Saudi Arabian woman is kicked out of mall for not wearing gloves

[Sally]

Hiding the body or, face or hands is not a requirement in the quran. It is a form of abuse to keep women from being equals to men.
There is no real reason to hide a women under a sheet if she wants to go outside. The requirement is for women to cover their breast before entering a mosque.
Women in the time of Mohammed owned business, dressed in bright colors, painted their bodies, ruled people and lands, even fought in war bare breasted with Mohammed.
why is it that so many muslims don't really understand their own religion?

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

 

[ChrisL]

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

 

[Pogo]

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

I really don't think it's done for that reason.

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

 

[Pogo]

Hiding the body or, face or hands is not a requirement in the quran. It is a form of abuse to keep women from being equals to men.
There is no real reason to hide a women under a sheet if she wants to go outside. The requirement is for women to cover their breast before entering a mosque.
Women in the time of Mohammed owned business, dressed in bright colors, painted their bodies, ruled people and lands, even fought in war bare breasted with Mohammed.
why is it that so many muslims don't really understand their own religion?

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

Very apropos here, thank you. Again, a culture clash between patriarchy and free women. The former treats women like property, imagining that to "be a man" means to control what "their" women wear, not so much because of the women directly but because it reflects back on him. Or so the thinking goes.

That kind of hyperpatriarchy is just fucked up in the head and needs to die off yesterday.

But I like this graphic for the OP (well I like it in general)...

​

These Tunisian women are just as Islamic as the one in the mall in the OP. Obviously then Islam is not the factor that brings about hyperpatriarchial prudery.

 

[ChrisL]

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

It all has to do with religious beliefs.

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

I really don't think it's done for that reason.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

Well that's what I think. They are incredibly insecure men.

 

[aris2chat]

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

No self control of their own urges but they want to rule the world and dictate to others???

 

[Mr. H.]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

 

[aris2chat]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

It might have been fashionable and polite to wear gloves but women were not thrown out of stores or beat by police if they did not wear them

 

[Mr. H.]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

It might have been fashionable and polite to wear gloves but women were not thrown out of stores or beat by police if they did not wear them

I dunno. My mom got thrown out of a bar by a drunken biker back in the 70's.

 

[irosie91]

Hiding the body or, face or hands is not a requirement in the quran. It is a form of abuse to keep women from being equals to men.
There is no real reason to hide a women under a sheet if she wants to go outside. The requirement is for women to cover their breast before entering a mosque.
Women in the time of Mohammed owned business, dressed in bright colors, painted their bodies, ruled people and lands, even fought in war bare breasted with Mohammed.
why is it that so many muslims don't really understand their own religion?

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

I still do the dishes. AND I RESENT IT!!!!!!

 

[Pogo]

Hiding the body or, face or hands is not a requirement in the quran. It is a form of abuse to keep women from being equals to men.
There is no real reason to hide a women under a sheet if she wants to go outside. The requirement is for women to cover their breast before entering a mosque.
Women in the time of Mohammed owned business, dressed in bright colors, painted their bodies, ruled people and lands, even fought in war bare breasted with Mohammed.
why is it that so many muslims don't really understand their own religion?

Thank you, that's exactly what it's about --- control of women. The same motivation Christian women are supposed to cover their heads in church and can't be priests. Just as with "honor" killings and female genital mutilations, it's all about men being scared shitless of women's power. It's kind of worrisome when even a woman would rather go with a pre-scripted political meme than acknowledge what's going on underneath it.

Cover the head for men and women in a place of worship is a sign of respect to god

As for a priest or church leader, today women lead religious services for jews, christians and muslims. Times are a changing.

I still do the dishes. AND I RESENT IT!!!!!!

So do I!

 

[Pogo]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

It might have been fashionable and polite to wear gloves but women were not thrown out of stores or beat by police if they did not wear them

I dunno. My mom got thrown out of a bar by a drunken biker back in the 70's.

I have seen -- in my adult lifetime -- a bar with a back entrance marked "Ladies". I had to sit and stare but it was really there. The only thing I could relate it to in my experience was some similar door signs I had seen in the South marked "Colored".

 

[Pogo]

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

It all has to do with religious beliefs.

Nope. My friend wasn't a religious guy at all. It had everything to do with the culture he grew up in and what that environment exposes one to, and what it keeps bottled up.

Hey, I've been through a version of it myself. If you leave this culture -- with its obsession on sex at every turn, something you become acutely aware of immediately upon entering another culture -- and go live on a farm in the sticks on another continent, your entire perspective on, shall we say, what you find stimulating, morphs with the experience.

Which might even lead one to ponder not why that culture is so hung up on prudish asceticism, but rather why this one is hardly past that point, continually pointing to all things sexual like a three-year-old who's just discovered poo-poos. Let's face it, this is the only country in the world that would even consider impeaching its head of state over a blow job.

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

I really don't think it's done for that reason.

Where I came up (Catholic), only the females were supposed to cover their head. Either way, it doesn't make much sense really -- if "God" made the head, it would seem mildly insulting to hide it.
But then, religion was never about logic.

Yup, and again, culture leads, religion follows.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

Well that's what I think. They are incredibly insecure men.

"Insecurity" is exactly it. It's all based on a basic fear of women. It's based on Patriarchy Gone Wild. As noted in several examples we have our own version, though less extreme. But it's the same basis.

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

 

[ChrisL]

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

It all has to do with religious beliefs.

Nope. My friend wasn't a religious guy at all. It had everything to do with the culture he grew up in and what that environment exposes one to, and what it keeps bottled up.

Hey, I've been through a version of it myself. If you leave this culture -- with its obsession on sex at every turn, something you become acutely aware of immediately upon entering another culture -- and go live on a farm in the sticks on another continent, your entire perspective on, shall we say, what you find stimulating, morphs with the experience.

Which might even lead one to ponder not why that culture is so hung up on prudish asceticism, but rather why this one is hardly past that point, continually pointing to all things sexual like a three-year-old who's just discovered poo-poos. Let's face it, this is the only country in the world that would even consider impeaching its head of state over a blow job.

It's a little creepy to think about it, considering they think women need to be covered in order to control themselves. Creeps.

I really don't think it's done for that reason.

Since you guys really got into this "glove" article, here's an article you can chew on and give your opinion.

The battle between the veil and the miniskirt - BBC News

I prefer the miniskirt. Although, the veils that only wrap around the head aren't so bad, I definitely do not like the "completely covered" religious laws. It should be a choice. If that's how a woman wants to dress, then fine. If not, then she shouldn't be forced by men to wear what she doesn't wish to wear. That's my opinion.

Also, the comment made by the man about "men's attention," that doesn't seem to matter as plenty of women in the ME who wear that type of clothing are still raped.

I agree with you, Chris. I often wonder, since there are lots of Muslims living here in Southern California, what the religious men think if they go to Malibu or Zuma Beach and see all those babes in their bikinis. Are they ready to pass out seeing women dressed like that or are they enjoying the sight?

It strictly depends on what they're used to, i.e. what they've been exposed to more, or less. And that's a function of what culture they've been living in (not what their religion is). I don't have to tell you women that physical obscurity in women breeds mystery in men, and mystery breeds imagination. And the ascetic ongoing denial creates a powerful effect when it's finally lifted, if that lifting is limited to, say, one's own spouse in private moments. I'm not opining that that is the reasoning behind doing it, but it is the effect, intended or not.

My good friend Satti (Sudanese) related to me how the first time he got up close to a girl and kissed her, the power of the experience just about made him come in his pants. That wouldn't have been the case had he grown up in, say, a SoCal culture -- the mystery wouldn't have built up so. But that was from growing up in Sudan; by the time we were buds we were both living in Paris; different culture, and that power for him had by then sapped.

Well that's what I think. They are incredibly insecure men.

"Insecurity" is exactly it. It's all based on a basic fear of women. It's based on Patriarchy Gone Wild. As noted in several examples we have our own version, though less extreme. But it's the same basis.

Caption:
"June 30, 1922. Washington policeman Bill Norton measuring the distance between knee and suit at the Tidal Basin bathing beach after Col. Sherrill, Superintendent of Public Buildings and Grounds, issued an order that suits not be over six inches above the knee." National Photo Co.

-- We don't call that guy a "theocrat", because he doesn't work for the Church. But his job here is the same as the mall cop in the OP.

Well, I disagree and I think that religion and culture are very closely related and feed off of one another.

About Bubba? Sorry but the POTUS should maintain some dignity while in office, as well as show some respect for his office.

 

[Pogo]

Meanwhile, in a related story....

Stamford Hill sect bans women drivers
​

The British leaders of a major Chasidic sect have declared that women should not be allowed to drive.

In a letter sent out last week, Belz rabbis said that having female drivers goes against “the traditional rules of modesty in our camp” and against the norms of Chasidic institutions. It added that, from August, children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

... Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said that “the instinct behind such a draconian ban is one of power and control, of men over women. In this sense it is no different from the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia. That it masquerades as a halachic imperative is shameful and disturbing.”

... The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th century, are one of the most prominent Chasidic sects and re-established their headquarters in Israel after the war. When the Belzer Rebbe celebrated the wedding of a grandson in Israel two years ago, some 25,000 guests attended.

Compared with some of the most conservative Chasidic sects, Belz are seen as relatively moderate and while some Charedi schools in London have struggled with inspections, both their main boys and girls schools, Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass and Beis Malka, are rated “good” by Ofsted.
​

Same thing, different culture: Men controlling women.

 

[ChrisL]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

It might have been fashionable and polite to wear gloves but women were not thrown out of stores or beat by police if they did not wear them

I dunno. My mom got thrown out of a bar by a drunken biker back in the 70's.

I have seen -- in my adult lifetime -- a bar with a back entrance marked "Ladies". I had to sit and stare but it was really there. The only thing I could relate it to in my experience was some similar door signs I had seen in the South marked "Colored".

Goodness! How old are you?

 

[Moonglow]

I remember as a young child in the early 60's visiting a lunch counter at the local pharmacy.

There was a smartly dressed woman wearing white gloves, eating a doughnut with a fork.

That ******* fried my mind.

It might have been fashionable and polite to wear gloves but women were not thrown out of stores or beat by police if they did not wear them

I dunno. My mom got thrown out of a bar by a drunken biker back in the 70's.

I have seen -- in my adult lifetime -- a bar with a back entrance marked "Ladies". I had to sit and stare but it was really there. The only thing I could relate it to in my experience was some similar door signs I had seen in the South marked "Colored".

Goodness! How old are you?

Old enough to know better,,but don't...

 

[ChrisL]

Meanwhile, in a related story....

Stamford Hill sect bans women drivers
​

The British leaders of a major Chasidic sect have declared that women should not be allowed to drive.

In a letter sent out last week, Belz rabbis said that having female drivers goes against “the traditional rules of modesty in our camp” and against the norms of Chasidic institutions. It added that, from August, children would be barred from their schools if their mothers drove them there.

... Dina Brawer, UK Ambassador of the Jewish Orthodox Feminist Alliance, said that “the instinct behind such a draconian ban is one of power and control, of men over women. In this sense it is no different from the driving ban on women in Saudi Arabia. That it masquerades as a halachic imperative is shameful and disturbing.”

... The Belz, who originated in Ukraine in the early 19th century, are one of the most prominent Chasidic sects and re-established their headquarters in Israel after the war. When the Belzer Rebbe celebrated the wedding of a grandson in Israel two years ago, some 25,000 guests attended.

Compared with some of the most conservative Chasidic sects, Belz are seen as relatively moderate and while some Charedi schools in London have struggled with inspections, both their main boys and girls schools, Talmud Torah Machzikei Hadass and Beis Malka, are rated “good” by Ofsted.
​

Same thing, different culture: Men controlling women.

Why are you trying to change the subject to Jews?

 

[Moonglow]

Contrast...

 

[ChrisL]

Contrast...

Are you Pogo?