Naomi Wolfe: "I need a hijab, to set me free…"

Feminist discovers misogyny… and likes it!

* Naomi Wolf, prototype for the failed women’s liberation experiment, represents little more than a menopausal female with hormone disorder drowning in a sea of confusion. It seems that these jaded dames are so lost in a world of de-nutted, feminized men that they seek some kind of escape from civilization to cavort with primitives and barbarians, rather than whine to each other about the ‘glass ceiling’ that keeps them out of the executive offices where they don’t belong in the first place, but to which they believe they have a birthright entitlement.

* Fitzgerald: Naomi Wolf and the hijab

*  It isn’t even worth fisking this article. Naomi Wolf is a complete fool, her self-righteousness only outdone by her ignorance. If her ideas were taken seriously by more than a few mindless followers, she would be dangerous to women around the world and Western efforts to resist jihad.

* Here’s a message to you, Naomi: The veil does not make muslim women feel free. The American Constitution makes them feel free. And ask yourself: is it progress when a cannibal uses knife and fork?

*  Another sample of Naomi’s f*kcwit wisdom from the Sydney Moonbat Herald: Naomi Wolf doesn’t apologise for comparing the Bush Administration with fascism.

“We are facing a genuine constitutional crisis” … of course we do: Bushhitler is the enemy, Obammessiah is the answer… (to what..?)

* Sheik yer’mami has a song for ya, Naomi:

I need a hijab, to set me free

I need a hijab, for my identity,

with my Isliamic delusion and my portable seclusion,

I’m gonna beeeee, such a good Muzzeee….

* from the song ‘Overture’

American woman defends hijab, says it makes women feel “free”

Yet, oddly, she herself has only worn it once, to experiment. “Behind the veil lives a thriving Muslim sexuality,” by Naomi Wolf for the Sydney Morning Herald, August 30, via DW

A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts. She passes under immense billboards on which other women swoon in sexual ecstasy, cavort in lingerie or simply stretch out languorously, almost fully naked. Could this image be any more iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam, and vice versa?

Not really. More “iconic of the discomfort the West has with the social mores of Islam” are probably things like child-marriages, polygamy, men divorcing wives through text messaging, and so forth.

Ideological battles are often waged with women’s bodies as their emblems, andWestern Islamophobia is no exception. When France banned headscarves in schools, it used the hijab as a proxy for Western values in general, including the appropriate status of women. When Americans were being prepared for the invasion of Afghanistan, the Taliban were demonised for denying cosmetics and hair colour to women; when the Taliban were overthrown, Western writers often noted that women had taken off their scarves.

And here I thought the Taliban was demonised for, among other things, stoning women, terrorizing anyone defying them, and (almost forgot) harboring the planners of 9/11, which slew some 3,000 people. Didn’t realize it was all about cosmetics. At any rate, Wolf should be pleased to know that, despite all that, the world has already been asked to recognize the Taliban’s humanity.

But are we in the West radically misinterpreting Muslim sexual mores, particularly the meaning to many Muslim women of being veiled or wearing the chador? Andare we blind to our own markers of the oppression and control of women?[…]

Wolf should be pleased to know that none other than Osama bin Laden is in strong agreement with her. Says the latter, “You [Americans] are a nation that exploits women like consumer products or advertising tools calling upon customers to purchase them. You use women to serve passengers, visitors, and strangers to increase your profit margins. You then rant that you support the liberation of women.”

Outside the walls of the typical Muslim households that I visited in Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt, all was demureness and propriety. But inside, women were as interested in allure, seduction and pleasure as women anywhere in the world.[…] 

Indeed, many Muslim women I spoke with did not feel at all subjugated by the chador or the headscarf. On the contrary, they felt liberated from what they experienced as the intrusive, commodifying, basely sexualising Westerngaze.[…]

*  What kind of “Western gaze” are all these Muslim women hiding from in places like “Morocco, Jordan, and Egypt”? Naomi Wolf doesn’t get it: Muslim women are covered up to protect them from Muslim men.I experienced it myself. I put on a shalwar kameez and a headscarf in Morocco for a trip to the bazaar. Yes, some of the warmth I encountered was probably from the novelty of seeing a Westerner so clothed; but, as I moved about the market – the curve of my breasts covered, the shape of my legs obscured, my long hair not flying about me – I felt a novel sense of calm and serenity. I felt, yes, in certain ways, free.


Got that everyone? Taliban, morally upright; Western women, controlled and oppressed; the hijab and burqa, means of freedom. If you’re in the habit of reading Islamist propaganda, this piece should suffice for today.


The Hijab as aphrodisiac

Not “a symbol of oppression” but “a representation of culture and choice”

Naomi Wolf, self-styled infidel-defender-of-the-hijab seems to be influencing other infidel women about the wonders of Islamic wear. The problem, however, is when non-Muslims, as this writer, begin conflating the logic for wearing the hijab with everything else Islamic.

“Modesty in dress has real value for women,” by Stephanie Floyd for, JW

In the Sept. 7 article titled “Cover-up: Of Muslim women and Western fashion,” Naomi Wolf states that we as a nation need to understand that the Islamic way of dressing is not intended to suppress sexuality, but to embody “a strongly developed sense of its appropriate channeling–toward marriage and the bonds that sustain family life.” 

I admit I used to be one of the people who looked away awkwardly when approaching a Muslim woman dressed in veils. Because to this veiled woman, who was I? A promiscuous hellion raising chaos in my arm-baring shirts, that’s who.

After all, what could a conservative woman covered, quite literally, from head to toe have in common with me?

Indeed, what could she?

After reading Wolf’s article, I understand that it’s this kind of attitude that has led people astray, and I thoroughly agree with Wolf when she says we must get over our “Islamophobia.”

What a profound jump! From talking about Muslim women’s attire to insisting that we stop “fearing” an ideology that unambiguously condemns, wages war on, subjugates, and treats as inferior all those who do not subscribe to it. Agreeing to the hijab is one thing; agreeing to the jihad something entirely different.

We have to start accepting women’s veils or chadors, not as a symbol of oppression, but as a representation of culture and choice. 

To say wearing more revealing clothing represents freedom is ridiculous, especially when a woman might choose to dress more conservatively to feel comfortable.

Again, whatever plausibility these observations may have, they have nothing to do with thoseother issues — jihad, dhimmitude, sharia — that do lead to “Islamophobia.”

Muslim women declare that their chadors liberate them from “intrusive Western stares.” 

With young women in our nation shamelessly flaunting themselves these days, it leaves little to the imagination–which, as Wolf says, actually reduces libido in men.

So while covering up may symbolize culture or religion for Muslims, maybe a modicum of modesty for us Western gals wouldn’t be such a bad idea, either.


Why stop there? Maybe wife-beating (Koran 4:34) and polygamy (Koran 4:3) wouldn’t be such bad ideas either for you “Western gals”? (Just providing the logical extension of these observations, not my own opinion, mind you.)

10 thoughts on “Naomi Wolfe: "I need a hijab, to set me free…"”

  1. Naomi,
    Lose 30lbs, get a clitorectomy, enjoy the cursory beatings, and no more talking in public for you. Enjoy!

  2. I wonder how much she was offered by some saudi prince to peddle this inversion of reality?

    That is, unless she really believes this shit herself…… maybe she had a turk boyfriend named mo at college who she still secretly harbours feelings for?

    My vote is lets drop her, unprotected by nothing except a headscarf in the middle of baghdad and see how free she feels then!!!

  3. Naomi, I quadruple dare you to freely wear a hijab anywhere in Saudi, showing cleavage with that same blouse in the pic. Don’t forget the tylenol, your inner thighs will be sore for weeks!

  4. Dressed like that in Saudi, the only thing that would be free on her would be a reeeeeal good time for the savages.

  5. Naomi:- it’s comforting to know that there are still crusading (sorry, …idealistic) reporters willing to walk into the lion’s den to impartially investigate our misconceptions of the lives of islamic women. You’ve gotten the first part right by wandering about in moslem country in your burka. Still, I hope you’ve understood that if you truly wish to fully appreciate the status of isamic women there is one further task which awaits you – you must be forcibly held down while, without anaesthetic, your clitoris is excised, and your labia sewn together to “allow only the passage of urine and menstrual fluid.” (97% of Egyptian women)
    We look forward to your next report.

  6. Too “tricky” for Greer:

    We recall Pamela Bone, who lost her battle with cancer but lives on to stir the conscience of Western feminism

    WITH her trademark courage, Pamela Bone raised the flogging of a Saudi rape victim with Germaine Greer on these pages last December:

    I would like to be able to say, good on the thousands of Western feminists who rallied across the world for the cause, except that they didn’t. I would like to be able to say, good on Australia’s own famous feminist, Germaine Greer, who spoke out passionately in defence of the young woman during a visit to Melbourne last week, except that she didn’t.

    I was the spoiler of the evening, who during question time asked Greer if she saw any parallels between the concept of family honour in Jane Austen’s Pride and Prejudice and the concept of family honour in Middle Eastern societies today. I then asked why it was that Western feminists seemed so reluctant to speak out against things such as honour killings.

    Greer: “It’s very tricky. I am constantly being asked to go to Darfur to interview rape victims. I can talk to rape victims here. Why should I go to Darfur to talk to rape victims?”

    Questioner (me): “Because it’s so much worse there.”

    Greer: “Who says it is?”

    Questioner: “I do. I’ve been there.”

    Greer: “Well, it is just very tricky to try to change another culture. We let down the victims of rape here. We haven’t got it right in our own courts. What good would it do for me to go over there and try to tell them what to do? I am just part of decadent Western culture and they think we’re all going to hell fast, and maybe we are all going to hell fast.”

  7. “A woman swathed in black to her ankles, wearing a headscarf or a full chador, walks down a European or North American street, surrounded by other women in halter tops, miniskirts and short shorts.”

    Boring! You can really tell how unimaginative and limited a feminist writer is, when she has to bring up the Madonna- Whore (Complex) binary in the first paragraph.

    That is where Wolfe starts and I stopped reading as there is no point in going any further.

    Who is playing into gender stereotype now? Because, the article infers and perpetuates in the first paragraph alone that women must always prescribe to one or the other.

    Furthermore, I thought, one aspect of Feminism was about a women owning her sexuality and not feeling ashamed of it or her body. Yet, that is exactly what her first paragraph also infers, that the poor virgins (the modest female Muslim via the chador) are assaulted by the big, bad open sexuality of the Western woman. Thus, their delicate mores are offended.

    Thanks Naomi. Way to go, thanks for continuing the perpetuation of the myth that all Western women are whores.

    And there is no creative thought (scholarship?) that pushes beyond the binary stereotype and that would create a third possibility that it is possible for women to be neither and that their is an existence of a middle ground.

    Lastly, one of the most galling aspect of that first paragraph alone is her faux sympathy for the virgin sensibility. Predominately, if a young women had the courage to advocate those same “modest” principles in any Women Studies class across the West, should would be mocked and derided by both the teacher and her peers and being a prude, uptight and hating herself, in some way or another.

  8. Sheik,

    The male dominated Colonist of the West may not have been perfect, but they at least had moral courage to put an end to violence against woman, like the practice of Sati in India when they came across it.

    The old guard of Feminist like Greer are posers who hide behind the shield of “Cultural” differences. Convenient is it not? When they are faces with real misogyny against their gender they are silent (cowardly?).

    At least there are some Feminist like the late Oriana Fallaci and Julie Burchill have the courage to comment and speak out against Islam and the Burqua.

Comments are closed.