|
SedanChair posted:Because that's not why people want to prevent women from choosing to wear it. Well I agree with everything after the 'because', but it's not an answer to my question. As far as I can see, anybody arguing that people shouldn't be allowed to wear niqabs, burqas etc. either generally or full stop must necessarily either object to it on irrational grounds (which in this case are almost always going to be bigoted), or else must be willing to say 'and nobody can wear a full face helmet or a balaclava either', which is pretty extreme and silly. But none of that has anything to do with my thesis, which is that all face-coverings, religious or not, should be treated equally. Nobody should be prevented from wearing a niqab on the street, just as I should not be (and am not) prevented from walking around town in full leathers and a helmet. There can be no sound objection to the religious face-covering that does not apply equally logically to my helmet. But there can similarly be no sound objection to the requirement to remove my helmet that does not also apply to the removal of religious face-coverings, ceteris paribus. My argument is that the rules governing one must logically also govern the other. Security is not the reason why people who want to ban niqabs and burqas want to ban niqabs and burqas. But security is a valid reason why people might be asked to remove niqabs and burqas in airports and banks, just as they might similarly be asked to remove full face bike helmets, hockey masks, or balaclavas. So, I'll repeat my simple two-part question: Do you think it is reasonable in some circumstances for me to be refused service if I do not comply with a request to remove my motorcycle helmet so that I may be visually identified by my face? If so (and I assume so), do you not also grant that it is equally valid to refuse someone service if they do not comply with a request to remove their religious face covering so that they may be visually identified by their face? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 08:32 on Sep 16, 2015 |
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 08:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
This happened in the UAE, im not defending the burqa or anything because frankly the garment itself predates islam and the only mention of veils is in hadith, the qur'an mentions a Khimar which technically is the same except transparent and only in the specific case of a man (guest or stranger) meeting a woman (i think its married women) in their home. for background on the picture its a random killing by a self radicalised woman, in this case it did serve a problem for police to initially identify the woman but they did eventually catch her, they havent banned burqas because of it though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 09:35
|
|
|
[edit: It was wrong of me to address this post by unspoken implication to Fizzil. I stand by its content, but apologise for having assumed a position I didn't have enough evidence to believe they held.] God, how I hate that trite observation: "The Quran doesn't actually say women have to wear a veil. All the various head and face coverings are merely cultural artefacts, not Islamic ones." Yes, cultural artefacts that women wear because their religion requires them to. The Quran very clearly commands women to cover themselves so as not to tempt the passions of men (Surah 24:31 is probably the best known and clearest example of this misogynistic idiocy). Though there is extensive scholarly debate as to exactly how much covering-up is required, the idea that Islam does not itself demand physical modesty of Muslim women is specious crap. Specious crap, I might add, most commonly propagated by people who don't know the drat difference between a burqa and a niqab, nor the negligible likelihood of finding the former anywhere in the UAE. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 12:49 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 10:36
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:God, how I hate that trite observation: "The Quran doesn't actually say women have to wear a veil. All the various head and face coverings are merely cultural artefacts, not Islamic ones." Yes, cultural artefacts that women wear because their religion requires them to. Thats the surah that mentions the khimar which is what all this dancing around is about, im not disagreeing with you in essence though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:09
|
|
|
IMO, a modest woman should dress in a way that does not attract undue attention. Dressing in an exotic, foreign way, regardless of the amount of skin shown or hidden, is a way to stand out from the crowd, and therefore is intrinsically immodest. A pious and virtuous Muslim woman should therefore obey the spirit of her religion and go about bare-headed in countries where women generally go about bare-headed.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:31
|
|
|
IMO, a modest woman should wear a suit of full plate armor and split anyone ogling her in half with a battleaxe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:34
|
|
|
The Larch posted:IMO, a modest woman should wear a suit of full plate armor and split anyone ogling her in half with a battleaxe. Leave my fetish out of this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
That doesn't work either: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-31851830
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
An interesting opinion certainly, but I'm afraid splitting people in half is usually illegal in most countries, even as self-defense against ogling.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 11:39
|
|
|
Kopijeger posted:That doesn't work either: Lacking the double-bitted Battleaxe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 12:27
|
|
|
Cat Mattress posted:IMO, a modest woman should dress in a way that does not attract undue attention. Dressing in an exotic, foreign way, regardless of the amount of skin shown or hidden, is a way to stand out from the crowd, and therefore is intrinsically immodest. This is incredibly cute. Is it your own joke, or did you crib it from someone else (as I no doubt will from you)? Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 12:48 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 12:28
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted: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. Two problems with that. First of all, it's not unsustainable. Highly religious people tend to concentrate in specific places, so there are tons of tight-knit religious communities where outsiders are unwelcome and nobody ever calls the police, so it doesn't mean she can never go outside, it just means she can't leave the tight-knit highly religious community. She's still able to go visit her neighbors and attend religious services and maybe even visit establishments that are deeply part of the community like that religious restaurant the next block over. There are places - even in the US - where people call the unofficial community religious vigilante group instead of the police. She's just unable to go to secular stores, restaurants, schools, or anything else secular. It just contributes to the insularity of the community and prevents her from getting even a glimpse of secular life and society. Second, and far more importantly: what if she wants to wear it? I know you're all about denying women agency, but as unbelievable as it might be, there are cases of women willingly choosing to wear a niqab, of their own free will, without any compulsion or oppression from the men around them. In that case, it's not "the community" that's keeping them cooped up inside, it's secular society, which has made it clear that she is not welcome and expressly excluded her from all of society based on her choice of dress. This forces women into the insular, tight-knit religious communities I described in the previous paragraph, which can only lead to them being further radicalized. 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? Why? They're going through a metal detector, a see-through-clothes machine, a full-body frisking, and then since they're obviously Muslim they'll be randomly selected to be brought off into a side room and interrogated by several TSA officers for forty-five minutes, while their papers are closely scrutinized and their luggage is thoroughly inspected by hand, eye, and X-ray. And then they'll probably be full-body frisked again, just for the hell of it. I wouldn't be surprised if TSA demanded the removal of a niqab anyway since the screening process includes absolutely no trace of respect and dignity for human beings, but I don't see how, after an hour of relentless security screening, anyone's going to expect to find a previously-undiscovered bomb behind that mask.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:So, I'll repeat my simple two-part question: I don't care and the question is irrelevant. quote:If so (and I assume so), do you not also grant that it is equally valid to refuse someone service if they do not comply with a request to remove their religious face covering so that they may be visually identified by their face? No and it's freakish and creepy that you think you get to demand to see women's faces.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:36
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:
The rationale isn't that people want everyone to dress the same, it is that the women who must dress like this are confined to a social structural of severe gender inequality. An the cost those women pay and the young girls who grow up with the niqab normalized is far greater than a women who wants to suit up like a ninja.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't care and the question is irrelevant. TIL face an tits are in the same category as far as sedanchair is concerned.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
Non-sexual female body parts when viewed in a non-sexualised fashion?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
Sethex posted:TIL face an tits are in the same category as far as sedanchair is concerned. You don't have a right to see any of it, understand?
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
BUT WHAT IF IT'S BIN LADEN UNDER THERE??
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
If your tits are shaped like Bin Laden, you should definitely cover them up imo. Not body-shaming, just saying you might want to see a doctor.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
Nothing wrong with a good ol' tittybeard.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You don't have a right to see any of it, understand? what the gently caress
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The rationale isn't that people want everyone to dress the same, it is that the women who must dress like this are confined to a social structural of severe gender inequality. An the cost those women pay and the young girls who grow up with the niqab normalized is far greater than a women who wants to suit up like a ninja. Legally banning the burqa/niqab is dealing with a symptom of normalised misogyny and not the cause.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I always enjoy reading someone insisting on a fundamental difference between exposing the face and the breasts, because it reminds me of an African woman who was amazed to learn that white people were obsessed with breasts like babies are.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Not to mention the papuan tribes who see full frontal nudity as the norm and would be aghast at your exposed penis only because it isn't properly inverted.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I don't care and the question is irrelevant. That's basically fair enough. I mean, this did all arise because someone suggested my analogising the way religious face coverings should be treated by the law and social convention to the way both those things already treat full-face bike helmets. You're free not to answer the question, of course, but ... quote:No and it's freakish and creepy that you think you get to demand to see women's faces. ... it's intellectually dishonest and more than a little bit unkind to reject the premise of the first question, then give this as an answer to the second. Just to be clear, you don't think it's equally freakish and creepy that banks and airport security think they get to demand to see your face, or mine? Is that the position you're committing to? That if, for instance, a woman walked into an airport with a balaclava on and tried to get to through airport security, it would be justifiable for her to be told that she has to remove her face covering before she's allowed through to board her plane, but totally wrong if she was wearing niqab? I'm not demanding to see anybody's anything, by the way. I have no valid reason to require someone to remove their face covering in the course of my daily life, and I doubt I'll ever have one. I have no problem at all with people having their faces covered generally speaking, and my whole point here is that the reason why you're covering your face should really have no bearing on anything. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 16:57 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You don't have a right to see any of it, understand? I don't have a right to tell you to either expose your face so you'll be identifiable or else to not enter my bank because I am not going to risk being robbed by someone hiding themselves/get into an embassy or consulate because I can't confirm your identity? I would say that I absolutely would under those circumstances, which is what Smudgie Buggler is talking about, instead of the perversion you're ascribing to them. Effectronica posted:I always enjoy reading someone insisting on a fundamental difference between exposing the face and the breasts, because it reminds me of an African woman who was amazed to learn that white people were obsessed with breasts like babies are. One of them is a much more strictly identifiable part of your body which is generally used to express a vast variety of emotion and nuance. I'll leave the question of which one that is as an exercise to the reader.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
Bourgeois westerners so privileged that they DEMAND to see a women's face without being married to her or her blood kin.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
Sethex posted:The rationale isn't that people want everyone to dress the same, it is that the women who must dress like this are confined to a social structural of severe gender inequality. An the cost those women pay and the young girls who grow up with the niqab normalized is far greater than a women who wants to suit up like a ninja. What about the women who willingly dress like that, because they want to, with no coercion whatsoever? If you want to combat abuse of women, then combat it directly, don't just randomly ban elements of cultures you consider to be sexist and then pretend that helps anything.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:I always enjoy reading someone insisting on a fundamental difference between exposing the face and the breasts, because it reminds me of an African woman who was amazed to learn that white people were obsessed with breasts like babies are. Lmbo "There is no fundamental difference between a woman's face and her breasts."
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:I don't have a right to tell you to either expose your face so you'll be identifiable or else to not enter my bank because I am not going to risk being robbed by someone hiding themselves/get into an embassy or consulate because I can't confirm your identity? I would say that I absolutely would under those circumstances, which is what Smudgie Buggler is talking about, instead of the perversion you're ascribing to them. Is this what they call being willfully dense?
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:Why? They're going through a metal detector, a see-through-clothes machine, a full-body frisking, and then since they're obviously Muslim they'll be randomly selected to be brought off into a side room and interrogated by several TSA officers for forty-five minutes, while their papers are closely scrutinized and their luggage is thoroughly inspected by hand, eye, and X-ray. And then they'll probably be full-body frisked again, just for the hell of it. I wouldn't be surprised if TSA demanded the removal of a niqab anyway since the screening process includes absolutely no trace of respect and dignity for human beings, but I don't see how, after an hour of relentless security screening, anyone's going to expect to find a previously-undiscovered bomb behind that mask. Wait, sorry, what? That bolded thing isn't seriously real, is it? If it is, please forgive my ignorance of American invasiveness. That is astonishing and ludicrous beyond belief. The point is not that there might be a bomb under the face covering, and you know that perfectly well. The point is that there are situations in which it is ordinarily deemed necessary for everybody in that situation to be facially identifiable. But that little piece of disingenuousness doesn't seem very important here. Overall, this seems like an argument against anybody having to remove their face covering under any circumstances, because even rigorous security procedures never genuinely require it. That position seems defensible in principle, but I assumed very few people would actually hold it. Regardless, it doesn't seem to make any argument to the effect that niqabs and other religious face coverings should be treated differently to bike helmets and balaclavas.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
I mean, admittedly, exposing one's face at the Superbowl won't ignite a wildfire of indignation across the bible belt, but doing the same at a Saudi sporting event might cause some poo poo. Different cultures have different ideas concerning immodesty, all of which are socially constructed. Ideally, one part of the body should not be treated as inherently more or less shameful than any other.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Is this what they call being willfully dense? It depends on whether you're doing it on purpose or just can't help it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Miltank posted:Lmbo "There is no fundamental difference between a woman's face and her breasts." There isn't. At least, not in any relevant sense. Effectronica posted:I always enjoy reading someone insisting on a fundamental difference between exposing the face and the breasts, because it reminds me of an African woman who was amazed to learn that white people were obsessed with breasts like babies are. You're 100% right in that there is no fundamental difference between breasts and faces (or arms, or balls, or any of the rest of it). The way we think and feel about each do not reflect features of the object-class, but features of ourselves. The thing is, though, that those features of ourselves still matter. If and only if humans thought and constructed their societies differently such there were as much instrumental value in relation to public safety via personal identification in exposure of the chest as there is in exposure of the face would the argument to which you're alluding hold any water. SedanChair posted:You don't have a right to see any of it, understand? I personally don't, and neither does anybody else in this thread. But I think we have pretty good reasons for affording the situationally bounded right to see at least some of it to certain people whose relevant function is related to public safety. Smudgie Buggler fucked around with this message at 17:08 on Sep 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:01
|
|
Absurd Alhazred posted:It depends on whether you're doing it on purpose or just can't help it. If you're going to argue that limiting expressiveness is what makes covering the face unreasonable but covering the breasts reasonable (or less reasonable and more reasonable), then you're entering into interesting territory. If you're just being a condescending puke, though, there's no point.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Wait, sorry, what? That bolded thing isn't seriously real, is it? If it is, please forgive my ignorance of American invasiveness. That is astonishing and ludicrous beyond belief. Yup, it's real. Thank 9/11 and the paranoid Bush administration for that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:If you're going to argue that limiting expressiveness is what makes covering the face unreasonable but covering the breasts reasonable (or less reasonable and more reasonable), then you're entering into interesting territory. If you're just being a condescending puke, though, there's no point. You would save yourself a lot of trouble and everyone else a lot of grief if you didn't start by trying to suss out the underlying, probably sinister motive of everyone arguing against you. You're looking at it backwards, anyway. The question is whether asking someone to expose their face or expose their breasts is equally reasonable, to which I say, for the reasons I already mentioned, no, these aren't identical, regardless of whether or not it is standard for women to have their breasts exposed in the society of which we speak.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:There isn't. At least, not in any relevant sense. There is. A face is a massive aid to communication.
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:24
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 5, 2024 06:32 |
|
|
Smudgie Buggler posted:Wait, sorry, what? That bolded thing isn't seriously real, is it? If it is, please forgive my ignorance of American invasiveness. That is astonishing and ludicrous beyond belief. Yep, work like this: (mildly NSFW I guess) 
|
|
#
?
Sep 16, 2015 17:26
|
|