Belgium has become the first European country to approve a ban on the burka

[Muslimwoman]

--> But it seems that there are women who work in the outside world, as well as ‘stay-home moms’. So, perhaps two sets of rules should be considered?

Indeed there are and some of them wear niqab. Niqab is a choice, if your lifestyle is such that niqab is a burden or causes you problems then you can choose not to wear it.

--> I agree. But do you feel Martin Luther King was right or wrong in breaking society’s rules, and getting so much attention in doing so?

MLK had a point to make, something to fight against ... I don't so why would I need to break any rules or draw attention to myself?

I could agree with you if I visited somewhere like Afghanistan, because I am beligerant I would probably remove my niqab just to make a point (probably get beaten up too lol).

--> True. The problem is mainly men chasing after women, not vice versa. But I think this is a case of what I call "20 mile-per-hour mentality." Thousands of people die in traffic accidents every year. We could pass a law limiting all vehicles to a speed of 20 miles per hour. That would save thousands of lives, wouldn’t it? Isn’t this the same logic as wearing a niqab?

Bad choice of analogy really as many town in the UK are introducing 20 MPH speed limits precicely to reduce RTA deaths. Maybe that is the difference, in the West we wait for something to go wrong and then try to fix it ... in Islam we try to fix it before it goes wrong ... conservative yes ... restrictive yes .... effective I believe so.

--> Would you be willing to agree that some women do not wear a niqab in order to please Allah? Would you agree that they have every right to do and feel so?

Indeed I do agree, some women are forced to wear it, some wear it to hide their unIslamic behaviour, others wear it because they are not beautiful but would like the world to think they are, many wear it simply because it pleases their husband, some wear it purely as a political statement and of course some wear it for Allah (swt) and the only one I would object to are the women forced to wear it (like Taliban Afghanistan).

--> And this issue is slowly disappearing as more women go out into society, as I discussed before.

A lot more slowly in Mid East countries but again, it is a choice (for most) a decision women can make for themselves and their lifestyle.

I refuse to accept the idea that the only answer to the problem is the niqab, and I get the feeling from some Muslims that the only answer they will consider is wearing a niqab.
　

I don't think you are being argumentative at all, I think you are being very respectful and it's nice for a change to be asked questions rather than told what I think or be told I have stockholm syndrome.

Of course I understand that niqab is not the right choice for everyone and why people probably think I'm nuts or indoctrinated for choosing to wear it but what I try to do is get people to stop using mental stereotypes of oppressed women too scared to speak out .. I used to believe that until I went to live among them.

No it is not the only answer, certainly men in the Middle East need to grow up a bit and stop blaming women for their silly obsession with opposite sex, the term "take a cold shower" springs to mind but can you accept that for the majority of women who choose to wear niqab it is an answer that works for them?

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW, you said,

"... can you accept that for the majority of women who choose to wear niqab it is an answer that works for them?"

--> No, but I am willing to say that we can agree to disagree on this. The whole idea for interfaith dialogue is for people on both sides of an issue to consider, well, both sides of the issue. Many people are closed-minded, which means they will not even consider the other person's viewpoint. The goal here is to understand each other's viewpoint, and I can now better understand yours, even though I still disagree with it. (I also acknowledge that you have the right to have such an opinion, which is another thing that closed-minded people will not do.)

I am sorry to hear that you get preached to by people who only say that they are right, you are wrong, end of discussion.

"...the majority of women..."

--> I am ready to fight if even only one woman in the Muslim world is forced to wear a niqab.

"MLK had a point to make, something to fight against ... I don't so why would I need to break any rules or draw attention to myself?"

-> I see your point. I see a need to fight against the niqab, you do not, and it is my fight, not yours.

"...many town in the UK are introducing 20 MPH speed limits precicely to reduce RTA deaths."

--> Really? Let us know how it turns out. (It sounds to me like an idea guaranteed to fail.)

 

[Saltmeister]

"…let's be honest men tend to look at women in a certain way much more often than women look at men in the same way."

If I may interject....

I don't know how many men like to look at women in the amorous way that makes women feel violated or wrongly scrutinised. But.... I tend to avoid looking at women too long and too often. I just don't like the idea of staring at them. Firstly, I don't want them to think that I like them and would rather pretend not to like them. Every time I make eye contact, I feel like I am exposing a part of myself that I don't want them to see (it's like a kind of nakedness, a nakedness of the soul). The one thing I don't want them to see is admiration -- whether or not I have it doesn't matter. The problem is what they might think about me.

Sometimes I wonder if they think I'm being rude while they're speaking to me because I don't look at them intently. I know that not all eye contact is sexual, but I simply grew up thinking that for some reason.

--> True. The problem is mainly men chasing after women, not vice versa.

From what I've been told, this is what American society expects men to do. The man is supposed to approach the woman for a date. If a man doesn't do that, he is considered to not be "manly." He is told to "man up," "grow some balls" and "grow a backbone." I thought America was past sexism and gender roles, but it seems to be very much alive. The idea that a woman is the princess in the tower and a man is the knight-in-shining armour who goes to rescue her from singleness is still very much alive and well from what I've been told.

When you have a culture that appeals to a man's sense of vanity, what you get is men who feel like they have to go after, catch, capture and own the women. It seems that America is still very patriarchal.

 

[Dogbrain]

From what I've been told, this is what American society expects men to do. The man is supposed to approach the woman for a date. If a man doesn't do that, he is considered to not be "manly." He is told to "man up," "grow some balls" and "grow a backbone." I thought America was past sexism and gender roles, but it seems to be very much alive. The idea that a woman is the princess in the tower and a man is the knight-in-shining armour who goes to rescue her from singleness is still very much alive and well from what I've been told.

Sadly, true, but do not believe the tired old tale that it is men who are entirely behind this. I've heard plenty of such crap from women who think their men aren't "manly" enough for their taste. Yes, there really are women who egg on men to fight "for them", demand that the men become aggressive and demanding "for them", etc. In other words, they use the "macho" role to dehumanize and objectify men.

When you have a culture that appeals to a man's sense of vanity, what you get is men who feel like they have to go after, catch, capture and own the women. It seems that America is still very patriarchal.

It takes two to tango, and both "sides" are willing participants in this horrible dance.

 

[Muslimwoman]

--> I am ready to fight if even only one woman in the Muslim world is forced to wear a niqab.

I will join you in that fight ... provided you fight from the right direction.

-> I see your point. I see a need to fight against the niqab, you do not, and it is my fight, not yours.

I have no problem with your desire to fight ... as long as you understand that in doing so you are fighting Western principles of freedom of expression, freedom of religious belief and my freedom of choice.

And if you win this fight and everyone bows to your ideal what then? Will you then issue an acceptable (to you) dress code?

Sometimes I wonder if they think I'm being rude while they're speaking to me because I don't look at them intently. I know that not all eye contact is sexual, but I simply grew up thinking that for some reason.

This is simply called modesty Salty and well done for it.

From what I've been told, this is what American society expects men to do. The man is supposed to approach the woman for a date. If a man doesn't do that, he is considered to not be "manly."

I think this is borne out by simply reading dating advice blogs and discussions. It is the strange situation we have created, women want absolute equality but our more animal instincts still want men to be men and women to be women.

Sadly, true, but do not believe the tired old tale that it is men who are entirely behind this.In other words, they use the "macho" role to dehumanize and objectify men.

Yes it is true but hardly sad, just natural. Do women sometimes objectify men .. yes but this has been done by both men and women since the beginning of humankind and I doubt it will stop until humankind does. The problem is women and men are different and no amount of clicking our ruby shoes 3 times and wishing hard enough is going to make us all one gender.

 

[shawn]

MW I respect your choices, but must add (having seen a photo of you once before, thanks to Tao) that you have nothing to hide from either god or man.
We all have issues (due to being human) but they are challenges to be overcome, not impediments to learn to live with or sweep under a rug.
All the issues are psychological and were learned.
This implies that they can be un-learned and replaced with new programming.
But this takes effort, which can be unpleasant and difficult, which is why people tend to opt for the easiest choice (lazy sots that we all can be).

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

When I was a school boy the dress code at my parochial school ensured that girls wore skirts. I always wondered why they were forced to show their legs. Even in the winter the girls must have their legs exposed at school. I guess the idea was that sight of a girl's butt in pants was immodest. I spent a lot of time looking at those bare legs and trying for a glance up those skirts! I doubt seeing a girl in pants would have turned my head away from that. In practical terms, wearing a skirt prevented the girls from engaging in certain physical activities. The reality of that "modesty" was that the bare legs and skirts were a fantasy-denial generator for young boys, and a physical inhibitor for young women.

It's an interesting notion, this idea that it is incumbent upon women to display their bodies in a certain fashion in order to prop up cultural mores. In one culture it is the covering of the body that is proscribed, in another cultural setting there are now laws to prevent women from covering their bodies.

Chris

 

[Muslimwoman]

MW I respect your choices, but must add (having seen a photo of you once before, thanks to Tao) that you have nothing to hide from either god or man.

Erm is that the pic on the what do I look like thread or something else? If it's something else I would respectfully ask Tao to stop sharing it with people.

It's really difficult to explain but I am not trying to hide from Allah (swt) I am hiding FOR Him, for myself and for my husband. It's just a choice I made that works for me.

If in the future I find it no longer works for me then I may remove it. An example would be when I travel to UK I remove it, I was advised to do so by an Imam because it is designed to protect me and in the current mood against Muslims it would probably have the opposite effect.

When I was a school boy the dress code at my parochial school ensured that girls wore skirts. I always wondered why they were forced to show their legs. Even in the winter the girls must have their legs exposed at school

Hi Chris

It is a strange one isn't it, at one of my boarding schools girls were only allowed to take one pair of grey cord trousers (and they checked your bags) which we were only allowed to wear on Saturday morning when boys did gardening and boy stuff and girls did cleaning and girl stuff but we were punished if we tried to wear any form of trousers outside this environment.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Hi Sally, you are fascinating as always.

It's interesting. I keep hearing this consistent refrain about how it's a woman's duty to display her beauty. If you don't show us some skin you're not being true to yourself somehow. I'm reminded of how easily the feminist energy underlying the "sexual revolution" was turned in on itself by the corporate interests who control advertising and with it "fashion."

I was raised in a protestant environment where traditional notions of "plainness" were upheld. I'm still somewhat of a minimalist. Don't wear jewelry. Don't like logos on my clothes. To me it kind of goes with wanting to live cleanly and honestly and without pretension. I can, therefore, appreciate your personal reasons for wanting to wear what you've chosen to wear.

Chris

 

[Saltmeister]

The problem is women and men are different and no amount of clicking our ruby shoes 3 times and wishing hard enough is going to make us all one gender.

We think differently but does that mean we have to act and behave differently as well? -- so women are supposed to be beautiful and men are supposed to be macho?

I think if women didn't try so hard to be beautiful, men would be more satisfied with less attractive women. If men didn't try to be macho, women would be satisfied with less macho men. The standards will drop.

You reap what you sow. Vanity creates more vanity. What goes round comes round. That is also how capitalism works. We live in a world driven by greed, jealousy, envy and vanity. The system feeds on itself. Developed countries already have everything they need to feed their people but somehow it isn't enough and they have to hog the resources. I live in a developed country and I am disgusted at the way we live. It's a self-indulgent culture. We already have the food and water we need but somehow even that doesn't satisfy.

One of the Ten Commandments says, "thou shalt not covet." We break that command every day. Western society has become corrupt. Shopping and spending has become more important than looking after the poor and needy in one's community. Vanity has replaced virtue.

I always wondered why they were forced to show their legs. Even in the winter the girls must have their legs exposed at school. I guess the idea was that sight of a girl's butt in pants was immodest.

Before the 1930s, women used to wear long skirts. But society rebelled against that. The skirts became shorter and shorter. But why would a girl be forced to reveal her legs? Women who wore shorter skirts would have done it because that was what they wanted, but them making adolescent and prepubescent girls reveal their legs would have been ridiculous. It only made sense as a part of one's school uniform. I am more likely to think they had to wear it because it was school uniform than that someone was forcing them to reveal their legs.

Principal/teacher/headmaster: "No girl, you can't wear that! It's your duty as a lady to reveal your legs!" Now how would that sound?

Actually, I am thinking that it was a way of teaching girls what it would be like being adult women. Young girls often liked playing dress-up and they think about what it would be like to be women in the adult world. Likewise, their mothers would want them to learn about womanhood. If showing your bare legs was a part of what it meant to be a woman, a young girl would want to experiment with that.

She's not being forced to do that. She just sees other people doing that and copies them. So is this the way the myths of manhood and womanhood develop? Someone else does it so we do it too?

The reality of that "modesty" was that the bare legs and skirts were a fantasy-denial generator for young boys, and a physical inhibitor for young women.

Fantasy-denial? For me it's more like a fantasy-promoter.

It's an interesting notion, this idea that it is incumbent upon women to display their bodies in a certain fashion in order to prop up cultural mores. In one culture it is the covering of the body that is proscribed, in another cultural setting there are now laws to prevent women from covering their bodies.

Women can cover their bodies as much as they want. Sometimes I think they don't cover themselves enough, or they reveal their skin when I'm not interested in seeing it! It's especially true when I know that a dress is specially made to "tell me to look at the skin."

It's interesting. I keep hearing this consistent refrain about how it's a woman's duty to display her beauty. If you don't show us some skin you're not being true to yourself somehow.

I've got no problem with women trying to make themselves more beautiful. I'm just not so keen on the idea that the skin is the most interesting thing in a woman. There are other things that make a woman beautiful, like make-up, hair-style and the colours in the clothes that you are wearing. Sometimes I can actually find visible skin repulsive. Sometimes it's pretty, sometimes it's ugly.

Don't wear jewelry.

Jewelry? I thought you were male!

 

[Muslimwoman]

If you don't show us some skin you're not being true to yourself somehow.

Hi Chris, always such a pleasure to talk with you.

Your comment above probably sums up nicely the eurica moment I had when I first donned niqab, I discovered I had it all wrong and by kepping myself private and modest I could be a lot more true to myself. Do I think it's the solution for every woman ... indeed no, not even all Muslim women.

I was raised in a protestant environment where traditional notions of "plainness" were upheld

This is such an interesting point, environment has much to do with the way we feel comfortable dressing. As Westerners we so often (as did I) project our thoughts and feelings on dress onto women from more conservative countries, assuming they can't wait to be liberated and don bikini's but that is just so far from the truth.

The thought has just popped into my mind that I was never more comfortable than in uniform, I felt confident and at peace with myself without standing out from the crowd ... perhaps that is why I slipped so easily into niqab? Or maybe I am overanalysing again?!

We think differently but does that mean we have to act and behave differently as well? -- so women are supposed to be beautiful and men are supposed to be macho?

We don't just think differently, men are physically stronger than women, women are generally more emotional than men ... these things don't mean men have to go around beating each other up while women chain themselves to the kitchen sink but we cannot ignore the differences.

I think if women didn't try so hard to be beautiful, men would be more satisfied with less attractive women.

Bravo .. so if your wife is a good woman but not a beauty queen and when you go in the street you don't see beauty queens because they are covered up do you not think this could help you be more satisfied with the wife you have? We are not talking about love or emotion here, just intinct.
If men didn't try to be macho, women would be satisfied with less macho men. The standards will drop.

Alternatively if your beauty queen wife chooses to cover herself in order not to cause dissatisfaction with their wives would this not be a good thing?

We live in a world driven by greed, jealousy, envy and vanity.

Islam tries to combat many of these issues ... of course in most modern Muslim countries it fails because people are weak but I have experiences in Islamic (not Muslim but Islamic) communities many of these issues still exist but some are reduced to minimal, particularly vanity and jealousy.

but them making adolescent and prepubescent girls reveal their legs would have been ridiculous.

and yet now in Western countries you can buy a padded bikini for a 5 year old, to give her a cleavage. Can you think of any 5 year old that would choose to have a cleavage? It just beggars belief.

She's not being forced to do that. She just sees other people doing that and copies them. So is this the way the myths of manhood and womanhood develop? Someone else does it so we do it too?

Isn't that the way we learn everything in childhood, from our parents and peers. I went to boarding schools where girls were taught to be women and boys taught to be men but I am sure people who went to less traditional schools feel very differently about the sexes issue than I do.

 

[Saltmeister]

Bravo .. so if your wife is a good woman but not a beauty queen and when you go in the street you don't see beauty queens because they are covered up do you not think this could help you be more satisfied with the wife you have? We are not talking about love or emotion here, just intinct.
..........
If men didn't try to be macho, women would be satisfied with less macho men. The standards will drop.
..........
Alternatively if your beauty queen wife chooses to cover herself in order not to cause dissatisfaction with their wives would this not be a good thing?

The thing I said about women trying less hard to be beautiful and men trying less hard to be macho was not meant to be sexist, but aimed at making society less sexist. The men of today are already less macho than a century ago. We don't go around defending our honour, fighting over the ladies (she's mine! Get your hands off her! Stay away from her!) and challenging someone to a sword or gun duel every time we get insulted.

What I meant was for women and men to be less distinct. The men stopped beating each other up because the women weren't doing it. But we didn't start putting make-up on, polishing our finger nails or wearing fancy dresses. We just stopped being macho. We did, however, become more outwardly emotional, more expressive of our feelings and less arrogant and prideful.

Aspects of the manhood myths continue to proliferate among some people. The alpha male, the bad-boy seducer, the player and the idea that men do the chasing, the knight-in-shining armour and princess in the tower.

Beauty is a womanhood myth. Do men really want sexy females? I am sure many of them do, but for a long-term relationship, I would like someone that can offer love and appreciation. Men want sexy women because they see other men with sexy women. It's envy that makes them want sexy women. One way to get rid of the envy is to masculinise them. Make them more like men. Make them wear what men wear.

If you think about it, men's clothing isn't really men's clothing. Women can wear them too. Men's clothing isn't sexual. A woman doesn't have to be embarrassed about looking in the Menswear section for a shirt or pants because menswear is unisexual. But if a man started looking for clothes in the Womanswear section, he'd be crazy. (BTW, I think I just realised that "menswear" and "womenswear" might only be Australian terms, but I hope you understand).

There wouldn't be so much sexism if both sexes wore the same clothes. It would be better if clothes didn't make people feel male or female -- if clothes were just clothes.

If feels a bit like racial segregation -- white people walking on one side of the road, black people on the other side. Why don't we abolish men's fashion, call it "unisex fashion," abolish women's fashion and call it "beauty/sexy fashion?"

Perfume and make-up should be made for both sexes (if they want it). Dresses should be made for both sexes. Instead of having two sexes we have two subcultures -- the unisex subculture and the sexualising subculture.

Some women already wear shirts and trousers. It's not cross dressing. It's desexualisation.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

MW,

You have brought up an important point. It is easy for people to complain about the status quo, but much more difficult to suggest a better alternative. Specifically, the question is, what should the dress code be? It is a very difficult question indeed. We have all heard of the Elizabethan days when women were completely covered from the neck down, and I do not see that as an option for everyone. It is also legal for a woman (in America) to walk down the street wearing a bikini – that too is an option that most women will not consider. This is a question that is difficult to answer, indeed.

You asked,

"And if you win this fight and everyone bows to your ideal what then?"

Perhaps you misunderstand what my ideal is. I group women into these groups.

-Women who cover up because they feel that reducing exposure helps quell animal instincts in men, because doing this moves both men and women closer to heaven at a faster pace.

- Women who cover up because their religion tells them they are supposed to.

- Women who cover up because their husbands want them to or tell them to.

-Women who are being controlled and hidden away by jealous and controlling husbands

- Women who cover up because of social pressure. (You yourself have described such social pressure where you live.)

- Women who cover up because they wish to stop men looking at them in sexual ways

-Women who cover up as a defense mechanism against their feelings of insecurity and worthlessness

- Women who cover up because they are victims of a society that wants to keep them useless and incompetent

-Women who mean well, but are being slowly and insidiously affected by a constant need to 'hide.' (I had a Muslim friend, and whenever I would drop over at his house unannounced to visit him, his wife would drop everything -- including dinner that was cooking on the stove -- and literally run and hide in a bedroom until I left. There was no question in my mind that such behavior was having some sort of negative effect on her.)

(Which groups would you add or take away from this list?)

My ideal, then, is to see which women belong to which groups. For those who cover up for the wrong reason, my ideal is to see them stop covering up.

~~~

I have a question for you. True story: There was a Japanese woman who was living in America, married to an American man and they had two small children. She had decided to commit suicide in accordance with her traditional Japanese beliefs (she was "practicing her freedom of expression" to commit suicide according to her culture -- such suicides are considered 'acceptable' behavior in Japan.) She held her two small children in her arms and walked out into the ocean to kill them and herself. The two children died but she survived. The American court charged her with murder. Her defense was that it was not murder, that she had the right to do so in accordance with her Japanese culture. The court said no, in America, a person’s culture does not excuse such deaths, the children were murdered. My question to you is, do you think she was guilty of murder?

 

[Saltmeister]

The court said no, in America, a person’s culture does not excuse such deaths, the children were murdered. My question to you is, do you think she was guilty of murder?

Good question, Nick!

My response would be to say that murder is just a synonym of "killing" with a negative connotation (killing being neutral). Soldiers killing enemy combatants in cold blood isn't murder. It's just war. Murder is the unlawful and malicious killing of another person. Killing of enemy combatants is sanctioned by the State that pays the soldiers.

Was the Japanese woman doing something unlawful and malicious? In Japan it would have been lawful. Was the killing malicious? It would depend on her intentions and state of mind. Was she angry? Was she hateful? Was she trying to save the children the pain of living life without her? Was she doing something selfish? Did she ask for permission from her husband?

Unfortunately, the purpose of laws is to set standards of behaviour and Americans generally do not want to see this kind of behaviour in their fellow citizens. That is why they label it as "murder."

But that doesn't mean that Americans don't do it and nor does it mean Americans don't understand if their fellow citizens engage in such behaviour. A lot of suicides happen in response to foreclosures. A foreclosure is so devastating to a family that many parents kill their children and sometimes even their spouses and finally themselves. Home ownership is so important to Americans that many would rather die than lose their home.

Foreclosure-Related Suicide: Sign of the Times? - ABC News
Foreclosures take an emotional toll on many homeowners - USATODAY.com
Foreclosure notice leads to suicide of 'nice lady' - NewsTimes

Those who live by the home die by the home.

 

[shawn]

My response would be to say that murder is just a synonym of "killing" with a negative connotation (killing being neutral). Soldiers killing enemy combatants in cold blood isn't murder. It's just war. Murder is the unlawful and malicious killing of another person. Killing of enemy combatants is sanctioned by the State that pays the soldiers.

Just because some self-made authority says its ok you have a license, you can kill those guys according to these rules, as we say so, does not change the fact that war is organized murder, no matter what devious word-games you wish to play with the terminology.

They are your kin, part of you...to kill them is wrong and is murder....premeditated with malice and aforethought. (Maybe some are so cold that the malice is not really there...they have become kill-bots for the state).
Many soldiers have had epiphanies such as these whilst engaged in the killing assigned them by their country.
It is insane and anyone who rationalizes it, or justifies it is part of the insanity.
This needs to change.

 

[OAT]

We are all creatures conditioned by our upbringing, our cultural environment, our education, our experiences etc. That's why we all have different moral values, different pattern of thoughts etc.

I don't think the Japanese woman was rationalizing her actions. She was culturally conditioned to think that way.

One of the reasons why in Buddhism there is ultimately no right and wrong of any action (whether physical, verbal or mental) because in the end, our choice of a particular act is condititioned by our upbringing etc. However, even though there is no right and wrong, there are consequences - social, legal and karmic etc., that we have to bear for our actions.

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

With nods to everyone here... I don't actually think that forcing women to cover up subjugates them more, in total, than forcing them through the beauty wringer. The net result is the same: controlling women.

Chris

 

[shawn]

With nods to everyone here... I don't actually think that forcing women to cover up subjugates them more, in total, than forcing them through the beauty wringer. The net result is the same: controlling women.

Chris

Agreed....it is something that needs to change...all aspects of it.

 

[Saltmeister]

Just because some self-made authority says its ok you have a license, you can kill those guys according to these rules, as we say so, does not change the fact that war is organized murder, no matter what devious word-games you wish to play with the terminology.

I took my definition from the Wikipedia article. I don't regard the definition as official and nor do I believe anyone or any organisation can offer me the official definition. It is right that nobody can define any word in the English language. It means that people can use words any way they like. It's more important to understand the way a word is used than to compel people into adhering to a particular definition.

Murder is a part of the word-game. Murder is a word used to describe an emotional reaction to the killing of another human being. There is no murder except the way you want to remember the way someone was killed. Words are tools of expression and language is about communication.

From my point of view, there is no murder but what we choose to remember as murder because you always have to define murder. You always have to justify what you deem to be murder. It is a way of remembering what happened. It speaks of the legacy of the event.

Consider capital punishment, for example, which is another State sanctioned killing process. Capital punishment isn't regarded as murder. It's regarded as punishment (usually for murder). It's not considered murder because it is a sentence dictated by an established authority that people consider to be legitimate. Capital punishment is still being used in some States in the USA.

Many soldiers have had epiphanies such as these whilst engaged in the killing assigned them by their country. It is insane and anyone who rationalizes it, or justifies it is part of the insanity. This needs to change.

I would personally avoid serving in the armed forces because I don't like having the power to end someone else's life. But the idea of killing someone isn't insane. Just because someone does something that doesn't conform to your concept of "sanity" doesn't mean that they're insane. There's a sense of arrogance and bias in what people regard as "sane." But who gave you the power to decide? The act of killing someone is what is more likely to make you go insane.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Chris,

You have brought an important point, how being beautiful can be just as stifling as covering up is. Being a beautiful woman has been described as "being under a state of constant siege." There is also the issue of how women must spend a lot of time and money to look "beautiful," when that time and money could be better spent elsewhere.