There's apparently more to wearing of the abaya than fashion:

Because of her sympathy for Arabs and Muslims, Donna, an American woman, decided to wear an abaya in an attempt to see how it felt and how it influenced her behavior. She wanted to show sympathy to women wearing abayas, especially after various incidents against Muslims in the post-9/11 world. She wore an abaya and walked along one of the busiest streets in a major American city. She tried to be as normal as possible, talking to people, laughing and behaving as usual. She said that she never felt the abaya was restricting her or limiting her movements or her freedom.

Among those who observed Donna, however, were some Muslims, Arabs, and even some Saudis. The Saudis were upset by what they saw and told Donna so. When she asked why, they explained that she was using the abaya in an invalid way. She then became curious to find out what they considered a valid way to use it. They explained to her that she must walk slowly, must look down when walking and keep her eyes more or less in front of her - no glancing from side to side, in other words. She must not talk to anyone or laugh loudly and certainly must not address any remarks to anyone lest they misunderstand her purpose in doing so.

To say the least, Donna was astounded by their remarks and realized that they were not simply talking about a garment to be worn but about their perceptions of what an abaya symbolized. They seemed determined to deny that a normal human being was under the black material. The truth is that those Saudi men articulated something that the Saudi lifestyle and customs have created. The abaya indeed covers a typically weak and frightened character (a woman of course), who views herself as a sexual entity confined in a well-defined space she can never escape from. This is why the whole culture of the abaya imposes so many restraints upon women. One of the restraints is that she must walk as if her feet were hobbled and she was unable to move easily and normally. Nor is she allowed to look around and observe the surrounding world comfortably, as slowly or quickly as she might like. The abaya has also contributed directly to preventing certain basic movements; for example, she can no longer move her hands normally. Aside from that, ordinary free conversation is forbidden and is replaced with low and often unclear speech that makes little sense."

If this isn't oppression, what is?

Just another example of mankind fearing women because they can have babies. When religions (not faith) were born, men needed to subjugate women as to have control over them. There is an argument that early man was the hunter and the women tended the hearth, but when religions were born, men carried that thought over. God (once monotheism took hold) was male. Its a stupid tradition born of fear and jealousy. All the prevous, of course, is just my opinion.

Saudi Arabia is the locus of the fundie Islamic threat we face. I've been saying that for years and until we overcome our dependence on petroleum we cannot easily confront that threat.

Therefore, we decided to remove Saddam instead. An easier "feel good" route to follow. Make no mistake, Saddam deserves hanging and worse however removing Saddam and fighting the evil depicted in this quoted passage are two very different subjects.

Today in Iraq the veil is making a comeback due to Islamic militias that have arisen subsequent to Saddam regime change. Another reason we cannot cut-n-run even if the original 2003 decision was a profound strategic mistake.

As for Saudi Arabia, until we end petroleum dependence there are few good options.

Hmm... most of the religious people I know would take a bullet for their wife - some of them even would do it for their ex-wife. Most of the religions over here do not seem to be putting down women - in fact, the religions in the US have much happier females in them than the general population. (Do note that I limit that to the US, so the UK studies do not apply - and certainly the muslim ones don't!)

Maybe you are a little biased against religion? Most of the people you meet are religious in their own way - religion is not the problem. A few particular religions are.

It seems their view is that women are property, not human beings. A friend of mine who was stationed in Saudi Arabia described it as "The World's Largest Open Air Prison." Sure sounds like that for half of their population.

Last year, the History Channel had a series about ancient Rome. Christianity was a cult at first and heavily attacked. One of its attractions was the relative equality of women and the veneration of Mary.

There doesn't seem to be anything similar in Islam as far as I can tell. However, before we try to lump all Muslims into the same group, it's interesting that the world's most famous monument to love, the Taj Mahal, was built by a Muslim man in honor of his wife.

That said, I'll fight to the death anyone who tries to force any girl or woman in my family into an abaya.

If this isn't oppression, what is?

George Bush "winning" in 2000!

Maybe you are a little biased against religion?

Far less than many people. But I'm not sure how you conclude from this post that I have anything against religion in general.

At first when I read that I thought Larry was responding to your comet post, since You created a scientific hypothesis for a common religious tale, and refered to it as a "myth." Then I realized this was the abaya post, and thought, how does a woman getting crapped on make Rand opposed to religion?

Maybe Larry (I don't mean to speak for you hoss, I'm just going through my own thoughts which tend to be kinda chaotic) meant that since you so easily came to the conclusion that the abaya and it's culture as expressed by the chick in your referenced article was oppression, you automaticaly assumed that relgion was at fault, making you turn a "tradition" into an "oppression."

Though I'm with rand and the chick who wrote the article. Sometimes tradition is oppression. It used to be tradition to have the neighborhood negro flogged, but slavery was still oppression.

I see Wicked beat me to the punchline.

How about "Bikinis! That's what's oppression! That and the awful responsibility of having to decide your own course of action, act upon it, and endure the results! True freedom lies in not having to speak, interact, or otherwise communicate, and the dangers and difficulties inherent therein!"

Naw, I don't buy that one either. Didn't in 2001, don't now.

Maybe you are a little biased against religion?

Far less than many people. But I'm not sure how you conclude from this post that I have anything against religion in general.

Sorry, should have prepended: "Mac," to my post.

You have probably heard about the religious leader in Australia who likens us women to uncovered meat. This bunch is the biggest threat to our freedom since the Nazis.

You have probably heard about the religious leader in Australia who likens us women to uncovered meat. This bunch is the biggest threat to our freedom since the Nazis.

You have probably heard about the religious leader in Australia who likens us women to uncovered meat. This bunch is the biggest threat to our freedom since the Nazis.

>>If this isn't oppression, what is?

Well.... duh.

Learn about another culture by trying on its clothes, speaking its language and eating its foods. When you don't get it right, they will let you know. Immersion works fast.

David says: Hmm... most of the religious people I know would take a bullet for their wife - some of them even would do it for their ex-wife.

And good for them, but the argument remains. Most religious leaders will say they put women on a pedastal, but if you look at the history of religions, the men have been in charge. They make the decisions, they say what is holy and what isn't. Women are seen as ornaments. Its oppression from fear (in my opinion)

Most of the religions over here do not seem to be putting down women - in fact, the religions in the US have much happier females in them than the general population.

Happiness is not a factor in the idea that it is indeed religious oppression. There are people in Iraq who were happy with Saddam in power, but they were still oppressed.

Maybe you are a little biased against religion?

Not a little. A lot. I am not, however, biased against faith. Religion is a guidebook for faith and religion was created by man. Faith was created by God and instilled in man. Religion causes war, faith (in a God/Pantheon) does not. People are dying for their faith, they are dying for the religion they profess. Religion was created by man.

Most of the people you meet are religious in their own way - religion is not the problem. A few particular religions are.

Religion IS the problem. Faith is the solution. Since religion is a guidebook for how to show faith, then religion needs to teach that ALL religious ideals are CORRECT. When one religion says another is wrong, conflict ensues. You either have faith, or not, its that simple.

religion needs to teach that ALL religious ideals are CORRECT

Charity is a religious ideal. Rejection of charity because it interferes with karmic debt is a religious ideal. They can't both be right.