Top Menu

Are Jeans and Hijab Symbols of Oppression?

“The Hijab is not something that should ever be seen on American women. It is a symbol of oppression and difference.”/Milo Yiannopoulos, senior editor on Breitbart

If you claim that the “hijab” is a symbol of oppression and claim that all who wear hijab are oppressed, then know that includes the Jews that wear “hijab,” like the Sheitel.

Orthodox Jewish women often cover their hair too

Often people refer to Iran as the reason why the Hijab is “dangerous.” Well, the laws regulating what kind of clothes women should wear in Iran are certainly oppressive. To force women to wear hijab and punish them if they don’t is horrible. But the problem is not the Hijab. It is the oppression that is the problem.

To force people to wear a hijab or to force them to take off the hijab is equally wrong! But of course, not for Milo, who frequently makes fun of people that have been forced to remove their hijabs, or even claim that they are liars.

The laws regulating what people should wear in Iran are not only restricted to the Hijab. If you read what is required you see that long trousers are mandatory:

Head: Hair should be covered. It does not mean you shall have a tight scarf around your head. Don’t worry, It is very usual that some parts remain out of the cover. It’s quite acceptable for women to allow whips of their hair to frame their face. Appropriate hats & caps can do this function as well as scarves. Scarf is the most common covering for head and is called “Roosari” in Farsi.

3. Body: Should be covered with loose clothes like man shirt, coat or manteau. Arms should not be bare.

4. Legs & feet: Legs should be covered down to ankles. Feet can be bare and you can wear sandals. Tight jeans are no problem.

So, if the hijab is a symbol of oppression because Iran forces women to wear it, and because some other extremists force women to wear it, is it not oppression to force women to wear trousers?

If the hijab is banned, should we not ban trousers too? And why are so many of those men and women that hate the hijab wearing trousers? Should they not walk around in miniskirts, or in their underwear only, to protest against the “cruel Muslim regulations dealing with clothes.”

Well, well… Some people like the hijab and trousers and carry it because they are following their conscience. Some wear trousers and hijab because of their religious beliefs. Some wear hijab and trousers because it is their habit or culture to do so. Some others because it feels good, especially in the winter. Others wear it because they believe they look attractive in it. And many do not like long trousers and hijab and do not wear it, or at least try not to (it is hard when it is snowing).

Let women themselves decide what to wear! Some Muslim women and some Jewish women use “hijab,” and some don’t. It is up to THEM to decide. Too long have men attempted to dictate how women should behave, say, and how they should dress.

But I would like to see Steve Bannon and Milo protesting on stage against the cruel “Iranian” regulations and laws regarding clothes, by only wearing their underwear. I can see it in front of me now and I can hear the voice of Milo: “Jeans is a symbol of oppression”.

, , , , , , ,

  • Irish

    Sensible Western people should all care…Fundamentalist Islam (hijab wearing Islam) is not compatible with the West..Saudi Arabia, Libya, Oman, sure…

  • “Being swamped” is passive language. Swamped by whom? Who is formulating and implementing immigration policy? Who is primarily responsible for creating the chaos which is leading to refugees coming to Western countries? Hint: Not Muslims.

    The shadow of the Western imperialism. Colonialism and it’s more sophisticated neo-Colonial replacement, predatory lending, rapacious greed and materialism, morbid weapons of mass destruction, ceaseless violence, toxic culture, moral and social decay, ignorance, arrogance, hypocrisy, and so one and so on…

  • Who cares what you think when you see the hijab?

  • Irish

    NONSENSE..I don’t want my 13 year old wearing short shorts because it’s immodest, and says something about my child that’s untrue..When I see the hijab, or more disconcerting the burka I think dark ages..

  • An apt metaphor, in the view of the alt-right. Quite clever, I think, even though I strongly disagree with the alt-right.

    “Strong disagree” doesn’t feel strong enough, given some of their ugliest ideas, but from their perspective, I get why they see the mainstream right as “cuckservative.” Reminds me of the “muscular liberal” view of the mainstream liberals they refer to as the “regressive left.”

  • If Islam ever had a dark age, it’s now, under the shadow of the West.

  • Khizer

    Ah, I see.

    Don’t invest much in turd vocabulary.

  • CowabungaCreeper

    Which is the longer version of “cuck”.

  • Khizer

    I believe that’s called ‘cuckold’.

  • CowabungaCreeper

    I remember reading “cuck” was a fetish where one spouse enjoyed seeing the other have sex with someone else, which would mean a “cuck” would enjoy having it happen, but apparently the definition was updated when last I checked.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    I missed it. Why nvm??

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Ah, the Protestant work ethic: “it is godly to work hard and produce much, sloth is a sin.”

  • LOL. 🙂

  • HSkol

    Wow. There’s always something. At least I don’t feel so bad about my own contrived “After School With Battle Axes” program any longer now. 😉

  • Brace yourself…….

    Portland OKs “After School Satan” for elementary kids
    http://www.cbsnews.com/news/after-school-satan-satanic-temple-portland-approved/

    WARNING: Video is super creepy.

    https://youtu.be/b48-SBYbahQ

  • HSkol

    *marveled* 🙂

    I certainly get your point. Either I’m not willing to fully meet your concerns; or, my surroundings haven’t yet caught up to the greater world. Yes, I live in Mayberry (no, actually I don’t though).

  • You got the reference. 🙂

    Not every individual subscribes and there may be pockets of tradition. But that “law” underpins the dominant culture, and is being heavily promoted, especially through the entertainment industry.

    Compare American society of the early to mid 1950s to today, and marvel.
    The project has achieved astonishing success.

  • HSkol

    2nd Reply. Oh, OK, I’m killin’ myself a bit over your post. I can see what you’re saying. I wonder (though I shouldn’t) how widespread such thought is, however. I might put things in reverse. This is just little ol’ me – so, please permit a pardon if you may. On your last sentence, I think it is a two-fold matter. People do despise the “currently reported on headscarf” because it shows affinity to “your god”, or “their god”; and, that lovely headscarf – to small minds – shows a faith in “not our god”. God’s sovereignty … well that matters little to my state – but, should admittedly matter to any believer.

    (Goodness, I hope that made any sense to you. I’m always in the alley.)

  • HSkol

    Modesty-shaming is most certainly illogical and to me rings of xenophobia to a considerable degree. Within many traditions are simple matters of choice. Within many traditions is simply the maintenance of tradition – be that of cloth or be that of something else. Having grown up in close proximity to Amish folks, I’ve witnessed modesty-shaming; and, I’ll admit I’m a bit embarrassed that I didn’t stand up for my Amish neighbors earlier than I did – in my mid-to-late teens – even though I knew the mockery was wrong from the start (I didn’t mock, but I let my friends slide so to speak). I worked that out with myself earlier than most (some of my townies likely still haven’t). Such a pity that we’re still so far removed from respect for others.

  • HSkol

    I can meet you part way on your Aleister Crowley quote, if simply by the appearances of our here-and-now-today; however, I don’t believe those terms to be the genuine motto of most around me – a slant or lean perhaps, sometimes genuine, sometimes superficial – but, more frequently than not a mere appearance upon us … “shining” from us.

    Traditions run deep in my own family, by my own ancestries. Much of my “religious condition” derives itself from both my Prussian and Nordic roots. Both lines, in my case, were Protestant. With the individualism that each of my particular family lines have carried, it is nearly inevitable, certainly understandable, that I ended up where I am today. The non-Catholic Poles and the Norse can both be quite high-end where the dismissal of communal faith is concerned. Church services are often more about farming and sports and tending to one another more so than about the gods … in silly MN anyhow.

    Regarding cultural traditions – food, manner of greeting and acquaintance, “modesty of the day”, humanity, care, concern and earthly stewardship – we of younger generations do yet remain strong. We aren’t as traditional as others by book; but, I’d like to think that a great many of us are yet not perfectly discernible from our forefathers and foremothers.

    (There I go again with my 2% of a dollar.)

    🙂

  • CowabungaCreeper

    They should learn what “cuck” really means.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    They are usually cowardly men with deep seated insecurities that they wish to take out on vulnerable individuals. They rarely go toe-to-toe against someone their own size because they get their ass beat.

    Apparently another complex they have is that they feel like “cucks” and so project that onto others.

  • GaribaldiOfLoonwatch

    Deep point Ilisha. I agree for the most part but on the flip-side, just to point out that it is not all negative, I’ve seen that a lot of people (from all walks of life) admire modest dressing, whether it is the hijab or some other form of veiling and many who speak out against modesty-shaming.

  • Hijab is logically a symbol of oppression in a society where the operative motto is “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law.”

    At least since the 1960s, American society focused on rapidly removing ALL traditional moral constraints on human behavior, replacing God with the individual. The only successful argument you could make for modest dress in this context is that the woman chose to wear it, simply because she likes that style of dress. As a fashion statement. Because then it is an expression of autonomy, not obedience to any higher power or principle.

    It’s not the headscarf these people despise. It’s God’s sovereignty.

  • Khizer

    These bastards claim that anyone who criticises their rhetoric is an ‘offended SJW snowflake who cries over small things’, but when they see a woman in hijab, they are suddenly angry and fuming, why are they so easily offended over a piece of cloth?

Powered by Loon Watchers