|
Yinlock posted:Okay then how are they at all comparable? You're talking in circles. There are no circles here and I don't think I could be any clearer than I already have been. quote:both practices were deeply culturally ingrained, caused harm to women, are defended by those who practice it and women are often willing participants. EDIT: Are you getting caught up on the concept that there are types of harm that aren't physical?
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 09:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
Chomskyan posted:Maybe women should be allowed to wear what they want No... no I don't think they should  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Perhaps a better way of going about it would be banning people being forced to wear them, as opposed to banning people from choosing to wear them? Believe it or not, some people do choose to wear them on their own volition. Perhaps but I don't think it's possible to enforce. Domestic violence is against the law but it still happens, no woman is going to walk around admitting "I'm forced to wear this" then go home and feel safe. It's wear it or face the consequences, very difficult to enforce
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
That's why you need the burka hotline and a safe house they can go to after calling it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 10:26
|
|
|
I'd like to know the percentage of violent militant extremist Muslims that are women vs. men. I don't believe the answer would prove anything other than that laws banning scarves are loving stupid. The only place I see as an even a remotely plausible argument for the regulation of clothing is in the workplace, where an employer would have the discretion to require employees to dress in such a way that does not negatively affect business. That works in a variety of contexts - juggalos, furries, excessive facial tattoos, undershirts, worn/filthy clothing, etc., but not so much in the context of a headscarf on one extreme or short skirts/slightly sexually provocative clothing on the other. In the end, it's all stupid, and as a human race we should be able to tolerate everything from full-on nudity to total concealment behind cinderblocks. If we have to deal with Guy Fieri's hair, we can deal with a loving scarf.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Why is people outside of Europe acting like flamboyant gays an act of cultural appropriation (which is a terrible concept and you should be ashamed for seriously referring to it)? I did not suggest either of these things, and I think you either misunderstood what I said or misrepresented it if you think either of these is any part of my argument.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 14:45
|
|
|
Mel Mudkiper posted:From their perspective it is about creating an environment as hospitable to secular ideas of women's rights as possible. The theory is that by banning hijab and burqa you are creating an environment in which women are not under social pressure from the men in their culture to cover themselves because it is, in fact, a legal impossibility. Therefore, by making it legally impermissible to cover themselves, they will force immigrant cultures to adapt to their cultural mandate on femininity. Basically they think they can drag conservative Muslim views on female sexuality into the 21st century kicking and screaming. There's an even worse effect: it drives people underground. If devout believers who strongly believe in wearing burqas aren't allowed to wear burqas in public, then instead of not wearing a burqa so they can go out in public, they might stop going outside and confine themselves to their home so they can continue to wear a burqa. This is also likely to apply to those who are being forced to wear burqas, therefore actually increasing their oppression. There's also the question of why these laws aren't applied to other cultural minorities with similar-ish customs. For example, although it doesn't have a specific garment comparable to the burqa or hijab, Orthodox Judaism imposes fairly similar requirements and restrictions on women in the name of "modesty". But when was the last time you heard a self-proclaimed women's rights crusader outside of Israel or New York complaining about oppression of women in ultra-Orthodox communities?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
The burka help phone will also help oppressed Jews. Hell, it wont even ask why you are oppressed it will just help. What a novel idea.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:I know who the black panthers are and I don't think that creating an armed paramilitary organisation in a previously mostly unarmed society is a good way to approach this issue. But then maybe I only say that cos I'm Irish. As an Irishman, I'd think you'd respect the necessity of force against (neo) colonialist powers.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
Are American women liberated enough? I see so many dresses, don't they know they're free to wear pants? By God, they're complicit in their own oppression, think of the progress we'd make if we force them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Imagine if aliens came down and introduced us to the galactic society and then humans immigrated to other planets and those planets had social values that said women are being pressured into shaving their legs by our unenlightened society so they make it illegal for women to have shaved legs in public
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:44
|
|
|
I don't believe in forcing women to cover themselves from head to toe because of religious rules and poo poo, but equally I don't believe in preventing women from wearing them if they choose to. ID photographs are an exception. Gotta show your face for those, sorry.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 15:53
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:Imagine if aliens came down and introduced us to the galactic society and then humans immigrated to other planets and those planets had social values that said women are being pressured into shaving their legs by our unenlightened society so they make it illegal for women to have shaved legs in public hmmm i'm not sure whether i'm supposed to get angry and agree or get angry and disagree with intergalactic leg shaving bans but honestly i don't care either way
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 16:28
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
ALL-PRO SEXMAN posted:I don't believe in forcing women to cover themselves from head to toe because of religious rules and poo poo, but equally I don't believe in preventing women from wearing them if they choose to. I don't think they have a problem with that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
Ravens Ruse posted:Perhaps but I don't think it's possible to enforce. Domestic violence is against the law but it still happens, no woman is going to walk around admitting "I'm forced to wear this" then go home and feel safe. It's wear it or face the consequences, very difficult to enforce The alternative (ie: the ban) is also impossible to enforce. As others have pointed out, it just drives wearing burqas underground, increases the siege mentality of the fundamentalists, and in the meantime discriminates against a lot of people who aren't causing French society any harm.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 18:03
|
|
|
So in a very real sense, what people wear is already controlled (I mean you can't walk outside naked), so 'let people wear what they want' is a bullshit cop-out, you have to engage in what is a valid or invalid reason to restrain people's rights. I'm going to come strong out the gates and then fizzle by saying that the philosophy that usually presented with the burqa ban is justified, by the ban is not. It is absolutely okay to 'enforce' things like tolerance and secularism, even if that sounds kind of contradictory, because it's not actually contradictory. There have always been limits on rights, those limits on rights are there to protect other people, such protection can extend into theoretical threats. If it's necessary to enforce secularism to protect it, instead of letting it get chipped away, then it's okay to do that. If you're not willing to do that, if you're not willing to be intolerant of intolerance, you will lose what little of a tolerant environment you have, to people who have no ethical qualms of enforcing their values on you. That's just politics. So it's okay to ban massively sexist things, because you're setting a boundary, you're saying this isn't tolerated, and that canhelp everyone in the long run. The problem with burqa bans, as I see them, are 3-fold:
rudatron fucked around with this message at 19:07 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
I do not mind religious clothing in general - but I do believe that anyone in public spaces, schools and such should be identifiable by face at the very minimum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Were I live It's been illegal to be masked in public meetings, events or other arrangements since long before immigration or Islam became an issue. That should cover niqab. I like to see faces, and think it's ok to have limits on what's accepted in public. Hijab is fine. Edit: mistook burka for hijab, women's garments, a mystery sofokles fucked around with this message at 23:12 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
rudatron posted:If it's necessary to enforce secularism to protect it, instead of letting it get chipped away, then it's okay to do that. e: Nevermind, I didn't see your edit. Majorian fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Aug 19, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
sofokles posted:Were I live It's been illegal to be masked in public meetings, events or other arrangements since long before immigration or Islam became an issue. I think you mean hijab is fine?
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:I think you mean hijab is fine? Think you are right, thx
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
Women should wear whatever they want if it's of their own free choice. If they're intimidated into it it's not cool. If it's forced on them by law it's not cool. If you compare this with people having dress codes you're a pedantic idiot missing the point, which is the burqa being forced on women by psychotic fascist regimes. Well, that's my hot take. Thanks for listening.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:14
|
|
|
rudatron posted:So in a very real sense, what people wear is already controlled (I mean you can't walk outside naked), so 'let people wear what they want' is a bullshit cop-out, you have to engage in what is a valid or invalid reason to restrain people's rights. I'm going to come strong out the gates and then fizzle by saying that the philosophy that usually presented with the burqa ban is justified, by the ban is not. the criterion in the US for constitutionality of laws restricting basic individual rights is strict scrutiny, defined as follows: quote:U.S. courts apply the strict scrutiny standard in two contexts: when a fundamental constitutional right is infringed,[1] particularly those found in the Bill of Rights and those the court has deemed a fundamental right protected by the Due Process Clause or "liberty clause" of the 14th Amendment, or when a government action applies to a "suspect classification," such as race or national origin. there is no compelling societal/governmental interest in keeping the Muzzies from wearing their native dress in public
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
In the house, whatever you like. Outside? No; your face must be visible because you are part of a society. I really think it really is as simple as this. All the frills around it, objectification, cultural norm, religious right, forced / not forced etc etc is just mental gymnastic. A covered face is implicitly a threat and a disrespectful action that rejects others. At least it's how this Guido sees it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:22
|
|
|
AMLOVINIT posted:All the frills around it, objectification, cultural norm, religious right, forced / not forced etc etc is just mental gymnastic. A covered face is implicitly a threat and a disrespectful action that rejects others. wow you must hate people on motorcycles huh
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:39
|
|
|
botany posted:wow you must hate people on motorcycles huh And beards.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:44
|
|
|
botany posted:wow you must hate people on motorcycles huh Yes, really, a burqa is exactly the same thing as a motorcycle helmet and a beard. Good stuff man.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
AMLOVINIT posted:Yes, really, a burqa is exactly the same thing as a motorcycle helmet and a beard. Good stuff man. so you actually don't hate obscured faces, only when it's a burka. hmmmmmmmm
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's also the question of why these laws aren't applied to other cultural minorities with similar-ish customs. For example, although it doesn't have a specific garment comparable to the burqa or hijab, Orthodox Judaism imposes fairly similar requirements and restrictions on women in the name of "modesty". But when was the last time you heard a self-proclaimed women's rights crusader outside of Israel or New York complaining about oppression of women in ultra-Orthodox communities? I complain about those nutty communities, and Christian ones too, whenever I have the chance. Extremist interpretations of any religion tend to be lovely. On the other hand, I believe that we can't claim to be protecting women's rights while telling women how to dress and behave. Thus, I think the burqa/niqab should be allowed except where it's necessary to see someone's face for security reasons or such. I don't like it, and we should prosecute anyone who forces someone to wear that (or any other thing they don't want to wear), but ultimately it's not my place or the government's place to say they can't wear it. EDIT: And, yeah, if I saw someone simply walking around in a full-face motorcycle helmet, with no motorcycle in sight, I'd find that pretty odd too (much more odd, I'd say, than a woman wearing a niqab or burqa, which I see a few times per month). They're probably up to something.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 13:55
|
|
|
One thing I find strange in this thread is the concept of "free society". I don't know what that means, but it doesn't fit Western European social democracies. Social democracy demands conformity in exchange for subsidization of life, and in a social democracy everyone gets something from the state. The social pressure to live within unstated but clear limits is stronger the stronger the social democracy is. Typically things that are frowned upon need not be legislated against, as social pressure is enough to push most adults back in line (children usually get a little more leeway). One example from the past is punk in the seventies: pushback from society was severe. In West punks could perform openly, in East Germany the movement was repressed by state and forced underground. Arguably you could look at this as a case study for what happens. To make a counterpoint, Nazism has been banned in Germany. Open symbols of fascism such as swastikas are suppressed even in relatively harmless context such as anti-fascist movies or video games. German police has specialists who keep up with neo-Nazi codes such as 14 and 88. France suppresses open displays of religion. Finland has investigated for almost a year a man who went into a public demonstration dressed in a Ku Klux Klan robe and hat. Social democracy is an "one size fits all" ideology. It can be very repressive and violent against perceived outsiders. On the other hand it has been one of the only systems which can consistently build and defend strong beneficial social institutions such as education and health care. I believe it's a trade-off. You can't have one without the other. Incidentally the opening up of Europe has happened at the same time social democracy has been in a decline. Make of that what you will.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:17
|
|
|
botany posted:so you actually don't hate obscured faces, only when it's a burka. hmmmmmmmm ...and you're being maliciously disingenous. hmmmmmm If you can't see the difference either you're thick (and you're probably not) or (see above)
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:43
|
|
|
AMLOVINIT posted:...and you're being maliciously disingenous. hmmmmmm the point i'm making is that a burqa is not a veiled threat, and as evidenced by the fact that socialization does happen in countries where face veils are worn by women, it is not a rejection of society either. your argument sounds a lot like after-the-fact rationalization of your problem with burkas to me. i mean, i don't know you personally, but do you actually mean to tell me that when you see a woman in a burqa, you get nervous / scared? if so, scared of what?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 14:54
|
|
|
TomViolence posted:
Please. PLEASE. What a moronic and fatuous claim. I can understand charges of racism, but you're really trying to argue that this is all so liberals can feast their eyes on more women with their figures unobscured? And you accuse others of unfairly lumping another culture into one broad category. Sheesh. Mel Mudkiper posted:There is also a very real white savior complex where western liberals think they can somehow usher in the liberalization of Islam through external mandate I think this is much more likely. Not in all cases, no, but there is likely a real strain of this running strong. I will again agree that even if your goal is to dismantle Islam, this isn't the way to do it - you've gotta remember that in many cases the people following this dictate believe it came from God. Are they really going to kowtow to secular laws over divine ones? When those two come into conflict I think it's obvious which will win out. Mel Mudkiper posted:Part of the issue is that we imagine the motivation to wear burqa is entirely external. We like to think there are all these women who want to be free but their relatives keep them from it. This is a superficial understanding of cultural mandate. Part of the issue is that western culture has no method to deal with women who do not want to wear hijab or burqa but feel personal pressure to do so. We imagine the pressure is always external of the woman herself. The reality is, though, that many women pressure themselves to fit to these religious and cultural norms. Its not as easy as shutting down external forces because many Muslim women feel personal pressure to conform to their cultural expectations. Its not unique to Islam at all either. How many fundamentalist christian women internalize patriarchal mandates and hold themselves accountable to them? It's true that many Muslim women will say that wearing the [any of the above headwear] is their choice and that they feel far more liberated in it than not. I think a lot of people are concluding from this that for those women there really is no problem, since it's "their choice", but how true is that, really? How valid an argument is that? Not at all. Let's just imagine a case from our side of the cultural divide: the pressure on women to be skinny in the US. Plenty of women will say they feel amazing throwing up after meals or starving themselves, or that they feel legitimately bad about having love handles or some such thing. It's not that a specific man has forced them to go on a diet, they do it of their own volition. But the response to this phenomenon is generally one of trying to change that cultural norm; trying to stop women from feeling this way and get them to prefer having a bit fuller figure. No one seems to be arguing that anorexia is good as long as the woman really wants it. This is not to equate the burqa with anorexia, only to disprove the above mentioned line of reasoning. The salient point then becomes: is the wearing of these articles of clothing something more akin to a fashion choice, or more akin to a form of oppression, imposed largely by the men of that society? I don't have a hard and fast answer here, but if it's more toward the latter, then we in the west are right to oppose the burqa/hijab/whatever else, even when the women themselves are adamant that they prefer it. If it's the former, then we should leave well enough alone. Either way, simply passing a ban on wearing them at all isn't the fix. It just isn't. Something more along the lines of awareness campaigns and public service ads are likely the best way to go, just as with movements to change toxic cultural norms in the west. Hob_Gadling posted:To make a counterpoint, Nazism has been banned in Germany. See, I'm not sure this is so great either. Legally speaking, a person should be free to be a Nazi. They should be free to advertise to others that they're awful and ruin their own reputations because of it. I think telling Nazis, or any group, that their ideology is illegal will in many cases only make them cling to that ideology even more tenaciously. The right course of action is a cultural project, making it obvious what problems lie at the heart of [insert toxic ideology here] and making it fundamentally embarrassing to be caught holding those beliefs. Think of the attitude toward racism in the US over this past century. In the early 1900s, journalists considered the reporting of a town lynching to be a puff piece, given how regular and culturally innocuous it was. Now, an accusation of racism can end a career. No one outlawed being a racist (though it is illegal for your racism to materially impact other people), we just grew up a bit as a society.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
GAINING WEIGHT... posted:See, I'm not sure this is so great either. Legally speaking, a person should be free to be a Nazi. They should be free to advertise to others that they're awful and ruin their own reputations because of it. I think telling Nazis, or any group, that their ideology is illegal will in many cases only make them cling to that ideology even more tenaciously. The right course of action is a cultural project, making it obvious what problems lie at the heart of [insert toxic ideology here] and making it fundamentally embarrassing to be caught holding those beliefs. Think of the attitude toward racism in the US over this past century. In the early 1900s, journalists considered the reporting of a town lynching to be a puff piece, given how regular and culturally innocuous it was. Now, an accusation of racism can end a career. No one outlawed being a racist (though it is illegal for your racism to materially impact other people), we just grew up a bit as a society.  the US has 5% of the world's population, but 25% of the world's prison population. 12% of US citizens are black, 60% of prison inmates are not white. mandatory minimum sentencing laws are targeted at poor black communities, the US still has segregated schools, you are over 20 times more likely to be shot by a police officer if you are a black man vs a white man. that's some impressive "growing up". do you want to explain what the german equivalent is? all those systemic racist problems that apparently resulted from banning the hitler salute? edit: i feel like a 16 year old teenage girl right now because I can't even. "Now, an accusation of racism can end a career." did you somehow miss donald trump being the republican nominee??
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
AMLOVINIT posted:Yes, really, a burqa is exactly the same thing as a motorcycle helmet and a beard. Good stuff man. What about scarves or balaclavas? Surgical masks when it's flu season? Where, exactly, is the line that is being drawn and more importantly how is it possibly a threat to you in any way? GAINING WEIGHT... posted:but if it's more toward the latter, then we in the west are right to oppose the burqa/hijab/whatever else, even when the women themselves are adamant that they prefer it. Women are too stupid to know what's good for them, got it. Is that really the stance you want to be taking?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:45
|
|
|
Hob_Gadling posted:One thing I find strange in this thread is the concept of "free society". I don't know what that means, but it doesn't fit Western European social democracies. Social democracy demands conformity in exchange for subsidization of life, and in a social democracy everyone gets something from the state. The social pressure to live within unstated but clear limits is stronger the stronger the social democracy is. Typically things that are frowned upon need not be legislated against, as social pressure is enough to push most adults back in line (children usually get a little more leeway). This post is actually a very good criticism of the ideological foundation of European society. The problem is the unstated conclusion of "so that's why we need to keep the Arabs in line".
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:50
|
|
|
botany posted:so you actually don't hate obscured faces, only when it's a burka. hmmmmmmmm Are goons actually this dumb or just play like it?
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:there is no compelling societal/governmental interest in keeping the Muzzies from wearing their native dress in public You're right, but that's never stopped anyone from passing these laws. See HB2. AMLOVINIT posted:...and you're being maliciously disingenous. hmmmmmm No I actually agree with him. What is your point? Your issue with Burqas is that people see it as AMLOVINIT posted:implicitly a threat and a disrespectful action that rejects others. Why exactly is this different from wearing a motorcycle helmet and walking down the street? Or wearing a large beard and sunglasses to be equally obscured? Why do we put a law for burqas and not those other scenarios if this is how people interpret covered faces? botany posted:
It is. Dude we moved from slavery to dogwhistles in about a century. That's fantastic societal progress. No racism is not over, that's an absurd statement and not one that the other poster was making. And Donald Trump is an exception not the rule. And I will note that even he tries to say "I'm not racist my words were taken out of context by THE BIASED MEDIA" By the by, how is are his views working out for him? Your question is fair though, even if I do agree with the other poster's point. Seraphic Neoman fucked around with this message at 16:11 on Aug 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:04
|
|
|
tsa posted:Are goons actually this dumb or just play like it? There is very little reason to respond intelligently to an idea that has no intelligence put into it
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:02 |
|
|
SSNeoman posted:It is. Dude we moved from slavery to dogwhistles in about a century. That's fantastic societal progress. No racism is not over, that's an absurd statement and not one that the other poster was making. my point is that you moved as far as you did precisely because you started legislating the whole affair through the VRA etc., and even then texas recently had to be slapped around the courts for specifically targeting black voters to disenfranchise them. it is absurd to claim that it was a collective nobel liberal awakening that lead to the improvements when significant parts of the country are still kicking and screaming to break down the flimsy protections that guarantee racial minorities some small semblance of equality. again, the original claim was that it is somehow bad that germany banned nazi parties and their symbols, while the enlightened US did no such thing and simply "grew up". i'm pointing out that this is as absurd as it is historically inaccurate. as for trump, of course he is claiming not to be a racist. that's how the spiel goes, A claims B is racist, B claims they're not. and he may well be one of the most blatant high profile racists right now, but he is not in any way an exception. i'd wager the majority of republican elected officials have been accused of racism at some point, but i don't see many careers having been ended that way. generally that only happens to low level staff.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2016 16:24
|
|