I propose the following for discussion:
Yes, Islam, as I understand it, requires women to cover themselves so as to prevent “unwanted desires” in men. On the surface, this appears to subjugate women, and it does, but perhaps it actually shows a low regard for men, who apparently are incapable of controlling themselves in the presence of women, particularly women who do not cover themselves, due to the low, base, raw animal nature of the male brain.
Discuss?
But how come it’s the women who have to cover up, and not the men who need to wear little inner-spiked collars on their naughty bits to control their desires? 
Islam requires modest dress for both men and women. It’s just that, at the time of its founding, and even more so when it moved into Sassanid Persia and the Byzantine world, modest dress for women involved keeping large amounts of their body covered.
Just a wild uninformed unresearched guess, but Isn’t it considered offencive to male muslim sensibilities if female muslims don’t cover up? To me it is almost totally sexist towards the women, who are offending men if they don’t cover up.
‘offensive’ even.
I don’t think so. Its more a way of controlling women and keeping men in charge. Otherwise you’d need to explain why in many traditional Islamic nations (at least one’s I’ve been too) women also have limited education oppurtunities, can’t drive, and in some cases can’t even eat with men. Then there is the theoretical multiple wives thing (I’ve actually only met one man with more than one wife in reality), and at the extreme end of the religion there are distasteful things like brothers or fathers killing sisters/daughters because of perceived misconduct, female circumcision, etc.
All this is to keep the men from leaping them or keep men in their places?? Or is it a means to dominate women and keep men in charge? I think the latter…but this is based on my own personal experience so I could be very wrong. Anecdote isn’t always very reliable, and I certainly can’t claim I’ve seen/met a large representative sample of traditional muslims…more like a small sample of non-traditional muslims who like to bad mouth their traditional cousins.
-XT
I should go on to say though that all this doesn’t make ISLAM sexist per se…afaik most of the more distasteful things I’ve said aren’t actually layed out in the religion. However, as its practiced in the more traditional way I think you’d be hard pressed to make a case that it ISN’T sexist towards women and a means for men to keep control.
-XT
It’s my understanding that Islam was quite progressive towards women for its time. For example, it actually limited the amount of wives a man could have, and spelled out several explict rights for women, such as owning property and supporting widows.
The West didn’t really catch up until the 19th century.
And of course, much of the true ickiness, such as FGM, is cultural, rather than religious.
No, it’s not sexist against men. It’s the women who get repressed, and I think it’s not about the baseness of men, but the sinfulness and shallowness of women. Always tempting us with their hair showing, etc. This “women are a distraction” or “women are impure” idea extends beyond Islam (I think it goes through all of the Western religions and it may exist in Buddhism as well; I wouldn’t be surprised if there are more examples). And it’s definitely a rationalization for why men are supposed to be in charge. After all, men are more in control of their own desires, more able to be spiritually pure, god is a man, and all these other reasons.
It should be noted there are women alive today in the US who were born before the right to vote was added to the US Constitution in 1920. Sexist practices just aren’t going to be eliminated in all societies at the same time. Social change tends to come fastest in more advanced societies. It just so happens that Islamic countries tend to be the world’s poorest. (And for the oil rich nations, they weren’t oil rich in 1920.)
I’ve heard some comparisons, from time to time, to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthian women to keep themselves covered, but I think this is perhaps a different situation. In the case of the Corinthian women, the Corinthian men had been steeped in a “lascivious” culture that promoted women as sexual objects. It should be remembered that Paul’s admonitions in Corinthians were aimed at helping the Corinthian men to maintain monogamous lifestyles, and not necessarily aimed at the church as a whole. Additionally, it can be surmised that the admonition for the women was temporary, until the men learned how to overcome their previous social predispositions.
How do you know that’s not true of the Arabs in Muhammed’s time too?
Here’s the appropriate verses of the Quran, Pickthal translation, Sura 24-The Light
Well, at least the Old Testament laws about sexuality are geared towards the men (summarized more or less as: don’t just f*** with everything that moves, you perv) because I’m guessing the women generally aren’t in a position (er, no pun intended) to refuse.
As for Paul’s thing about veils, he has a followup statement that I’ve seen translated either as “if anyone is contentious about it, we have no other practice”, or “if anyone is contentious about it, we have no such practice”, so make of that as you will.
I’m not sure on what you’re basing this assumption. I reread Corinthians just to be sure, and the wording in 11.5-6 and 11.13 seem extremely clear. A woman should either be veiled or have her head shaved. Period.
I’m sure some creative way have been found to interpret away these unconvenient verses, but i’m curious to know how it has been done.
I don’t buy the “it’s all cultural” excuse at all. Almost any religion, when reduced to a set of intellectual abstractions, is going to be inoffensive or at least easily explained away wrt its bad elements. It’s how the religion is practiced “on the ground” so to speak that determines how bad or good it might be. And here Islam proves, in society after society after society, to be relentlessly sexist. Some are more or less sexist than others, but they all suck.
But how the religion is practiced “on the ground” by a society is determined, in large part, by other cultural factors. Islam, or Christianity, or Judaism, or whatever religion you want, it’s practiced the same way throughout the world, and historically, it’s been practiced in different ways at different times.
And not all Muslim women veil. Even fewer wear the full body coverings that you see in Afghanistan and Saudi Arabia. For example, here’s a picture (the last one) of some Bosnian Muslim women wearing no veil at all:
http://www.b92.net/galerija/index.php?language=english&category=1)
Here’s the picture of the wife of the former PM of Malaysia. Also no veil:
http://www.pmo.gov.my/website/webdb.nsf/0/3c6df5f7101c3bf948256bbc001c4d73?OpenDocument
Here’s former president Megawati of Indonesia, also veilless.
That should be, of course, that the religions are not practiced the same way around the world.
We do the same thing. Women in our culture are expected to cover their chest, but men aren’t. Not all cultures do; those topless women you see in National Geographic, and their brothers, probably think we’re a bunch of insane perverts for making such a big deal of baby feeders. I myself have tried to encourage women to throw off this sexist restriction and free them from their false consciousness, but none of them seemed to appreciate it. 
In spite of my last little joke, yes this post is perfectly serious. Ridiculous and perfectly natural depend on what you’re used to.
That might be a sexist view of men, but is it an unrealistic one?
The idea that you can restrain male lust by veiling women, OTOH, might be unrealistic. I mean, is rape any less frequent in strict Islamic countries than elsewhere? Is sexual harassment? (Of course, they might not even recognize the concept of “sexual harassment,” and the issue wouldn’t even arise unless women are allowed into the same workplaces as men – but you get what I mean.)
I have heard Muslim women claim that covering themselves makes them less vulnerable to things like sexual harassment and more likely to be taken seriously. I have objected to this before, and been accused of “editorializing”.
The OP’s point can be interpreted another way; that Muslim men are absolved of their responsibility to control themselves. This only gives them more power; it doesn’t take it away. It is 100% the woman’s responsibility to ensure she is virginal and that her dealings with men are chaste. Her load is doubled for the benefit of the man. Rather than infantilizing the men, this frees them up to do what they please and abdicate their responsibility, because after all, “boys will be boys”.