Jacqueline Maire suggests in her letter [June 26–July 3] that by showing less skin, women of the West can "bring men of other cultures to accept that women are not sex objects". This is such a misguided suggestion that I don't know where to begin.

Giving up my rights to wear whatever I want by covering up more skin would serve rather than deter the antiwomen sentiments prevalent in the societies that Jacqueline is referring to. Her use of the term sex object is oversimplifying, to say the least, which is surprising, since she says she lived among these societies for some time. The repression of women in these societies is not merely about their bodies. It is a repression that does not just show itself in the form of a chador, abaya, burka, or hijab (literally "curtain"). In some of these societies, the misuse of Islam's holiest text is used to deny women the most basic human rights to varying degrees: i.e., the right to vote, to travel, to work, to leave the house without the permission of a close male relative, et cetera. Such repression goes far beyond seeing women merely as "sex objects". It goes far beyond the veil. Women are property.

That being said, would Jacqueline then go as far as to say women living in the West should sacrifice other human rights besides the right to dress how we see fit? If we were to follow her advice, we would need to give up the right to vote, to drive, et cetera, in order to appear as nonthreatening to the men whom she would have us coddle out of their fanatical, misogynist stupor. I, for one, am not about to sacrifice my comfort and my freedom to service the requirements of male sexuality.

Showing support to our "Muslim sisters" will not be by further perpetuating the misguided, self-serving belief that somehow women are solely responsible for male urges. Rather, it is by teaching by example and maintaining our human rights and by bringing about further, positive changes, not stepping back into the Dark Ages.

> Shannen Leigh / Vancouver