Thread by @EveKeneinan

We have known at least since Aristotle that VIRTUE is a MEAN between two EXTREMES, which are VICES.

So let us take an example of a virtue: MODESTY.

Islam requires hijabs and burqas and the like because it sees these as routes to female modesty.

Feminism is bitterly divided on this issue.

Some feminists think we should “celebrate sluts” and SJWs often attempt to shame those who “slut shame” and have “slut walks.”

On the other hand, the “me too” wing of intersectional feminism/SJWism HATES female sexuality almost as much as they HATE male sexuality.

So, a woman who plays the slut or the whore, is apt to be condemned. She is CLEARLY missing the mark of virtue, which is MODESTY.

She is being immodest.

This is why we have such expressions as “painted like a whore” or “a painted whore.”

And it would indeed have been UTTERLY INAPPROPRIATE for the Prime Minister of New Zealand to visit a Mosque decked out like a prostitute.

The problem that Islam can fall into is LEGALISM, the attempt to make VIRTUE, which is a thing of the soul, COMPULSORY by means of outward signs, e.g. MANDATING the wearing of the hijab.

The prime minister of New Zealand is not COMPELLED to don a hijab, nor is any woman in NZ.

What about Christianity?

St. Paul says that women should dress with “modesty and moderation.”

And he’s right of course.

In my own Orthodox tradition, women cover their heads IN CHURCH.

This is not COMPULSORY.

In the same way as almost all Christian denominations, one dresses APPROPRIATELY for Divine Liturgy.

We Orthodox are actually pretty relaxed about it, as a rule.

It’s Lent, so Catholics can’t eat meat on Wednesdays and Fridays.

We Orthodox can’t eat meat or poultry or fish or dairy or alcohol for the entire 40 days.

On the other hand, we tend to expect *most* not to succeed perfectly in the fast. And that’s all right.

To paraphrase Our Lord, “fasts were made for men, not men for fasts.”

Back to the virtue of MODESTY.

Feminists HATE it, because of “the male gaze”—it reminds them that virtues are not always identical for men and women.

Nature has given us a DOUBLE STANDARD.

Feminist logic:

1 Human nature has given us a double standard of virtue with regard to men and women.
2 Double standards are inherently unjust.
3 So, human nature, just as such, is unjust and must be rebelled against.

The CORRECT syllogism:

1 Human nature has given us a double standard of virtue with regard to men and women.
2 Human nature is, in essence, good.
3 So, some double standards are just.

And it’s trivial to prove that “some double standards are just.”

We use a double standard for children vs adults for almost everything.

Point proven.

SOME double standards are perfectly reasonable and just. Not all. Some.

If you REALLY think “all double standards are unjust” then you MUST, by this logic, join with pedophiles in DEMANDING the abolition of age of consent laws.

That is “agism” and a double standard, after all.

And everyone KNOWS this.

By nature, with regard to sex, MEN PURSUE and WOMEN SELECT.

A woman who sleeps with any man is called “cheap” and “easy”—because that it how she treats herself.

A man who sleeps around is a different matter. He is not virtuous: he is immoderate. He is not showing self-restraint is his appetites.

That’s why we Christians are presently fasting, by the way: fasting is PRACTICE in the virtue-skill of RESTRAINING ONE’S APPETITES.

You can see the asymmetry in the recent term “incel.”

“Involuntary celibate”. This is a term used exclusively for MEN.

Why?

Almost no woman needs to be celibate if she wishes not to be—because many men have virtually no standards at all for sex.

And again, this happens because, by nature, regarding sex/mating, MEN PURSUE and WOMEN SELECT.

A man who PURSUES INDISCRIMINATELY is doing the male thing, but badly. Thus he is a “skirt chaser” or other such terms.

A woman who SELECTS INDISCRIMINATELY is doing the female thing, badly. So she is called a “slut” and other such terms.

They are different kinds of failing.

As Ben Shapiro likes to say “Two things can be true at once.”

It can BOTH miss the mark of virtue

(1) for a woman to act and dress immodestly,

and

(2) to attempt to legalistically compel modesty by e.g. requiring all women to wear the burqa