or so one commenter astutely observed. as usual, the measure of women's assimilation is her appearance and dress, not her income or ability to work outside the home. sure, if a man is forcing a woman to wear ANYTHING--high heels, a niqab (or burqa), or a halloween mask with karl rove's face on it, then this practice is abhorrent. but is there any evidence that this is the case? has anyone bothered to ASK these women if they are covering for the sake of their husbands, or because they fear sexual harassment?

if the issue is failure to assimilate, is there any move to ban the dishasha (traditional Middle Eastern men's garb) or the yarmulka?

and if the issue is freedom from oppressive patriarchal religious norms that thrust a sense of shame upon women who dare to dress in such a way as to inspire lust, well, is there any move to ban nuns' habits?

doubt it. culture wars are usually waged on women's bodies. it's disappointing that the left seems to think that women have a right to choose but ONLY if they choose to adhere to Western norms.

while i'm tempted to commend the wingnut for deigning to actually answer the question for once, i'm confounded by the utterly contradictory nature of the statistics.

fifty-five percent of Americans believe that the government controls too much of our daily lives but somehow, over 50% of Americans are perfectly happy to have the government controlling their daily lives if they are about to become a parent and don't wish to be, and almost 90% want the government to legislate hiring and firing practices in the event that your physician decides it is against his or her religion to give your fourteen year old daughter the morning after pill after her sexual assault or whatever.

oh and by the way, liberals don't want to redefine "family". the American "family" has been changing for a long time, whether you like it or not, to include single moms, single dads, grandparents, stepparents, same sex parents, and every combination of the above, with or with out liberal support.

so no, we don't want to redefine "families"; we just want to acknowledge that there are plenty of families across the country that love each other just as deeply as ours do, and afford them the legal rights and protections that they deserve, whether they look like our families or not.

Here's a question: how is vetoing S-CHIP legislation pro-family?

and oh--the Ledbetter v Goodyear decision. How is denying women, who last equal pay for their work good for families? especially when so many families depend on women's income?

and how is anti-union legislation pro-family, given that the pay for women in unions is 11% higher than the average pay for women who are not union members?

i'll go glenn one better. not only does the religion and skin color matter when it comes to determining the way in which we frame the relative evil-ness of a foe, but so too does the method by which he or she plans on murdering US citizens.

as we speak, plenty of US citizens are dead or dying as a result of unsafe working conditions, air pollution, water pollution, and a variety of environmental ills. but none of this is considered "murder", and the companies that engage in long-term environmental pollution that will certainly kill hundreds of thousands of americans are not "terrorists", and nothing will happen to them or their CEOs not only because they are mostly white, male, christians, but because they run corporations.

US citizens are also dying because they don't have health insurance, or, because their health insurance companies have denied them coverage of a life-saving procedure due to previous health conditions or fine print. this is also not referred to as "murder" or "terror", and nothing will happen to the people who deny coverage to the Americans who will die.

US citizens have died at the hands of white supremicists, misogynists, the minute men and the unabomber, but none of these deaths were framed as deaths at the hands of terrorists.

it's a war on brown, Muslim people. brown Muslim people's actions have resulted in the tragic death of Americans, sure. but not even close to the amount of Americans who have died at the hands of corporate America. but somehow, that's Different.

let's not forget the comment that she was charged also for the "chaotic nature of the situation"--a situation that involved her being abused. the abuser has not been charged, so she seems to be paying the price for:

-daring to be abused

-daring to have had a baby with an abuser

-drinking in order to cope with being abused

-nursing her baby after being abused

-reporting the abuse, perhaps

-nursing her baby in the presence of men

the police have provided no evidence that she had been drinking, remember--not even a breathalyzer test. and there is no law against breastfeeding when drinking anyway.

if it looks like victim blaming, and sounds like victim blaming, well...