Miltank posted:Even the idea that they keep women from being ogled is completely rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. The ideas that underlie heels being empowering are also rooted in their original patriarchal purpose.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Burqas are the best way to take anonymous nudes. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The ideas that underlie heels being empowering are also rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. Who cares about high heels? I wouldn't give them a second thought other than to say that businesses should not force their employees to wear them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:22
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Agreed, let's ban high-heeled shoes, makeup, decolletage... I wouldn't oppose banning high heels, because they are health hazards. As for banning makeup, why do you want to oppress middle-eastern culture? It's pretty racist of you to want to ban kohl -- or to think that cosmetics are an exclusively western thing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Even the idea that they keep women from being ogled is rooted in their original patriarchal purpose. It sounds like the problem is patriarchy and not how women can choose to subvert it. Perhaps we should solve the problem and not ban interim solutions?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
I don't think it's the government's job to have a literal fashion police. Let women who want to wear burkas wear burkas, but also throw the book at whoever is forcing them to do it if they don't want to. By the way, if you want my personal experience of living in a country where Shariah, Rabbinical, and other religious authorities have statutory powers, this leads to many problems in Israel, as some people cannot marry (because all marriage is in the hand of authorized religious authorities; are you a Jew who wants to marry a Christian? Either one of you converts or go abroad, suckers), while all Jews who are married have to divorce through the misogynistic Rabbinical courts, with little help from secular authorities, regardless of whether or not they even want to. Every Jewish woman I've talked to who has had a divorce has said that the ordeal was extremely humiliating. Also, religious authorities have significant say over burial, which is why when a family member did not want to have a religious ceremony, they still had to have some kind of rabbi do one anyway, although it was a Reform one, so I guess there's worst things. So I would definitely say that if this is what letting Shariah have an official role means, I would be dead set against that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
I'm 100% against having Sharia as the de-facto law of the country, but then so historically is Islam. Dhimmi have the right to practise their own religion so the idea a Christian couple cannot be married would be ridiculous. Mostly the problem seems to stem from when overtly religious people set their personal religion as the de-facto laws of the land.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:If you want to use state violence to force revolutionary gender equality, I'm all for it, but it seems laughable not to start at home, with the native white Christian Euros, instead of panicking over some impoverished war-refugees from a desert hellhole I completely agree, although I feel as though legislating against them all simultaneously would be more consistent and fair. I don't think any sort of firm coercion is necessary on refugees at all, I think they should do their thing an if their thing is terrible, just revoke their tax exemption status an pursue preachers of hate through civil hate speech laws. When is comes to the burka thing, I think most want to wear it, but don't delude yourself too much on that point, chances are most want to wear it because they don't want their community to see them as a whore. The burka totally sucks an I like the way France deals with it because it takes the accountability for not wearing it from the women an places it on the state. Women from these groups would certainly put up a fuss because the state is making them walk around without coverings like a prostitute/whore/kufir. It is pretty indisputable but still surprising to see many self identified liberals not consider the burka totally lovely, especially when you consider that a women in a burka has in fact been socially removed from common society nd everything about her life is tailored toward her isolation for fear that she have a sexuality. Oh an I promise not to act so surprised when I get accused of wanting to kill all muslims by the usual illiterate goontards. Sethex fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 01:56
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I completely agree, although I feel as though legislating against them all simultaneously would be more consistent and fair. I don't think any sort of firm coercion is necessary on refugees at all, I think they should do their thing an if their thing is terrible, just revoke their tax exemption status an pursue preachers of hate through civil hate speech laws. Why would you want to help women be removed from common society by denying them access to things for wearing a burka, though? It's a common theme in all the solutions you bring up, "oh, Muslim extremists are radicalizing more moderate Muslims? Let's antagonize the moderate Muslims and alienated them so that they have no other choice but to radicalize."
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:06
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I completely agree, although I feel as though legislating against them all simultaneously would be more consistent and fair. I don't think any sort of firm coercion is necessary on refugees at all, I think they should do their thing an if their thing is terrible, just revoke their tax exemption status an pursue preachers of hate through civil hate speech laws. And people claim Progressives infantilize Muslims.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:it's a common theme in all the solutions you bring up, "oh, Muslim extremists are radicalizing more moderate Muslims? Let's antagonize the moderate Muslims and alienated them so that they have no other choice but to radicalize." moderates don't wear the burka... sooooo no alienation. Absurd Alhazred posted:Why would you want to help women be removed from common society by denying them access to things for wearing a burka, though? What do you think I am advocating here, you have me confused as to what you think I said. Sethex fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:11
|
|
|
Sethex posted:moderates don't wear the burka... sooooo no alienation. That's not the point. If a woman is being pressured to wear the burka, why do you think it's helpful to then pressure her to not come to/work at university/State jobs like they do in France and did until recently in Turkey? Why do you think discouraging this woman from having access to other information, ideas, and people, is helpful? Seems to me like you're helping the extremists keep the line.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:13
|
|
|
Sethex posted:moderates don't wear the burka... sooooo no alienation. Yeah... you've never spoken to a woman who wears a Burqa by choice. Congrats I guess?? And just to avoid any smarmy comeback: yes, I have and do.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:That's not the point. If a woman is being pressured to wear the burka, why do you think it's helpful to then pressure her to not come to/work at university/State jobs like they do in France and did until recently in Turkey? Why do you think discouraging this woman from having access to other information, ideas, and people, is helpful? Seems to me like you're helping the extremists keep the line. Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:19
|
|
Sethex posted:Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever? Why would someone who wears strict hijab (up to the point of the niqab or burqa) because they consider it part of their faith engage with a society that tells them they can either have their faith or engage with the broader society?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:23
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever? It's actually literally better now that they've reversed the prohibition on the hijab, so that less women are discouraged because of it. ETA: Also, note that all those years of banning it did not stop AKP's Islamists from rising to power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:24
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Turkey, a Muslim country that for a time sought gender equality did the same thing decades ago in their universities, an is significantly better in the gender equality department today, likely in part because of mustafa's reforms, do you actually think if the burka were banned it would lead to women being kept inside forever? Forever? No. It would be realised as untenable after a short period of time, but that's not what's happening so we can't really do more than speculate. Also do you talk to women from Turkey? They lament how far downhill it's been going. Ataturk's vision has been poo poo upon by Erdogan. Also be fair, Turkey is technically a secular state, that's just been undermined by subsequent leaders. That may take longer to type, but c'mon is that the biggest inconvenience of your life?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:25
|
|
|
Miltank posted:And yet one functions by turning its wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness and the other is an uncomfortable patriarchal norm. High heels have more in common with neckties than burkas. for a second i was actually unsure which you meant by which. lol
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:Yeah... you've never spoken to a woman who wears a Burqa by choice. Congrats I guess?? So is your line of reasoning here that the burka doesn't result in the structural isolation of an individual? Because to me that sounds like you're being intellectually dishonest or thick.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:41
|
|
Sethex posted:So is your line of reasoning here that the burka doesn't result in the structural isolation of an individual? Because to me that sounds like you're being intellectually dishonest or thick. Do I become socially isolated when I put on a burqa?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:for a second i was actually unsure which you meant by which. lol I can't even begin to imagine how you could think that high heels turn women into 'semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness'. Thats just retarded.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:43
|
|
|
Sethex posted:So is your line of reasoning here that the burka doesn't result in the structural isolation of an individual? Because to me that sounds like you're being intellectually dishonest or thick. The policies you are promoting are the only ones which guarantee the structural isolation of an individual wearing a burka. Literally playing into the hands of the most extreme by encouraging those you say are oppressed to stay with them and away from the rest of society. Are you being funded by the Saudis or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:45
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:It sounds like the problem is patriarchy and not how women can choose to subvert it. Burka and Nikab are bad even outside of the context of patriarchy because they are objectively dehumanizing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:53
|
|
Miltank posted:Burka and Nikab are bad even outside of the context of patriarchy because they are objectively dehumanizing. Telephones dehumanize you. Cameras steal your soul.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:54
|
|
|
Nothing to say then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:58
|
|
Miltank posted:Nothing to say then? Those are fundamentally equivalent to your belief that covering the face is objectively dehumanizing. Or maybe it's the thread count. The thread count makes you less human. I guess I better be stark naked to make sure everyone treats me as fully human, just to be safe.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It's actually literally better now that they've reversed the prohibition on the hijab, so that less women are discouraged because of it. We are talking about the burka though, I don't oppose the hijab in a way where I think state intervention is necessary. I also wasn't arguing that banning a piece of clothing would prevent a regional religious revival..
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Burka and Nikab are bad even outside of the context of patriarchy because they are objectively dehumanizing. I'd say if anything is "objectively" dehumanizing is denying a human access to other human resources. Doing so because of what they wear is also really counter-productive. Are you being paid by the Saudis to help keep oppressed women in check?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I also wasn't arguing that banning a piece of clothing would prevent a regional religious revival.. What kind of positive effect would banning a piece of clothing have, then?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:02
|
|
|
I too think it's important that we fight the isolation and dehumanisation of muslim women by telling them what to wear, ideally forcing them to adopt western standards of dehumanising dress instead and potentially alienating them from their own family, friends and religious community.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Should have realized SA autists might not recognize the importance of faces in human interaction. e:^ they can wear hijab.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
what's funny is over generations, muslim immigrants to the west tend to become more relaxed about that kind of thing without any intervention required. yet here we are talking about it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Should have realized SA autists might not recognize the importance of faces in human interaction. You can't interact with women you are literally not allowing into your establishment because of what they're wearing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:what's funny is over generations, muslim immigrants to the west tend to become more relaxed about that kind of thing without any intervention required. yet here we are talking about it. This is a very big part of why I am Not A Fan of banning face coverings. I'm unconvinced that a ban would accelerate the natural erosion of the more stringent modesty requirements. In point of fact, it might result in a deceleration, and is not even remotely a vital enough issue to justify that, never mind the discomfort of the women who are (for various reasons, some of them not great) used to wearing face coverings in public.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:11
|
|
Miltank posted:Should have realized SA autists might not recognize the importance of faces in human interaction. Again, this comes down to saying that talking on the telephone makes you less human, because that totally deprives you of facial and body-language cues. Let alone textual communication!
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:The policies you are promoting are the only ones which guarantee the structural isolation of an individual wearing a burka. Literally playing into the hands of the most extreme by encouraging those you say are oppressed to stay with them and away from the rest of society. That's a lot of words without any demonstrable foundation. Here is some philosopher dude: 'Emmanuel Levinas pointed out that the basis for a moral participation in society; and that the neurotic search for purity that motivates facial coverings ultimately represents the "radical rejection of others" and conveys contempt for others who are not deemed worthy of sharing the wearer's facial expressions.'
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:12
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Again, this comes down to saying that talking on the telephone makes you less human, because that totally deprives you of facial and body-language cues. Let alone textual communication! Talking on the telephone is inferior to a face to face conversation so I don't really see what your point is here.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:14
|
|
|
The only compelling reason to disallow face-covering clothing I can get behind is if the rule is for a bank or an airport or a store or similar, where it could be employed to conceal someone's identity when robbing the place or blowing poo poo up. Basically, anywhere that you can't wear a motorcycle helmet.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:14
|
|
Miltank posted:Talking on the telephone is inferior to a face to face conversation so I don't really see what your point is here. I don't, subjectively, experience any sense of dehumanization from telephone calls. Nor do I feel that violence against someone is more acceptable when talking to them on the phone. So your hypothesis needs to overcome this experience in order to convince me that telephones represent an unacceptable level of dehumanization and should be banned, in order to ensure that niqabs represent an unacceptable level of dehumanization.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 18:16 |
|
|
Sethex posted:That's a lot of words without any demonstrable foundation. Let me counter with a Zen Koan: what is the sound of one man interacting? Because that's the sound of you, in your establishment, interacting with the woman who is wearing a burka, and is not there because you refuse to allow her in. Although I guess slamming the door in someone's face is some kind of interaction.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 03:21
|
|