did i really not address the aspect of whether or not the hijab is a choice? i think that i did. of course, in countries like iran and saudi arabia, certain types of dress are mandatory for women. obama, like clark flory and I, in no way were approving of this.

but as for the idea that a woman in a secular country who wears a hijab is not REALLY choosing to wear a hijab because she faces pressure from her family, or because she fears that she might go to hell:

as for the latter concern: there are two verses in the qur;an that address the hijab. both have been interpreted in various ways and neither damn a woman to hell if she does not wear one. in fact, the point of one of the verses is that women shield their cleavage, not their hair. this is sort of a straw man anyway. by this logic, any one in the christian or muslim faiths who does anything is oppressed because they are only doing it because they fear going to hell otherwise.

as for the former point: don't men in ultra-conservative jewish families face pressure to wear certain types of dress, including the yarmulka? i live in LA, and when i see a group of men in ninety degree heat wearing black coats, white shawls, black hats, and black pants, i can't help but notice that their wives look far more comfortable in their loose skirts, shifts, and white head scarves. which is far more appropriate for the heat. which gender is more oppressed by their clothing?

true, the conservative jewish orthodoxy is arguably no haven for women who value their "rights" in the western feminist sense. but for some reason, there is no hysteria over the plight of the orthodox jewish woman. nor, for that matter, the orthodox jewish man, who bears the weight of the yarmulka on his head.

and in the case of the jewish man and his yarmulka, i doubt there will be. discussions about culture and dress are still waged on women's bodies. muslim men who are devout wear long sleeves, even in the cairo heat, but i don't see anyone arguing that they are oppressed by their long sleeves. if muslim women are oppressed by simply being muslim, i'd like to hear why this is, and if it is a text-based argument, how the text of the quran is any different, or worse for women, than the text of the old testament, which advocates for stoning non-virgin women and giving abortifacients to your wife if she is not bearing your child.

If i remember correctly, you brought up the fact that muslim women might be wearing a headscarf because they feared going to hell, or that god got the grammar wrong in the quran. hence my interest in explaining the context for the quranic passages on the hijab.

The pressure for women of various abrahamic faiths to dress conservatively and act as the guardians of purity is, in some circumstances, probably profound even in the absence of legal compulsion.

but the pressure on women to dress non-conservatively, or fashionably, or beyond their means, in los angeles in new york city, for example, which are, for the most part, secular, is also inarguably profound.

my point here? in an overtly patriarchal society, any overtly patriarchal society, women are conditioned to dress and groom themselves in order to please men. i have a hard time understanding how pressure (not compulsion) to engage in dressing modestly is inherently more oppressive than pressure (not compulsion) to engage in dressing provocatively/fashionably/et cetera.

every exposed inch of western woman living in the west, for example, is vulnerable to being manipulated in order to conform to standards of beauty: nails manicured, hair dyed and sprayed, skin tanned, stomach flat, muscles toned, breasts full but perky, etc. given the choice between being pressured to look like this until into my forties, and being pressured to dress modestly, i'm frankly not sure which one is worse.

and i'm not sure how one could possibly argue that the intense pressure experienced by american women to conform to an impossible standard of beauty is any less oppressive than the conjectured social pressure placed on muslim women to dress conservatively. particularly since american women are not only pressured to look attractive, but are simultaneously blamed if they are sexually harassed, date-raped, or assaulted.

both circumstances--reverence of "purity" and reverence of a woman's socially constructed sexuality (as imagined in the western standard of beauty) are pretty non-ideal.

do not really call to mind adjectives such as "wise". the ones that have been thrown around so far involve her "fiery" temper, and i saw a couple comments on fox news about burritos.

plus, i guess to race-baiting republicans, one "other" is as good as another, hence the depiction of her as a south-east asian.

"hmm," the editor must have said to the illustrator. "latinas aren't so smart so like, a caricature of her doing anything we associate with pan-latino culture won't work. i mean, after all, she got where she is because of affirmative action, right? but orientals! man, they are smart! so make her look like an oriental. and in case none of our readers do yoga and won't know the lotus position, slant her eyes a little. perfect!"