The following op-ed from a German news magazine discusses the banning of sexy advertising by London Mayor Sadiq Khan (as described here on Monday by Paul Weston) and the trend towards the same restrictions in Germany. The merger of feminism and Shariah is happening before our eyes: in order to avoid becoming “objects”, women are covering up.
You’ve come a long way, baby — all the way to purdah!
Egri Nök, who translated the article, includes this note:
The news here is not the content of the op-ed, but that a mainstream news magazine says the two words “Sharia” and “feminism” in a single sentence.
The translated op-ed from FOCUS.de:
Ban on sexist advertising:
What Sharia and Western feminism have in common
June 15, 2016
by Focus Online Expert Birgit Kelle
Photo caption: this poster in the London Underground caused a stir and led to the ban on sexist advertising
The mayor of London banned sexist advertising. There are similar plans in Germany as well. The columnist Birgit Kelle argues that it is fatal that the “women friends of Islam” and Western feminism have aligned.
The new and, incidentally, first Muslim mayor of London has banned sexist advertising in the city. The plug was this poster, as it supposedly pressures young girls to adapt to ideals of beauty that they might not meet. And who does not experience this before summer? The love handles protrude from the jeans and we feel so fat when we look at women who did not fatten up.
(Caption under the second photo: Federal Minister of Justice Heiko Maas)
Being overweight demonstrates genuine feminist convictions
“Body shaming” is the key feminist phrase here. Cheerfully also called “lookism”, the expectations of the male-dominated beauty ideal for womankind. Because we women do not really want to look good; as usual we only fulfill the expectations of society, namely, the men. It’s a good thing we women are able to rule the world, but need to be regularly reminded that unfortunately we are intellectually unable to evaluate our appearance or even to shape our looks adequately.
Note that it is pooh to be slim and sporty. Real feminist convictions are adequately demonstrated only by obesity. In case you are wondering where you heard that before — our Impersonator of a Federal Minister of Justice is doing exactly the same at the moment, at the behest of the feminists in his party (Social Democrats) and in this country.
It is only for our protection
In Germany, also, sexist advertising is to be banned. Districts in Berlin that are ruled by the Green party are already successfully testing it; only modestly dressed women appear on posters. Because advertising is sexist when women look good and are lightly dressed. I am always pleased that the Social Democrats are so cosmopolitan and tolerant, and finally fulfill what has long been practiced in many countries across the world: half naked women have no business in public. But I’m sure they don’t mean it that way.
It is only for our own protection as women.
That is also what the mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, says. He thinks young women should be protected from “endangering themselves and their health, only to live up to a certain beauty standard”.
This is what connects the women’s friends of Islam and Western feminism
Young girls are constantly putting themselves at risk. For example, when they walk the streets alone, without the company of their fathers, cousins and brothers, and maybe even look like the poster and are lightly dressed.
It is great to see how Europe has finally developed uniform standards about the question of how women are permitted to look and what they may wear. Yes, this must be the true emancipation and freedom that we heard so much about. It is wonderful the way in which the women friends of Islam and Western feminism have finally aligned.
The hypocrisy here is damn real.
Islam treated women like [odoriferous material], yet this muslim “tried to save” girls..
Thank goodness [odoriferous material] like this doesn’t really happened in Malaysia.. yet.
You seem to have missed the author’s savage sarcasm. She uses the word “supposedly” in the first paragraph, letting us know that she’s not persuaded by the argument that “body shaming” is bad or that being “slim and sporty” (her words) is also bad.
I like it!
And then the piece de resistance (sorry; accent marks don’t carry over from my Mac to this website) in the penultimate sentence: “Yes, this must be the true emancipation and freedom that we heard so much about.” And she maintains her highly skeptical viewpoint to the last sentence.
Its modern democracy: Small but focused group of people changing laws against the majority who don’t really give a [hoot]. In the end – those that work so that we can maintain our standard of living end up short, because they didn’t busy themselves with politics…
If some Christian Bishop or the Pope had made, not even a law, but only the suggestion that women should dress modestly and that overtly sexualized advertising should be restricted, the feminazis would have gone insane with rage. I can here the screams of sexism, patriarchy and oppression reverberating across the planet.
Funny that, isn’t it? Just imagine some obscure Southern pastor letting slip that he felt some more modesty in women’s dress was perhaps a good idea. He would have been roundly denounced and hounded into bankruptcy and exile. And a decade later his name would still be a by-word for the patriarchal oppression inherent in Christianity, Western society, blah. blah, blah.
The cognitive dissonance is even funnier. In a “We’re on a ship of fools” way.
You ain’t seen nothing yet! Islamic wear for women is now the latest fad. Go get it ladies! Ain’t sharia wonderful?
I have seen. This the future portrayed by Feminism and Sadiq Khan:
I really enjoy your edits. Trying to guess what was originally between the square brackets is more fun than solving a crossword puzzle.
Good-bye, formerly Great Britain. You will be part of the caliphate if this keeps up.
The argument against the ads is such an in-your face steaming pile of [excrement] that I find it unthinkable that Sadiq Khan did not know what would be our reaction. It’s a big “[to heck with] You, the islamization of Small Britain will go on”.
I suppose the next move is now to let guards roam the beaches all over the country, who will judge which woman is too sexy and send her packing or else cover up. You know, her perfect looks might disturb less well-endowed women.
This is ridiculous. I am regularly confronted with ads for men sporting David Beckham or Ronaldo showing sixpacks. I do not have a sixpack (to be sure, I haven’t got a tubby either), but I couldn’t care less about those ads. Perhaps women are comparing a bit more, but I’m sure not to the extent that they would be in favor of banning ads with sexy women. I’m 50, and I have never – NEVER – come across a woman objecting to ads with sexy models.
I always like to make the point to the “ban porn” feminists who claim that it gives men an unrealistic impression of relationships that romance novels and “chick flicks” should also be banned, as they do the same to women :-).
As a First Amendment…ah…enthusiast, although I personally abhor pornography, I support its existence because it’s not, in fact, illegal. I *do* wonder how to keep it away from minors, though, and in the Age of the Internet that’s pretty much lost territory. *sigh*
In my personal fantasy world, pornographers (authors, actors, publishers, videographers, the whole lot of them) are boycotted. Their smut is not purchased or viewed; no ad clicks generate revenue for them; no magazines are furtively exchanged for anonymous cash over a checkstand or counter. These pornographic partners must therefore earn not only an honest living (yes, smut is honest, alas), but a moral one.
But that’s my personal fantasy world. Not in existence now, and probably not ever!
re. Romance novels: About once or twice a year I need to empty my brain of serious reading matter, so I find a Regency romance (they’re all about the same) and flip through the pages to make sure it’s G-rated. Not even PG details, thank you so much. I’m much more into the snarky/witty conversation of the protagonists before the inevitable ending/doom descends upon them. e.g., Georgette Heyer, Jane Austen, and others inspired by them.
re. “Chick flicks”: I don’t think I’ve ever seen one, other than the Jane Austen adaptations that have been produced.
The “ban porn” feminists just don’t understand that once the government–at whatever level–begins forbidding the publication of *some* kinds of literature, it tends to run wild and forbid all kinds of printed matter. So do large privately controlled organizations: look at what happened to Facebook. “No images of the human breast,” or words to that effect, were the policy at FB. So when women wanted help in positioning their babies for nursing, “Qu’elle horreur! Human breasts!” And a controversy was born.
OTOH, the First Amendment is aimed at *governmental* actions. Actions by a privately controlled organization need to be based on other principles.
Thank God (and Thomas Payne) for the First Amendment.
The strings of the puppet Khan are now being pulled by his islamist friends and it didn’t take long for him to nail his prejudices to the mast…
Me neither. Most women I talked to professed they like to look at ads and photos of beautiful women.
What I find interesting is that this model is more toned than average, but not anorexic. They are just attacking the image of a healthy female body.
And it has always been part of Western culture to feature lightly dressed ideal bodies in prominent public spaces.
Yes, ironically swimwear and lingerie models are generally more toned and sporty than some anorexic-looking fashion models (the idea being that garments would ‘drape’ better or something). So Khan should be more concerned about well-draped fashion models.
As I stated below, the young woman in the ad self-identifies as a strict vegan who works out 4-5 times per week. It follows that she would look slim and toned.
If she did not look slim and toned on that regimen, it would indicate a serious physiological or biochemical issue.
and talking of guards: this reminds me of Kurt Vonneguts dystopian story ” Harrison Bergeron” in which a ” handicaper general” takes care of too well endowed or equipped persons.Highly recommended read!
There was a demonstration in Hyde Park against the ads — not Muslims. Lots of women in shirts and tank tops. Feminists are a bit divided on this. “Slut walks” are ok, but not sexy adverts.
This is not a clear cut issue, and it was crafty of that mayor to begin with this. We women have become benumbed by all the near naked women selling stuff from autos to liquor… When I lived in London many years ago, it would not be a paper sold at the kiosks if it did not have a naked woman on the cover. Then there were the ads for, the Bond flick Octopussy. All over the tube. I stared at them, not quite believing it. To say that we women don’t mind because we are numb to it, is crass.
Like many of you point out, if it was a Christian pastor, it would never go. Christianity has no clout any more. It will go, with a Muslim pushing it. Bloody shame that much worse will follow.
If an ad really offends you, boycott the product and let the advertisers know why. Not legal restrictions, consumer choice.
Good posting. However what if this is the start of a very slippery slope. Maybe a film, or a play or a book might be considered unsuitable by Mr. Khan or that the West End night clubs and bars are offensive too!
History tells quite recently how the hard fought freedoms of women can disappear in a blink of an eye, Iran in particular is an example. When the Shah of Persia was overthrown women were immediately subjugated by men. Pakistan is passing a law to allow men to “lightly” beat their wives if they refuse to have sex.
As much as I disagreed with her politics I greatly admired Mrs Thatcher as I do her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the 2nd but will we continue to see the likes of them again?
I would suggest the Mr Khan has an agenda which has nothing to do with women’s perceptions, rather the polar opposite in fact.
As a follow up to my comments in the other thread, I have found more information regarding the model in the Protein World ad.
Australian Renee Sommerfield is a 24 year-old vegan who claims to work out 4 to 5 times per week. Based on those habits, and her obvious genetic gifts, her appearance is no mystery, nor unrealistic.
She also had a very mature response to the controversy over this Protein World ad, the quote is midway through this article:
What is that nice lady doing running around in her underwear?
Being a pleasure to the eye. As a woman I like seeing beautiful people of both genders.
This is a perfect solution to the feminist craze, bravo
“Feminist craze”? Sadly, it’s beyond the ‘craze’ level – that word connotes a passing fad. Just look at Sweden, where feminism is built into the national scripture…makes our “affirmative action” look wussy in comparison.
And Sweden is what you get when fems get aholt to the wheel of the ship of state. They were unwise to grab it rather than suggest a share…but they were copying men.
I highly recommend a 10 episode show “Occupied” – on Netflix. It’s about PC Norway pushing beyond the limits of their ideology, and the results are quite stunning.
Unless I can watch it on my computer for free, I don’t try. Even then, there’s a time crunch and the eyestrain that comes with so much time spent on our website…
I’m sure Queen Victoria would have approved these latest “cover-ups”. (But she wouldn’t be amused.)
I don’t know, those tight-laced Victorian corsets were pretty kinky…
So now the new mayor of London is already dictating bus advertising and standards of dress for women. What next? Freedom of choice is being eroded by (again) one individual who decrees by virtue of absolute power that the masses obey his will. Likewise with Merkel and her open borders. This is Islam in its finest hour. And as expected the multitudes meekly duck for cover. London has surrendered.