Steel, your argument lacks legs (despite an abundance of mammary glands). Isn’t that what the author of the article is concerned about… flimsy, unsubstantiated claims? A wiki link is not compelling evidence. Specific instances of a “few Western “juristictions” (sic) enacting legal statutes….” are unreferenced.

I did raise the ugly spectre of institutionalized pedophilia in connection with young girls having to wear hijab for their own protection, however not in connection with your post.

Sexualisation is the bombardment of sexual messages and the effect that this has on society as a whole whether it be a relaxed dress code at the mall or the impact of pornography. An issue for concerned parents, health experts and society at large.

The UK:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/6376421.stm

The USA:
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=22070

Australia:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/84468.php
http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/committee/eca_ctte/sexualisation_of_children/index.htm

The West is not without it’s problems – thus Muslim women are not rushing to adopt western dress. However, a man in Australia is fully aware that he can’t act out his fantasies without being punished under the full extent of the law (unless he is Aboriginal and in a Far North Queensland court). This is a sufficient deterrent for most, which is why Muslims in western democracies are pushing to have disputes solved in a sharia court of law. Islam punishes the VICTIMS of rape (male and female) for their licentiousness, not the perpetrators.

Paul.L: I agree with you on almost everything. It will eventually become obvious that the failure of feminists to speak out against Islam is symptomatic of the failure of feminism as an ideology.

Fractelle: From the dwindlinginunbelief blog which you gave above, read on to the “Discipula said..” bit for context and clarification of the biblical text.

Kipp: Trawl back through the discussion, it has been addressed.

The Victorian police have some good stats on the rise of racial abuse of Australian women for wearing a head scarf in public.

Sorry Billy haven't even read past this statement on this thread but your wrong.

They are not Australian women they are islamic women, living in Australia and choosing the parts of our culture that suit them.

Did you know that a motor cyclist must remove his/her helmet when entering a retail outlet or a bank.

I am not racist but my point is, IF YOU DON'T LIKE OUR COUNTRY AND OUR WAYS - LEAVE!

Steel, I think you should only use a word like “hypocritical” if you can demonstrate that the two regimes you're comparing – Sharia Law and the New Testament – are pretty much the same when it comes to oppressing women. So much the same, in fact, that any attempt by Christians to draw a distinction between the two is so far-fetched that it has to be insincere.

True, both systems (Muslim and Christian) have rules that must be complied with, and both rules have a religious base. But, there are significant differences, aren’t there. Very significant.

For a start, the modesty standard is not the same. See Mickijo’s post. In fact, they are so different, that it’s hard to see how the full black burqa can be seen as merely a matter of modesty. It’s so bizarre that something else has to be going on, don’t you think?

Then, even if an Australian woman is immodestly dressed, there is nothing to be done unless she has broken the law. She must be reported. No-one can take the law into their own hands.

Then, guilt is not automatic: someone would have to credibly say they’re offended, and would have to establish that a reasonable Australian person would be offended by the under-dressed spectacle – you know, like some of the soft porn billboards we are often treated to.

I don’t know when this last happened, but I know it would have been widely reported, and I suspect that stonings and beheadings in Iran are more frequent. Come on, steel, even being a man in a Muslim theocracy would suck!

Paul.L, I wholeheartedly join you in regretting the absence of feminist voices here. I know it’s what happens when one subscribes to the leftist package indiscriminately. Culture is fashionable at present, even clearly dangerous cultures – more fashionable than gender. Real feminists would speak. Leftist feminists are bound to silence. I wonder if Muslim strategists are aware of this difficulty: I suspect they are.

Pax,

katieo>"A wiki link is not compelling evidence. Specific instances of a “few Western “juristictions” (sic) enacting legal statutes….” are unreferenced."

Are you kidding?!? You dispute that women here in Australia can't walk around their cities and towns topless? OPEN YOUR EYES!

PaulL>"Riiiight!!. I wasn’t aware that in the west we had a religious police to ensure women wear what they are told."

The role has been secularised. Regular police have this function.

katieo>" ....however not in connection with your post."

Then why did you specifically name "girls and their sexualisation", in response to my comment as if in agreement? I did not mention girls.

It certainly seems like it was a shameless opportunity to promote your agenda, judging from your similar response here where some links are provided without reason since I already addressed this claim of sexualisation explicitly. I will refer you to those same comments in response and say that those "experts" in those media releases are exactly like you. They simply have feminist agendas and the promotion of them (to the degree where it compromises the image of their professions). They are uninterested in viewpoints that discredit them, much like proponents of intelligent design.

I refer you here for minor detail i can't list in this limited space:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1701&page=0#33163

Btw, katieo, are you a foreigner?

goodthief and PaulL.I'm not debating other cultural differences with the islamic countries. I'm correcting the notion that here in Australia women are as liberated as men. Yes, islamic women have more restrictions but women are oppressed here for the same reasons.

paulL>"If you can’t discern the difference between the social disapproval of immodest behaviour in the west (which is very rare)"

I can't believe this denialism. Don't you people live in Australia? I challenge any woman here to walk in their city topless as if they were not oppressed. And then to resist policemen who may approach in defence of your 'right' to not wear these clothes.

goodthief said: "I also think men are responsible for governing themselves, and should not be permitted to abdicate. The hijab and burqa encourage this abdication."

I think this cuts to the core of the issue more than anything else that has been posted here. The head/body covering and the associated religious explanations I have read, allow men to cede their responsibility for their actions, in the presence of "uncovered meat".

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

Simply not true, I don't know why you said this? Did you mean more specifically with the heads of state scenario or generally RC churches?

Steel said: "I can't believe this denialism. Don't you people live in Australia? I challenge any woman here to walk in their city topless as if they were not oppressed. And then to resist policemen who may approach in defence of your 'right' to not wear these clothes."

You are right to the extent that our society does not permit this freedom. Just to bring you back from la-la land for a monent though, who cares? Seriously, how many women feel aggrieved by this lack of freedom? Yes, the requirement for breast-covering may be religious in origin, but were it not, would it make any difference? Surely the point of all this is - "who is being unreasonably prevented from dressing in a manner they would prefer?"

This has been very edifying.

Had I restricted my criticisms to Islam only, I very much doubt any of the the Christian posters would've had any degree of problem with my posts.

But I deigned to criticise both religions regarding their attitude towards women. Is there not a single Christian who can look at their own religion objectively and note that women are not regarded as equal to men - in both the Old and New testaments.

Yes, it is a matter of degree; Islam is still somewhere in the 12th century, whereas Christianity is probably circa mid 19th.

There is not a single religion on this planet that treats women as fully human equals to men. Not even Buddhism - will there ever be a female Dalai Lama?

The headscarf is not innocent - it is as much a symbol as the shaven patch of a friar, the yarmulke, or that pointy pope hat. The significant difference between male and female attire is that the female's is about modesty. The reason for this is that many men use religion to both subjugate women and project their own sexual desires onto women.

Can anyone imagine George Pell calling for ordination of women priests at this point in time?

So, yes it is a matter of degree. Yes Islam is arguably the most primitive of the three Middle Eastern religions.

However, that doesn't make christianity a valid alternative, while the majority of sects still place women as subordinate to men, or denies education to women (Exclusive Brethren).

From the responses here to my posts, Christians as are reactive to criticism as are their Islamic cousins.