[Wellsy]

Sounds like the same bollocks some Christians try and pull where they emphasize that women should cover up.
The issue I think though is that the behaviour of covering up or not doesn't really overturn the morally problematic perspectives and following behaviours based in such perspectives that feminists oppose.

I initially thought things like free the nipple were silly, but I think they pose a good endeavor overall by disconnecting the association of nudity = sex/ual/ity.
By covering up the human body we have mystified it.

When primitive peoples are unaccustomed to wearing clothing, putting it on for the first time does not decrease their immorality, as the ladies of missionary societies think it will. It has just the opposite effect. It draws attention to the body, especially to those parts of it which are covered for the first time. Arthur Grimble, Research Commissioner of Gilbert and Ellice Islands in the South Pacific Ocean, has expressed his views in regard to this matter as follows: “Clothes may have originated in the Garden of Eden but they have spoiled a Pacific paradise. Clothes covering bodies which once went naked, have contributed to the natives’ moral decadence by stimulating a nasty curiosity which never before existed.”

- Elizabeth Hurlock

From the sixteenth century onwards, clothed Europeans regularly encountered naked primitives all over the world. The Spanish in South America came upon naked Indians in Brazil and elsewhere. Captain Cook found naked, or unconcealed, islanders in Polynesia and New Zealand. Later British, French, Germans and Portuguese, among others, came into contact with naked Africans. The results of these meetings were usually lamentable for the simpler cultures. The Europeans exploited them economically and sexually. Sometimes, indeed, they exterminated them. But it was not until the eighteenth and, especially, the nineteenth centuries that they made much attempt to change them. Then came the missionaries, and the first aspect of primitive life to experience their reforming zeal was inevitably the nakedness of the potential new recruits to Christianity. Doubtless most of the missionaries meant well, but they provided a greater force for ruin than the simpler and more brutal traders and explorers.

The missionaries were usually disconcerted to find that the biblically recommended act of ‘clothing the naked’, far from producing an improvement in native morals, almost always resulted in a deterioration. What the missionaries were inadvertently doing was recreating the Garden of Eden situation. Naked, the primitive cultures had shown no prurient concern with the body […]. The missionaries, with their cotton shorts and dresses, disrupted this. Naked people actually feel shame when they are first dressed. They develop an exaggerated awareness of the body. It is as if Adam and Eve’s ‘aprons’ generated the ‘knowledge of good and evil’ rather than being its consequence.

- Paul Ableman

From the time of Columbus’s first voyage to the New World, when the admiral noticed the Amerindian women’s “very pretty bodies,” the most commented upon attribute of the new people was their nakedness (Morison 1963, 128). As the body is the agent of beauty, whether one wears clothes or not was the clearest manifestation of either acceptable or unacceptable body images in the Western world at the time overseas explorations were undertaken. We have already seen the degradation associated with female nakedness, a condition that resulted from women’s uncontrollable lust and attachment to the body. Contemporary European views on nudity connected clothes with civilization; the absence of clothing was a sign of anarchy. A naked man in public was seen as a destroyer of order, while a naked woman was always associated with “nascent or confirmed desire.” Once again, it was the male prerogative to contain the depraved nature of the female, and so “female nudity was explicitly linked to the affirmation of manly power.” If clothing was a metaphor for civilization, men, being more rational by nature, could violently strip women to expose their beastliness, and if, in so doing, the men give in to their desires, they are not really at fault, for the women are undeserving of any better treatment (Régnier-Bohler 1988, 367-72).

Stories proliferated in Renaissance Europe of men and emperors who did just that, ordering women to be unclothed before them so the women would suffer humiliation for their lechery. European artists used female nudity to teach Christians the evils of carnality. In many Gothic church sculptures, lust is signified by a naked woman who suffers for her sin by having snakes devour her genitals and breasts. According to the Malleus Maleficarum, the late medieval guidebook on witches, as Eve used her naked body to tempt man to sin, women’s bodies were “beautiful to look upon, contaminating to touch, and deadly to keep.” But nudity can also display imperfections of the body more readily, and representations of old hags with poison dripping from their breasts and sixteenth-century tombstones depicting the body victimized by worms were quite common (Warner 1985, 295-99).

It is understandable, then, why the first European men to notice the naked Amerindian women considered them beastly and in need of domestication, while at the same time they feared them for their supposedly uncontrollable urges and egalitarian customs. The most famous and thorough of the early reports of Amerindian women (gaining much greater circulation than Columbus’s descriptions of his discoveries) came from Amerigo Vespucci Mundus Novus, published first around 1504-05. Vespucci’s account fixates on the nudity of the natives, especially the women. The writer clearly ties together European notions of cultural superiority and the prevalent perceptions about the disorderliness of naked beauty, so that while Amerindian customs appear harmless on the outside, they lead inevitably to a multitude of heinous sins. A lengthy quotation from this work is thus warranted:

All of both sexes go about naked, covering no part of their bodies; and just as they spring from their mothers' wombs so they go until death. . . . They are comely, too, of countenance which nevertheless themselves destroy; for they bore their cheeks, lips, noses and ears. Nor think those holes small or that they have one only. . . . For women do not bore their faces, but their ears only. They have another custom, very shameful and beyond all human belief. For their women, being very lustful, cause the private parts of their husbands to swell up to such a huge size that they appear deformed and disgusting. . . .

. . . They live together without king, without government, and each is his own master. They marry as many wives as they please and son cohabits with mother, brother with sister, male cousin with female, and any man with the first woman he meets. . . . They live according to nature. (Berkhofer 1978, 7-8)

Here the explorer draws a clear link between the nudity of the natives and a society that knows no bounds of sexual depravity, all of which causes them to live in a lawless, anarchic way, bestial in their inability to overcome animalistic behavior as civilized Europeans did long ago. But such a view, while castigating this immediately obvious trait of Amerindian culture, is laid alongside the natural beauty of the women, which the writer declares was deformed through pagan practices, all to enhance their bodies for carnal pleasures, since they are without doubt “very lustful” and sodomites (Crosby 1972, 10). Vespucci goes on to recount the ineffective attempts “to dissuade them to desist from these depraved customs,” yet “when they had the opportunity of copulating with Christians, urged by excessive lust, they defiled and prostituted themselves” (Berkhofer 1978, 9).

Throughout his description, the explorer develops what would become a justification for all sorts of ill treatments of Amerindian women by European men. Their beauty is obviously of the carnal type and finds its fullest expression in nakedness, since only women of unusual lust would live their lives unclothed. Their world was so disorderly and without restraint that they were not under the consistent supervision of Amerindian men, who were themselves unequipped to contain property their own lust (Scammell 1989, 187-88). When sin entered the world, God forced Eve to cover her nakedness and shame, but these pagans were instead flaunting their depravity, proving that they were by nature nothing more than prostitutes. As in Europe, such women became fair game, as if rape or other abuse was their just reward.

For the early explorers, who had been separated from women for quite some time, the ability to indulge their sexual urges with native women proved almost too much to handle. For example, one of Columbus’s shipmates, Michele de Cuneo, gave this astounding account, in the earliest existing evidence of sexual relations between the two cultures:

While I was in the boat I captured a very beautiful Carib woman whom the said Lord Admiral gave to me, and with whom, having taken her into my cabin, she being naked according to their custom, I conceived desire to take pleasure. I wanted to put my desire into execution but she did not want it and treated me with her finger nails in such a manner that I wished I had never begun. But seeing that (to tell you the end of it all), I took a rope and thrashed her well, for which she raised such unheard of screams that you would not have believed your ears. Finally we came to an agreement in such manner that I can tell you that she seemed to have been brought up in a school of harlots. (Morison 1963, 212; see also Sale 1990, 140)

Amerindian women could be subjugated in the most violent and cruel manner, since they had not been socialized to conform to European ideals about beauty images and the submissive behaviorial norms that such represent.

While nudity was the essence and source of much comment about the physical appearance of native women, the descriptions betray an overall feeling that the bodies of pagans are so corrupt that the body itself is completely desacrilized, for these men and women have no basis for believing that the body is God’s holy temple. Inevitably, nakedness must, therefore, lead to other forms of deviance and bodily profanity, most notably cannibalism. This is the natural consequence of their sexual license according a Dutch pamphlet from 1511-12, which was also published in English:

But all thinges is comune/this people goeth all naked. But the men and women have on theyr heed/;necke/Armes/knees/and fete all with feders bounden for there bewtynes [beautiness]. . . . These folke lyven lyke bestes without any resonablenes and the wymen be also as comon. And the men hath conversacyon with the wymen/who that they ben or who they fyrst mete/is she his syster/his mother/his daughter/;or another kyndred. And the wymen be very hoote and dysposed to lecherdnes. And they ete also on[e] another[.] The men eteth his wyfe[,] his chylderne/as we also have seen and they hange also the bodyes or persons fleeshe in the smoke/as men do with swynes fleshe. (Berkhofer 1978, 9-10)

With this sort of propaganda being spread and enhanced more with each telling, it is no wonder the European explorers believed that any treatment of native women would be preferable to that which they were already receiving. A number of woodcuts, accompanying Vespucci's works and those of others like him, offered in horrifying detail the nonchalant cannibalism of these depraved beings. Between 1503 and 1515, the illustrated Mundus Novus was published in France, Germany, England, Italy, the Netherlands and Portugal. The powerful naked women who were ready to strike Europeans with heavy clubs were in sharp contrast to the domesticated, modest women of the Old World (Honour 1975, 10-11).

- Ben Lowe

By normalizing nudity in contexts that aren't sexual such as pornography, sex scenes, strip clubs and so on, the mystification can be diminished in the same way we no longer look to topless men with a sense of their immodesty in many contexts, whilst historically it was subject to having to be covered in public also.
The focus is too much on the external behaviour without any examination of the subject and gender ideology which interprets it. The sort of man who emphasizes a woman's modesty objectifies a woman just as much as the one who stares down a woman in a nice dress like a nice piece of meat he wants to stick his dick in.
It positions the woman's value in her physical appearance still and thus does nothing to empower her and emancipate women from a sense of them as primarily sexual objects rather than sexual beings.
But it is certainly true that the modern trend of assuming sexual = empowerment/emancipation is equally naive. It is true that we're at a stage in which media avoids the passive object form of sexuality but instead portrays women as if they were active agents of sexual acts, but are in fact created fantasies which can distort peoples sense of women (ie all women love anal).
Empowerment/Sexism: Figuring Female Sexual Agency in Contemporary Advertising
Going out and fucking a lot of guys doesn't materialize a world post patriarchy. Women are still being judged on their sexual behaviour, they may in such behaviour in fact put themselves at risk, they may still be subject to being used as sexual object in which they are given little respect for them as a person.
This was known since the 'sexual revolution' with the contraception which became a means for men to presume that all women were on it and thus sexually available. Such medical advancement didn't wash away sexism and misogyny.

And because the variance in the human object/subject doesn't by itself undermine the ideological assumptions which interprets women as primarily as sexual objects or at least having their primary worth/value based in sexuality, one has to do more than clothing. In this regard I suspect the free the nipple is useful in undermining the ideological background of interpreting nudity as inherently sexual by showing nudity in desexualized contexts. The association is so strong that people presume it universal in spite of a reality in which tribal women walk bare chested, where different cultures have fetishized different aspects of the body and often covered it. Doing this doesn't mean one can't still be sexually attracted to someone, because sexual attraction doesn't require that we fetishize a single aspect of someones body as inherently sexual, sexuality is more than visual parts but interacts heavily with the subjects mind.

When we leave the human form in this mystified manner or where its associated with sex because all appearances of nudity are within sexual contexts and thus they become inseparable by built up associations, we develop people who interpret a certain sexual power in nudity. The sort that comes to rationalize the sense that women's appearances provoke men, with little discussion in the mediation of subject to object.

I was recently at a hot spring in Colorado, where clothing was optional and so lot of people were naked. There was clear rules emphasizing that sexual acts where to be done in private, delineating that nudity wasn't sexual. Coming from a social context in which nudity is covered by clothing and general nudity is unfamiliar to public contexts, there remains a degree of curiosity but also a sort of indifference that arises from being visually saturated in the human form. It becomes familiar, it becomes the new normative, one that normalizes human nakedness without implying sexuality.

This subject I think in a more in depth discussion would have to explore aesthetics. But overall, the view that modesty equals empowerment is misguided and doesn't strike at the ideology that positions women's primary value in their physical appearance at all but is in fact the other side of the same coin.

[Scheherazade]

What a dumb article.

Hopefully, since the writer is only 23, she'll eventually find the wisdom to understand that there is no empowerment to be found in a culture that treats women like dogs.

That would be American raunch culture.

At worst strict Muslim cultures treat women like children, but that's still a step above treating them like dogs and sexual chattel.

[anna]

That would be American raunch culture.

At worst strict Muslim cultures treat women like children, but that's still a step above treating them like dogs and sexual chattel.

In my culture I can drive my own car, go where I want without a male family member to escort me, and don't have to worry about being murdered by my own family in an honor killing.

[Political Interest]

It is a completely immaterial issue. Muslims can decide their own gender relations questions and any discussions should be irrelavent to Westerners, except if they want to learn or adopt such a paradigm for themselves.

The desire to export Western gender relations to the Islamic world is based on ethnocentrism. If Muslims want to adopt our vision of gender relations they are free to do so but that is a choice that only they can make.

[anna]

They (the men) are free to decide.

I'm free to compare.

[Political Interest]

They're free to decide.

I'm free to compare.

Of course.

All I am saying is that we cannot say that our system is better than theirs in their own environment, although they equally cannot tell us how to run our own societies.

[anna]

Of course.

All I am saying is that we cannot say that our system is better than theirs in their own environment, although they equally cannot tell us how to run our own societies.

I don't think we should be nation-building or attempting to "spread democracy," but I certainly can and will say our system is better than theirs.

Also, you quoted me before I edited my post to clarify that I don't believe women in their society are free.

[Syph]

My two factors:

1. Intelligence
2. Kindness

It did strike me as strange that kindness wasn't considered a universally attractive quality but some people like unpleasant people. Intelligence is always a contentious issue as it can be seen as intimidating especially if the gulf between partners is large.

...

Insightful as always, thanks!

At worst strict Muslim cultures treat women like children, but that's still a step above treating them like dogs and sexual chattel.

I'm not even sure you have an accurate idea of what "hook up" culture even is. I'd say that a direct implication of "hook up" culture is that Millenials are having less sex than previous generations.

Very few women want unsatisfying sexual encounters, the only people who treat women like sexual chattel are wannabe Don Juans and pick-up artists. They are building lists of "lays" which categorically objectifies women.

[Wellsy]

That would be American raunch culture.

At worst strict Muslim cultures treat women like children, but that's still a step above treating them like dogs and sexual chattel.

Actually, the strict paternalism in some countries which happen to be Muslim is a sign of how strong patriarchal control is, paternalism is a means of control. This same sort of control exists in western societies to, but to varying degrees.
To help understand, it'd be useful to read:
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism

The authors present a theory of sexism formulated as ambivalence toward women and validate a corresponding measure, the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (ASI). The ASI taps 2 positively correlated components of sexism that nevertheless represent opposite evaluative orientations toward women: sexist antipathy or Hostile Sexism (HS) and a subjectively positive ( for sexist men ) orientation toward women, Benevolent Sexism (BS). HS and BS are hypothesized to encompass 3 sources of male ambivalence: Paternalism, Gender Differentiation, and Heterosexuality. Six ASI studies on 2,250 respondents established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Overall ASI scores predict ambivalent attitudes toward women, the HS scale correlates with negative attitudes toward and stereotypes about women, and the BS scale (for nonstudent men only) correlates with positive attitudes toward and stereotypes about women. A copy of the ASI is provided, with scoring instructions, as a tool for further explorations of sexist ambivalence.

and
Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures

The authors argue that complementary hostile and benevolent components of sexism exist across cultures. Male dominance creates hostile sexism (HS), but men's dependence on women fosters benevolent sexism (BS)--subjectively positive attitudes that put women on a pedestal but reinforce their subordination. Research with 15,000 men and women in 19 nations showed that (a) HS and BS are coherent constructs that correlate positively across nations, but (b) HS predicts the ascription of negative and BS the ascription of positive traits to women, (c) relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS, especially when overall levels of sexism in a culture are high, and (d) national averages on BS and HS predict gender inequality across nations. These results challenge prevailing notions of prejudice as an antipathy in that BS (an affectionate, patronizing ideology) reflects inequality and is a cross-culturally pervasive complement to HS.

Basically, benevolent sexism is complimentary to hostile sexism in maintain control of women.
Though for sexism I tend to consider it the ideology (the carrot) that seeks to make women conform to certain standards by idealizing them and misogyny as the hostility directed towards those that act out of line with expected lady like behaviour.
What is Misogyny? A Feminist Analysis

As discussed in the previous section, patriarchal ideology comprises not only a certain vision of how social reality ought to be, but norms and expectations designed to bring it about. (I mean ―norms and expectations‖ in the broadest possible sense here, to include moral and aesthetic values, hierarchical expectations, and the subsequent normatively and ideologically-laden sense of expectation which constitutes a sense of ‗male entitlement.‘) But such patriarchal norms and expectations often stand in need of (inter alia) justification, as well as enforcement, in order to maintain their grip. ―Sexism‖ seems to me a natural label for whatever satisfies the former role, ―misogyny‖ for the latter.

Hence, I suggest that:
Sexism is the species of patriarchal ideology which functions to theoretically justify patriarchal social relations by, e.g., naturalizing and idealizing women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.

Whereas:
Misogyny is the system within a patriarchal order which functions to practically enforce patriarchal social relations by, e.g., directly enacting, as well as policing and upholding women‘s subordination and men‘s dominance.

Benevolent sexism which is problematic to the degree that it's paternalistic and treats women as children in need of protection can only find validation in the context of a society quite hostile to women.
Why does a woman need protection to walk around? Because society is hostile to women, so the mans paternalism is only validated by a worldview, real or imagined, that women are under threat. The paternalist of course doesn't want to improve the societal standards for women so she could walk with less fear of being attacked in some degree. He needs her under her control, hence why theres lots of claims that seek to impose upon women's autonomy without any skepticism to the validity of a threat. Street harassment being the most common means to impose upon women's autonomy by what they wear and where they go alone.
It's like a mafia asking for protection, you won't get hurt (by other men) because I'll protect you... as long as you be a good woman and do what is expected of you.
So this apparently benign paternalism can even in itself be a reflection of hostile sexist attitudes within the person, because those that are benevolent idealize women as morally virtuous and such, but when that image shatters they can become hostile because suddenly she is a fallen woman unworthy of the same standards of respect she had within her perceived purity. Those that praise the women as morally virtuous will just as readily turn on her and call her a whore when it suits their interests if she isn't been a 'good' woman. Such expectations of woman's behaviour is a fragile standard to maintain that can readily be smeered and have them subject to serious danger because such hostility is legitimized. Whores and such aren't considered worthy of life in some cases, respect and the basic standards of being humane to another.

So one can't really disentangle the paternalism from the actively hostile attitudes towards women in that society as they maintain one another. Women in fact support benevolent sexism the higher hostile sexist attitudes prevail in a society. Take away the hostility through gender equality, the paternalist loses his validation. Women start saying, I don't need a man to walk around with me everywhere and if they try and impose their help upon someone when its unwanted then they are looked upon as suspect for disregarding her lack of consent to such.

Also can think of the immorality in treating a being that is capable of being rational and autonomous like a child. The entire validation of paternalism is the lack of rational capacity of a being, children eventually develop such a capacity that by some arbitrary age we consider them adults. To treat grown women as children is a significant offence in itself.
And whilst you make a contrast that they don't treat them like dogs and sexual chattel I think you may be assuming greatly based only on very public representations. Where you seem to be in disgust of things that are commodified and advertised using women's bodies, but perhaps misjudge this as a totality of a society's treatment of women. Maybe you could clarify, as interpreting Muslim countries as at their worst treating women like children seems quite optimistic in many contexts.

I would emphasize that a lot of Muslim countries were fucked over hard and been put back to a kind of modern feudalism, hence many of their regressive practices towards women. A lot of countries were blown back years through destructive wars from western militaries, who supported radical religious groups to oppose radical leftists in some places. Muslim countries more in Asia and South East Asia are more progressive because they haven't been fucked as hard, though they're still kept under boot some.

[Scheherazade]

In my culture I can drive my own car, go where I want without a male family member to escort me, and don't have to worry about being murdered by my own family in an honor killing.

Just have to be worried about being raped by strangers and treated like a piece of meat.

Even Muslims have enough honor not to prostitute their own daughters on the corporate alter.

[Scheherazade]

Basically, benevolent sexism is complimentary to hostile sexism in maintain control of women.
Though for sexism I tend to consider it the ideology (the carrot) that seeks to make women conform to certain standards by idealizing them and misogyny as the hostility directed towards those that act out of line with expected lady like behaviour.
What is Misogyny? A Feminist Analysis

It's not about controlling women, it's about protecting them from rapacious men more than anything else.

In Western raunch culture, women are far more controlled, albeit indirectly, and treated like pieces of meat or any other consumable commodity in a capitalist country.

Plus when a woman behaves as a whore, she foregos her "womanhood" and becomes like a disillusion man, so trying to preserve this is not at all misogynist, trying to turn women into easy sex objects simply so perverted white men who run raunch entertainment industries can profit off of their whoredom is far and away more misogynist.

This is why many Western "feminists" are degenerate and just shills for raunch culture, they're doing more to empower horny men by making women easy, instead of hard-to-get.

[Scheherazade]

I'm not even sure you have an accurate idea of what "hook up" culture even is. I'd say that a direct implication of "hook up" culture is that Millenials are having less sex than previous generations.

True, but not necessarily for good motives; many might be having less sex simply due to substituting it for other vices, such as video game addiction, but not out of any actual appreciation of chivalry or virtues.

Many millennials are morally apathetic and sheltered.

So simply "having less sex" isn't the issue, but rather the moral intentions behind it. Many millennials fawn over whores like Nicki Minaj or Miley Cyrus, which shows just how depraved the mass consumerist view of women and sex is.

Very few women want unsatisfying sexual encounters, the only people who treat women like sexual chattel are wannabe Don Juans and pick-up artists. They are building lists of "lays" which categorically objectifies women.

Much of the mass entertainment industry promotes this worldview.

[anna]

Just have to be worried about being raped by strangers and treated like a piece of meat.

Even Muslims have enough honor not to prostitute their own daughters on the corporate alter.

Every woman in every culture has to be worried about being raped by strangers. Being covered from head to toe doesn't save a woman, nor is not being covered head to toe an excuse to blame the victim. Blame the animal who commits the crime.

How many Muslim parents have killed their daughters for the sake of their own pride?

[Wellsy]

It's not about controlling women, it's about protecting them from rapacious men more than anything else.

In Western raunch culture, women are far more controlled, albeit indirectly, and treated like pieces of meat or any other consumable commodity in a capitalist country.

Plus when a woman behaves as a whore, she foregos her "womanhood" and becomes like a disillusion man, so trying to preserve this is not at all misogynist, trying to turn women into easy sex objects simply so perverted white men who run raunch entertainment industries can profit off of their whoredom is far and away more misogynist.

This is why many Western "feminists" are degenerate and just shills for raunch culture, they're doing more to empower horny men by making women easy, instead of hard-to-get.

Which is exactly on point with what I was saying, such benevolent paternalism is only validated by a society which is already hostile to women. Hence why when a woman is victim of some sort of violence, our only response typically is imposition on them and no thought as to how to radically change the state of things, it is often conceived of as impossible if its thought of all to alleviate things like street harassment and domestic violence.

I think you'd have to go into more detail to back up the assertion they are more controlled. I assert that they are controlled through a different means, a means that isn't improved by calls to modesty. Is it not attempting to maintain control over women when they step outside of womanly expectations and to be hostile to such ends? Control in itself isn't inherently wrong but it must be justified and for many the expectations on women aren't readily justifiable if one doesn't subscribe to certain gendered assumptions.
The most morally problematic part of this beneovlent sexism/paternalism is that it doesn't seek consent from the woman, it simply imposes on a woman. Because its more about men's wanking off their egos as hero protectors than it is about the woman's well being. This sort of fantasy is clearly seen in media in which women often exist to be victimized to rationalize a man's violence against another, to position some men as clearly evil and thus morally okay to kill. It doesn't concern itself with the woman at all, it's all about the role the wannabe protector wants to play. A protector who doesn't want to support radical solutions to the basis on which she may be threatened by, because in being his protector and her being vulnerable to a hostile society, he can personally maintain strict control over her because he can leverage the fact that he can decide to not to protect her from things or in fact become hostile themselves. A lot of the violence women experience isn't from stangers in public, its from their own family members in their own homes. The supposed protectors are in many cases, often the attackers.

You should give more attention to my point that emancipation doesn't come from being sexual but repressing it isn't emancipatory either, and both operate in a framing that positions women's value in her sexuality, hence its the different side of the same coin. The woman is still seen in terms of being a sexual object rather than a being who can be sexual. A sexuality that is typically seen as owned by a woman's father or her husband, hence the offense taken when a woman is victimized in many places, because its not seen in terms of harm to the woman but a harm to her relatives.

So whilst a criticism of commodification of women's bodies is valid, the reaction is just as invalid in its idea of improving things for women as its part of the overall ideology that maintains women's subordination and lac of autonomy in society because it does not seek to improve their capacity to be autonomous and to not be subject to harm. It simply restricts their movement, their behaviours, it's paternalistic of adults to which a woman has just as great a merit to their own autonomy as a man in adulthood in the abstract but in practice is denied it.
You need to ad more nuance to your understanding of western feminism and not reduce it to liberals. These type of feminists are those that have been successfully co-opted by mass marketing that uses feminist rhetoric on those who have false consciousness in regards to feminism, the sort of people who feel good from empty rhetoric and lack any substance to their thought and understanding to freedom.
In a naive sense of liberalism that is common, arbitrary choice is considered freedom devoid of context to the real world implications in one's capacity to choose.
No, feminism is not about choice
Liberalism has been popular and complimentary to the dominant thought in western societies so it was easy for such feminists to become the majority. Hence why everyone hears their rhetoric in emphasis on the individual's choice and often absent larger consideration of women as a whole, its a type of feminism that at most will only benefit middle-upper class women.
When you realize that feminism has been dealt a significant blow since rise of neoliberalism and political correctness rhetoric, you can see that the feminism you viewed is just as opposed by radical feminists, but they aren't equivalent to conservatives because their solutions are to disrupt such a system rather than just shift back and forth in between it.

I still stand by my initial point that changing clothing isn't going to emancipate women as long as the ideology that positions women's value on adherence to gender roles/expectations, particularly ones that position them primarily as sexual objects. Women will not be emancipated by the deception lead by marketing in the western world, but neither will they be emancipated by going back into the arm of conservatives that want to protect them like children. They need to fuck things up and break the system that sees them in this way and demand changes in society that actualize their capacity to move around freely without significant threat for how they dress or who they sleep with.

[anasawad]

@anna

How many Muslim parents have killed their daughters for the sake of their own pride?

Very few actually in comparison to the overall number of Muslims. And specially since that practice along with other practices you described are only common in Arab nations and not all of them rather specific ones like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc.
Now those who do such are criminals, and the system that allows is also criminal (their governments) and further more the nations the protects those criminals with military forces to instill them and let them do their crimes without punished are also criminals (i.e the US and UK).

So....yea.

[anna]

@anna

Very few actually in comparison to the overall number of Muslims. And specially since that practice along with other practices you described are only common in Arab nations and not all of them rather specific ones like Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Qatar, etc.
Now those who do such are criminals, and the system that allows is also criminal (their governments) and further more the nations the protects those criminals with military forces to instill them and let them do their crimes without punished are also criminals (i.e the US and UK).

So....yea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing
1 Definitions
2 General characteristics
3 Extent
4 Methods
5 Use of minors as perpetrators
6 Culture
6.1 General cultural features
6.2 Specific triggers of honor killings
6.2.1 Refusal of an arranged marriage
6.2.2 Seeking a divorce
6.2.3 Allegations and rumors about a family member
6.2.4 Victims of rape
6.2.5 Homosexuality
7 Causes
7.1 Views on women
7.2 Cultures of honor and shame
7.3 Laws
8 Forced suicide as a substitute
9 Restoring honor through a forced marriage
10 Religion
11 In history
12 By region
12.1 Europe
12.1.1 Albania
12.1.2 Belgium
12.1.3 Denmark
12.1.4 France
12.1.5 Germany
12.1.6 Italy
12.1.7 Norway
12.1.8 Sweden
12.1.9 Switzerland
12.1.10 United Kingdom
12.2 Middle East
12.2.1 Egypt
12.2.2 Iran
12.2.3 Iraq
12.2.4 Jordan
12.2.5 Kuwait
12.2.6 Lebanon
12.2.7 Palestinian Authority
12.2.8 Saudi Arabia
12.2.9 Syria
12.2.10 Turkey
12.2.11 Yemen
12.3 Maghreb
12.4 South Asia
12.4.1 Afghanistan
12.4.2 India
12.4.3 Pakistan
12.5 The Americas
12.5.1 Brazil
12.5.2 Canada
12.5.3 United States
12.5.4 Latin America
12.6 Oceania
12.6.1 Australia

[Scheherazade]

Which is exactly on point with what I was saying, such benevolent paternalism is only validated by a society which is already hostile to women.
[/quote]
Not by any means, the society hostile to women would be the regressive Western rauch culture.

Muslim societies are if anything, over-protective of them - the West is hostile.

Hence why when a woman is victim of some sort of violence, our only response typically is imposition on them and no thought as to how to radically change the state of things, it is often conceived of as impossible if its thought of all to alleviate things like street harassment and domestic violence.

I think you'd have to go into more detail to back up the assertion they are more controlled. I assert that they are controlled through a different means, a means that isn't improved by calls to modesty.

Control isn't bad in and over itself, calls to modesty improve virtue, and society has a right to control things to the end of preserving virtue.

The West simply 'controls' them indirectly in the opposite direction, by rewarding and fetishizing 'freedom' and whoredom.

Is it not attempting to maintain control over women when they step outside of womanly expectations and to be hostile to such ends?

Not by any means, control is perfectly fine if it serves the best interests of the individuals and culture, much like laws against murder and rape. "Freedom" as an end in and of itself is depraved.

Control in itself isn't inherently wrong but it must be justified and for many the expectations on women aren't readily justifiable if one doesn't subscribe to certain gendered assumptions.

If people don't subscribe to what's correct and virtuous, their opinions don't matter, just as those of Jeffery Dahmer don't. So they can either subscribe to it, or society can penalize them for it, their call.

The most morally problematic part of this beneovlent sexism/paternalism is that it doesn't seek consent from the woman, it simply imposes on a woman.

It's a part of nature, so it was imposed by nature.

Because its more about men's wanking off their egos as hero protectors than it is about the woman's well being.

That's an absurd philosophy in which people's motivations are inherently selfish.

This sort of fantasy is clearly seen in media in which women often exist to be victimized to rationalize a man's violence against another, to position some men as clearly evil and thus morally okay to kill.

It is morally fine to end life in the name of righteousness in many situations.

It doesn't concern itself with the woman at all, it's all about the role the wannabe protector wants to play.

Nature ordained men as the protectors of external threats, and women as the peservers of internal order, ordained all the way down the DNA leve;- you're at war with nature and it's creator.

You should give more attention to my point that emancipation doesn't come from being sexual but repressing it isn't emancipatory either, and both operate in a framing that positions women's value in her sexuality, hence its the different side of the same coin.

Sociologically speaking, her value ot the ecosystem ties in with her sexuality, and there is no way to deny this without simply denying nature.

The woman is still seen in terms of being a sexual object rather than a being who can be sexual. A sexuality that is typically seen as owned by a woman's father or her husband, hence the offense taken when a woman is victimized in many places, because its not seen in terms of harm to the woman but a harm to her relatives.

Being hypersexual causes them to be seen as sexual objects, being modest causes them to be seen as beings with spirits.

Therefore behavior which encourages the former, and discourages the latter has a right to be controlled for the good of society.

So whilst a criticism of commodification of women's bodies is valid, the reaction is just as invalid in its idea of improving things for women as its part of the overall ideology that maintains women's subordination and lac of autonomy in society because it does not seek to improve their capacity to be autonomous and to not be subject to harm.

You're deluded into thinking that "automony" is good or an end in and of itself, people are part of a collective society and ecoysystem which is greater than the sum of its parts.

Pure autonomy often leads to evil and immorality, as the modern West is evidence of with its fetishization of "individualism' and "freedom".

It simply restricts their movement, their behaviours, it's paternalistic of adults to which a woman has just as great a merit to their own autonomy as a man in adulthood in the abstract but in practice is denied it.

Neither deserve pure autonomy unless they prove their social worth, those who don't prove such worth can either reform their behavior, or be controlled and aided by society into doing so.

People who are virtuous are naturally more autonomous than those who are vicious anyway, which is why it's usually the more base and degenerate type of people who scream the loudest about "their rights" and "their freedoms".

You need to ad more nuance to your understanding of western feminism and not reduce it to liberals. These type of feminists are those that have been successfully co-opted by mass marketing that uses feminist rhetoric on those who have false consciousness in regards to feminism, the sort of people who feel good from empty rhetoric and lack any substance to their thought and understanding to freedom.
In a naive sense of liberalism that is common, arbitrary choice is considered freedom devoid of context to the real world implications in one's capacity to choose.
No, feminism is not about choice
Liberalism has been popular and complimentary to the dominant thought in western societies so it was easy for such feminists to become the majority. Hence why everyone hears their rhetoric in emphasis on the individual's choice and often absent larger consideration of women as a whole, its a type of feminism that at most will only benefit middle-upper class women.
When you realize that feminism has been dealt a significant blow since rise of neoliberalism and political correctness rhetoric, you can see that the feminism you viewed is just as opposed by radical feminists, but they aren't equivalent to conservatives because their solutions are to disrupt such a system rather than just shift back and forth in between it.

Your entire argument is based on fetishizing "freedom" and "autonomy" as desirable ends, rather than virtue and greater purpose in life than the insignificant self, so like much of Western narcissistic ideologies, it's inherently immoral.

I still stand by my initial point that changing clothing isn't going to emancipate women as long as the ideology that positions women's value on adherence to gender roles/expectations,

Their social value is, as the biological construct of sex and gender is what makes them a "woman" to begin with. So you're just denying nature.

Radical feminists from what I've seen, are many anti-social personalities who want to destroy femininity and all that's good in nature.

particularly ones that position them primarily as sexual objects. Women will not be emancipated by the deception lead by marketing in the western world, but neither will they be emancipated by going back into the arm of conservatives that want to protect them like children. They need to fuck things up and break the system that sees them in this way and demand changes in society that actualize their capacity to move around freely without significant threat for how they dress or who they sleep with.

They need to either conform to a righteous system or be punished by it, so do men.

Those who seek to destroy righteous systems are sociopaths and are controlled because they have to be.

The system is the organ; individuals are cells - organs removed infected cells because the greater purpose of the organ trumps the 'autonomy' of individual cells.

So yes, women (and men) who behave in ways which are immodest and counter-productive to the purpose of the ecosystem which nature ordained them subordinate to, not only deserve to be judged for it but should be actively judged for it, rather than 'pretended' to be tolerated by those too spineless to take a stand on anything.

[anasawad]

@anna And ?

Infact this page shows exactly what 'm talking about.
Such things are common among the groups you support.
Wahabis for example are of the main groups to do so and they have your protection.

Even in Iran, the articale clearly mentions where these actions are being commited and not so surprisingly they're amongst the same groups you support and infact to this matter you have also actively funded and armed in attempt to get them to rule over us and do the same to us and you did so for over 20 years BTW.

But thanks for showing that, now everyone can look at the prime suspects, and match them with the list of religious extremest groups and communities you support and protect.

Tons of criminals and a majority of them are supported and protected by you. so your countries are still very well complicit to their crimes.

[anna]

@anna And ?

Infact this page shows exactly what 'm talking about.
Such things are common among the groups you support.
Wahabis for example are of the main groups to do so and they have your protection.

Even in Iran, the articale clearly mentions where these actions are being commited and not so surprisingly they're amongst the same groups you support and infact to this matter you have also actively funded and armed in attempt to get them to rule over us and do the same to us and you did so for over 20 years BTW.

But thanks for showing that, now everyone can look at the prime suspects, and match them with the list of religious extremest groups and communities you support and protect.

Tons of criminals and a majority of them are supported and protected by you. so your countries are still very well complicit to their crimes.

I have no problem showing where and in what cultures honor killings are committed. Look to yourself, those killings would be happening regardless. They're a result of Muslim culture, and Muslims need to own that.

[anna]

Muslim societies are if anything, over-protective of them - the West is hostile.

"Over-protective."

What a quaint euphemism.