false dichotomies.

i had no intention of creating nearly back-to-back posts about islam, but i read this today and just got so angry.

it was that last section that is making my blood boil:

Despite some hurtful experiences in public, Nadia is content with her decision to wear niqab and says she feels a distinct difference in how men respect her now as opposed to her earlier days of low-cut shirts and formfitting pants.

after a whole fucking column about how the hijab is not about male power over female, guess what: it is. this is just enforcing the virgin-whore dichotomy (otherwise known as "women ain't nothin' but bitches and hos"), as if the only choices of clothing a woman has is either to dress like a slut or to cover everything so they don't distract men and aren't judged by men and don't tempt men. women are only judged by their sexual availability. in this structure, men still have all the power.

when i was a freshman student taking a film course, i thought "the gaze" was feminist bullshit. it's not. the insistance on covering to avoid the male gaze just highlights it all that much more. the hijab doesn't stop men from judging you by your body and appearance, as these women unfortunately found out.

the hijab is not empowering. it keeps the male power structure in place, it enforces it, and it caters to it.

i'm not going to make a statement about wearing it or not. if you want to wear the hijab because it makes you feel closer to god, that's fine. but i reject any argument that it empowers women.

cat5-to-usb converter.

not quite what was expected.

iconoclasm.

New York City's Landmarks Preservation Commission denied landmark status Tuesday for a building at the site of a proposed Islamic center and mosque near ground zero.

i think this was a good thing.

i spent the morning of september 11, 2001 fielding frantic phone calls from my (jewish) mother, who could not determine if her uncle and brother-in-law had been in the world trade center towers when the planes hit (they weren't, although their offices were), and online with my friends, one of whom was watching the towers come down from his office window a few blocks away.

i endorse the cordoba house project (no, it's not a mosque), to build a muslim-run community center a few blocks from ground zero, because i endorse the first amendment to our constitution.

if we allow fear and prejudice to overcome the values embodied in this statement, we are, quite frankly, proving al quaeda and the rest of the radical islamists right when they say the west is anti-islam and persecutes muslims.

a lot of the debate around the cordoba house project is centered on the symbolism of a muslim project near the location where radical muslims killed something over 2000 american citizens. the "con" side of the argument says that allowing the project to go forward will dishonour the memories of those who died that day. this is dangerous rhetoric, because it insists we live in the past. instead of moving forward with dialogue and mutual respect (including for the american citizens who were muslim who died in the twin towers), they want to wallow in their grief, pick at their wounds, and generally whine about what "they" did to "us."

i am arguing is it a greater dishonour to those who died that day to insist on making their place of death a symbol of our victimization and fear of the other instead of a symbol of peace, strength, and respect for our fellow human beings. if we really want to claim any kind of victory, we should be pushing forward for the openness and interaction that the radical islamists hate so much. to oppress muslims in our own country and insist on outlawing their religion and practises is to first of all be guilty of the same intellectual violence that the radicals practise, but also to open the door for more oppression and to become victims of our own fear and therefore of the radicals themselves instead of gaining power over them. the strength of oppression is no strength at all, but panicked weakness.