I agree about the two sides to the veiling debate -- protecting women versus making men responsible for their own actions and reactions. While I would not fault an individual woman for choosing to wear any of the multiple forms of veil, I do take issue with laws and regulations that force all women to do so. And seriously, this one-eyed veil thing would mess with women's depth perception and cause them a lot of difficulty moving in public spaces.

I heard about this story through Amit Varma, who presents an interesting alternative on the blog India Uncut:

"I have an alternative solution to your problem. I suggest that you introduce veils for men that cover both their eyes. That way it will make no difference if the women are winking, blinking or, heaven forbid, naked.

"Good idea, no? You’re welcome."

Haha, yeah I definitely agree with Amit. I also like what Tracy at Salon.com said: "Finally, I wonder whether Sheikh Habadan has considered that this also allows for a new pickup line: Was that a seductive wink or are you just blinking?"

I've heard that women who wear veils in Muslim countries are more likely to be harrassed, because they are more tempting, and the men consider the secrecy arousing.

I would never tell a woman not to wear a veil if she wanted to, but my question is simple: Instead of making women cover one eye, why not, oh, SAY THEY SHOULDN'T WEAR MAKEUP???

That would seem to answer his moral quandary a lot easier!

In my mind there are two main arguments about veils and related items used to "protect" women. 1. A full veil can lessen sexualized harassment and treatment based on looks. 2. Women shouldn't be the ones who have to change their lives because men won't restrain themselves - men are the problem, not the women.

How myopic but typical. There is so much more to the veil than meets the eye. It is the great equalizer. All women no matter what they look like have the same chance of finding a husband than any other woman regardless of their looks. I've heard the complaints from women about how other beautiful women get all the attention or get promoted because they are pretty or sexy. So imagine this is no longer even possible? Every woman gets where she gets because of who she is rather than what she is. She achieves because of merit not sexuality.

And there's something to be said about the powerful intimacy between a husband and wife when she reveals her face and hair only to him.

But let's look at the alternative--the crass self-sexualization of women and girls. A world full of Britney Spears and Tila Tequilas shaking their money maker for the camera and inspiring 13 year old girls everywhere to wear their thongs above their low rise jeans.

Both are extremes and yet I find the current situation we are in (the one supported by feminism) to be far more alarming than some kooky cleric extracting blood from the stone of modesty.

Of course your other point of view is that men should change. That's also typical and insulting. The vast majority of men spend their lives serving women and providing for women. We do not spend our days thinking of ways to hurt women but rather we think of ways to privilege women and protect them.

Is this what this cleric is doing? I guess that depends on your perspective. If you are a really hot chick who likes to manipulate men with your looks then yes it's oppressive. If you are a wife who's husband is seduced by another woman then probably not.

Brianna: Yes, telling them to not wear makeup seems like the more logical demand than covering up one eye! lol, what a smart guy.

Jean: While I'm not well versed about it, I understand the veil has religious significance and is "more than meets the eye." That is not what I am talking about and I framed my opinions on the veil in the context of the BBC news story and how it is used to protect women from men or rather in this case, to protect men from women's "seductive" eyes.

I disagree with everything else you've said and to be honest, I'm not going to waste my time typing all the reasons why because I'm sure nothing I will say will change your mind and I don't have time to write a book on the topic. But I will respond to your last point and say that being able to navigate in public with only one eye is surely oppressive to more than just "hot chicks who like to manipulate men" with their looks. Even a "wife whose husband is being seduced by another woman" would probably like to have a better view of where she is walking [I like how the men are passive in that sentence you wrote - they couldn't help being seduced, right?]. And if you think it's such a great idea why don't you walk around with an obstructed view and see if it's fun. I'd rather not, thanks.

Jean :"It is the great equalizer. All women no matter what they look like have the same chance of finding a husband than any other woman regardless of their looks. I've heard the complaints from women about how other beautiful women get all the attention or get promoted because they are pretty or sexy. So imagine this is no longer even possible? Every woman gets where she gets because of who she is rather than what she is. She achieves because of merit not sexuality."

*bzzzt* wrong :)

Don't really even want to touch the rest of that misogynistic tirade of yours, but I do want to let you in on some fun factoids. Monogamy is the great equalizer, not veils. It basically guarantees most people a mate no matter what their attractiveness level. There will be some who cannot or do not want to marry, but for the majority of people they are assured a mate in a society that pushes monogamy as the correct marital institution. The only way a veil could be the great equalizer is if it were in a polyandry (i.e. one woman, multiple men) society. This makes men a coveted resource and only the most attractive women will be able to get a man and/or multiple men and the least attractive will be left out in the cold. A veil would understandably level that playing field... but then that would negate the polyandry. And last I checked that region of the world would definitely prefer polygyny or monogamy over polyandry.

Also, most people mate/marry within their range. Average Joe will marry average Jane, Chippendale's will marry Playboy bunnies, the only exception to this would be if one partner is unattractive physically but has others assets( e.g. money, property, royalty, etc)to make up for teh ugly.

Even a "wife whose husband is being seduced by another woman" would probably like to have a better view of where she is walking [I like how the men are passive in that sentence you wrote - they couldn't help being seduced, right?].

I figured there is enough male bashing on this site so I'd word it in a way that shows there is responsibility on the other side too.

And if you think it's such a great idea why don't you walk around with an obstructed view and see if it's fun. I'd rather not, thanks.

I said that cleric is kooky. If all you want is to be right then claim victory already.

Monogamy is the great equalizer, not veils. It basically guarantees most people a mate no matter what their attractiveness level.

Untrue. Women outnumber men which means many women will never get a mate. Also in the nomadic desert societies the death rate of men is extremely high which makes it even harder for women to find a mate. The men who are left are more valuable and they can choose only the most beautiful women which means two things. 1. Many women will not marry even with polygamy and 2. Parents will have to support their unwed daughters which places an extraordinary burden on old people in a society without government social safety nets.

There will be some who cannot or do not want to marry,

Technically true but in reality it's not practical. Those that don't want to marry are largely going to be homosexuals and for men especially this could be a life ender.

And last I checked that region of the world would definitely prefer polygyny or monogamy over polyandry.

I'm glad you admit that because polygyny makes women more scarce and makes it harder for average and poor men to find a wife. This means women are more valuable and men are more disposable. If I were to create a "male dominated society" I wouldn't make men so easy to throw away, murder, or blow up in wars and I wouldn't allow polygyny.

Also, most people mate/marry within their range. Average Joe will marry average Jane, Chippendale's will marry Playboy bunnies, the only exception to this would be if one partner is unattractive physically but has others assets( e.g. money, property, royalty, etc)to make up for teh ugly.

The fact is that women are the only class that throughout history has consistently had the most upward mobility. Across societies beautiful women were more likely to transcend their station than hard working men and all they did was win the genetic lottery of beauty.

I know of many beautiful women without educations (or careers) who married very well. I don't know of any men without good careers who married beautiful women.

Haha... Okay, remember that one question I left on the troll Topic a while ago? How I wasn't sure what a troll was exactly? Well, I think I've seen it today!

Geez... I mean, why the fucking-ass long rant about how we're wrong for our point of view? I mean honestly, you can insert your opinion but don't try to brainwash people in agreeing with you! No one's man-bashing in this Thread. Men who rape women are at fault, not the women. That's not bashing, that's cold hard reality for you whiners out there who refuse to take responsibility for your actions. And a veil isn't going to solve any problem. "Pretend solutions don't fix real problems." People will always judge others by their looks, it's our nature (although we're really pushing it these days, I admit). Beauty has gone through this reform, that's pretty unhealthy. It isn't about which woman looks healthier or more fit to bear children anymore. And like it's already been stated, average joe will hook up with average jane etc...

AnnaBella,
I dont get it. How would having the woman cover herself force a man to take responsibility for HIS own actions and reactions? If that was the case, she wouldnt even have to wear the veil. Should US women have to wear something to teach men to not sexually objectify, degrade or discriminate against her? Of course not. If youre covering up or choosing not to wear an article of clothing because patriarchy expects it, its still sexually objectifying yourself to serve their interests. I shouldnt have to alter my own aesthetic desires to remind a man not to mistreat me.

Brianna G,
Or how about teaching men to mind their own fucking business? They have no right to be telling women what to wear, or not to wear. They arent children. If women wear the veil theyll only make themselves more malleable to men and their flippant and oppressive requests. Muslim women arent Leelah from the TV show, "Futurama" (except hopefully only in the form of ass-kicking feminists!).

I have a great idea. Let's make a pair of goggles that takes any human form that has a certain type of transponder on it, and digitizes it so you can't see *anything* about it except a moving blur. Have the women wear the transponder, and make all men wear the goggles on pain of being beaten savagely for immorality. They'll be able to see other men just fine, but since women are wearing the transponder, all women will be blurs. Women can wear any damn thing they like, and men won't be able to see them.

The advantage to this is that if a man wants to attack a woman, he would actually not be able to see her well enough to figure out, say, where her face is. So he would have to take *off* the goggles to throw acid in her face, and the moment he takes off the goggles, groups of mullahs gang up on him and start beating him for immorality.

If they're going to have a society based on men not being able to look at women, why not put it on the men not to look at the women, instead of on the women?

How interesting that this cleric decided depth perception was overly seductive right after women got the right to drive in his country.

I have heard from a couple of western guys who went to live in Arab states for a year or two to earn serious money that one of the consequences of having women so heavily veiled was that the slightest slight of skin became incredibly sexualised; and this was from Dutch and Irish men.

While I'm not fond of the skimpy dress styles of many celebrities, I think that covering EVERYTHING up just means that instead of, say, breasts being naughty, wrists become so. It's still an objectification, even if it's negative objectification.

That said, the women who work on Anthony Bourdain's show had an interesting blog on their experience in Saudi Arabia, which is worth looking at. It's on the show's website.

"I have heard from a couple of western guys who went to live in Arab states for a year or two to earn serious money that one of the consequences of having women so heavily veiled was that the slightest slight of skin became incredibly sexualised; and this was from Dutch and Irish men."

I've heard this too. And what about the many pre-colonial societies where both men and women had similar levels of "modesty" and for the sake of climate both often wore few clothes. There are many cultures untouched by Christianity and Islam that allowed both men and women to be topless, for example. I haven't seen evidence that men where running around raping the women on site because of it.