Mohammed from SA said (January 14, 2019):

would like to to know where Lorraine Day (below) got her "facts" from?
I'm a muslim and if u saw my pic, as in the article i submitted a while ago, u will see that im as fundamentalist & practising as they come.
i know that to cover the ENTIRE body, except for hands, feet & face is CLEARLY COMPULSORY for ALL Muslim women,
the Quran also commands both men & women to LOWER THEIR GAZES & for women to remain at home as far as possible & only to venture outdoors when there's a dire necessity or when she has the company of her husband or a male that she cannot marry- her son, father, brother.

the scholars have advised that in today's times, women should cover their faces too.
all men know what goes through a man's mind when he sees a woman, it's just that he doesn't act upon it.
ok, maybe gay guys don't feel that way but I have my doubts about that too.

I suspect that she is KNOWINGLY LYING or she is listening to those brown-nosing Muslims who are termed as "moderate" by the media.
u guys should ALL realise this: those "moderate" Muslims are Muslim by name only bcos they are making compromises in Islam with regard to things that are NON-NEGOTIABLE and even worse, they also try to use the Quran or the hadith (basically the saying of the Prophet Muhammad- peace be upon him) to justify they bending over backwards in order to fit in with what mainstream media & the dumbed down society we live in, demands of them.

Marc W said (January 13, 2019):

Excellent article. The modern western baby manger Jesus “church” panders to their customer in order to increase their nickels and noses. These lying cowards do not and will not proclaim the Lion of Judah, the God Who is. In this age of rampant Christian feminism, the deceived advocate puts the blame on men’s self-control which is a biblical heresy. The Word is clear on the role and influence of the helpmeet- wife: submit to your husband in everything legal, moral, and non-abusive...and cause no one to stumble leading to the lake of fire. The night Jesus was betrayed, a disciple ran away naked according to God: in his underwear.

No one is ever tempted by a woman’s gracious modesty, as rare as modesty is these days. The Bible always speaks to the wives first because of their overwhelming influence. The eternal Word of Christ speaks clearly and potently of the modesty and quiet spirit, and the warning to never cause stumbling. He who has ears to hear, let him hear: “In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behaviour of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behaviour. Your adornment must not be merely external-braiding the hair, and wearing gold jewellery, or putting on (of conservative long) dresses; but let it be the hidden person of the heart, with the imperishable quality of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is precious in the sight of God. For in this way in former times the holy women also, who hoped in God, used to adorn themselves, being submissive to their own husbands; just as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord, and you have become her children if you do what is right without being frightened by any fear.”
1 Peter‬ ‭3:1-6‬ ‭
“"Woe to the world because of its stumbling blocks! For it is inevitable that stumbling blocks come, but woe to that (person) through whom the stumbling block comes! "If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire. If your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it from you. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭18:7-9‬ ‭
www.walkworthy.org/stumble
www.walkworthy.org/erased

Lorraine Day said (January 12, 2019):

The burka is forced on Muslim women in order to free men from having to become mature men with self-control. All the burden is put on the women. It is the woman’s “duty” to cover up every inch of her body to make sure that men won’t be tempted.

I have read articles by Islamic Imans (or Mullahs - whatever the appropriate term may be) where they have stated that exact fact.

But THAT is NOT the “duty” of a woman. I agree that women should dress in a modest and dignified way because that is what God asks of us. But it is NOT the “duty” of a woman to cover every inch of her body just so men won’t have to exercise ANY self-control.

--

Thanks Lorraine

I am not advocating this,.

h

Greg said (January 12, 2019):

"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."

Amen to that. The Deep State psychos still can't understand why they weren't able to smother and change Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and other Muslim nations we've either invaded. bombed or tried to destroy from within, since they were following the post-WWII occupation of Germany and Japan, who we were able to succumb to their idea of America to give one happiness, which involves placing a priority on acquiring wealth over family and friends, which makes our soul sick, which they then try to overcome with porn, consumerism, self-indulgence and other brain-altering stratagems.

JR said (January 12, 2019):

One of the major deficiencies affecting our health is the lack of Vitamin D.

In our modern world it's difficult enough to get enough sun for our bodies to make this vitamin (not to mention other processes).

I've often wondered how burka wearing women can maintain their health while having almost no skin receiving sunlight.

I've also observed how breasts have become sexualized by hiding them to the point where breast feeding is considered unnatural.

It's like the pictures of topless native women as seen in National Geographic - there was no shortage of naked breast in their community, but their exposure was hardly a sexual treat.

Thanks for everything else you expose.

Steve said (February 14, 2015):

God said to keep seed separate in the field, not to mix seed with others. Here the farmer is an husbandman and the earth is the flesh or picture of a wife for which to propagate the seed to keep it pure and the fruit to come likewise. When we mix the seed, we contaminate the field or land, much like a grievous act of sin, the result a displeasure to the Lord.

A woman is very much a field in this example. She is to receive the seed of her husband and no other. When someone evil comes along and sows another seed, then there are tares amongst the wheat.

We can extend this idea to so many other areas of life, the effects of compromise, deception, tolerance, lack of purity that so corrupts. Like vaccines to the body, like GMOs to the land, like pornography to the mind, like other men's seed to the heart of a woman, it is the undoing of who and what we are in the eyes of our Creator.

James C said (February 14, 2015):

When God created Adam and Eve, and for some time afterward, "they [Adam and Eve] were both naked" (Gen. 2:25). They had no sense of shame concerning their nakedness until Satan instilled one into their minds (Gen. 3:7-11). Neither did the wives of the patriarchs cover their beauty (Gen. 12:11-12; 26:7). I'm not saying they walked around naked, but neither did they wear a burka.

Ken Adachi said (February 13, 2015):

I'm very grateful that you write so many essays 'illuminating' Zion's 50 year campaign in America and Europe to de-feminize and debauch western womanhood into a hard edged Amazon bitch that is about as fit (or desirable) for motherhood as a $10 prostitute.

The downward spiral seemed to have accelerated following JFK's assassination in 1963 (decided by the Bildegerger committee). By the late 1960s and early 1970s, we had the Orwellian reversal term of "feminism" shoved down our throats by Zion's Ministries of Truth machinery and their agents in the field: Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, et al.

As is the case with all of Tavistock's media created buzzwords, the true meaning of the word is exactly OPPOSITE of the dictionary meaning. An Act of treason and betrayal is called The Patriot Act. De-feminization and psychic coarsening is called "feminism" by the perverted, satanic psychos orchestrating the agenda.

I'm happy to report that the de-feminzation agenda has not worked very well in Muslim countries nor in most Asian countries. Japanese women, especially, aspire to be regarded as gentle, modest, and vulnerable. In behaving so, they turn on the desirability machinery in men to the max.

This is as it should be and I can only hope that enough tradition minded mothers and daughters in America and Europe will realize just how severely western women have been degraded and coarsened by Zion's 'feminism' agents who have been inserted into every legislature, university, court room, and corporation across America in order to work Zion's "magic.

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.