|
Miltank posted:I prefer the state telling her that she simply cannot wear the veil. Sure. What happens if she doesn't want to abide by that ban? Then either she's forced to withdraw from all society except for her local religious community and avoid places where she might be challenged for wearing the veil, which plays right into the hands of sexists trying to keep women out of society...or she goes out into the world, gets arrested for wearing a veil, and either she gets sent home with a strict order to not come outside again until she stops wearing a particular style of clothing, or she gets a piece of clothing forcibly removed by a complete stranger. Boy, that isn't sexist at all! The question AA is trying to pose to you is simple: "what happens to the people who refuse to abide by the ban?" The presence of the ban essentially forces them out of secular society.
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Luckily, mathematics isn't complete, so it's okay for it to be consistent. I think you may have completely missed the point.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 14:56
|
|
|
Sethex posted:I wonder how often a woman would be in a situation to arbitrate the application of Sharia law? Depends on the time period. There used to be religious institutes that trained women in Sharia and produced alimah. In the past five or so years traditionalist American Muslims have been forming new institutions to train them, with the reasoning that they know what being a woman is like better than a male scholar, so they would create more just and thorough rulings. A lot of middle eastern countries already have women as judges in sharia courts, but that's mostly interpretative.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:07
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Why does this poo poo always turn into arguments over the burqa/niqab? People do arbitration because it allows them to work things out based on a set of rules they've voluntarily and mutually agreed upon, even if those rules differ from law. There's no requirement that arbitration be conducted according to local law, although it's typically done that way because most arbitration is forced arbitration, and forced arbitration runs the risk of being smacked down by a judge if it seems like it's exploiting people too hard. As long as two people have agreed on the way a divorce or disagreement or whatever will be resolved, and no crimes were committed in the course of coming to that agreement, the state doesn't care how they resolved it; it'll happily honor the result. If a divorcing couple shows up with a fully-worked-out divorce agreement which accounts for all of their possessions and other considerations, and both promise to abide by it, then the state will happily rubber-stamp it and push it through and it doesn't much care whether the agreement was worked out by respectful one-on-one discussion or a religious arbitrator working from religious principles or even just flipping a coin a bunch of times. If two people willingly agree to have a non-state-affiliated court judge a civil case using religious law rather than secular law, then the state simply has no reason to get involved as long as they both willingly agree to abide by that judgement, and there's no obvious exploitation going on (for example, bribes). Criminal law is a different matter, obviously, but in matters of civil law the state doesn't care whether you have the case judged by a rabbi or even Judge Judy, as long as you agree not to run crying to the state if it doesn't go your way.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:17
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:
One might suggest this I suppose. One might miss that said leftist feels like change needs to come from a place of comfort in acceptance within the Muslim community though. The leftist may feel that trying to force change during times of unacceptance of their culture will have adverse negative effects and that perhaps after acceptance their culture will adapt and adopt a more moderate approach to how their religion has a place in secular society. Maybe it takes a generation, maybe two. If you want to ban all religious attire in public maybe you have a point. However one appears to pretend to care for the plight of their women to subjugate an entire religion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:Since people are talking about the burqa ban in France, it might be interesting to take a look at who exactly lobbied the most for it. Spoiler alert: they're women from immigrant communities from Islamic countries. Names like Fadela Amara ("Despite being a practising Muslim, Amara was active in supporting the expulsion from French secondary schools of young Muslim women who wear the hijab, and in supporting the 2003 law on this question") and Samira Bellil. I think you'll find their motivation was quite far from "we must stop teh moossulmen from stealing our white wimmenz" and "we desperate western men want to be able to ogle". Instead, explicitly in the case of Amara (Bellil belongs to the same organization, Ni Putes Ni Soumis), it seems to have unfortunate conspiratorial reasoning: quote:But Amara’s view of the world is a deeply skewed one. Where others see a common headscarf, she perceives a diabolical conspiracy to destroy France. She describes the headscarf as “the visible symbol of the subjugation of women,” insists it is “the sign of a political plot” and blames its presence on “green fascism.” Perhaps not surprisingly, she was a staunch supporter of the 2004 law banning headscarves in French public schools. Just in case Patheos isn't a credible source, here's another confirmation that this is Amara's view: quote:You have to understand that even if you think that you’re touching upon individual freedoms – notably freedom of thought – in the neighborhoods, there’s a huge pressure coming from Islamic fundamentalists forcing women to wear the veil. For a very great majority of these women, it’s not a question of free choice. They don’t have the choice. You must understand that the veil today does not have a religious connotation, as such. For me, it is a tool of oppression towards women, but it has above all become the symbol, the flag, for a political project – a fascist political project in which democracy and rule of law do not exist. Someone should tell this to American Muslims who are freely capable of wearing it and have not been undermining our democratic values; meantime, quite a few people in Western garb are, in fact, attacking democracy in the name of religion. NPNS also seems to attack Muslim women who think differently, costing them positions and jobs: quote:Another victim of NPNS fashion policing was Ilham Moussaïd, a political candidate from France’s New Anti-Capitalist Party. Moussaïd hadn’t thought twice about covering her hair when she ran for office in 2010, but NPNS was outraged. Sihem Habchi threatened to file a complaint against Moussaïd’s party, calling it “anti-feminist, anti-secular and anti-republican” for even letting her run. Fadela Amara chimed in, accusing the party of “banalizing a tool of oppression of women.” I think that unfortunately, like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, these are women who have suffered greatly at the hands of some Muslim men, and have concluded that the culprit was Islam, conceived of as a vast, unitary conspiracy, and do not hesitate to hurt other women in the process. It is much like some Jews are so horrified at some Zionist crimes that they become antisemites, like Gilad Atzmon, for example.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 16:40
|
|
|
Miltank posted:I've thought about it for more than a minute and you are still wrong. High heels literally turn their "wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness." I was amazed you actually wrote that out without having some kind of realization. Now whether women want to avoid them for that reason, or claim their power, should be 100% up to them, just like any form of religious covering. Activists who appeal to the state to regulate women's clothing are misguided; instead, they should appeal to the state to regulate abusive men who would tell them what to wear. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 17:07 on Sep 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Instead, explicitly in the case of Amara (Bellil belongs to the same organization, Ni Putes Ni Soumis), it seems to have unfortunate conspiratorial reasoning: I like how it's alright to oppress women in the name of democracy. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:High heels literally turn their "wearers into semi-anonymous symbols of feminine otherness." I was amazed you actually wrote that out without having some kind of realization. High heels turn their wearers into slightly taller versions of themselves with a different color of thing on their feet, depending on what they've chosen to wear. It's in no way anonymizing, and isn't comparable to the burka/niqab. quote:Now whether women want to avoid them for that reason, or claim their power, should be 100% up to them, just like any form of religious covering. Activists who appeal to the state to regulate women's clothing are misguided; instead, they should appeal to the state to regulate abusive men who would tell them what to wear. And provide shelter for abused women, regardless of the motivation for the abuse. Women are not going to feel safe testifying against their abusers if they have no place to hide from them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:High heels turn their wearers into slightly taller versions of themselves with a different color of thing on their feet, depending on what they've chosen to wear. It's in no way anonymizing, and isn't comparable to the burka/niqab. I say it is, and you say it isn't; I don't think we're going to bridge that gap. But clothing that fetishizes the body can have the effect of projecting women as little more than a body. I am choosing to express this phenomenon as "anonymizing," because the male gaze has no interest in the personality, only the body. Obviously it doesn't cover your face; literal-minded people will get high-centered on this. Agreed about the shelters. Interestingly enough the abused and trafficked Muslim girls I have dealt with often still wear hijab, and do not immediately tear it off when they escape their patriarchal oppressors, hair flowing out like a Pantene commercial. For the record every Islamic scholar I have heard talk about the reasons for hijab disgusted me and I would love to see them all vanish, but only by women's choice.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I say it is, and you say it isn't; I don't think we're going to bridge that gap. But clothing that fetishizes the body can have the effect of projecting women as little more than a body. I am choosing to express this phenomenon as "anonymizing," because the male gaze has no interest in the personality, only the body. Obviously it doesn't cover your face; literal-minded people will get high-centered on this. Ah, the male gaze will find anything. Ankles, features still too noticeable under the niqab, whatever. The niqab is no protection from molestation or rape, either. I think using the male gaze as a standard for fashion is a mistake. A second-hand anecdote from Israel: a friend who was wearing standard secular Israeli women's wear, which can be revealing, especially in the summer. She was in line to see the doctor, and a small Haredi boy was masturbating. His mother looked angrily at her, and told her "this is your fault". quote:Agreed about the shelters. Interestingly enough the abused and trafficked Muslim girls I have dealt with often still wear hijab, and do not immediately tear it off when they escape their patriarchal oppressors, hair flowing out like a Pantene commercial. I believe in their freedom to exist and express their heinous views in remote 5-digit channels on satellite TV. Vanishing would just make people forget that these assholes ever existed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
"Woman should be banned from wearing any clothes as to not interfere with the male gaze." -France
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:40
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:small Haredi boy was masturbating. His mother looked angrily at her, and told her "this is your fault". Haha what the actual gently caress. I'd like to believe this is out of some parody or tasteless comedy, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
TomViolence posted: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. The bolded part is pretty much 100% a good thing. Effectronica posted:Objectively, a telephone is more dehumanizing than a niqab, removing facial expression totally and removing the domain of body language that still exists with a niqab. Thus, in order for a niqab to be unacceptably dehumanizing, a telephone conversation must be even worse, and if we cannot tolerate the niqab, we cannot tolerate the phone either. If there were a religious group that made a point of only allowing women to communicate with non-family-members over the phone, that would be pretty loving dehumanizing, yeah. Main Paineframe posted:Sure. What happens if she doesn't want to abide by that ban? Then either she's forced to withdraw from all society except for her local religious community and avoid places where she might be challenged for wearing the veil, which plays right into the hands of sexists trying to keep women out of society...or she goes out into the world, gets arrested for wearing a veil, and either she gets sent home with a strict order to not come outside again until she stops wearing a particular style of clothing, or she gets a piece of clothing forcibly removed by a complete stranger. Boy, that isn't sexist at all! This is part of the point - such an arrangement is not sustainable in the long term, and the point of failure is more likely to be on the religious side (women choosing/being allowed to temporarily forgo the face-concealing veil) than on the secular side (the law being ignored or not enforced). If the community's insane standards of 'modesty' contribute to keeping a woman from even being able to leave the house, said woman is more incentivized to make a clean break with those standards and settle for "only" wearing clothing that covers every inch of skin outside the face. The other issue is that wearing a garment like the veil that makes an extreme ideological statement of anti-individualism, anti-modernism and anti-sex-equality can constitute an act of oppression against those in the public space, especially when it becomes the norm in certain neighborhoods or institutions. Yes, this same argument could theoretically be made against high heels or miniskirts. The implicit ideological statement those garments make (appearance is part of a woman's value, or something to that effect) are not nearly as corrosive to enlightened society as a fully dehumanizing niqab. Did anybody on the pro-modesty side ever respond to that Levinas quote? I thought it was on the money.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:14
|
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:Ah, the male gaze will find anything. Ankles, features still too noticeable under the niqab, whatever. The niqab is no protection from molestation or rape, either. I think using the male gaze as a standard for fashion is a mistake. The primary purpose of a garment like the niqab is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of arranged marriage.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:15
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I say it is, and you say it isn't; I don't think we're going to bridge that gap. But clothing that fetishizes the body can have the effect of projecting women as little more than a body. I am choosing to express this phenomenon as "anonymizing," because the male gaze has no interest in the personality, only the body. Obviously it doesn't cover your face; literal-minded people will get high-centered on this. Every post you make is a serpentine river of lies and dishonest posturing
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Sure. What happens if she doesn't want to abide by that ban? Then either she's forced to withdraw from all society except for her local religious community and avoid places where she might be challenged for wearing the veil, which plays right into the hands of sexists trying to keep women out of society...or she goes out into the world, gets arrested for wearing a veil, and either she gets sent home with a strict order to not come outside again until she stops wearing a particular style of clothing, or she gets a piece of clothing forcibly removed by a complete stranger. Boy, that isn't sexist at all! In France it is a fine, not jail time, not strict sanction. relax. An it is near impossible for women to be secluded or kept inside due to a burka ban. Misogynist men hate grocery shopping.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
IMO everyone, men and women, should have to wear government-issued jumpsuits or other suitable working class attire at all times, also eat in communal kitches, sleep in barracks and sing the Internationale every morning at dawn
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:IMO everyone, men and women, should have to wear government-issued jumpsuits or other suitable working class attire at all times, also eat in communal kitches, sleep in barracks and sing the Internationale every morning at dawn this is unironically my position except that also there shouldn't be men anymore
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:28
|
|
|
Ernie Muppari posted:this is unironically my position except that also there shouldn't be men anymore and the government-issued jumpsuit is a niqab
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:30
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:IMO everyone, men and women, should have to wear government-issued jumpsuits or other suitable working class attire at all times, also eat in communal kitches, sleep in barracks and sing the Internationale every morning at dawn Ok yeah that sounds good.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The primary purpose of a garment like the niqab is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of arranged marriage. Do elaborate.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:and the government-issued jumpsuit no it's an all purpose silver jumpsuit with built in sealable adverse atmospheric conditions hood and shoulder rings ... but you should know this already 
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The bolded part is pretty much 100% a good thing. You're right, the state alienating marginalized immigrants and minorities from their community is definitely a good way to help them smoothly integrate into that state.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
I would agree about elements of rape culture being ingrained but somehow I don't want to agree with the guy who seems kinda racist until they clarify if they actually are or not. I'm not going to be fooled again you can't make me wear that swastika, mom
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Badger of Basra posted:You're right, the state alienating marginalized immigrants and minorities from their community is definitely a good way to help them smoothly integrate into that state. If there's something that the rise of Daesh has shown it's that isolating and alienating Muslims never ever backfires.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Sethex posted:Let us rejoice, we can take comfort that 'maybe' over a long span of time this cultural practice will be naturally eradicated. Yes, truly the intolerant but progressive society is the one that persecutes women for wearing a burqa in public while doing nothing to counter the misogynist reasoning she could potentially be wearing it for. And thank goodness it can tell the difference between women who choose to wear it and those who are forced to by patriarchal households. We are truly the enlightened.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
Tesseraction posted:If there's something that the rise of Daesh has shown it's that isolating and alienating Muslims never ever backfires. I'll send a memo to the European head of states, then. "Do not let your foreign masters create death squads who will routinely slaughter everyone in Muslim towns". Because you never know, gangs of Mormon militiamen backed by the USA might arrive one day and commit massacres in the banlieues!
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:05
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'll send a memo to the European head of states, then. "Do not let your foreign masters create death squads who will routinely slaughter everyone in Muslim towns". Because you never know, gangs of Mormon militiamen backed by the USA might arrive one day and commit massacres in the banlieues! Personally, I'm looking forward to liberating the few remaing European Muslims from the death camps and bayoneting all the stay-behind guerrillas I can find.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:I'll send a memo to the European head of states, then. "Do not let your foreign masters create death squads who will routinely slaughter everyone in Muslim towns". Because you never know, gangs of Mormon militiamen backed by the USA might arrive one day and commit massacres in the banlieues! Please do not mock the death of Joseph Smith for he selflessly granted enlightenment to mankind.
|
|
#
?
Sep 15, 2015 23:10
|
|
 Muslims are the greatest threat to the liberal state.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:02
|
|
|
German fascists are pathetic amateurs. All they could hope to achieve is hurt a bit someone's fingers. If they were real men, they wouldn't fool around with such cowardly pettiness, they'd enter a halal shop and shoot people inside.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The bolded part is pretty much 100% a good thing. In what way is that a good thing? quote:This is part of the point - such an arrangement is not sustainable in the long term, and the point of failure is more likely to be on the religious side (women choosing/being allowed to temporarily forgo the face-concealing veil) than on the secular side (the law being ignored or not enforced). If the community's insane standards of 'modesty' contribute to keeping a woman from even being able to leave the house, said woman is more incentivized to make a clean break with those standards and settle for "only" wearing clothing that covers every inch of skin outside the face. I agree that it is not sustainable, but not for the reason you think. We have a nice experiment of this sort of policy in Turkey: years of official sanctions against the hijab (much less the niqab) have cemented Muslim conservatism in rural areas, leading to the resurgence of Islamism in times of economic weakness of the ruling secular-military state, and now to an approaching theocratic dictatorship. All of this could have been easily averted by allowing women to serve in office and pursue studies regardless of what they wear, thus making sure that they all have access to the information you yourself contend that their oppressors do not want them to have access to. Basically, if you are unable to explain the rise of Islamism in Turkey, a state which has implemented all the policies you claim would eradicate radical Islam, you need to shut the hell up and never post about the subject again.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:The primary purpose of a garment like the niqab is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of arranged marriage. The primary purpose of a garment like high-heeled shoes is to enable and justify rape, whether by impulsive male action or as part of a ZZ Top video.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
Miltank posted:But you take the helmet off when walking around and interacting with people so its not a very good analogy is it? Depends what I'm doing. Occasionally not. You'd be surprised how little people care. But... quote:E: pretty sure my manager would ask you to take your helmet off if you wore it into the shop, but nobody has ever been rude enough to try it. ...this is totally fair enough. Don't assume I think wearing a face covering should be a protected right any more than wearing a motorcycle helmet. It is perfectly legal (at least where I live) to walk around in public with a bike helmet on, and it should be the same for religious face coverings. But I do not expect bank tellers and airport security to be fine with me refusing to take off my bike helmet. That's insane. If a bank doesn't want to serve you unless you show your face, either get over it and show your face or find another bank. My point is that in day-to-day life, just walking around on the street, nobody should give a poo poo what anybody else is wearing. Nobody gives too big of a gently caress if my face is covered by a helmet, so why should I care if someone's wearing a niqab? It doesn't piss me off that people walk around in niqabs on the street, because it's none of my loving business what other people wear, and there's no non-bigoted line of reasoning for a general ban on niqabs, burqas, hijabs etc. that can't also be extended to full-face bike helmets. But that also cuts both ways. There's no argument for making an exception to an otherwise-accepted requirement to expose your face that doesn't privilege religious beliefs over general preferences that shouldn't also be extended to secular face coverings. "Because my religion/culture arbitrarily demands it of me" is not a better reason for non-compliance with an established norm than "because I just wanna." Too often is consistency in the application of a rule deemed bigotry by people who want their personal or cultural narrative elevated above others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:26
|
|
|
Honestly though your avatar had the right idea: everybody naked all the time. Problem solved
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 03:51
|
|
|
Yeah security. That's why we want women to take off burkas, all of a sudden. You never know when the five foot tall woman in a burka is going to whip out a jambiya and go "alalalala" in the supermarket aisle, just stabbing. Then slip away, unidentified. Heck it could be al-Baghdadi under there.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Heck it could be al-Baghdadi under there. But isn't that an unironically valid point? It's not exactly unheard of for people with malicious intentions to disguise themselves to evade detection. I mean, don't you think there are good reasons to make someone wearing a balaclava or a full-face bike helmet take it off before being allowed through airport security? If yes (I assume yes), why should those reasons not apply to religious face coverings?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:56
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah security. That's why we want women to take off burkas, all of a sudden. You never know when the five foot tall woman in a burka is going to whip out a jambiya and go "alalalala" in the supermarket aisle, just stabbing. Then slip away, unidentified. Heck it could be al-Baghdadi under there. 
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 05:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 09:42 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:But isn't that an unironically valid point? It's not exactly unheard of for people with malicious intentions to disguise themselves to evade detection. I mean, don't you think there are good reasons to make someone wearing a balaclava or a full-face bike helmet take it off before being allowed through airport security? If yes (I assume yes), why should those reasons not apply to religious face coverings? Because that's not why people want to prevent women from choosing to wear it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:09
|
|