>>By the way, if you reach for your dictionary, you’ll see that you are wrong. Expediential is a real word.<<

You are absolutely right.

I was completely wrong on this - my only excuse being that it did not appear in any spellchecker. It does however feature in the full OED, so you were perfectly correct to point it out.

Now it's your turn.

>>I gave my opinion over the authorised spelling of a word. It has since been corrected.<<

This opinion is not the relevant one.

It was your assertion - your insistence, in fact - that "exponential is a particular case of expodential" and "expodential is an acceptable term with the mathematical function" that is the issue here.

And no amount of ducking and weaving will get you off that hook.

Own up.

Then ask yourself, "what does this say about me?"

JanF - Re the "gross comment" by? That's the problem-people make sexist remarks that are gross,then plead a sense of humour. It's not far from thoughts to words to actions.
As for attractive or unattractive faces of women. In our society,too much emphasis is placed on appearance,particularly that of women. Whether we're politicians,athlets, CEO's or? the skills or points of view are secondary - look at the media during the Federal Election campaign?You only have to listen to people who have a child with a disability for example-some stories are horrific - told,that they should've had an abortion; keep "it" off the streets etc.I'm always shocked and saddened by this. Can only imagine how kids and parents feel?
I believe,that the reason for covering hair or full face is to be treated as a person,not by how they look. Of course,fundamentalists go much further,but that's how I've heard young Australian women,who've converted to Islam explain. It doesn't faze me at all - in fact I admire them, particularly in the summer time.
I've heard Malalai Joya and other women in Afghanistan say,they use the 'law' to their advantage - they hide school books,video cameras and CD's under their burqa-she hates it, but smart women make it work for them?

What we seem to be talking about here, CHERFUL, is the boundary between socially acceptable behaviours, and unlawful activity.

>>The laws they would use to prosecute them would be wearing an outfit in public so as to cause fear or for being a public nuisance.<<

"Being a public nuisance" covers a wide range of behaviours. I doubt you would consider a veiled woman a public nuisance, per se, would you? On what grounds?

The bin Laden mask-wearer was let off with a warning:

http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/Yorkshire-Osama-Bin-Laden-mask.6651136.jp

"...wearing the mask while driving may have caused 'alarm or distress' to members of the public."

What "alarm and distress" is caused by a woman in a veil?

>>So no, I don’t agree with you that there is no law against wearing these outfits. It must be concluded that if tested to the extreme there would be a law used to stop it.<<

Ok, so how do you suggest such a law is phrased? Widely enough to cover bin Laden masks, swastikas, black-and-white minstrel costumes etc? Or narrowly, just to target women wearing veils across their face? Or even more narrowly, to Muslim women who are oppressed by their husbands?

We already have far too many laws. Inventing reasons to introduce even more will eventually bring the whole system into disrepute.

Thanks Talisman, "Veiled sentiments" sounds interesting and worth a read, given how current and contemporary the issue of veil wearing is.

Having had recent exposure to Bedouin culture, it seems strong yes and hierarchical - a society that still practices black slavery and where white men rule with a sense of their own innate and god given superiority.

While I have been corrected by Pericles, I feel there is not a great deal of distance between a display of one's sense of unworthiness and a display of modesty or humility. Rather they are closely aligned.

That said, the display of a particular quality can often be far removed from its practice and done for less admirable motives. Hiding one's face allows wider scope both for misrepresentation of one's self and for underhanded activities, as noted by Liz45.

I don't buy veil wearing as a solution for women's problems with body image. Nor do I feel that underhandedness is the best way to empower women. Respect and tolerance, and displays of popular culture that use images of real people, honestly represented might help.

Dear Liz45, how miserable life would be without a little humour and without the ability to laught at ourselves occasionally - a capacity probably born of genuine humility.

Your opinion re women who WANT to wear the burqa is any more relevant than mine. I did not say that the women were doing "underhanded" things? Where did you get that from?
I refuse to laugh at racist, sexist or ageist jokes! If you think that's being devoid of having a sense of humour, I don't care. These types of jokes like the one referred to hurt people - I don't intend extending that hurt any further - my choice!
The women in Aust who wear the burqa are less that .01 of the population - what is going on? Ridiculous! If people are concerned about human rights, go and read about the women of Afghanistan or go to Amnesty International - for the real truth, not rubbish to steer the focus of what Australia is responsible for in Islamic countries!

For liberation, women must demand the right to wear burqas, eh Liz45? Or at least that is what the radical feminists and socialist left believe.