Of Burkas and Bare Bottoms

Once again, our Israeli correspondent MC weighs in on the Culture Wars.

Of Burkas and Bare Bottoms

by MC

Perhaps a measure of civilization is the amount of freedom we give our wives and daughters; freedom to live their own lives. Or do we lock them up for our own private consumption?

Anybody who has read A.J. Cronin’s Hatter’s Castle will remember the tyrannical father who throws his accidentally pregnant daughter on the street after her fiancé dies in the Tay Bridge railway disaster (1879). This was Victorian England, and women were held to higher moral standards than their menfolk. The idea of Eve as the intellectually inferior ‘temptress’ was still with us.

In the Garden of Eden, Eve got it all wrong and in so doing destroyed poor, poor Adam. But read it carefully and a different picture emerges; somebody (Adam most likely) told her not to even touch the tree, which the serpent was able to prove was a pack of lies and so erode confidence. The woman confesses that she was deceived by the serpent, Adam blames everybody but himself.

So why does society see Eve as the stupid tart when it was Adam’s arrogance that caused all the problems? Our churches and synagogues are still filled with women of faith and wisdom; it is the men who usually fail to stand up.

Barbaric male-dominated societies seem to be obsessed with ‘virginity’ and ‘purity’, and are ready to murder if they deem that their penile honour has been compromised.

I am not female, and I do not necessarily believe that recreational sex is a good thing, but it happens, especially when people have feelings for each other. Yet in a society where women have equal rights, then I have to accept that it is the woman’s absolute right to choose her sexual partner, and at a time or place of her choosing.

Provided, that is, she fully understands the risks involved. The same goes for the males, of course, and the risk of pregnancy, even despite precautions, is a shared responsibility.

Virginity as such, belongs solely to the girl or woman in question, and is not the plaything of any relative, male or otherwise. This can be very hard for a father to understand, even in this modern society.

However, young girls need to be protected, which means that their rights are violated, but that protection needs to be provided by parents and by society as a whole. Most 12-year-olds (and many 16-year-olds) are not capable of informed consent, and are thus ‘easy meat’ to any handsome male targeting them. The problem here is that girls can get pregnant, and are thus a special case in society, and the younger the girl, the more dangerous the pregnancy can be.

The Islamic habit of regarding unguarded children as fair game is thus a depraved and deplorable attack on the equality of women, and one must ask: where are the feminists demanding that Muslim rapists and sex-slavers be justly punished? But it’s all gone quiet over there because ‘racism’ trumps all.

In the 1980s professional soccer players wore short shorts. In the Victorian 1880s they were somewhat longer. But then along came the influence of Islam, and FIFA had to make rules about the length of shorts and the removal of tops. The players of 40 years ago would often exchange tops after a big game. It was innocent, but not to Islam…

Do we really need to sexualize everything? I remember walking along the beach at Khobar in Saudi Arabia. The little boys were playing in the water, while their sisters in their abayahs (burkas) were on the beach watching. In Islam, even the little children are sexualized.

In ’80s Britain, many young children played naked on the beach, and here in Israel it is still not unusual, except in those areas closed off for the ultra-religious, for whom bare flesh is ‘evil’ and the naked body an anathema.

We, humanity in common with other mammals, have two types of body, male ones and female ones, and there are many, many bottoms in this world. But somehow we get het up when people bare them. It is one of those irrationalities of culture; the more religious, the more irrational. Yesterday the temperature hit 41 degrees (106F) and stripping off and cooling down would have been bliss, but we have cultural taboos. In Saudi Arabia I could be beaten up for just showing my knees.

So why are we so ashamed, and why does religion seem to have so much influence?

I can remember an incident from when I was about six. My father’s mother was visiting, and my 8-year-old brother and I were not at all sure whether we were allowed to undress in front of her. This was in the days of open fires and no central heating and we usually got into our PJs in front of said fire.

We knew that we were not supposed to undress in public but did grandma, (mother of four boys and two girls) count? It is not as if we particularly cared, but we were not sure what those irrational adults would think or do if we got it wrong either way, and our bottoms — being already bare — were vulnerable.

Adult behaviour is terribly confusing. It is OK to wear a skimpy bikini or swimming trunks, but one must not to be seen in one’s underwear. I was told off by my feminist sister-in-law because I made some reference to the girls at (elementary) school doing PE in knickers and vest (the boys wore shorts and vest or sometimes no top at all).

So knickers were OK if it was PE (but not anymore), but one must not ‘see’ the knickers when a dress was worn on top.

All this culture just to hide our bums…

In Islam, the male is innocent, and the female is still the sordid temptress. Does an 8-year-old go out of her way to ‘tempt’ a man? Little girls are beautiful in a cute sort of way but are really only ‘sexy’ if provocatively dressed — which is usually not their choice; we adults are the ones who have those ‘Shirley Temple’ moments.

I have seen young girls dressed such that they look like hookers. They would be better off naked and innocent, and the people dressing them like that need their heads examined. Making a target of a child is not acceptable, but then neither is putting a 6-year-old in a burka. What kind of sexual fantasy involves a little child? A truly perverted one.

I do not mind if a woman freely chooses to wear a burka, or if an 8-year-old tries out Mother’s high heels. Women, once they are mature enough to consider the implications should be free to dress however THEY choose, but with the emphasis on the THEY.

Yes, women can be very provocative (so can men), but men have to be taught restraint — there is a price to pay.

Imprisoning women in black sacks because men have difficulty controlling their lust is a ridiculous and barbaric state of affairs, and the societal failure to protect the young girls in Rotherham (and elsewhere) out of a perverted desire to protect ‘social cohesion’ is despicable. If I, as a white Jewish male had seduced an unhappy and vulnerable 12-year-old, I would not only have had the book thrown at me, but my life in prison would have been hell on earth. Is this the real racism, that Pakistani males can get away with things because they are prepared to cry (the ‘racism’) wolf and go to extremes of violence? Does the law of the land only apply to certain (majority) groups? Or is Britain no longer a country where the Rule of Law applies to all?

I don’t know the answers. It is up to the women themselves to dictate the terms, so where are the feminists when ‘unterwomen’ are in need? The feminists seem only interested in socio-economic class. Women’s rights (theirs); young girls from immigrant or poor societies seem to be below their narrow and self-interested horizons (with a few exceptions, of course).

Both burkas and bare bottoms have their problems. What worries me, especially about burkas, is when mature women are denied free choice, as if they were some kind of livestock. It is one thing to coif and clothe a poodle, but do we have to empower Muslim men to treat women in a similar way. Islam is not a ‘religion of peace’, nor is it beneficial to a society in which it becomes embedded. British girl’s lives matter, too.

The British Government’s failure to apply the rule of law across all society means that there are now hotspots of unrest. Yes, the Nazis targeted Jews because of race and religion, but the rape of a minor of whatever race is a criminal act. Except in Islam it seems. Does the political religion of ‘Multiculturalism’ mean that virgins must once more be sacrificed in our land?

Barbarism is as barbarism does, and those who let it take root in our society need to be shunned.

It was not only Jews who fell victim to what has been called the Third Reich’s ‘cumulative radicalization’. As we have seen, the murder of mentally ill Germans had begun even before the outbreak of war with the Aktion T-4. The process was accelerated under wartime conditions; significantly, Hitler’s personal order authorizing the ‘euthanasia’ policy was dated September 1, 1939. The case of the asylum in Hadamar, north-west of Frankfurt, makes it clear just how overtly the Nazi state was now capable of committing murder. Between January and August 1941 more than 10,000 people were put to death there in a specially constructed gas chamber in the cellar, most of them mental patients transported from other psychiatric hospitals. Although the policy was supposed to be secret, local people knew perfectly well what was being done. As the president of the higher state court in Frankfurt reported to the Reich Minister of Justice, ‘even children call out when such transport cars pass: “There are some more to be gassed.”’ The smoke from the crematorium chimney was clearly visible hanging over the town. The personnel from the asylum were shunned by the local populace when they came to drink in local pubs after work. The Bishop of Limburg, in whose diocese Hadamar lay, followed Bishop Galen’s lead in protesting at what was being done. He too noted the absence of secrecy. Local schoolchildren referred to the buses that brought patients to Hadamar as ‘murder-boxes’ and taunted one another by shouting: ‘You’re crazy; you’ll be sent to the baking oven in Hadamar.’ A particular source of local concern was that elderly people would be next: ‘After the feebleminded have been finished off,’ local people were heard to say, ‘the next useless eaters whose turn will come are the old people.’ These complaints led to a suspension of the killings and the decommissioning of the gas chambers.

(from Niall Ferguson, The War of the World Twentieth-Century Conflict and the Descent of the West.

Even those despicable Nazis listened to their own people…

Something terrible is happening to our Western Civilization. It is the empowerment of clever humanities graduates who just ‘know’ what is best for all mankind. They have a Common Purpose: the relegation of everybody else to voiceless cultureless drones, Antz with no Z Marion-4195.

MC lives in the southern Israeli city of Sderot. For his previous essays, see the MC Archives.

4 thoughts on “Of Burkas and Bare Bottoms

  1. Could it be that the writers of Genesis got the story wrong?

    Suppose, just suppose, a more advanced society from here or elsewhere, decided to enhance a sub-human tribe which was almost, but not quite, fully human. Suppose they genetically improved it to the point that the people could understand and do what they are told to do. But but even dogs can do this. Humans must be wiser, must be able to make their own decisions, so the advanced society set a test for the now-possibly true humans.

    A couple are told that that they MUST NOT touch the fruit from one particular tree which looked just the same as all the other trees and fruits. Eve wonders why this should be so important and a snake, who in early days was meant to be wise, not evil — think of the Caduceus — gave her a nudge towards wisdom and she ate from the banned tree. Then she presented Adam with the wisdom to do so as well.

    The advanced society were very pleased with their efforts and told the tribe that they were now fully human, no longer had to live in the ‘Garden’ and could now go out and multiply throughout the world. But Adam, Eve and the tribe got it wrong. They thought they were being punished by being evicted from a very comfortable life, all the attention and food they could require, and being sent into a wild and uncomfortable life they were no longer used to. They tried to return to the Garden but were refused entry which made them feel that they had done something dreadfully wrong in eating from the banned tree.

    So came good and evil and the decision that it was the Woman who had done this to her people so she was to blame whereas of course, it was Eve who had had the wisdom to push her people to be come fully human.

  2. NIV Genesis Chapter 3:
    12 The man said, “The woman you put here with me—she gave me some fruit from the tree, and I ate it.”

    For some they would understand God’s wrath, as Adam first blames you = God.
    So not Adam’s fault.
    Adam was not going to accept that he made a mistake.

    So does God accept that he made a mistake when pointed out by Adam?
    Should God accept that he made a mistake?

  3. Going local Adam is beginning to sound to me like Governor Andrew Cuomo in the New York Nursing Home scandal.

    Mike from Brooklyn

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.