Photo of the day; Update: Will the right object to Laura’s hijab, wonders HuffPo? Update: Laura’s aides said she didn’t expect to wear veil before trip
posted at 2:49 pm on October 25, 2007 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend |
printer-friendly
LGF has it. You can spin this a lot of ways: she was there for a good cause, which mitigates the propaganda value of the photos to Islamist misogynists; it appears they surprised her with it as a gift, which left her little choice but to wear it out of simple politeness; and while Pelosi donned the scarf during a visit to an enemy state, the Kingdom, god help us, is something of an ally at the moment against Iran.
Any of that make you feel better?
“The veil is to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.” — Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Update: The nutrootsiest blog o’ them all, linking to an old Hot Air post, wonders if the right will have the same problem with Laura Bush’s hijab as Nancy Pelosi’s. Their post is timestamped 3:30, 40 minutes after I posted this one. Which proves they didn’t even check this site (or LGF) before publishing.
Update: Debbie Schlussel makes a nice catch. Here’s what Laura Bush’s spokeswoman said before the trip:
“They do not expect nor encourage it,” of Western visitors at official meetings, said Bush’s spokeswoman, Sally McDonough. “As members of the official traveling party, we will not need to wear any head scarves or abayas at any point”
I think the fact that they surprised her with it as a gift is what forced her hand.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: [1] 2 »
so i suppose the white flag is the official flag of the US now, huh?
lorien1973 on October 25, 2007 at 2:51 PM
Sorry, I can find no fault in Mrs. Bush ever. She a class act.
robblefarian on October 25, 2007 at 2:52 PM
I think Hillary should wear one next.
JayHaw Phrenzie on October 25, 2007 at 2:53 PM
Yeah, one of those blue ones, that covers the whole deal, only where will they find that much blue material.
Viper1 on October 25, 2007 at 2:55 PM
It’s almost worth electing her just to see what would happen on a diplomatic trip to one of these backassward countries.
bj1126 on October 25, 2007 at 2:55 PM
What porcelain skin. Very attractive lipstick color. What a lovely smile. We are so lucky to have such a radiant First Lady.
RushBaby on October 25, 2007 at 2:55 PM
Boy, you guys really go in the tank for this sort of thing when there’s no (D) after the person’s name, huh?
Allahpundit on October 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
I’d be in favor of an orange jumpsuit- the kind that are all the rage amongst convicted criminals who are guests of the government.
Hollowpoint on October 25, 2007 at 2:58 PM
Veils… whatever. My beef with Pelosi was her trip to Syria and sucking up to a regime that indirectly wages war on our troops in Iraq, the people of Lebanon and Israel.
Hoodlumman on October 25, 2007 at 2:59 PM
She’s not a politician. There is no letter after her name.
Hollowpoint on October 25, 2007 at 2:59 PM
The perfect Dhimmi?
No wonder we’re loosing the terror war in the world media.
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 3:00 PM
Inside voice: she looks kinda cute in that photo.
Outside voice: Sometimes my inside voice scares me.
sunny on October 25, 2007 at 3:00 PM
We need something to fend off surprises like this little “gift”. Is there anything in the new testament that can be construed as forbidding a woman to cover her hair?
.
How about “Don’t hide your light under a bushell”?
Bad Penny on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Sometimes a head scarf is just a head scarf.
I remember growing up going to church, women wore head scarfs all the time.
The nuns still do.
Kini on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 PM
Oh, goody! More grist for the Mideast propaganda mills!
Slublog on October 25, 2007 at 3:01 PM
She’s a goodwill ambassador for the United States. She certainly is a politician. Do you know how many times I’ve had people send me the photo of Hillary wearing the headscarf and kissing Arafat’s wife when she was first lady?
Allahpundit on October 25, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Nope.
PR coup for the death cult. I’m torn between what’s worse: this or her posing with the hefty bag the other day.
JammieWearingFool on October 25, 2007 at 3:02 PM
Which is wrong.
The veil shows that women must protect themselves from the lack of sexual self-control of their men.
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 3:03 PM
I saw the LGF posting with Mrs. Bush in UAE pictured with fully-cloaked women, and all I could think was, “wow, thank god she didn’t get suckered into one of those b/c those pictures speak volumes about the differences in culture and can only undermine such moronic stigmatization of women” But alas in The Kingdom, its all culturally relative. Come on, if Western values cannot be represented in these small moments, when can they?
Wineaholic on October 25, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Those were overweight ninjas.
sunny on October 25, 2007 at 3:06 PM
Would it have been any better if she didn’t wear teh scarf and didn’t get the chance to speak with them at all?
Defector01 on October 25, 2007 at 3:06 PM
I see skin. I may not be able to control myself.Harlot.
bbz123 on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM
Trick or Treat, smell my feet!!!!
Anything for Halloween, jihad, burka, kerosene?
Hening on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM
It works! I find that I’m perfectly in control of myself sexually!
mugged on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM
“The veil is to show that women are responsible for the sexual self-control of men.” — Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Which is wrong because the veil also reflects women as subservient to men.
Where are the feminists? Oh, yeah, they’re beating up on white christians for tollerating feminism in the first place.
How many feminists voluntarily wearing a head scarf or veil does it take before they are forced by Sharia Law to wear them?
Lawrence on October 25, 2007 at 3:07 PM
*sigh* (shaking head)
Maybe next time King Abdullah comes over, they should insist that he wear a cross around his neck, you know, as long as we’re falsely adopting one another’s religious/cultural traditions and all.
CP on October 25, 2007 at 3:08 PM
I showed my young girls the picture of Mrs. Bush yesterday sitting with a bunch of burka-clad ladies, and told them that Islam was dangerous to women, and that Mrs. Bush was a model of what a free woman looks like. Not sure what to say today.
I mean, when I walk into a mosque, and I have, I take my shoes off. But I don’t submit. Hmmm.
JiangxiDad on October 25, 2007 at 3:08 PM
Yes. I’m not sure any cause is well-served by pandering to misogyny.
Slublog on October 25, 2007 at 3:09 PM
No, I don’t. I’m also unaware of any political ambitions held by Laura Bush or pictures of her kissing the wife of a terrorist leader. I’m just not convinced that this one photo makes her a complete dhimmi sellout.
Hollowpoint on October 25, 2007 at 3:10 PM
No
Isn’t that just a bit naive?
Sorry, you’re barking up the wrong tree. The NT is forgiving of a woman not covering her head. Nowhere does it endorse that position. To the contrary, even Paul forbids a woman to teach (exercise authority).
urbancenturion on October 25, 2007 at 3:11 PM
Allah, do you think it’s wrong when women are forced to cover up when they visit holy sites in Israel? I was 14 and wearing shorts and they made me put on a long skirt. And men have to cover their head. I have mixed feelings on this.
Karol on October 25, 2007 at 3:11 PM
How is that a valid analogy? I don’t recall Laura Bush kissing terrorist spouses on said trip.
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 3:12 PM
She’s not the Speaker of the House, she’s not visiting an enemy state, and it was a gift from the women there. If Pelosi wants to don a scarf in a non-enemy state which was given to her as a gift, she can feel free (IMO).
amerpundit on October 25, 2007 at 3:14 PM
Disapointing.
Dork B. on October 25, 2007 at 3:15 PM
What election did she win? What cabinet position does she hold? I forgot.
Hollowpoint on October 25, 2007 at 3:15 PM
Exactly, Allah. And given that, it may be relevant to note that ambassadors have been donning stupid cultural garb as a sign of friendship for a long-ass time before the present rows over the hijab.
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
BillINDC on October 25, 2007 at 3:16 PM
I think it’s shameful. It shows just how beholden we are to the Saudis. Dependence on foreign oil is going to slit our throats.
infidel4life on October 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Any of that make you feel better?
No
abinitioadinfinitum on October 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM
Well, her husband just can’t seem to stop himself from telling us over and over again how Islam is a religion of peace… maybe they both finally decided to convert?
Watcher on October 25, 2007 at 3:19 PM
I don’t believe in any of this religious stuff, but even I’d wear a yarmulke if I had reason to visit a synagogue, remove my shoes when going into a Japanese home, bow my head in prayer at the dinner table.
It’s called showing some respect to others. It’s voluntary. It’s sincere. It separates us from them.
Ochlan on October 25, 2007 at 3:19 PM
This came up in the Pelosi thread, too. The answer is that not all “stupid cultural garb,” as Bill puts it, is a product of institutionalized misogyny. I’d wear a yarmulke at a friend’s bar mitzvah because it doesn’t double as a symbol of second-class citizenship. Imagine a culture where it was customary for women to wear chastity belts. You want Laura Bush slapping one of those on to prove how tolerant she is?
Allahpundit on October 25, 2007 at 3:19 PM
You just made allahs case.
scooter on October 25, 2007 at 3:20 PM
It’s voluntary for Laura Bush, but not for the women she’s visiting. Freely wearing something that other women are forced to wear doesn’t exactly scream ‘respect’ to me.
Slublog on October 25, 2007 at 3:21 PM
She should have tied it around her waist.
morganfrost on October 25, 2007 at 3:23 PM
Do Muslim Transexuals have to wear the Hijab?
ronsfi on October 25, 2007 at 3:24 PM
She should’ve worn a cowboy hat!
Dork B. on October 25, 2007 at 3:25 PM
Eh, no. Pelosi’s an elected official. Laura’s not. Pelosi was in an enemy nation. Laura wasn’t.
As I said, if Pelosi wants to go to S.A. and wear the scarf, I’m fine. If Laura went to Syria and did this, I’d be pissed.
I don’t care if you have D, R, I, G, etc. after your name. It’s the location you’re doing it, for me.
amerpundit on October 25, 2007 at 3:26 PM
She could have blown her nose into it…honestly WTF? How convoluted are you folks prepared to make the symbolism of wearing a headscarf?
Ochlan on October 25, 2007 at 3:26 PM
Always sad to see Westerners treat symbols of oppression as local cultural flavor. I wonder if they’d put a yellow armband on when visiting 1930s Germany just to keep the locals happy.
I like how Condi always goes to these meetings in the Middle East with the typical power-woman executive wear.
Clark1 on October 25, 2007 at 3:27 PM
That’s the root right there. It symbolizes what you want it to. What it symbolizes to Laura is not the same as what it does to you or she wouldn’t have put it on. It is claimed by some women that the veil, etc is ‘liberating’. I can’t speak to that and it doesn’t mean that to me, but I must acknowledge it’s is different in different eyes.
I don’t think I’ve commented on Pelosi or the scarves worn by Hillary and Chelsey, but at least Pelosi’s case the natural revulsion is at least partly connected with the obsequious nature shown by the speaker.
What is does say, is that she is willing to compromise her Western appearance to advance a cause. I actually do, personally, think this is fundamentally different then traveling as a non-official diplomat to ‘patch up’ relations between antagonist states. If Mrs. Bush wore this in DC then I would be disturbed. Presently, I just surprised.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 3:29 PM
ha.
the kicker is that she’s wearing red lipstick.
shouldn’t that send the fundamentalists into a rage?
bridgetown on October 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM
She should have thanked them for the gift and tucked it in her arm pit and said “Lets tour the Kingdom”
abinitioadinfinitum on October 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM
abinitioadinfinitum on October 25, 2007 at 3:31 PM
ha..or wrapped it around her waist and sat on it.
bridgetown on October 25, 2007 at 3:33 PM
That would be true if Saudi women genuinely were free to choose to wear it or not. They aren’t. They’re not even allowed to drive. In a culture that misogynistic, there’s simply no way to divorce the veil from its oppressive element.
Allahpundit on October 25, 2007 at 3:35 PM
The mission she went on was a great one. Only 30% of women in the Middle East detect breast cancer, as opposed to 70% of western women. Breast cancer is a taboo subject there. Is it a bit disappointing that she donned a scarf? Sure. But I still can’t find fault with her–she’s a great women and good role model for a young women of today.
robblefarian on October 25, 2007 at 3:39 PM
So was this thread only established to somehow prove that everyone who doesn’t throw rocks at Laura is a hypocrite?
Sure seems so.
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Serious hypothetical: if Bush went to Kuwait, where women vote, drive and are free to wear a hijab or not, and many do, with fancy embroidery and jewels as a fashion accessory, would you also have a problem?
BillINDC on October 25, 2007 at 3:40 PM
Yes, actually. I’d respect her more. In Saudi, modest dress used to be acceptable, but no more. She’s gotten away with it so far, unlike anyone else I know. I’ve even been offered a chance to work there, and said “No way” to wearing that crap, especially for a year.
The gift can be responded with a “Thanks” and no more. End of story.
Miss_Anthrope on October 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM
Laura wasn’t wearing a veil…she was wearing a headscarf…women over here wear headscarfs…some wear bonnets…BFD
It’s a minor gesture that aids the political process. Sure, she could resist everything that could possibly be construed as endorsing oppressive misogynistic theocracy…but how do you think that would help her political mission? Next thing you know, the goons would be on TV decrying the cultural ignorance and blatant insolence of the first lady.
Pragmatism is a wonderful thing.
Ochlan on October 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM
And I love Laura.
Miss_Anthrope on October 25, 2007 at 3:42 PM
Disgusting.
I am sure she protested having to wear it. I think it is State Department policy though. Didn’t some female official a few yeas back get in trouble for not complying with the State Department rules?
I guess no rules are in place in the UAE.
James on October 25, 2007 at 3:43 PM
I don’t like it, but is this worse than her husband holding hands with Crown Prince Abdullah?
Laura on October 25, 2007 at 3:44 PM
This is disturbing to look at. There are only two options here. She is either painfully uninformed as to the true meaning behind why it is muslim women are made to cover up, or she knows but is acting like a good dhimmi. Both options I find to be very disturbing. Its so much worse considering she is the first lady of the United States of America while we are in a war against Islamo fascists who’s goal it is is to either kill us or dress all our women up in burkas. I don’t like it.
Zetterson on October 25, 2007 at 3:46 PM
That is fair statement and I yield to the fact that they go hand in hand in Saudi Arabia. However, the veil is worn around the world and the meaning that is takes is determined by the person that wears it. (As it is taken up by people in the UK, US, etc)
Having said that, I was thinking more globally, but by your refocusing me to SA, I most admit, I’m inclined to think you are right. Namely because the image isn’t going to be used here, it will be used there. And in that context it is impossible to imagine it being used to further women’s rights.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 3:47 PM
She should have worn it around her neck.
When I was still a young boy in the 1950’s my Mom and sisters usually would wear a scarf tied around their neck.
WildBillK on October 25, 2007 at 3:50 PM
I’ve heard that they do not have that phenomenon over there.
Zetterson on October 25, 2007 at 3:52 PM
The politeness one a tad, but no, not really. The picture is heartbreaking.
Exactly. Every time I see a woman wearing one, I’m reminded of those who have no choice. It’s a symbol of oppression no matter what anyone believes.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 3:53 PM
I don’t think our leaders, nor their family members, should be accommodating anybody in this fashion. If submitting to their cultural idiosyncrasies is required, then don’t visit.
Hey - I like Mrs. B just fine, but she shouldn’t be in Saudi Arabia at all. SA’s total lack of religious freedom, and their misogyny, should not be rewarded via formal visit by a President or First Lady. The visit improperly implies that America respects SA just as it is.
T J Green on October 25, 2007 at 3:53 PM
Women burned bras at one point. The scarf is in a league all its own.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 3:54 PM
That’s my point: in your own words - I am reminded… The blanket projection of one’s own view is, by it’s nature, always myopic.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 3:56 PM
Laura’s veil is just timid a move for a Dhimmi administration. I suggest sending Mary Cheney to Saudi Arabia to be stoned to death. Dick has another daughter, after all.
thuja on October 25, 2007 at 4:00 PM
I have always respected Laura Bush, mostly because she never embraced the “co-presidency” that seems all the rage these days. But this image of her does grave damage. She is mainstreaming misogyny for American public consumption. Would a Muslim woman who is covered uncover her head, because that is how we do it over here? I think not. Shame on Laura Bush! The scarf as a “gift” was a test to see if she would capitulate — and she did! I am disgusted. She could have given such a powerful message by politely saying “thank you” and handing it off to one of her handlers. Her message should have been “perhaps for thee, but NOT for me.” Shame, shame, shame, shame, shame on her. Just disgusting. That photo will be quite a historic document down the road when all American women are required to cover their heads or face stoning in the streets. It marks the beginning of the end.
Rational Thought on October 25, 2007 at 4:01 PM
OH! I didn’t see the scarf the first time.
Yeah. Bad, bad scarf.
RushBaby on October 25, 2007 at 4:02 PM
Here is what is wrong with this argument: Mrs. Bush was not in a holy site. She was not visiting a mosque. She was not anywhere religious where she was required to cover her head.
That’s where the difference between wearing a headscarf because you’re a woman, and wearing a kippa inside a synagogue, comes into play.
If she were visiting a mosque, fine. But she’s not. She’s being forced to wear a symbol of domination by a nation of misogynists.
Meryl Yourish on October 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Forced?
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 4:03 PM
Hardly. These stories are all over the news, spread all over the world.
It’s no more myopic than the view black students in Jena had of the nooses in those trees.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM
i can’t use the language i would like to about this comment…..
scooter on October 25, 2007 at 4:06 PM
I completely agree. And I tell that to my daughter each time we see a woman wearing the hijab. I understand why Mrs. Bush wore the darned thing, but I’m disappointed nonetheless.
pullingmyhairout on October 25, 2007 at 4:07 PM
All she had to say was thanks for the lovely scarf and put it away, or hold it up for a photo.
This is a major propaganda victory for Islamists and for their never ending battering of women.
WriterMom on October 25, 2007 at 4:08 PM
I agree-and look how the image will be devoured in the Muslim world. LOOK WE GOT THE FIRST LADY TO SUBMIT.
WriterMom on October 25, 2007 at 4:10 PM
I didn’t mind when Pelosi did it, (though I didn’t approve of what she had to say from underneath that veil). I don’t mind if Mrs. Bush does it. You can’t expect the barbarians to become civilized on their own initiative. Ann Coulter had one formula for civilizing them; there are others. But until that happens, we need to pretend that their backward culture is worthy of respect as long as they have something we need. It is what civilized people do.
JackOfClubs on October 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Say what you will, but we need “the Kingdom” to continue being our “ally” - for now.
Rick on October 25, 2007 at 4:11 PM
Debbie Schlussel: Mrs. Bush’s People Lied: To Readers Who Applauded Mrs. Bush’s “Tough Stand” Against Muslim HeadScarves . . .
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 4:12 PM
I’m assuming that you didn’t get I was being sarcastic. Anyway, you should look at the arguments made at http://www.jihadwatch.com and learn about how th Bush administration has constantly been nicey-nice about Islam & meanwhile Saudi oil money is paying to spread the muslim hate that is the root cause of terrorism.
thuja on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM
I wish feminism were alive, and I wish it would speak out against this atrocity of a wardrobe with the same venom it has with other feminine products. I wish feminist groups would care at least as much about women being beaten for not submitting as it does about the idea what women make less than men on average.
I vainly wish many things.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM
she’s showing face and hair. It’s a treansition look. It’s more like a depression era bonnet. 80 years ago women who walked around a US country town without their hair netted were mostly considered looking for some male attention. They are just way behind us in the maturity, comfy in your skin department. She’s trying to open the last huge economic market. The people are living a life of denial.
pc on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM
I’m not speaking to Jena. Aside from that, what are “these stories” of which you refer? I didn’t say the stories are myopic, the projection of a personal viewpoint (and frame of reference) is. That’s just a simple reality.
Your perspective gives it meaning. Even the Bible speaks of head-coverings so you give cultural meaning to what may very well be to the wearers religious meaning (to the wearer). There are Christians somewhere probably that wear similar clothing. Again, I yield to AP. Within the kingdom itself, I think he is right - it has a cultural overtone. But I believe the Bush family has a long friendship with the Saud family, so I’m sure Laura doesn’t think the same things you or I do when we think of SA.
Spirit of 1776 on October 25, 2007 at 4:13 PM
Disturbing picture. I could say that she doesn’t wear the hijab as a muslim woman would, completely covering her hair as not to excite anyone, but that would be a cop out. US citizens shouldn’t be doing that sort of thing, kowtowing to an emperor, bowing to a king, offering a curtsey to a queen, or giving quiet acquiescence to a culture that explicitly doesn’t respect our values.
I’d expect it of Pelosi — she’s a hopeless loon with no discernible pride in America, but I would have hoped for more from the First Lady. I forgive Laura Bush for it this once, but someone should have a talk with her about American traditions. This weakens us all and she should have known better.
Aardvark on October 25, 2007 at 4:15 PM
I can’t make sense of that or even recall a time when this has effectively happened.
The way I see it, treating backwardness with respect has a way of legitimizing backwardness.
Esthier on October 25, 2007 at 4:15 PM
and she’s pretty. She really repping the alternative to self denial and asceticism. She punching fundy buttons. good for her.
pc on October 25, 2007 at 4:17 PM
James the Other, are you referring to Martha McSally’s refusal to wear the ninja outfit while on active duty over there and under orders to do so?
Or were you really talking about a US Department of State employee?
James on October 25, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Oh, I’m sorry. I guess I’m not that enlightened. I didn’t understand that your suggesting that stoning the vice presidents gay daughter was sarcasm. My bad. Putdz….
scooter on October 25, 2007 at 4:18 PM
Not invading backward countries and making international trade relations with them also has a way of legitimizing them. You have to decide which hill you want to die on.
At least with Pelosi there was the faint suggestion of hypocrisy (because she was from the feminist party) and appeasement (because it was Syria). Mrs. Bush has neither of those problems.
JackOfClubs on October 25, 2007 at 4:21 PM
the strongest message in this picture is not the choice of clothing or the makeup or the person or any of those things. Who can guess what the most striking aspect of the pictures is? I think I know.
pc on October 25, 2007 at 4:21 PM
Translation please.
Zetterson on October 25, 2007 at 4:22 PM
This thread is getting surreal. Time to get back to the facts.
1. Laura Bush didn’t pre-emptively put the head scarf on. As this photograph clearly shows she was initially meeting their hosts w/o a scarf on. How that could be misconstrued as “yielding to Islamist culture” is beyond me.
2. She’s still showing all of her face and a good proportion of her hair, which is clearly out of tune with misogynist practice in SA.
Niko on October 25, 2007 at 4:22 PM
Nah she prefers this head dress,
americaslaststand on October 25, 2007 at 4:23 PM
http://leatherneckm31.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/terrorist_1.jpg
americaslaststand on October 25, 2007 at 4:24 PM
There are three classes of intellects: one which comprehends by itself; another which appreciates what others comprehend; and a third which neither comprehends by itself nor by the showing of others; the first is the most excellent, the second is good, and the third is useless.
- Niccolo Machiavelli
MB4 on October 25, 2007 at 4:25 PM
she’s showing off the most incredibly genuine smile. A woman smiling is a powerful image in the land of darkness.
pc on October 25, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Comment pages: [1] 2 »