Bikini vs. Burka: The Debauchery of Women

February 13th, 2015

FAKE NEWS for the Zionist agenda

February 12, 2015

Since this article was written in 2002,
it has been reposted on many Muslim,
Christian and Hindu websites.
With Valentine’s Day Saturday
I am revisiting this affirmation
of gender, marriage and family.

By Henry Makow Ph.D.

On my wall, I have a picture of a Muslim woman shrouded in a burka.

Beside it is a picture of an American beauty contestant, wearing nothing but a bikini.

One woman is totally hidden from the public; the other is totally exposed. These two extremes say a great deal about the clash of so-called “civilizations.”

The role of woman is at the heart of any culture. Apart from stealing Arab oil, the turmoil in the Middle East is about stripping Muslims of their religion and culture, exchanging the burka for a bikini.

I am not an expert on the condition of Muslim women and I love feminine beauty too much to advocate the burka here. But I am defending some of the values that the burka represents for me.

For me, the burka represents a woman’s consecration to her husband and family. Only they see her. It affirms the privacy, exclusivity and importance of the domestic sphere.

The Muslim woman’s focus is her home, the “nest” where her children are born and reared. She is the “home” maker, the taproot that sustains the spiritual life of the family, nurturing and training her children, providing refuge and support to her husband.

In contrast, the bikinied American beauty queen struts practically naked in front of millions on TV. A feminist, she belongs to herself. In practice, paradoxically, she is public property. She belongs to no one and everyone. She shops her body to the highest bidder. She is auctioning herself all of the time.

In America, the cultural measure of a woman’s value is her sex appeal. (As this asset depreciates quickly, she is neurotically obsessed with appearance and plagued by weight problems.)

(left, “role model” Miley Cyrus)

As an adolescent, her role model is Miley Cyrus, a singer whose act approximates a strip tease. From Miley, she learns that she will be loved only if she gives sex. Thus, she learns to “hook up” furtively rather than to demand patient courtship, love and marriage.

As a result, dozens of males know her before her husband does. She loses her innocence, which is a large part of her charm. She becomes hardened and calculating. Unable to love, she is unfit to receive her husband’s seed.

FEMININITY

The feminine personality is founded on the emotional relationship between mother and baby. It is based on nurturing and self-sacrifice.

Masculinity is founded on the relationship between hunter and prey. It is based on aggression and reason.

Feminism deceives women to believe femininity has resulted in “oppression” and they should adopt male behavior instead.

The result: a confused and aggressive woman with a large chip on her shoulder, unfit to become a wife or mother.

This is the goal of the NWO social engineers: undermine sexual identity and destroy the family, create social and personal dysfunction, and reduce population. In the “brave new world,” women are not supposed to be mothers and progenitors of the race. They are meant to be autonomous sex objects.

Liberating women is often given as an excuse for the war in places like Afghanistan. Liberating them to what? To Miley Cyrus? To low-rise “see-my-thong” pants? To the mutual masturbation that passes for sexuality in America? If they really cared about women, maybe they’d end the war.

PARENTHOOD

Parenthood is the pinnacle of human development. It is the stage when we finally graduate from self-indulgence and become God’s surrogates: creating and nurturing new life. Our children represent our natural growth. They are an extension of ourselves.

The New World Order does not want us to reach this level of maturity. Pornography is the substitute for marriage. We are to remain single: stunted, sex-starved and self-obsessed.

They don’t want us to have a permanent “private” life. We are meant to remain lonely and isolated, in a state of perpetual courtship, dependent on consumer products for our identity.

This is especially destructive for woman. Her sexual attraction is a function of her fertility. As fertility declines, so does her sex appeal. If a woman devotes her prime years to becoming “independent,” she is not likely to find a permanent mate.

Her long-term personal fulfillment and happiness lies in making marriage and family her first priority.

Feminism is another cruel New World Order hoax that has debauched American women and despoiled Western civilization. It has ruined millions of lives and represents a lethal threat to Islam.

I am not advocating the burka but rather some of the values that it represents, specifically a woman’s consecration to her future husband and family, and the modesty and dignity this entails.

The burka and the bikini represent two extremes. The answer lies somewhere in the middle.

Comments for ” Bikini vs. Burka: The Debauchery of Women”

Adrian said (September 2, 2014):

I believe Western styles from the 50’s represent the natural medium between these extremes:clothes that muffled shape. The female form is burned into the brains of men and they cannot repress jaw
dropping interest in it, and all the adverse consequences: accidents, bad marriages, mistakes of every kind.

Unless their politicians react, Muslim nations will not resist the onslaught of Hollywood to effect the switch to the “bikini”. The box,
the screen, is truly the most powerful tool of the Devil. Asian Muslim nations have child care dumped on third parties because of near
Western levels of women committed to an employer. This is not because of poverty.

Despite these women having the world’s most attractive olive skin, “Hollywood” white skin is deemed the “most beautiful” and women
absurdly apply highly dubious Chinese cosmetic skin whitening products with no ingredients listed. If they do that over skin, they are surely
swallowing the whole immoral package. Soap operas surreptitiously push sex: flashing sexy forms and showing male reaction. Pop videos are for now “in the 80’s”, dancing as fxxking can be seen
on post 9PM TV.

Babs said (September 26, 2009):

THANK YOU FOR THE COURAGE TO WRITE THIS BOOK! I do not have a copy…but I am a 47 year old FEMININE woman with a wonderful ex-husband and two grown daughters. I am currently enrolled at —- Graduate school and I have never would have dreamed the gender/diversity/homosexual/communist agenda that is pushed on us in every class. The reason I recognized it as such, as I have been in Kunming China for the last 4 years and believe me, they aren’t pushing for this crap. This was exactly the crap that destroyed their country and put it in the shape it is in. Women here want “equality?” Then let them go to China, watch the women along side the men swinging pick axes digging lines for water, etc. When women are ready to give their lives for their fellow sisters and children in war…then let them holler. If I can graduate (as I am a white, republican Christian and feminine at that) then I am planning to continue to get my PhD and write about the “the feminist fallacy” or “the totally castrated white male.”

I join with you, and if I can do anything, please let me know. I don’t really know what to do to stop it.

—–

Start a Republican club on campus and give em hell
Make sure you have a lot of support first.

henry

Barry said (September 26, 2009):

My girlfriend just sent me a copy of “In Praise of Traditional Women.” I just wanted to say thank you for writing it. It took true courage and conviction in this cultural climate to write it.

I recently started to educate myself about our world. By virtue of a good Christian upbringing, I realized mankind was not intended to live in pain and misery. However, observing the world showed misery to be the norm rather than the exception. Even most of us secularly prosperous “first world” Americans live spiritually and morally bankrupt lives.

Upon my “journey”, conducted mostly on the internet, I started to learn about history and facts that I had never heard about in college, books, or on the news. I realized the Federal Reserve was a corporation, not a governmental body!

To my horror I learned we were slaves ruled by power hungry elites and bankers. Blind to the truth, distracted by technology, none even knew of their status. Anyone who seeks to inform his fellow men is either labelled a heretical conspiracy theorist, discredited, or assassinated.
I can honestly say I agreed with every point in your excellent article. I feared I would never be able to say that about an intelligent work confronting our social decline and economic and cultural enslavement. You have successfully woven together the disparate themes and problems that plague us. You have given my girlfriend and I hope. That someone else has so eloquently voiced what we have talked about on so many walks together is comforting.

Soon those who seek freedom, truth, and reform, will be labelled terrorists.

It seems like so one-sided a fight to reform our government, purge the corruption, and revive morality without being negatively labelled. Besides being a virtuous example, what else can we do?

Asim said (September 25, 2009):

Finding the middle ground in everything we do is what being a Muslim is all about. Having the right balance between the material and spiritual, is what is demanded of us. Muslim women are guided to dress modestly, and the hijab not the burkha-which is a cultural item-is the answer to this. Many western women who revert to islam always-and always choose of their own volition to wear the hijab/niqab. People like Pierre would not hesitate to damm the hijab in equal measure and lump it together with the ‘demeaning’ burkha, unable to see what the muslim women’s dress code actually symbolises, something which you Henry have so eloquently elucidated.

Pierre said (September 25, 2009):

Greetings from Cape Town.

Thank you for your article – I have been enjoying everything you have written these last few months although disagreeing with most of it (naturally).

The bikini-burka thesis is a false polarity. In reality, both garments symbolize the demeaning and enslavement of women. You said it yourself … the burka-clad female belongs to her husband. The bikini babe belongs to everyone. They are both “owned” by penis-bearing mammals.

Just as left/right wing is a false political dichotomy – in extremis both tend to totalitarianism – so does bikini vs burka provide a misleading spectrum for debate. Besides, a woman is so much more than a projection of sexual modesty (or not), don’t you think?

The true extremes of the “feminist” duality are freedom vs slavery. The real debate should be “to what extent do society/culture empower or constrain women to make their own choices about their own destiny?” Whether they wear burkas or bikinis should be entirely a matter of individual preference, free of social or religious (read male-dominated) programming or expectation.

In my book, those who traffic in female sexuality are purveying an unhealthy obsession with a perfectly mundane mammalian impulse. Down with them, I say! But I also say: down with the (male) prudes and moralizers who wish to interfere with the sexual (or any other) choices of women.

Aubrey said (September 25, 2009):

Dr. Makow,

I have total faith in your research and motivations. As an idea I thought perhaps you might want to start a

prayer chain or designate a daily time where your readers can pause and pray for the opening of each others

minds/spirit to God and good works here on Earth. Although acting upon your beliefs is tantamount, prayer

can never hinder….especially on a large scale. Of course if I have missed this on your site and it is already

enacted, please dismiss this email.

Thank you and God bless,

Aubrey

Joseph said (September 24, 2009):

The modern female psyche is broken and shattered. From birth to death it is under a continuous attack that is designed to render both her and all that she touches impotent, but she is not to be faulted.

She does not “lose her innocence”, but it is taken from her.

She does not choose to become “hardened” nor “calculating”, but these are coping mechanisms that allow her to breathe and make it from one moment to the next. The only relief in a sea of suicidal thoughts.

And she is most especially ALWAYS fit to be loved.

The cognitive dissonance that we experience on a daily basis is unbearable, and the knee jerk reaction is to either submit or scream at people and tell them to wake up because they are being devoured by an absolute evil.
We must relieve the dissonance; however….

We can never allow this constant ridicule and humiliation to deter us from our cause.
We can never allow this debasement to infect our thoughts to such a degree that we attack the ones that need us most.

This is a mind war Henry, and the object is to divide and conquer.
—

Giancarlo (Milan) said (September 24, 2009):

Bikini vs Burka:
Two extremes of the same depravity:
woman rather than considered as a whole,
is just reduced to a femenine mechanical hole,
here grace is spent as pearls thrown to pigs,
there is hidden away like bones buried by dogs.
Giancarlo, Milan

Margaret said (September 24, 2009):

I read your recent article on Rense with great interest.
Your comment:
The burka and the bikini represent 2 extremes.
The answer lies somewhere in the middle”
Answer being the modest dress code –
(the details of which are entirely up to the wearer)

(“there is no compulsion in religion” – Quran 2; 256)

anon female said (September 24, 2009):

You know, quite a number of years ago I wrote you pretty much denouncing all you were espousing. I’ve just avoided you since and even forgot why you bugged me so. However, after reading this article I immediately remembered why you were to be avoided. You’re a narrow minded, ignorant and very small individual who’s social life I bet is really hopping, (not). GET A LIFE, AS IN A MANS LIFE., A REAL MAN THAT IS. YOU DO NEED SAVING, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!

SB said (September 24, 2009):

Thanks for another perceptive article. My wife recently requested to wear the veil, which I granted, of course, so I’ve thought about this a lot in the last few weeks. I agree with you completely.

It’s interesting and tragic that a woman’s “Right to Choose” only extends to murdering her own unborn children and not what attire she chooses
to wear.

Dave said (September 24, 2009):

The response from David in Seattle prompted me to write to you today.

Earlier I had described my girlfriend’s background (private Women’s college espousing Feminist principles) and how she has since grown to question the notions she was taught.

In the past year she has read several books pertaining to the disciplines of Feminism and Women’s Studies, including Wendy Shalit’s “A Return to Modesty”, a link to a review of which is below. I in turn read these books, and Shalit’s work stood out as very much in-line with your understanding of modesty and femininity (the other books were unabashed pro-feminist screeds which left me wondering how these “liberated” female authors manage to stay sane!).

Ever since reading the book I have wanted to recommend Miss Shalit’s work to you and your readers; what this young woman has to say is radically at odds with the global agenda to strip from women their God-given right to modesty, as well as their roles in traditional families. I’m happy to know that there are women out there such as Miss Shalit who are approaching the issues of femininity and modesty at a youthful, grassroots level, and I hope you’ll consider passing along the links!

http://www.radicalmiddle.com/x_shalit.htm

Website and Blog for Miss Shalit’s newest book:
http://www.goodgirlrevolution.com/

DP said (September 24, 2009):

OK, Henry. First, a note about my biases:

* I am in the American peace movement and have been opposed to the Iraq and Afghan wars since the beginning. Like you, I see these wars as an attempt by the United States to impose a cultural/economic/political system on people who don’t want it.
* I am an agnostic and do not have friendly feelings toward Islam or any other faith/religion. I believe that religion is capable of much good in the world, but it is also capable of much bad. My own experience with religion has been mixed. Ultimately, I think the effect of any religion depends on the person who espouses that religion. There are good and bad people of all faiths. There are also good and bad atheists and agnostics.

So, having said that, here’s my take on your burqa post . . .

I think I understand your argument: you’re not for the burqa per se, you’re for modesty. I agree with much of your thinking about the degradation of Western cultures, specifically regard to sex, and particularly women.

At the same time, however, I believe that feminine modesty as you describe it, or the role of a woman in society, must be a personal choice. Ultimately, it is a personal choice, whether we’d like to admit it or not. Clothing styles cannot make an immodest person modest any more than they can make a modest person immodest. (It might interest you to know that there are secular pro-modesty movements in the United States. If you want more info on them, let me know.)

In this society, organized groups, including religious groups, have a fundamental right to try to influence the culture. However, they do not have a right to impose their values on the society as a whole. I think you would probably agree with me up to this point, right? —but let me put it in more practical terms . . . If someone tried to argue, from a religious standpoint, that women should be more modest, should stay home and take care of the family, etc., I would oppose them, because that represents an attempt to impose a religious belief system on people (including me) who don’t agree with it. However, if you were to leave religion out of it and say, “I think girls should dress more modestly because there is a causal relationship between bikinis and teen pregnancies,” and you can prove it, then I’d be willing to listen. And I think many other people would, too. But, in this country, most people are wary of religious viewpoints intruding into the public sphere, because that’s just not our tradition.

So . . . what do you think of that?

–David in Seattle

P.S. In your piece, you described the bikini-clad beauty contest girl as a “feminist.” It might interest you to know that, as a rule, feminists are opposed to both beauty contests and bikinis, which they see as sexist and an “objectification” of women’s bodies. In fact, both bikinis and beauty contests predate the women’s movement by several decades. I think a better word to use for the girl in the bikini would be “libertine” or “promiscuous,” rather than “feminist.” You could still use the term “feminist,” though, if you were talking about people who advocate, for example, greater access to contraception for girls and women, or people who advocate women being able to participate in society on equal terms with men. That would be a correct usage of the term feminist.

Henry Makow received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto in 1982. He welcomes your comments at