Not sure how close this is skirting to being banned, but we'll see. Please, let's stay on-topic. We are seeing more and more middle-eastern garb here in the West. I am particularly talking about the full-length covered outfits. I believe they're called burkhas or burkas or burqas, but I think there are similar outifts by different names. Please educate me. My wife sees these as a sign of oppression - as do many other people. Women are forced to wear these head-to-toe outfits - even in the heat of summer - as part of their religion (so as not to excite and entice the men). I'm not refuting whether is is viewed as a sign of oppression, I am questioning the generalization. And this is what I've come here to ask. It seems to me that it is quite possible that any - or even many - women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion, much like Jews wear a kippah/yarmulke or Amish wear their traditional garb. The key here hinges on not knowing whether an individual is being forced. If this is the case, then one cannot, by rights, look at any individual wearing a burkha and decide that they are being oppressed. In other words, there cannot be a crime in principle, there can only be a crime in circumstance. Just like it is unfair to look at porn mag models and decide they are "symbols" that are setting back the women's movement 20 years (this is actually objectifying her, labeling her, removing her individualism) - so it is unfair to objectifiy an individual as being any symbol of oppression without knowing their specific circumstance. What think? Are all women that wear bhurkas - even hypothetical women that might do so voluntarily - being oppressed? Is it generally accepted (outiside of the Mid-East) that the bhurka is a symbol of oppression anywhere it is found?