In wake of the recent tragedy involving Aqsa Parvez, Rosie Di-man-o has, as expected, written an "article" in the Star. Although each article she has drafted thus far in life has been, in general, unproductive twaddlage, this response sets a new low even for Di-man-o. Her old articles usually hinted at religion- and culture-bashing, mixed with strong undertones of xenophobia. Not only do these themes continue in this piece, they are enhanced, because rather than implying her hatred of Islam, she outright states it!

To put the rest of my post into perspective, I briefly state my views on the slaying of this girl, which can essentially be grouped into two camps: humanist and Islamic. On humanist grounds, I obviously believe that Aqsa's madman father murdered her, for which he should (at least in my opinion) receive the death penalty for murder. Unfortunately, that does not exist in Canada, so a 20 years prison sentence should be given, if not a life sentence.

Ancillary to this humanist view is the Islamic perspective on the matter, which simply states that killing anyone for denying hijab is strictly not permitted. For instance, one verse calls "anyone who murders any person who had not committed murder or horrendous crimes...[like one who has] murdered all the people" (5:32). Needless to say, "horrendous crimes" does not include the shunning of hijab. Moreover, both the 109th chapter of the Koran and verse 2:256 (that there is no compulsion in religion) state that religious matters cannot be forced upon someone.

Now, on to Dimanno's article. In sum, Rosie has no backup or proper proof as usual, and makes claims only to earn readership for the newspaper.
She starts her article by stating:

"...just as their [Muslim] women are made - pressured, coerced and threatened - to wear head covering, at minimum the hijab and at worst the burqa."

I am accepting of her opinions if Dimanno simply does not believe in head covering for herself. However, this sentence implies two things. Firstly, that all Muslim women are forced to wear head covering, and secondly, that the burqa is "at the worst". Although I will admit that the second is debatable (though, arguably not true), passing off the first one as fact is simply absurd! Has Dimanno gone to each hijab-bearing Muslim woman and asked her if the hijab was forced upon her? More importantly, what about the hijab-less Muslim women? This sentence of Dimanno's leads one to conclude that such women must not be Muslim! In brief, the definition of Muslim is acceptance of God's oneness and Muhammad's prophethood, not coercion into wearing hijab!
As a corollary, the front page of the Saturday Star (December 15) contrasted two MUSLIM girls, of whom one chose the hijab and the other did not.

This point only leads to the bulk of Dimanno's purpose, which is summed up nicely in the next two sentences (which is actually rather rare for her writing), wherein she says:

Call it modesty, if you like, or submission to faith. I call it submission to faith as demanded by men or simply submission to men."
Rosie then goes on to associate the wearing of hijab with the female being "shameful, chattel, and sorceress; provocateur of madness in males..."

This point is very easily argued against. It is EXTREMELY clear that the hijab (for the women that actually choose to wear it, rather than those that are coerced into it) is a tool for modesty. Dimanno's implication that covering one's hair is synonymous with submission to men couldn't be more wrong! I argue in the rest of this post that women's dress in Western culture is actually indicative of submission to men, for which one key example is provided, taken from this article (http://www.nysun.com/article/66915).

The article is written by a mother of a just-turned-seven-year old girl, who is going clothes-shopping (the clothes in department stores are divided such that 0-6 years is grouped together, as is 7-16). The mother is appalled when she sees clothes marketed towards seven year olds that a prostitute might wear. She sees

• "sequins, fringe, neon glitter tank tops with big red lips on them
• "fishnet sleeves, scary dragon faces lunging from off-the-shoulder T-shirts"
• "a tank that says SWEET THANG"
• "jeans that say SPANK ME on them"
• "shorts that say DELICIOUS on the bottom"
• "size 7 shirt that says SEXY! with matching shorts with JUICY scrawled across the butt".

These examples, however flashy, do not compare with what the author described as the "pinnacle of her shopping experience". That was when she saw size 7 belly shirts with MADE YA LOOK on the front! In utter disbelief, the writer wonders, "Look at what? There's not supposed to be anything to look at on a seven-year-old. Because they're children!"

All of the above provide rather clear examples of a male-dominated Western society. Not only do males want women to dress revealingly (the reason for which is discussed next), they start by getting seven year old girls to do the same!

By virtue of evolution, which Rosie Dimanno most probably knows jackshit about, men (in general) are likely to be less loyal to one woman, less likely to practice monogamy, more in need of sexual intercourse and, in general, are very sexually oriented. All of the above are a result of gender roles, which dicatate that women have a high price on raising offspring (basically, that the egg and the offspring that comes from it, is expensive), while males do not (sperm is biologically cheap to make). This directly leads to men wanting lots of sex and women not wanting it as often.

What does all this have to do with seven-year old girls dressing flamboyantly, and the hijab? A lot, actually. Contrary to DiManno's claim that hair-covering for women is a way of submission to men, the truth is that it actually protects women from male onlookers, who (rudimentarily) want to stick their dicks in them. As shown above, Western culture wants women to dress to invite, which is, if anything, is contrary to evolutionary priorities and moral goals. Sadly, the example given above shows that this behavior is extended to girls as young as SEVEN!

In other words, the hijab doesn't dictate that the woman is "shameful" or "a sorceress", as Rosie claims. Rather, women take it to protect themselves from carnal, albeit natural, male instincts.

Although the end of Rosie's article appears to be heading relatively well, she trails off eventually, saying:

If we massage the cause of it, deny the linkage of authoritarian traditions � sanctified by religion � and entitled violence, we break faith with that poor, dead girl."

No Rosie; this horrendous act was not sanctified by any religion. Rather, it is a product of your retarded imagination. Add another of Rosie's articles to the "twaddle pile". Man, that pile is getting rather big.

Categories: News    Rants and Opinions    

Tags: None

Comments: 0 so far