|
So what the gently caress exactly is the justification given by Iran for burying women deeper and making it much harder for them to escape? Hammurabi fucked around with this message at 18:05 on Sep 11, 2015 |
#
¿
Sep 11, 2015 17:44
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
Listen, if I lived in France and I had to put up with an immigrant community that does poo poo like loving tournantes, I'd be a bit racist too. I mean, you know, more so. But in any case, poo poo like that, I'd say, is not an Islamic thing, but just North African culture being hideous garbage. Really, that generally seems to be the case. When you hear about terrible things happening, it seems to not really be because of the religion, as much as just some cultures being lovely, and some of those lovely cultures practicing the religion. When you get down to it, all three Abrahamic religions preach practically the same poo poo, and you drat sure never hear about Albanians or Lebanese or Emiratis stoning or raping anyone. At least I haven't. Hammurabi fucked around with this message at 00:42 on Sep 14, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
waaah i cant see ur face ur clothes are triggering me *cries*
|
|
#
¿
Sep 15, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t, defender of women's rights posted:Bitch how dare you go out in public dressed like that! Dress like I (a man) tell you or so help me you WILL be punished! Dude, seriously, that's what you sound like. I'm not even strawmanning, that is pretty much what you sound like. EDIT: On an unrelated note, what happened to that guy who was posting the surahs? Those posts were cool (or was this already asked?).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 04:01
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:If there were, say, a woman who worked at the local pre-school and made a point of wearing tee-shirt with "THE RIGHTFUL PLACE OF ALL WOMEN IS AS MALE PROPERTY", or "KILL HOMOSEXUALS" or something equivalent, I would be feel pretty justified in saying those exact words, minus the 'bitch' part. But the thing is, they don't. I really don't think it's the equivalent. Like, I've met and spoken to women who are completely independent and also wear niqabs. At worst -- at absolute worst -- it's no different than Amish or Haredi dress.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:As if "no different than Haredi dress" is a good thing? That poo poo is pretty awful too and I'd gladly see it officially discouraged and banned from certain institutions. The Amish, meanwhile, have no reputation for enforcing their dress code, especially not amongst visiting outsiders - and I'm fairly sure their women are not required to cover their faces under any circumstance. Oh, don't get me wrong, I completely agree with you about the Haredis. That's why I said "at worst", but I find that, generally speaking, when people talk about banning religious garments, they usually aren't talking about Haredi dress, and they drat sure never care about the Amish, and when people talk about repressive religious sects, they usually forget about them, in my experience. As for the Amish, they are also abominable and treat women like poo poo. And yet people adore the Amish and only ever consider everything about them to be charming and quaint. The closest Islamic equivalents of those types of groups would be awful backwards Wahhabi sects -- not just anyone who happens to be religious and probably conservative-leaning -- and most women who wear niqabs don't belong to any sect even remotely as bad. That's why I said "at absolute worst." Though, since I'm rambling and am not sure how to link my point to the rest of this, I'll just tack it on awkwardly at the end here: I'd still say that banning articles of clothing does nothing to solve the problems with religious repression of women, I also don't think all women with niqabs (or even most) are being repressed/oppressed/brainwashed/forced into it, and I take some issue with legally-enforced dress-codes for women no matter how secular the dress-codes are. Hammurabi fucked around with this message at 05:58 on Sep 17, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 05:55
|
|
|
The thing is is that, if niqabs are banned, then the ones who are being forced to wear them under threat of mutilation or death by their misogynistic family/husband/community would just be forbidden from leaving their homes. Such a ban would not improve things for them. If anything, it would make their lives worse, and it would make it much, much, much less likely that they would ever be able to improve their lives and escape their family/husband/community since they would be isolated completely from the rest of society.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2015 23:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 22, 2024 14:05 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Trapping someone in a house is more serious and is much easier to prove, so if they resort to that then the hammer comes down harder. Also, law should not be driven by slippery slope arguments. Eh, fair enough, though I'm not really sure how that's a slippery slope argument since that is legit a thing that apparently happens in France - well, restriction to home or neighborhood, the latter of which would be very difficult to prove. I guess a bigger thing is that, while it might possibly eventually have some sort of an effect, I don't think it would be effective enough to justify A) throwing those who wear it voluntarily (which would be most of them) under the bus, and B) giving fuel to the "West vs. Islam" narrative that radicals rely on. And that's not mentioning that, even if these few who force women to wear niqabs were made to stop, they would eventually probably just move onto some other forced modesty garment. Sinestro posted:
Eh, I dunno about that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2015 01:42
|
|
