katieO: " Steel: too much here for one post. The sexualisation of girls in the West IS a real issue, from any point of view.

Don't assert your own agenda so into my statements. I definitely do not agree with your words here at all. I don't even believe the premise. Let me say a couple of quick things about this though. The new generation rejects your ideology just as you disagreed in turn with your own generation. Parents have responsibility over their children, not the government nor you (and it should be that way where it isn't). What is most sad about your bigotry is in raising the "child" spectre, when this is about adults (but on the topic, it is you do-gooders who are responsible for making pedophilia mainstream...no male in their right mind will go near a child if he is a stranger, for fear of being called a pedophile...and children of the new generation have suffered)

Plaza Toro > "The argument about women in the West having something similar imposed on them........Sure, there have been times when that happened but....."

There "have been"? There IS. NOW. I linked to the phenomenon. I am perplexed how presumably thinking adults can outright ignore information that is presented to them. Are you saying women are not forced right now into wearing clothing on their chests with your past tenses? If so, you need your head checked.

Plaza Toro > "... if you really want to test whether it is a valid comparison in the context of tis discussion just compare community attitudes and actions re women's swimming costumes and Islam's attitudes to women wearing the Hijab in the 1920s and in the 2000s."

Beach Policeman: 1922 http://www.shorpy.com/node/1070?size=_original

Regardless this is not about swimming costumes. This is about clothing requirement in all public areas.

"If you really think Western/Christian censorship of clothing is as oppressive as its Muslim counterpart"

I'm not saying it's the same. It's simply extremely hypocritical and ironic with the rhetoric about oppression. Both societies force women to comply. Both have a religious basis.

Goodthief

Again it's a projection of their real inferiority, that has been rendered to them by the Words of Allah inscribed in the Koran, for an idealistic DUD superiority. While Muslim men chase heavenly virgins since the earthly ones are evanescent, Muslim women pretend to keep intact their earthly vulnerable virginity by wearing the hijab.

The pride of being sexually pure has an invaluable price, even if at the end, because of the nature of women provided they are not sexually mutilated, has to be paid with a "promiscuous coin".

http://civcontraislam.typepad.com

I do not think reasonably modest dress or the head scarf matter any more than an Indian woman's choosing to wear the sari. Neither mode of dress is remarkable.
But it is a different thing when it comes to that loathesome black cover all. In it's own way it is as odious on our streets as someone wearing only a penis guard ala New Guinea native.
Out of place and outlandish

Dear Fractelle.

The reference to Leviticus and relative 'value' of male and female, actually has a context. Historical, and literary.

Considering the historical, and the fact of it being an agricultural society, the 'PRODUCTIVE' ability of a female was most likely less than a man.. in fact definitely so.
But then, we could consider the RE-productive ability of a female..and on that score we blokes arn't worth much, but women are invaluable. Sure.. we make our little 'contribution' but in the end, the children come from the woman and are mainly nurtured by your fairer sex.

I think you are extrapolating much too far on the 'relative shekel' estimation. You have not determined if it is an 'intrinsic human value' difference or a productive ability difference.

Then, there is the aspect of 'cultural balance'. You will find that in the end, the women of that day had their place as did the men.
Men were the ones who protected not just the women but the whole society. Protected the women from the very thing Ruby Soho was speaking about from Deuteronomy i.e. the women and children being taken as slaves.

If women were estimated on the military capability, then clearly they will be 'worth' less than the men. But I'm sure there would have been many areas of life then, where the women surpassed the males.

Remember, Israel had a 'boss' who was female Deborah.. I hardly think that would have happened if women were TRULY and universally regarded as being worth 'half a man'....

The Quran is 100% relevant to social rules today.. the Bible is not so straight forward.. rely first and last on the New Testament teaching please.
If you want to have a whinge about that, I'll point you to the hardest verse so you don't have to scrounge through Skeptics annotated Bible.
Its 1 Timothy 2:15 :)
cheers

Steel,

>> “Both societies force women to comply. Both have a religious basis.”

Riiiight!!. I wasn’t aware that in the west we had a religious police to ensure women wear what they are told. Maybe you could point them out to me next time you see them.

You are saying that the only difference between us and the Islamists is one of degree. But Islamist sensibilities don’t stop with differing understandings of what constitutes acceptable modesty for women’s clothing. In many Islamic countries, women are not allowed to be in the company of men other than their husband, they are not allowed to drive; they are not allowed to pray in the mosque, they are not allowed a full education

In Saudi, women may not testify in court unless it is a personal matter that did not occur in the sight of men. The testimony of a woman is not regarded as fact but as presumption. Women cannot be admitted to a hospital, examined by a doctor, travel abroad or leave the house without the express permission and/or company of an immediate male relative.

If you can’t discern the difference between the social disapproval of immodest behaviour in the west (which is very rare); and the corporal punishment, jailing or murder carried out under Islamic Sharia law, then there’s something wrong with you. What you are suffering from is a total lack of perspective. It is typical of the moral relativism of the left that refuses to acknowledge the faults of any culture except our own. This bizarre viewpoint leads soft-lefties to the insipid perspective of the proponents of the “noble savage” school of thought. This couples the deliberate romanticisation of primitive cultures with an extremely simplistic condemnation of their own societies.

However what is most shocking about this debate is the lack of feminist voices being heard. For politically correct reasons, western feminists seem incapable of addressing this matter. It’s disgraceful and any woman who considers herself a feminist should be manning the barricades at this new attempt to bring 7th century Arabian sexism into our modern liberal societies.

Why must women who enter a Roman Catholic church, have to have their heads covered.

The wives of foreign heads of state, when they meet the Pope are clothed in black and wearing a black veil on their heads.

In 2008, there appears to be a lot of ancient hocus pocus still around!