I get it, but I'm pretty annoyed at it. Largely on account of, you know, the comparison. I mean, think of all the false choices you could put on a card in the same way. It is a visual straw man.

To me, it reads "feel bad for me!" from the position of socioeconomic advantage. You think women living in seriously dangerous, oppressive situations with a legal status far subservient to men? Man, I had a BARBIE growing up!

I'm probably going to get ripped apart here, but I think the beauty ideal in western society isn't as bad as we tend to think it is. Don't get me wrong - the women held up as beauty standards are completely unrealistic looking. When even Jessica Alba is getting photoshopped, it's crazy. But when you stop reading women's magazines and watching entertainment and fashion shows on TV, it also stops being of vital importance to look like that. Fat discrimination is definitely a reality, but neither do you need to look like the woman in the orange bikini to avoid being stoned to death. Once you decide you don't need to look like her, the burqa becomes less appealing.

I won't be back to debate because I last time I said something like this, I was viciously flamed and I don't want to deal with that again. Those who didn't viciously flame me said ridiculous things like "Easy for you to say, you're EMPOWERED!" I'm not even sure why I'm trying to say it again except for a compulsive need to convince women we have choices and you can choose to not feel bad for not looking like Lindsay Lohan or whoever.

Oh brother. Give me a break. Comparing the two is just so ridiculous that only some upper middle class white American woman who feels terribly left out of the "I'm a victim" game could possibly compare her situation to that of a woman under Taliban - or strict Muslim - oppression.

A. Pfff, really? Women in the US are the most liberated? That can only be said by someone who never visited Germany or Scandinavia.

B. The key word is choice. In Western society you have CHOICE, whereas in Iran you DON'T. Period. Yes, western society puts pressure on women to conform to an ideal of beauty yadda yadda yadda. But it's PRESSURE, not THE LAW. No woman will be arrested for not looking hot in a thong, or for being overweight, of for having pimples. In fact - hey, get this - you can even wear a burka in the west. Yes, people will look at you awkwardly, but they won't stone you for it. So, all in all, I still prefer the west, if it's all the same to you. Thank you!

I doubt the post-card sender is LITERALLY comparing the Western women's beauty standard and Taliban-esque standard for women or suggesting that they are "the same."
And I think it's ignorant to insist that she not feel oppressed by the Western beauty standard, even though it's not AS oppressive as in some other societies. They may not be the same in degree, but they are the same in kind - two sides of the same patriarchal coin, so to speak. I don't see why "privileged" women should be shamed or silenced for wanting to talk about that.

I'm not sure the sender is debating between living in the societies understood to be represented by these images -- perhaps just the styles of dress/covering pictured? Or perhaps the sender is male, and would never have to make the choice, but wonders...

Of course it's a straw man, but, while I would choose to live in the sort of western society represented by the first image, if I was actually forced to choose between these two types of clothing and bodily exposure, it would be the second, no contest.

And, if not much legal force, there is certainly plenty of social coercion in the 'liberated' west around female embodiment. A woman who is considered fat is not only subject to taunts, catcalls, and romantic rejection, but is much more likely to be considered unemployable, to live in poverty, to not receive fair medical care, and even to be refused the right to adopt children or have receive fertility assistance.

So, are these the only 2 choices we get? The slut versus the oppressed veiled woman? Talk about false dichotomies.

There is so much generalization in these comments regarding the status of Middle Eastern women that it sickens me. There are assumptions about being stoned to death for not wearing the Burqa, statements about the lack of choice in Iran. I think this is the more problematic piece, not the implication of oppression in the bikini picture. To make statements like this don't account for the many variations among Muslim and Middle Eastern societies, and most of all, do not give these women ANY agency whatsoever (discursively disempowering them simply through our representations of them).

I recommend Saba Mahmood's book The Politics of Piety for anyone interested in these issues. She looks at the myriad ways that women in Islamic women do have agency, and are not "100% subordinated" as the original post posits.

Yeah, SocProf, that's exactly what the post-card sender was saying.
Some of you are making wildly inappropriate assumptions about this person.

The slut versus the oppressed veiled woman?

...so wearing a bikini makes a woman a slut? Clearly Western women aren't judged or oppressed AT ALL.

I initially read this postcard as being more about how much skin is covered/how much of your body is exposed to public scrutiny. That's where the "choice" part comes in; no one's going to want to wear a veil/etc that they're *forced* to wear, but plenty of people probably wouldn't mind dressing as covered/uncovered as they like, and some of these people presumably would choose more covered than less. The amount of clothing someone's wearing shouldn't result in a judgment about what kind of person they are.

You know, here I see a lot of young Muslim girls who shop at the same H&M, Zara or Mango stores as I do, and dress the same as me, except for a long-sleeved t-shirt under the top, or a light trenchcoat over the outfit. And a rather unobtrusive handkerchief on their heads. By reducing representations of Muslim attire to the most extreme forms, you're making a disservice to millions of Muslim women who, really, aren't that different from us.

What's interesting in these comments is the connatations of a veil - oppressed, dominated, silenced, so of course the western woman is being overdramatic by comparing herself to these poor, poor, women.

I live in Syria, where many woman choose to wear hijab, and women often tell me they like being freed from people judging their bodies. And that western women are oppressed by their beauty standards - look at all the plastic surgery they get (of course there's plastic surgery here too but that's another story) and how women are denigrated in pornography. Obviously they have no respect for women!

The "oppressed veiled woman" actually can consider these factors and the freedom from eyes a hijab offords can be part of her reason for wearing it. And speaking of CHOICE, most majority- Muslim countries do not require hijab - Indonesia, Pakistan, Egypt, Syria, Tunisia, Morocco, etc.

Steph - is the veil not legally required in Iran? I was under the impression that women must wear it in public. Of course this isn't the situation in Arab countries, but if we're comparing extremes, Iran will be my choice. Let me know if you find a western country where women must wear bikinis all the time. I want to live there.

Might I recommend reading Size six: The Western women's harem (http://www.odemagazine.com/doc/6/size_six_the_western_women_s_harem/)
and Children of Jihad by Jared Cohen.
I think it is very interesting to think of how we think about liberartion, and how we use this US lense to view other cultures. Women in other countries are very satisfied with their status, and it is not necessarily our duty to judge them or tell them what they should want.

Dubi: You can do a couple of quick searches in Flickr and you get pictures like this or this one, which belongs to a meetup of Iranian Flickr users. "Veil" is a misnomer.

I agree with Orientalista's comments. Interesting reading on this topic is "Scheherazade Goes West" by Fatima Mernissi. She makes this comparison, and goes as far as to say that in her mind - a Muslim scholar from Morocco - the preoccupation with beauty pushed by Western culture is even more oppressive than the veil. I have a friend who was raised in Oklahoma, just another white girl there, who married a Muslim man and has found greater freedom in hijab than she ever had as a member of the dominant culture group.

The question of forced choice of clothing such as are found in many Middle Eastern countries are a separate topic. The fact that dictators and oppressive regimes do something does not, by default, make it a bad idea.

Though, I am always intrigued by the Muslim girls around me who proudly wear the hijab (not a burka) but still put on cosmetics. Mixed messages much?

I think we need to dwell a little more on the false dichotomy point. Both the practices of veiling and of pornifying exist because of the assumption that women are first and foremost sexual recepticles. The difference lies in whether the culture prefers them to be available for procreative or recreative sex, not in whether they are actally respected as human beings.

Are you sure a man didn't send this card?

Orlando, I think that's important as well. The two "standards" are just different sides of the same coin, on which women exist as objects rather than subjects.
The nearly naked woman and the completely covered woman are both valued primarily for their bodies.
In the former case, the male gaze dictates that women display their bodies in a way that's pleasurable to straight men.
In the latter case, the female body is viewed as so tempting, so filthy, so dangerous, that she is compelled to cover it (as it does not even BELONG to her!).
Liberation would be a society where women dress however they damn well please, without legal or social repurcussions.

I had a fellow student at my U.S. college tell me (she was somewhat older, and married with a young child) that she noticed a huge difference in how American men treated her depending on whether or not she was covering her hair. She said they were much more professional and respectful, and less likely to make sexual advances, when her hair was covered, while with her hair down they seemed to take that as an indicator of sexual availability and would try to chat her up. (She was very pretty, imho, so she probably had a good sample size, too! :p)

The slut/virgin thing is all about shaming and controlling women, often with different phenotypes but for the same purpose: "you are too slutty!" or "you're not slutty enough!" all just mean "my opinion of your body is the most important thing in your life, and you need to listen to me and do whatever I say." So, like SarahMC said. :)

"Liberation would be a society where women dress however they damn well please, without legal or social repercussions."

Dress will ALWAYS have social repercussions. ALWAYS. Dress is a social act.

It's a social act that results in harsher punishment/reward for women than men, rrsafety. Please refer to Bagelsan's final paragraph for further clarification. Don't take my comment so literally in order to avoid the matter at hand.

As someone who continues to deal with eating and body image issues, another potential reading of this card regards where the potential "oppression" comes from. While the role of the media is undeniable, it is ultimately personal choice that leads women to crash diet, inject poison (botox) into their faces to stop wrinkles, spend hard-earned cash on any variety of tubed chemicals (from Dove to Covergirl), and spend time thinking about how they're not measuring up. In societies where being covered is either required by the government (as in Iran), this comes from outside. So really, which is worse: agonizing about the best what to alter your body, or agonizing about your lack of agency?

Persson: I had the same thought.

Why is everyone else assuming the sender is female? The card makes just as much sense when read as being sent from a man.

I think there's an interesting question in why everyone made the assumption they did.

Maybe the author of the message does not warrant sociological analysis. Maybe s/he is a sufferer of an eating or body image disorder? Maybe s/he is *unsure* what s/he would 'really' choose if they had a 'choice' To starve/ purge/ vomit/ exercise or to hell with it and shroud the body to prying eyes.

Sometimes exercises such as this take on the same analysis of the dead poet. Nobody really knows.

Honestly; I've always been able to see what the postcard 'sender' said. Which IS worse??? Honestly who the heck knows, it's all relative......

Wearing hijab, a complex, nuanced cultural/religious expression that gains additional meaning in contrast to secular societal forces... Hijab wearing could more fruitfully be compared to other fashion choices such as Evangelical or Simple Christian women who wear "modest" clothes.

... and how can we be sure it wasn't sent by a woman who wears a veil?

On the one hand Western culture has a massive misogyny problem that many people are utterly, hysterically unwilling to even admit exists, much less confront. On the other hand while I know its place in Arabic culture is very complex and nuanced, I can't help but find the burka to be a symbol of an immature distrust of all human sexuality, male and female. They seem to paint men as animals who can't muster up the maturity to not treat women as more than sex objects, and indeed I've read some pretty awful accounts from Western women visiting Middle Eastern countries and basically being treated as though every man thinks they're prostitutes. What I can say for certain is that both extremes suck in their own ways, and they show that we have a long ways to go.

From a social perspective, I can see the comparison. 

But there are no laws that send women to beatings or jail for not wearing a bikini. Husbands don't threaten to beat you for wearing a one piece. And you aren't required to wear a bikini to class, to church, to the mall...

There's a similarity to ponder, but social pressure and physical force and still two very different lines to cross.

Now, comparison of a burkha and a bikini in a free country is more interesting - and why I think that we shouldn't ban the veil. But again, it all comes back to how much choice you are allowed.

Makes me think of an heel-arious segment on Jon Stweart, where a woman compares the burkha to high heels. It was all supposed to be a joke of course, but it actually seems like a valid comaprison in my mind. While covering up most of your body may lead to vitamin D deficiency when worn up north, high heels will damage your feet of worn too long and too often, and they're painful too, but none the less feminine women are expected to wear them at least at formal gatherings

Also, I'm pretty sure that both of those pictures are depicting Niqabs, not burkhas.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Religion

when dressing for men's sexual pleasure is the norm, how exactly are women liberated? answer the question.

"I understand that I have a right to show my body in this culture. I get
that it’s allowed, and I also get that it is nearly mandated. What is
less widely understood is that nobody has a right to see my body." http://caitieandjason.blogspot.com/2012/02/youre-wearing-too-many-clothes.html

Being a Pakistani woman I think it's amusing how it is so difficult for most American's to wrap their head around hijab or burqa. First off, barely anyone acknowledges that faith is usually integral in a woman's decision to wear hijab or burqa. Obviously this unacknowledged reality is fueled by many people not having any grasp of Islam or having the false notion that Islam itself is oppressive to women. Why is it considered 'normal' and not oppressive when a catholic nun covers her head and body, or when Christian/Jewish women do as connected with their religious faith? Second, there is so much denial of how much women are oppressed within the U.S. Arab and Muslim countries have had women elected to political positions of power long before the U.S did. What we consider '"freedom" for women here in the U.S. is almost always tied to sex - but from a patriarchal and misogynistic viewpoint. "Sex" as it's defined and discussed in American culture, always revolves around the male gaze and submissive femininity. The epidemic of violence against women is huge here in the U.S. - from the superbowl being the most sex trafficked event in the world - to women being murdered by male partners - to a legal system which is more likely to take a small robbery more seriously than a rape, or the constant barrage of violence against women enacted by corporate power. These things are rarely discussed when talking about sexism, and oppression for women (and all people who identify as such). So please, please, before you point fingers and make huge generalizations, look very closely at yourself, your socialization, and your ignorance. Because trust me - many of you are ignorant beyond belief.

Uh, but women in the U.S. do have a choice to wear a bikini or not. Nobody is enforcing that choice on a women by threat of violence. Some women wear the burka by choice (in the sense that women wear bikini's by choice), many women in Islamic countries don't even have that option. Social pressure is very different that the threat of being beaten or even murdered. They aren't even comparable. The women who wrote that Postsecret card and the author of that cartoon are simply morons. Yes, it's accurate to say women do face social pressure to wear certain types of clothing. But it's not the same type of pressure as say a bunch of backward religious zealots ready to take you to a public flogging if you step outside with your slutty neck on display. You can critique certain social structures that pressure women into choices, but it's misleading and offensive to try and draw a comparison to women being forced into wearing burkas. 

Women are not forced to dress anyway in America. They have the choice. If some of them choose to show off their bodies then that's fine. If others decide to practice a certain faith in which they cover their bodies then that's fine too. Stop being so damn judgmental people, its kinda sad.

"If I had a choice" implies that the sender of the postcard does not have a choice. That doesn't really narrow it down as to who or what gender the sender might be.

The point of the cartoon is not to compare the dress or relative freedom of either woman, or even what their dress may or may not indicate about their characters. It is simply to point out that both women live in a "cruel, male-dominated culture." And that this may be true whether or not either woman believes it to be true.

False comparison. The woman on the left CHOOSES her clothes, and isn't punished for how she dresses (and certainly not by severe beatings.) The woman in the burka wears it because she is FORCED to, either by laws or by misogynist views imposed upon her that her looks are a curse for being tempting to men (who can't be responsible for their own thoughts) and being taught that her body is something shameful

I posted regarding the bikini vs. burqa issue after spending some time on the beach in Jordan:

http://middlesavagery.wordpress.com/2010/06/16/haram-at-the-beach/
I think you're missing one fairly salient point: you can't swim in a burqa. Women who wade into the sea have to be supported by their male relatives so they won't drown. 

The issue in both instances is the defining of a woman's body as inherently sexual and therefore provocative. In all societies, women are considered a source of temptation for men, and this is consistent with both religions such as Islam (through the concept of 'fitna') and Christianity (through the tale of Eve, the temptress). Only when we start considering women as full-fledged human beings with human capabilities (intelligence, creativity, leadership abilities, etc etc), and not primarily as sexual beings, will we be able to truly move towards gender equality.

so if I dress to show more skin/curves, I must be doing it solely for the male gaze, huh? I couldn't possibly be doing it for my own dogdamn pleasure, right?  
I'm sorry, but I see no difference between this kind of attitude and the whole rape culture attitude of assuming women's clothing choices are a message for men. If I wear "sexy" clothes my dears, it's because *I* enjoy being in *my body*. it has nothing to do with you. So whether you're a man or a woman, muslim or non - screw you an stop judging. 

One observation that I haven't seen mentioned yet is that many times it is not a simple "men are oppressing women" system but actually that women are oppressing each other. More often I am likely to think about what my friends will say about an outfit than about a guy that I am interested in will think. One commenter said her husband doesn't care if she wears something sexy or a lumberjack shirt -- which i think is awesome -- but it may be the case that her friends may care if she wears a lumberjack shirt to the bar. Upholding standards of feminity and attractiveness require comparison and knowing where one falls on a spectrum, and so women can often be promoting patriarchy as well.

One thing that I noticed while living with Indian families and making Indian friends is that often it is not the husband who most maltreats his wife, but instead a mother-in-law maltreating a daughter-in-law. Or the older daughter in law maltreating the younger daughter in law. Yes, this comes from wider patriarchy and an unfair promotion of the male well being over a female well being, but I have found that mother in laws are more likely to be upset by modern daughter in laws than husbands about modern wives. I don't know a lot about majority Muslim countries, but I would venture a guess that this trend is there as well.

I've been reading this blog for a few months but this is the first time I am looking at the comment section because I was particularly interested in reactions to this post. I am disappointed to see commenters using sarcasm and rudeness as currency of communication and wish that people would speak without sarcasm and give others the benefit of the doubt.

This is such an absurd comparison.  No one is making women go to the beach wear skimpy bikinis.  Sure there are social pressures that make women feel they need to present their bodies in a particular way, but any women who thinks she needs to wear something like what's shown in the picture above has to question what she is trying to prove and what type of guy she is trying to prove it to.  

There are so many perfectly modest bathing suits available to women and plety of men who respect a womans choice to be modest rather than skanky.  The hijab and burqa are all-or-nothing and are connected with religion and beliefs.  No one is going to persecute a women for wearing shorts over her bikini or for choosing to wear a less-revealing bikini. 

Again, the hijab and the burqa are all-or-nothing but womens bikinis and clothing options are an an enormous continum.  Any women who goes to the beach in a string bikini saying that she is oppressed is completly full of it.  Have some respect for yourself and think about who you are dressing for--a male pig looking for a one-night stand or a gentleman who respects a woman who respects herself?  

I'm disgusted by hypocrisy of westerners who "liberate" eastern women by making laws that forbid them to wear veils. Women has right to wear whatever they want, whether it is a niqab or bikini, it's a matter of choice. By imposing laws that prohibit burkas and niqabs women are not liberated, only the oppressor has been changed. 

I have trouble with the bikini/burka comparison primarily because the two articles of clothing entail a completely different embodied experience, and are worn in different contexts.  

Bikinis are swimwear; I can't think of many places outside beach/pool settings where they are considered appropriate.  I always choose to wear a bikini over other swimwear, because I love the feeling of water against my skin when I'm swimming.  And while I'm not a sunbather, I do love the feeling of the heat against my bare skin.  It's the least amount of clothing I can get away with at the beach, and not be considered obscene.  
It's fascinating that such an itty bitty garment can somehow make me feel properly dressed, in this particular context.  And that's where I think the most interesting comparisons can be made regarding the burka; the threshold of how much of our body we must cover - depending on our culture and on specific contexts within cultures - in order to not to deviate from norms of propriety.

The bikini vs. the burqua is ridiculous because most women don't walk around in bikinis. In additon there are ways to avoid the male gaze without having to cover every inch of your body. For starters many muslim women around the world simply wear turtle necks and baggy close to avoid the male gaze. It also ignores that many western women dress like tomboys and never wear feminine attire.

If the author lived in a place like Saudi Arabia or parts of Afghanistan, Iran or Pakistan, she would not have any "choice" in the matter. Does not wearing a bikini land any woman in jail or thrashed or punished in any physical way? Western women accept the pressures the media puts out, then think they are being forced to accept those pressures. Go live in one of the above named countries and then tell me if you still think of "choice" the same way.
 In other words, lots of women manage to see past the false dichotomy presented here. Lots of us women (speaking as a woman whose background experience was equally split between Muslim and Western cultures), manage to live without succumbingto either insane beauty standards of the uber-capitalist media/beauty/fashion industries OR the religious dogmatism that relegates women to being nothing but rape-worthy baby machines meant to be tied as chattel to her father/husband etc.

This post on Christian modesty doctrines might be relevant:

"Here is the bottom line:When “modesty” is what motivates your dress and actions, you are basing your decisions on whether or not men are looking at you.When being “sexy” is what motivates your dress and actions, you are basing your decisions on whether or not men are looking at you.
That’s self-objectification.
I don’t know if I can make this any clearer: I’m not telling anyone to dress “immodestly.” I don’t give a flying fig what anyone else wears. I’m saying that basing your life decisions (clothing, exercise, etc.) on the modesty doctrine is just as objectifying as basing them on being “sexy.”
Just teaching girls to cover-up is a cop-out. Covering or uncovering isn’t the issue. The issue is why we do what we do. What’s important is to fight the idea that women are objects to be looked at, and that message is reinforced, not combated, when we teach the modesty doctrine."

http://nonprophetmessage.wordpress.com/2011/11/22/modesty-a-response-to-common-misunderstandings/

I love how many of the posters are falling back into the "Oh nos! Oppressive burqas! Sad Muslim women with no agency!" stances that always come up when westerners talk about hijab. IMO the comparison is not implying that covering and bikinis are necessarily equivalent types of garb but that merely the act of wearing less clothing does not imply liberation, freedom, or choice.  Don't assume every time you see a woman wearing niqab (the correct term for what the women in the photos are wearing) that they had no choice in the matter or feel oppressed by the garment. Likewise, don't assume that the woman in the bikini isn't subjected to any pressures to appear in a certain way from society. What is horrible is that the voices of Muslim women seem to continue to be ignored in these conversations as we paint over them with our own ignorant and biased opinions about their lives.

Women that argue for wearing the Hijab and burqa are simply cowards. They fear the wrath of their husbands, and would rather defend this ancient and barbaric custom than stand up for themselves. It is based on the internal jealousies of a few bronze-age men, and should be outlawed. Here in Canada, I see muslim women wearing the burqa at my University. So these women are trying to obtain a liberal education yet are still shackled to their primitive male jealousies. "Cover up because I don't want anyone to look at you and take you away." Women that bear this need to empower themselves, and stop being the livestock of muslim men.

If this cartoon is meant to illustrate some kind of double standard, than it fails miserably. 
The difference between the woman in the bikini and the woman in the burka is that if the woman in the burka is from Iran or Pakistan, she may be stoned to death or beheaded for showing her face in public or asking her husband for a divorce. 
The woman in the bikini can work at the job of her choosing, dress as she pleases, divorce her husband, manage her own money without being savagely put to death in the town square.

Now, explain to me again which society is more civilized? And which is more oppressive towards it's women?

I'll write this article/cartoon off as poorly thought out ... otherwise it is just an insult to the women of Iran and other Islamic countries who are struggling for the most basic of human rights. 

This article misses the glaring point that in nearly all middle eastern countries a separate religious police force enforces laws for women's attire. No matter how bad oppression is in the states, it certainly isn't sanctioned through a dedicated law enforcement body...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1874471.stm

There are many many choices in between those 2. the majority of women on the planet mostly dress in between those 2. (actually, I don't know of anywhere, aside from certain tribal cultures, where women wear anything as skimpy as a bikini as their DAILY dress). These are 2 very different garments, one is only appropriate at beaches and pools, not just walking down the street. the other is worn out on the street. each one may be worn for a number of reasons. Either way, my choice would be to have the legal and cultural option of choosing whatever I want to wear. I have no problem with women wanting to dress to be sexy or wanting to be modest, as long as they are free to make that choice and not be punished legally for it or pressured into it by their community.

I was walking around at the Beverly Center one time, and was struck by the uniform fakeness and super-exposure of most of the women there: micro tank and booty shorts. (Btw "underbutt" is seriously on trend again atm, people DO walk around with their ass cheeks hanging out and full cleavage, perhaps a little navel, too. Tankini at least is normal streetwear.) Anyhow, I was struck by the thought that eventually designer mallwear will consist of branded fake tits. That shit is expensive, best consumption is conspicuous consumption! And best way to show the other ladies you belong to a high roller alpha male. I went home and mentioned this notion to my Iranian chat pal, a woman my age who called herself "englishteachergreat". She lol'ed and said how happy she was with the mystery and personality she wielded in her full-coverage customary garb! That was right before my country falsely attacked Iraq, a country where women used to have some of the most secular freedom in the the entire region....

not sure if i'm mature enough to comment here, but after reading the thread i found out two things really intriguing :
first, why's the society mentioned in the comments pointing only towards MEN ? i mean, i'm from India, and we're in a phase where tradition is fighting modernism. here, WOMEN(conservatives) are equally responsible for suppressing the women (modernists), by calling them sluts/whores etc. they never miss to jibe at any women who's wearing short clothes or hanging out with guys. so why're only the men being blamed ? the women should unite first.
second: in my opinion, suppression of women is due to their sexuality, i.e, there involvement in sexual activities with guy(s). a girl having more than one boyfriend(not simultaneously) or a girl who's lost her virginity is straight-away labelled a SLUT. Even the ones who're raped are called Victims, not survivors, and are looked down on by the society. while if a guy has had sex with any number of girls, he's a hero, isn't he ?
which again boils down to religion (in my case, HInduism), where females are required to remain pure before marriage (sexually) and is only meant serve only there husbands. otherwise she's impure, waste and a disgusting creature.
why ? because fuck logic. that's why B|

I actually think the woman on the left is awesome.
As for the hijab, hey you can wear if you want it, but it would be a shame to hide yourself from the world because "males like looking at you".
That's just denying biology.

I agree with the author whole heartedly that the western countries indeed have a tendency to measure the whole world with their own yard stick, without acknowledging any cultural, political, economical, or religious differences that exist between them and the "others".

First of all, we have 1.7 billion Muslims around the world, and majority of them are good peaceful loving people. To see good Muslims, all you have to do is open your eyes and look around, because they're found in abundance in practically in every city of this world. While to see the "terrorist ones" you'll have to travel to caves and isolated places (not a good idea!).

Secondly, while the "Hijab" (covering of the head, chest, and crotch) is an obligatory act in Islam, the "Burka" (the black veil for entire body) or "Niqaab" (the face covering) are not, and hence they are voluntary. The men in Islam also have their own "Hijab" (dress code), as one would guess from the Muslim cap and beard.

Thirdly, Bikini, or for that matter, being fully naked, are no measure of "freedom". If you cant go to an office or courtroom "buck naked", does that mean you are being "oppressed"? The correct answer is "of course not!", because you understand that in western countries, the "norms" are that its disrespectful and unprofessional to dress "sexually" in a place where everyone is expected to act their best!. Well, in some cultures and countries, that norm is extended to even outside of office and courtrooms, meaning you cant dress in public in a way that will sexually entice others, because its considered being disrespectful, insensitive, and immoral to others.

The popular statement that "Islamic law oppresses women", is not only ignorant, but factually wrong. Islamic legal system is the oldest legal system in the world (as old as 5th century AD!) that granted women the rights to work, own property, divorce, and personalised marriage contract much before any western legal system! In fact, it wasn't until the 19th century AD that the women in the west were even recognised as "persons" and given the same rights as men, for example, the right to own property, equal pay, and write contracts.

The oppression of women in the poor, uneducated, and culturally influenced parts of the Muslim world, is not because women have no rights in Islam, its because Islamic rights of the women are not respected there! Women in USA are still fighting for the enforcement of many of their "newly" given rights, does that mean they have no rights to being with? Having a granted rights, and having your rights fulfilled are two separate issues and should never be confused together.

So before one comments about a religion, especially the one followed by 1.7 billion people around the world, one should get familiar with the facts first! (and I dont mean from CNN or FOX NEWS, but from Muslim sources, whether through internet or in person).

I hope I haven't offended anyone, but if did, I am sorry, as that was not my intention. I have tried to remain objective throughout in a very subjective and hostile environment towards me and my faith, but sometimes it's hard to not over step. Again, I apologise if I disrespected anyone.

I will end with the beautiful Muslim greeting, Aslamo Alaikum ("May Peace Be Upon You")!

Okay I am severely confused. What position are you taking here?
I would not mind a clear defined answer from you. I will not ask you to do so by trolling you. From man's perspective I may strongly disagree with you on something, but I'm not going to act like a chimpanzee who throws his poop at the visitors when they walk by him at the zoo like I have seen a lot of guys do to women online about the issue. Those who can't debate without showing respect and etiquette should not be posting online or chatting. Now that I have made it clear that you nor anyone else will not receive any of that abuse from me, I can now get to my point. I am I guess you can say the typical male geek fanboy. It seems every time I go to a comic book, superhero, geek culture website, or to Deviant Art I see a massive artillery shelling assault against the stuff I like. And that is comics and video games that have super heroines kicking ass and taking names while leaving as I get annoyed every time hearing people say over and over "little to the imagination." "Or they should put more clothes on." Or "Her outfit or body armor is objectifying and impractical." "Make more real women characters." Or that men should be aware of that EVIL male gaze. On the other hand I go to other websites and see feminists who embrace the same school of thought praise or give a shout out to Wonder Woman who wears a skimpy star spangled bustier/bathing suit, which I see nothing wrong and like by the way. I am getting mixed messages here. Is the water from the faucet hot or cold? Does green mean go and red mean stop? Or does red mean go or green mean stop? You know where I am getting at here right. I Just want the confusion cleared up so I know whether or not as what I do in my spare time should to you and others likeminded be seen as okay or not cool? That's all. Thank you for hearing me out if this post gets a response from you.

No one expects women to wear bikinis everywhere. The male equivalent to a a sexy girl in a bikini would be a shirtless man with abs in a bathing suit. There is no mandate on women to wear bikinis. Wear bikinis if you want, wear a burka if you want, wear jeans and a baggy shirt if you want. DO WHATVER THE FUCK YOU WANT! If society forced women to wear bikinis at all moments of the day then yes that would be oppression but we don't so you aren't opressed...at least not in that way. Good luck in your desperate journey to find how you're a victim.

Right, and what happens when the woman wearing the Burka wants to wear something different. Depending on where she lives it could be as simple as dirty looks from her peers to getting thrown in jail or even killed. This is a conflation of societal pressure and religious oppression, lost is the fact that the woman wearing the bikini has a FREAKING CHOICE. I mean really, the postcard says it all: "IF I had a choice". That's right, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, and I think that's a damned important difference no matter how much societal pressure exists.

The burka/hijab represents oppression, period. Many Muslim men believe they can slap their wives around for not wearing it. Know any men who hit their wives for wearing a one-piece to the beach? I don't.

Woman who Wear the hijabi or the burqa are oppressed that is the facts

Look what happened in Saudi Arabia recently to a woman who dressed normally and dared to walk outside. I call that OPPRESSIVE. You just can't dress up that pig as anything but Male OPPRESSION.

Freedom to wear what you wish is achieved only when you become brave enough to reject the religious/ideological lies and hypocrisy that you are taught.
The only true religion of God is self-less love for others.
Only when mankind accepts this reality ,then only they will be liberated from the feminist/religious hypocrisy and lies that this article and those who support it promote.

This is a joke right ? anyone who thinks that girl in the bikini has no choice or is oppressed need to get their heads check coming from a Muslim girl who lives in a Muslim country (Pakistan) it's a dream to think about removing my Hijab let alone actually do it and wear something I want. I get that women in the west are still not allowed to do many things but to ompare them to the women of the Islamic world is an insult to those women who get beaten everyday by their fathers brothers husbnads uncles who are not allowed to get education who are not allowed to leave the house. I have personal experience of getting beaten literally everyday by my brothers and father so please in no way can you compare the women from the west to the women of the Islamic world and lastly I would say #BanTheHjab #BanTheBurka #BanTheVeil

I including the helpful tips an individual present inside your posts. I'm going to take a note of your website as well as test once again here routinely borka design 2019. Now i'm rather selected We will be shared with several innovative information suitable the following! Best of luck for the next!

The cartoons point fails because most women wearing the burka had no choice. Yes there is social pressure to conform to standards of attractiveness, in popular culture more than daily life, but obviously no woman is forced to wear a bikini. But Iranian women are mass protesting for the past year because of a woman who was killed while detained by police for violating the requirement to wear hijab.

Wow. So many ignorant comments. Why are people acting like the bikini woman sent this postcard in? Lol. Oh, because the poor oppressed Muslim woman needs a virtue signaling white knight to protect them? Of course. Amazing. Congratulations for completely missing the point. Let me play Devil's advocate, just for fun. Let's entirely dismantle all these baseless assumptions. 1: Both women represented in the photos live in a Western country and all clothing worn is 100% free of choice. No crying about women of faith being "forced by law" to wear anything. Now what? Ok, 2: The postcard sender is an overweight Asian trans woman living in Germany. LOL. Like seriously, they said "if" for a reason. Damn. That's sad. One thing we can say for certain, though, is that the sender's point has been proven here very well, as most of y'all are just so ignorant and simple-minded, while making wild assumptions and accusations, and so angry, too! Over what, a secret homemade postcard?! How sad.