Or in this case, perhaps, unskew one. Take a look at this poll that asks, Does Islam Oppress or Liberate Women? The leading answer so far is “Islam is generally liberating to women, freeing them from sexual pressures that exist elsewhere. “
Yeah, if by “liberating” you mean “compelling them to wear a bag over their head, not allowing them to drive or hold various public positions, and in some cases, gouging out chunks of their genitalia with a piece of broken glass.”
Islam protects women from “sexual pressures” in much the same way as Jim Crow electoral laws protected black people from the pressure of choosing who to vote for.
I suppose mutilating someone’s genitalia and keeping them in the house like a pet would reduce sexual pressure.
Doesn’t Cline understand that mask-wearing is a part of group recognition, so, of course, it entails advantages. When one is no longer capable of opting out is when it becomes oppressive.
I’ve linked to this before but it seems relevant:
Anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod
http://www.asiasource.org/news/special_reports/lila.cfm
“burqas as symbolic “mobile homes” that free women to move about in public”
“Among the most difficult things for American feminists to accept is that these futures might involve women in developing within … traditions that don’t have as their primary ideal something called “freedom.””
“The situation in Iran is itself the subject of great debate within feminist circles… It is not clear whether and in what ways women have made gains … are because of or despite the establishment of a so-called Islamic Republic.”
OT, but interesting. Chinese astronauts, in describing establishing a Communist Party in space(wtf?) claim that Communism is a belief, religious in nature.
Oops, it looks like the poll’s been Pharyngulated. “Generally oppressive” now leads “generally liberating”, 602 to 516.
In some cases, women are liberated from their lives for either having sex or being raped to preserve the “honor” of the family. I don’t have comprehensive knowledge, but I haven’t heard of that happening to guys – if it’s so liberating, why don’t they play along?
First your own law: (near bottom of Pharyngula Wikipedia entry). Now you’ve coined a term – a gerund, I believe!
Sorry – I refer to Blake Stacey’s “Pharyngulated” in comment #6.
Preview, preview, preview…
Free them from sexual pressures they say. . . right. That must be why some women are compelled to place rags soaked in blood in their genitalia so they ensure they will bleed when they consummate their marriage! The consequences of not bleeding insinuates they might not be virgins and their husbands can punish them with death, because they (the male) have been wronged.
I’ll take the: restricting clothing, blistering high heels, curling-iron burns and running make-up please!
Pi Guy: No, no. A gerund ends in -ing. We’re talking about a past participle in a passive construction. (Unless I’m very much mistaken.)
While I generally agree that traditional Islamic practices are oppressive, I think the other side of the coin is worthy of consideration. That is, the western practice of treating women as sex objects can also be oppressive. I can imagine it might be liberating for some women to go about in public without being continously sized up for their looks.
Please refer to Deuteronomy 22:13-21. The ‘token of virginity’, and the death penalty for lacking it, is hardly an innovation of Islam. Indeed, it’s probably not an innovation of religion.
As far as female genital mutilation goes, I seem to recall Dr. Kellogg being a great fan of applying acid to the clitoris. Again, FGM is not an innovation of Islam nor is it unique to Islam today.
Sexually exploitative and abusive behavior is a feature of patriarchy. Religion can be used to justify and reinforce patriarchy, but it isn’t the ultimate cause of that abuse.
I suspect that very few of the people participating in the poll are Muslim women. Perhaps if Islam truly did liberate women then more Muslim women could participate without fear of retaliation.
I agree that Islam and burqas are oppressive, but I’d like to play Devil’s Advocate for a second:
To a lesser extent our culture in the US “forces” women to dress in a certain way, behave in a certain way, wear make-up, take certain jobs, etc. It’s hard to argue that women more have more freedom than men in the US. Being ostracized for transgressions certainly doesn’t equal murder, but couldn’t we also argue that mainstream US culture also oppresses women?
Occasionally it even liberates them from life.
Sheldon, that’s probably true. Of course, western women who don’t like being “sized up” in public can choose to cover up as much as they want. Muslim women don’t have the choice.
Western women also generally don’t have to worry about being murdered if they turn out not to be virgins when their wedding night comes around.
Hmm. I guess Auschwitz-Birkenau was the ultimate exercise in liberation: those Jews gained so much freedom.
Freedom from the pressures of eating, freedom from the pressures of breathing, freedom from the pressures of metabolising, etc.
And by Godwinning you all, I’ve just freed this thread from the pressures of rational thought….
Some women in more backward Islamic societies are so happy about their liberated status that they vote with their feet and commit suicide.
Quite common in Afghanistan among others.
The fact that none of these Western cultural expectations are enforced either by law or by the threat of violence from other members of society makes me think that comparing them to the burqah constitutes direct evidence of what happens when rainwater leaks inside one’s head.
True. Name me a non-Islamic country where this is still widely practiced, though (especially the death penalty part). They don’t have to have originated it in order to be responsible for applying it.
Also off-topic, but I think this is entirely accurate. In my view, Communism is a religion in the same sense most forms of Buddhism are. It does not claim the existence of a god, but it does posit a vast, impersonal driving force behind historical events, maintains a set of doctrines that are not to be questioned, and claims to have received those doctrines from a partially mythicized founder figure–a prophet, if you will–whose followers have subsequently split into multiple squabbling camps, each convinced that their views are the “true” position advocated by their prophet. On top of that, virtually every communist nation has portrayed its founder and leader as a messianic figure.
Let’s not forget followers of Freudian psychoanalysis, one of the great religions of the 20th century. They were fond of using genital mutilation to treat personality problems with both sexes!
If you would care to resurrect Dr. Kellogg and his followers, and Dr. Freud and his followers, we would be pleased to treat them as we wish to treat the Islamic doctrines and their followers.
So . . . um . . . stoning women to death for having sex before marriage is not considered “sexual pressure?”
The fact that the western way is indeed oppressive does not make the Muslim way a solution by virtue of being the opposite. They are two sides of the same coin, that being that women are in both cultures held to standards and restrictions, subject to various abuses, and not taken seriously as human beings due to their status as sexual beings.
The ideal would be to remove the restrictions, the culture of objectification, the concept of sexuality replacing sentience as the defining point of womanhood. So that a woman could wear either an abaya or just jeans and shoes with no top, or anything in between, and not be harassed for it, not be objectified, not be accused of being either a slut or repressed, but taken seriously as a human being.
Forgive me for coming to this late, and this may have been covered, but, yes, sure, women are relieved of the pressures of sex.
But they should have choice in the first place. Being relieved of a burden is only a good thing if you have the freedom to decide.
A gerund ends in -ing.
And “pharynguling” would be the sound of the cluephone, I suppose.
♬”My pharynguling, my pharynguling, I want you to play with my pharynguling….”♪
I agree that Islam is used to justify the oppression of women.
However, I don’t know that I’d go so far as to say that without it they wouldn’t be just as oppressed, or that by introducing it you suddenly up the level of oppression.
Rather like how one can mis-apply evolution, turning it into social Darwinism.
After all, there are Muslim women that aren’t oppressed, I know a few of them.
Now, of course, saying that Islam reduces oppression is just stupid.
I think there is a key difference here as well. Western pressures are perpetuated as much **by** Western women as by the men, while Islam’s version is *entirely* driven by the men. The problem is way more complicated than, “If you just dress more, you won’t get looked at.” I have heard good arguments that a huge part of the problem is the opposite, that those willing and encouraged to dress down are glorified as sex symbols, while the ones that are not a pressured to keep their clothes on, and the result is a massively unrealistic distortion of perception about what is *normal* or *acceptable* to be seen in the first place. You don’t see this sort of “oppression” among groups like nudists, and the pressures among other groups that border on that extreme are usually more about the sex itself, not how they “look”, and is just as severe, if different, for the guys. And that is another huge problem with the Western version. We share the idiotic and asinine ideas, via the same foundational religious hangups, about who should be the primary mover and who shouldn’t.
This has changed *a lot*, but ironically, now you get a muddy mess, and the kinds of morons that are going to this poll and saying, “I don’t want to be pressured, give me a sheet to wear!”, think that is some great benefit, the reality is, they never *completed* the process they started when they where burning bras in the 60s. They now want it both ways. They want on one hand to not be “pressured” and see ***everyone*** that opts to dress to show off as being oppressed somehow (including people that go past that and you know **intentionally** become strippers and things like that, because they want to), while at the same time whining about how they should also be allowed to dress any way they like. Well, you can’t have it both ways. You can’t be empowered to act like a slut, then complain that people treat you like one. And you also don’t have any right to feel “oppressed” for someone that both a) chooses to dress that way and b) happens to **like** the attention it gets them. Hiding everything isn’t going to get them what they want. That is going to require that the unwritten rules underlying the mess they are contributing change, so that a) they have enough self respect to fight for real respect, and b) other people show them the same. And that’s not going to happen if a) they continue to ignore the real nature of the problem or b) they opt to simply escape the problem, by hiding the what people are disrespecting.
And, that isn’t even to mention that the idea that they should be treated like a paper sack, with no face, body, etc. by people makes biological sense to start with, or is really going to help them when they **do** want to find companionship.
Truth is, you rise or sink to your level. If you are stupid enough to disrespect yourself, dress in ways that are unflattering, attempt to show of what you might not have, etc. then you are **going** to attract the attention of idiots that never learned to show *you* respect. You can handle it two ways. Whine and complain about all the idiots your are attracting and insist its the fault of how society **pressures** you to be an even bigger idiot than they are, or you kick the idiots in the ass and make them respect you, regardless of what you are wearing. The only thing these people get marginally right is that you can’t teach people to respect each other by intentionally placing them on unequal ground, then glorifying the most unequal of them. But hiding everything is a stupid ass solution which **robs** you of any power or capacity to make your own choices about such things, even as it creates some false equality.
Liberating or oppressing in contrast to what? In contrast to 18th century England, many Islamic practices probably were relatively liberating. In contrast to 21st century Western Europe, no.
Female genital mutilation is not restricted to Muslims (Coptic Christians practice it in Egypt). It is also not common in some countries with large Muslim populations such as India, Pakistan, and Turkey.
Personally I would consider the head covering one of the less worrying issues. The lack of ability for a woman to divorce, her testimony being worth less, restrictions on her ability to travel without a male relative (the later only in some Muslim groups and countries). Oddly enough in one Muslim group, Tuaregs, the men veil and the women apparently do not.
Your post is in no way helpful. Why do we assume that a practice which is relegated to certain sects or practiced by extremists is true for the entire Muslim populace?
The fact that you are an equal-opportunity criticiser of religions does not mean that the particular things you criticise Muslims for, and the way in which you explicate these criticisms, cannot be the result of prejudice or misinformation.
It’s sort of like criticising Christians for their superstitions, as opposed to criticising Christians cause “they all make their children handle poisonous snakes and they won’t get them (their children, not the snakes) immunised”. Even though those criticisms are true of some Christians, they are not a helpful criticism of Chritianity.
But of course, criticism of Muslims which mirror in their intent and make-up the antisemetic tropes of the last 1,000 years are all the rage these days, so don’t let me spoil your fun.
Say, you haven’t got any Muslim teachers at your university, do you? Cause you could confront them about their religion in the words you used here, and see if the discussion is fruitful.
Mooser:
Because there wasn’t radio button in the poll for “Your characterisation of Islam as a monolithic, homogenous identity does in no way reflect the reality that Islam encompasses as much variation as nearly every other religion, ideology, or philosophy, and therefore there is no way to meaningfully address whether ‘Islam’ is liberating for women or not.”
Among the most difficult things for American feminists to accept is that these futures might involve women in developing within … traditions that don’t have as their primary ideal something called “freedom.”
Fuck tradition. Humanity is composed of humans, not traditions. The very essence of feminism is the right to choose. It doesn’t matter if a woman wears a burka or not; what matters is that she can choose. Denigrating this choice on the account of “tradition” is utterly obscene.
The two wisest words I’ve read all week.
Are you insane?!
I mean, seriously. Just imagine what you might catch!
If you simply must, at least use a condom. Preferably full-body. O.o
The practice of worshipping Mao in temples and sacrificing oranges to him has been going on for some time in China.
And then of course there’s the last stage in the “inevitable” historical progression of any society, called communism in communism, which is nothing other than heaven on earth.
All that’s missing is the afterlife. So far, only Kim Il-Sung has got one. And apparently Mao with his unofficial apotheosis.
That isn’t even true, because what people find sexy is influenced by what they are used to seeing. 100 years ago, a lady’s ankle was *GASP*
The practice of worshipping Mao in temples and sacrificing oranges to him has been going on for some time in China.
And then of course there’s the last stage in the “inevitable” historical progression of any society, called communism in communism, which is nothing other than heaven on earth.
All that’s missing is the afterlife. So far, only Kim Il-Sung has got one. And apparently Mao with his unofficial apotheosis.
That isn’t even true, because what people find sexy is influenced by what they are used to seeing. 100 years ago, a lady’s ankle was *GASP*
or, if unavailable, two wetsuits.
I agree with the choice thing, a lot of Muslim women that I have met actually like to wear the extra clothing. It’s not required here in the US and they can always change when they are away from their families and friends but really don’t want to.
As for genital mutilation, isn’t that bad when it’s done to these women since everyone here knows that it’s a requirement for infant boys, granted no broken glass is involved but neither is anaesthesia. There was a thread here a while back claiming that a poorly done study was conclusive proof that it prevents HIV transmission. Let’s not go through that again. It was as good as the research that goes into global warming denial and ID.
I was disappointed that their radio-button voting scheme did not allow me to vote for both “Islam is oppressive to women” and “I don’t care.” I have very limited sympathy for self-induced suffering.
Mena, could it be that is because what they were accustomed to. I remember a friend of mine, immigrated from Iran years ago when she was a young teen, saying she felt almost naked in the clothes she was wearing. What was she wearing, a long sleeve shirt and sweat pants. She was not a believer but the ideas she was raised with stayed with her. I think this is also the case with the Muslim women you know.
Now I will get to mine main point, with this topic, women cannot win. The other day, PZ linked to a great post by Greta Christian. A misogynist twit ripped into her for not going after Islam, stated that it is all so much worse for women under Islam (The only thing that man got right.), and dismissed everything she had to sat because it was typical feminist cant. Today, I see some posts in this thread basically saying how dare you criticise the treatment of women under Islam when the west also has a poor record.
When you get down to it, women have gotten the short end under both Islam and Christianity. In the west, the lot of women improved as people moved away from having a literal view of the Bible. The farther away we get away from the writings of Paul, as well as the rest of that book, the better. In land where the Koran is supreme, the same is needed. Just read this and tell that it is liberating for women.
Yes, I want both books left in the dust from which they came from.
You must know it is much more complex then that. People are fed this stuff from birth and all alternative are attacked. Why else do a large percentage of fundy christians set up home schools and bible based schools. They are trying to set people in a certain mindset.
Where the hell did you get the idea that circumcision is a “requirement” in the US?
“Are Christian codes of conduct for women more liberating or more oppressive?
“Christianity is generally oppressive to women, treating them as being less than equal to men.
“Christianity is generally liberating to women, freeing them from sexual pressures that exist elsewhere.
“Christianity is generally neutral – there are both oppressive and liberating aspects that, in the end, cancel out.”
Oh well, thought my vote might turn out different this way. But no, still chose the first. Ok, let’s try this:
“Are religious codes of conduct for women more liberating or more oppressive?
“Religion is generally oppressive to women, treating them as being less than equal to men.
“Religion is generally liberating to women, freeing them from sexual pressures that exist elsewhere.
“Religion is generally neutral – there are both oppressive and liberating aspects that, in the end, cancel out.”
Dang, still voted for number one! But bear with me, folks, one last try:
“Are Santa’s codes of conduct for women (get the proper amount of sleep; be good for goodness sake; be nice) more liberating or more oppressive?
“Santa is generally oppressive to women, treating them as being less than equal to men.
“Santa is generally liberating to women, freeing them from lack of sleep and inappropriate behavior.
“Santa is generally neutral – there are both oppressive and liberating aspects that, in the end, cancel out.”
Finally, I got to vote for number two!
Where the hell did you get the idea that circumcision is a “requirement” in the US?
Wow, calm down dude…
In hell (where I got that from) it’s called sarcasm. Look up that thread and tell me that people, even smart people, won’t use any excuse to justify their biases and beliefs, no matter how silly they are in reality.
Janine, some of them are foreign born but a lot of them are first generation Americans. There is a mosque about two or three miles away and it’s not unusual to see women dressed from head to toe, I even saw a lady in a burqa once. I think that a lot of that is that there is family structure and social pressure toward them covering up. Maybe when they get older and move to other places they will start wearing more western style clothes. I do have to admit though that the burqa looked comfortable, you would never have to worry about a bad hair day for example, but the peripheral vision thing would suck. ;^)
I would also be concerned about my hearing.
In western countries, women can dress modestly or cover up completely if they choose.
Just as in Islamic states.
In western countries, women can also dress as revealingly as they choose without being arrested by religious or morality police, being beaten, having acid thrown in their faces or being murdered.
Unlike in Islamic states.
Who is the more oppressive?
Lila Abu-Lughod writes:
That is the kind of stupidity that should be taken out behind the barn and shot. At the point that an individual is forced against their will, that individual desires freedom, not as a goal in itself, but as a constraint against those who are forcing their will on her or him. If the sole excuse for that is religious tradition, then the appropriate response was given above: fuck tradition.
As far as liberation goes – the three largest predomiantly-Muslim countries have all had a female leader. Something for the supposedly-enlightened USA to aspire to one day perhaps?
Well, the anti-sex puritan answer is certainly not leading anymore. :)
However, it’s true that there is a lot of dislike of sexual display around among secular feminists, and I suppose I can understand why a lot of women who don’t want to go in for it can feel pressured by those who do – and usually end up blaming the men who enjoy seeing it. OTOH, a lot of young women (and not-so-young ones) do enjoy displaying their beauty to the world – it’s not just a male plot – and I’m certainly not going to knock it. Let them strut their stuff. Of course, any attempt to stop them is illiberal and repressive. No one gets to live in their perfect environment with no unwanted psychological pressures at all. What people are doing around you will always create some pressures unless you are the kind of person who feels the same way as the majority on every single point.
Oops, the politically-incorrect post by “r” was actually mine.
Well, hey, if you’ve had a woman head of state, that more than makes up for honor killings and mutilations, doesn’t it?
The USA dig isn’t going to land where you want it to around here, either, since “enlightened” is probably not one of the words the people here would tend to choose in describing a great many aspects of our culture.
Seriously. It’s like the trolls are coming up through the drains this week.
It is rather unusual that the US hasn’t had a female head of state.
I don’t know of any religion or country that doesn’t oppress women. So, yeah.
I agree with 26 and some of the similar sentiments. There is a huge tendency to look at the good or bad that religious people do and attribute it falsely to religion. The religious justify virtually everything based on religion, then defend religion based on the good it inspires, while the antireligious blame religion for the bad it justifies. The truth is that religion tends to interact in complex and bivalent ways with existing memes.
That said, I do think on the whole that Islam, like Christianity and other religions based on the supremacy of a male deity, tends to selectively reinforce patriarchal traditions and has an overall tendency, albeit inconsistent, to oppress women.
I don’t find it strange that the USA has never had a female president. The USA is, as far as republican democracies (system, not Party) goes, elderly. Most modern democracies are recent enough to have had populations that did not opt out of the female candidate based only on traditions, but were seeking the best candidates for a job. In America, this is seen in our election of James Madison, an effete, tiny, brilliant man, who would have had no chance to be elected had he existed even fifty years down the line. I tell people, when the subject comes up, that I predict that America will have a black president before it has a female one (and yes, I have been saying this since way before the current election cycle), simply because we seem to be further along at getting over our blacks in power freak-out than we are at getting over our women in power freak-out.
can’t help but be reminded of something Penn Jillette said a few times on his radio show: “Everyone is more interesting when they’re naked.”
Oh and speaking of treating women as equals, check this out:
Ok. First off, Mena, Male Circumcision and Female Circumcision aren’t even in the same ballpark. Maybe if they cut off the *entire penis*, the stakes might be even. Female genital mutilation entails either sewing the vagina shut or cutting the clitoris off so that the woman experiences no sexual pleasure. The point is to prevent women from sleeping around, getting too randy or any one of other lame excuses. Male circumcision these days is mainly for hygiene purposes and doesn’t dampen sex drive or pleasure.
Secondly, there is no way in Hell the west is ever going to *save* muslim women. I agree that it’s more of a societal thing than it is a religious thing…there have been eras in which Christian and Jewish societies were just as oppressive. The foundation of religion hasn’t changed all that much in the last thousand years, but society definitely has. The patriarchal society in some middle eastern and asian countries is enforced by the women AND the men. I’m sure mom tells daughter to wear her burqa when she goes out just as much as dad does (and if she doesn’t, mom-in-law certainly will) because that’s all she knows, and she’s convinced it’s right, whether it’s because she thinks she’ll be oggled otherwise or because she’s convinced that there is no greater sin than sluttiness.
In order for things to change, women’s perceptions of their own role in society have to change. In order for that to happen, the structure of society as a whole has to change, including the way livings are made and the social hierarchy in general.
I think there is a key difference here as well. Western pressures are perpetuated as much **by** Western women as by the men, while Islam’s version is *entirely* driven by the men.
This is nonsense. Seriously, you don’t think Muslim women ever tell their daughters what to wear and how to act?
@Scrabcake: Male circumcision these days is mainly for hygiene purposes and doesn’t dampen sex drive or pleasure.
While female circumcision is in a completely different league to male circumcision, male circumcision is not to be taken lightly. Today it is done more for vanity than hygiene, i.e. “I want my son to look like me”. Poor personal hygiene can lead to infection, as with other parts of the body, but rarely do you surgically remove body parts to avoid cleaning them properly.
Removal of the protective foreskin and the resulting thickening of the skin on the exposed glans causes loss of sensitivity and reduced sexual pleasure. Scar tissue due to poorly performed circumcisions can cause further problems.
liberating to women, freeing them from sexual pressures that exist elsewhere.
What if I like sex and don’t want my sex life to be anybody’s business but mine and my partners’? Will ANY religion liberate me to that extent? Guffaw.
It does suck that the US has not had a woman president yet, and that women are underrepresented in government. But just becuase the US sucks in one way doesn’t make Iran suck any less in another way.
I am more and more of the opinion that the best government, and the best society, is one that can be safely IGNORED and trusted not to give you any undue hassle for ignoring it, or to collapse in on itself if you stop watching it for a moment.
Yeah, if by “liberating” you mean “compelling them to wear a bag over their head, not allowing them to drive or hold various public positions, and in some cases, gouging out chunks of their genitalia with a piece of broken glass.”
This is rather unscholarly. In most of the Muslim world, women don’t wear bags over their head, get circumcised or have de jure restrictions from holding public positions or driving. Female circumcision is an African pre-Islamic practice that occurs among non-Muslims. On the history of Muslim women in public positions, I would recommend the work of Fatima Mernissi, I also recall reading that there were more women in the Iranian parliament than in the US Congress.
The wierd thing about your rhetoric is it presumes that you accept some Saudi cleric’s view of the nature of Islam, though why should an atheist choose among religious interpretations at all, much less choose the most retrograde? I think believing in revealed texts and imaginary beings isn’t liberating and that’s about that, even aside from whether the right to initiate divorce, remarry, receive alimony, hold property independently etc were progressive for women.
Ms. Brown,
The atheists around here always choose the most retrograde interpretation of religion. Many even assert that liberal tolerant religion is the most pernicious form of religion, far more dangerous than fundamentalist oppression. The real danger they claim is anything that makes religion look acceptable. They want any religion to be its worst manifestation so more people will reject it. It is eerily similar to the political hawks who insist there is no such thing as a moderate Muslim.
Example please?
Ms. Brown, do you really see something strange about people focusing criticism on the most objectionable manifestation of a phenomenon?
From the XTC song, “Jason and the Argonauts”, as well as I can remember:
I saw a land where women were forced to hide their facial features;
And, here in the West it’s just the same, only they wear makeup veils…
Akyroth, no, of course I don’t think anything is wrong in “focusing criticism” on the most objectionable manifestation of a phenomenon.
What I queried was the implicit assertion that the most objectionable manifestation is the essential or characteristic manifestation, when those manifestations are exceptional, when some of those manifestations are of quite different phenomenon, when progressive people are quite actively debating whether these objection manifestations are essential and winning. I mean, if an atheist really insists on choosing sides in a debate on Islam, why pick the Saudi cleric’s side rather than Abdolkarim Soroush’s?
And, here in the West it’s just the same, only they wear makeup veils…
+++++++++++++
Puhleeze- no one beats the shit out of anyone for not wearing makeup. If they did I would get my ass kicked daily, as I just don’t like to wear it too often. I don’t colour my hair on schedule. And yet at 40ish, I still am ID’d for my adult penchants. I am an attractive professional. I am not a slave to fashion. No-one tells me how to look. I have no desire to dress “young” or skimpily. I have daughters who have very rarely been told that what they are wearing is inappropriate by me. I have gone after their one school for their dress code standards and how they were enforced- a male teacher would ask the girls to raise their arms over their heads and if you could see skin between their waistband and the bottom of their t-shirt it was deemed inappropriate. Yeah—- I pointed out it was also worth a lawsuit if the practice continued- it stopped.
I grew up in a religious atmosphere- dress code restrictions, a friend that got kicked out of high school for dressing like a man- and vowed that unless it was filthy or dangerous my daughters could pretty much wear whatever they wanted. (Dangerous meaning a tripping or burning hazard).
They have a lots less hangups about their bodies, and are actually able to talk about them in a way that many people my age still are not comfortable with.
And sometimes they wear makeup and sometimes they don’t.
Thankfully they are free to make decions like that every day.
Does Islam…? Nope.
No -ism does anything.
Only Homo sapiens do.