Sunday, June 14, 2015

Yeah, but Can I Bribe the Eunuchs to Give Me the Key: Islamic "Sisters Only Funday" at British Water Park

At Jim Bakker's water park the women had to dress like Tammy Faye

Frankly, I think the original Sunday Express (by way of Jihad Watch) headline was a bit misleading:
A BRITISH waterpark has sparked fury by banning bikinis and ordering visitors to cover up in "Islamically appropriate" clothing.
Actually, as far as I can tell, the "banning" was only for a one-time, two-hour, women-only event at the park, specifically for Muslim women and their young children.
WaterWorld in Stoke-on-Trent plans to black out windows and provide a prayer room during a women-only night aimed at Muslims. 
Only female lifeguards will patrol the park during the event, which has triggered a flood of complaints. 
Staff will also "guard" the front entrance to "make sure that no males enter the facility". 
Conservative MP Philip Hollobone said: ‘I imagine there would be a lot of outrage if the boot was on the other foot and swimmers were told they had to dress appropriately in respect of Christians. I don’t see how this is different." 
One invitation to the "Sisters Only Funday" advises attendees to cover their "awrah" (nudity) by wearing full-length jogging bottoms and a dark-coloured t-shirt. 
Protesters are now planning to demonstrate outside the event. 
WaterWorld owner Mo Chaudry said: "I'm astonished that we have been targeted. We feel we've been victimised for offering something that we feel there is a demand for." 
A WaterWorld spokesman said: "We pride ourselves in having the adaptability and diversity to cater to demands of our guests. 
"This is a female-only event and is not specific to any ethnic or religious group."

Here is what I have on this one:
  1. Personally, I don't have a problem per se with an entertainment park setting aside two hours to cater to, and as result, change the rules a bit for, a particular group--whether it be ethnic, religious, sex-based or what have you. And I suspect this position is shared by most of my Islamophobic friends. I would have no problem with Sikh Male Night or Estonian Woman's Day, for example (indeed, I have to admit that I like contemplating Estonian Woman's Day). But of course, if one doesn't like the group in question, then it is perhaps natural to get annoyed. How about two hours set aside for Neo-Nazi skinheads or pedophiles or whatever? And this is especially true if one feels the group in question is currently "on the march", so to speak, making special demands, threats and so on that impact the rest of us. Since, as many of you know, I think Islam is morally equivalent to Nazism and the founder of Islam was a pedophile, I'm annoyed.
  2. In our hyper-politically correct times it's unclear how one is supposed to feel about something like this. I think the probable PC view is that this sort of thing is generally wrong--it's discriminatory or whatever--though if it is for Muslims, it's super duper. (The PC tenet is that anything done for Muslims is super duper.)
  3. I never knew the Arabic (?) word for nudity is "awrah", as in "cover your awrah." Does that mean that Muslim nudists are called "awrites"?
  4. Okay, that was lame.
  5. Most religions and cultures have dress recommendations, if not specific dress requirements, that often seem silly to others. Sikh males must wear a turban and carry a small ceremonial dagger. Buddhists like frumpy sandals. French women are prohibited from shaving under their arms*, etc. Even secularized western culture has its own codes and imposes somewhat different dress requirements and prohibitions on men and women. For example, full public nudity is generally frowned upon, and going shirtless is often okay for men but rarely okay for women, unless you're breast-feeding, in which case it's a) disgusting or b) super duper depending on what county you're in.
  6. Traditionalist Catholics must emphasize their sex but not look sexy.
  7. Nevertheless, Islamic requirements are particularly freaky and oppressive. Males are encouraged to grow beards so they can look like the founding pedophile. Women must be completely covered in public. Even in semi-private environments away from males--where the area is patrolled by female guards--they still have to wear long pants or whatever. In a water park.
  8. It's not diversity. It's not modesty. It's oppression. Wearing a head-to-toe burka, or a niqab leaving only an eye slit, or wearing long pants even among other women and young children in a freaking water park is a sign of enslavement, or to put it more neutrally, submission, which is what "Islam" actually means, after all. It's like putting your hands together like they're cuffed when Big Brother's face comes on the giant telescreen. Islam is like Ingsoc, except you never see Big Brother's face, or if someone draws it, you have to kill them. 
  9. But what's really wrong with people wearing what they want to wear? Isn't all of this voluntary? Don't those Muslim sisters want to dress that way? Sure they do. And I would too if the alternative were having acid thrown in my face.

*That's a stereotype.


  1. Sister Only Funday-Now THAT'S funny.

    1. The more I think about it, the more Islam does seem Orwellian. And I'd never really made that equation before. For example, isn't it interesting how an ideology that treats women so disrespectfully, uses such a respectful term as "sisters" to describe them?

  2. There's one thing about this story that is something that has driven me up the wall for years: how come Jim Bakker's surname doesn't rhyme with "slacker"? Double consonant shortens the preceding vowel. It's a rule, dammit!