Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.
Then why aren't they banning all clothing that obscures the face?
the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere.
Wow.
Just, wow.
Don't be a silly goose. You can quote the entire sentence or nothing at all.
"It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood, it will take several generations but having a face to display as a normal human being is the best shot Islam has at being taken seriously by the rest of the world as a religion, and not as a crazy bombers cult that has some shit to do with virgins in there somewhere."
Repeating it in whole doesn't make it less stupid.
Just to be sure, though, is your primary problem with Hamas truly not its corruption of religion, but its fashion sense?
If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.
I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.
Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.
dispatch.o on
0
RentI'm always rightFuckin' deal with itRegistered Userregular
Most people in this thread don't seem to understand: Most Muslims living in France are African immigrants, with a huge percentage of those being illegals
Basically the situation with them in France is very analogous to Mexicans in California, except a whole lot worse in a lot of different ways
Would you be okay with a ban in California for overtly Catholic paraphernalia (such as crosses with Jesus on them, etc)?
No, because Jesus on a cross on a necklace isn't oppressive or making it difficult for law enforcement to do their fucking job.
Too bad I don't give a shit about how hard I make life for some racist french cop
Rent on
0
Golden YakBurnished BovineThe sunny beaches of CanadaRegistered Userregular
It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood
But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.
I'm all for banning all pervasive symbols of religion. This includes people who wear huge gold chains with crosses on them and silly hats the pope wears.
This seems fair to me.
In what possible sense is that fair?
In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.
This was reference to the prior sentence. If you're going to ban something for one group, it may not be right or generally wanted but you need to ban similar items across the board. You ban the ankh or pentacle, you have to ban the cross and star of david too.
Will it happen? Probably not.
edit: To be clear, I think ninja hoods and ladies panties stretched over your face and whatnot that obscure your vision or make you impossible to identify are a bad idea in public as well.
It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood
But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.
How do you think the number of women who want to wear it compare to the number who are pressured into wearing it? Or do you think those women are completely free from being subtly influenced into wanting to wear it? Either way, gendered clothing as dramatic as that strikes me as quetionable under any circumstance.
If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.
I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.
Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.
Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.
And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.
It's pretty draconian to keep your women in an executioners hood
But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.
How do you think the number of women who want to wear it compare to the number who are pressured into wearing it? Or do you think those women are completely free from being subtly influenced into wanting to wear it? Either way, gendered clothing as dramatic as that strikes me as quetionable under any circumstance.
How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.
If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.
I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.
Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.
Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.
And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.
You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion cues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.
In regards to the OP's question of "where does circumcision fall on this scale" my answer is that it's an utterly fucking barbaric practise that should have been banned a century ago.
if an adult wants to have it done, that's fine. It's just like any other BMEZine-level severe body modification. And in infants it's occasionally medically necessary. But I agree with the point I think you're making, which is that parents shouldn't be allowed to do it to their kids without a valid medical reason any more than they should be able to do those forked-tongue bodymods to their kids as infants.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
France really tends towards the attempted homogenization of non-France ethnicities into their conception of the "French" identity. So this isn't terribly surprising, given past actions in line with attempting to shove minorities into being more French.
And notwithstanding the symbol of oppression that the face-veil may represent in some instances, though I don't necessarily have an offhand source, but I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion queues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.
Speaking personally, if I'm going to the effort of covering my face in the first place, I don't generally go to the trouble of removing it unless it's somewhere I'm going to be for longer than an hour. Buying train tickets? Grabbing a couple of things from the shop on the way home? Face is staying covered.
Still, I question the importance of someone being able to pick up facial emotional cues in public life.
If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.
I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.
Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.
Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.
And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.
You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion queues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.
And yet I'm still able to carry on full conversations with people at the L stop.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
This seems to presuppose that the symbol is actually having an effect in all cases. When I say "by choice" I'm referring to women who wear it and don't think as a symbol of oppression or as something that is required, but rather because they like other cultural or aesthetic aspects it provides them.
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
Yes, and banning those things they would otherwise choose to do doesn't really address the underlying issue.
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
By the same token, we probably shouldn't assume that these women have no agency if we know nothing about them, save a few details about their wardrobe.
How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.
I don't know. But you don't consider the usage of the niqab as problematic? Because any way I look at it strikes me as problematic. From a sexist imposition upon women, to these women feeling they need to wear it so that they are not judged by a society that puts such a heavy emphasis upon physical attractivness. Let alone the fact that this is solely aimed at and used by women, which in and of itself makes the previously mentioned issues worse.
Leitner on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
Doesn't mean you have to force them in the other direction. What matters is that they have the opportunity to make something of themselves. Whatever they choose to wear in that pursuit shouldn't be an issue. It should be their call one way or the other.
Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.
Whether restricting a manner of dress represents oppression depends on the context around it. In this case, the context is pretty clearly sexists on one side, and racists on the other.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
My bank discourages us from using cell phones, wearing sun glasses and hats while conducting business. I always push the line and text while wearing a hat. However, I noticed that it's apparently okay to wear a ski mask.
My bank discourages us from using cell phones, wearing sun glasses and hats while conducting business. I always push the line and text while wearing a hat. However, I noticed that it's apparently okay to wear a ski mask.
I never realized that the country of France was actually just one really large bank.
How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.
I don't know. But you don't consider the usage of the niqab as problematic? Because any way I look at it strikes me as problematic. From a sexist imposition upon women, to these women feeling they need to wear it so that they are not judged by a society that puts such a heavy emphasis upon physical attractivness. Let alone the fact that this is solely aimed at and used by women, which in and of itself makes the previously mentioned issues worse.
I can certainly see how it can be problematic and in many cases probably is. However this is akin to trying to solve issues of poverty or class by banning wife beaters. There are a lot of factors involved and almost all of them are far more significant and consequential than clothing. Address those.
moniker on
0
GoslingLooking Up Soccer In Mongolia Right Now, ProbablyWatertown, WIRegistered Userregular
Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.
Whether restricting a manner of dress represents oppression depends on the context around it. In this case, the context is pretty clearly sexists on one side, and racists on the other.
On one side I see people going "You can't wear this."
On the other I see people going "You can't wear anything but this."
I pretty much want to slap the both of them.
Gosling on
I have a new soccer blog The Minnow Tank. Reading it psychically kicks Sepp Blatter in the bean bag.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O
I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.
HamHamJ on
While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
By the same token, we probably shouldn't assume that these women have no agency if we know nothing about them, save a few details about their wardrobe.
Agreed.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
AegisFear My DanceOvershot Toronto, Landed in OttawaRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I think you're confusing public and private in terms of visibility and public life and private life, which are distinct forms of political action. Your being visible to other people does not move you from private life to public life in the political sphere. You have to act in some manner on the state (or its institutions) or be advocating a political message in some manner.
Wearing a different piece of clothing, or being easily identifiable as a member of a religious (or even ethnic group for that matter) is still a part of one's private life devoid of political action. If you're wearing it and then going around advocating the overthrow of the government, or protesting, or the like, then you're now in political life but that's not the issue in this case.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O
I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.
After reading some articles on this in The Economist and elsewhere, I believe that:
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O
I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.
Posts
Then why aren't they banning all clothing that obscures the face?
If you think that sentence wasn't meant to be a little stupid, I'm sorry? It's pretty clearly half hyperbole / joke to me, I don't know what to tell you.
I do believe that having a face is important, especially when it comes to communicating with others. It may not be wrong for some women to want to be subservient or simply practice some stuff that's written in an old book, but a face is one of primary ways we express emotion. You could argue emotion is a big part of being human.
Is this good? Meh, not really. It's targeted at a single group and a single piece of garb, it's being done for the wrong reasons, but some good may eventually come out of it in the long term.
Too bad I don't give a shit about how hard I make life for some racist french cop
But what if they want to wear it, like the woman in that interview? She does it because it means something important to her, not because she's forced to.
This was reference to the prior sentence. If you're going to ban something for one group, it may not be right or generally wanted but you need to ban similar items across the board. You ban the ankh or pentacle, you have to ban the cross and star of david too.
Will it happen? Probably not.
edit: To be clear, I think ninja hoods and ladies panties stretched over your face and whatnot that obscure your vision or make you impossible to identify are a bad idea in public as well.
How do you think the number of women who want to wear it compare to the number who are pressured into wearing it? Or do you think those women are completely free from being subtly influenced into wanting to wear it? Either way, gendered clothing as dramatic as that strikes me as quetionable under any circumstance.
Apparently you would be incapable of interacting with people outside my home right now because a lot of people cover their face if they plan on being outdoors for a prolonged period.
And frankly I don't see what reasoning women use in choosing how to dress the they want is any of the State's business.
The comparison is still pretty apt though.
How does banning the niqab confront that societal pressure? This is using a meataxe instead of a scalpel, and working under the assumption that something needs to be sliced in the first place.
You would be less capable of showing visual facial emotion cues outside in the snow with your face covered and gloves on than you are inside with normal clothing. Strawman is nice though.
if an adult wants to have it done, that's fine. It's just like any other BMEZine-level severe body modification. And in infants it's occasionally medically necessary. But I agree with the point I think you're making, which is that parents shouldn't be allowed to do it to their kids without a valid medical reason any more than they should be able to do those forked-tongue bodymods to their kids as infants.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
And notwithstanding the symbol of oppression that the face-veil may represent in some instances, though I don't necessarily have an offhand source, but I keep remembering that a fair number of French Muslim women that this will affect wear it by choice.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
"by choice" is a really sticky phrase when we're talking about sexist oppression. There are a great many things people will do "by choice" when they've been raised from birth to believe that they're something less than human.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Speaking personally, if I'm going to the effort of covering my face in the first place, I don't generally go to the trouble of removing it unless it's somewhere I'm going to be for longer than an hour. Buying train tickets? Grabbing a couple of things from the shop on the way home? Face is staying covered.
Still, I question the importance of someone being able to pick up facial emotional cues in public life.
And yet I'm still able to carry on full conversations with people at the L stop.
France, and many other countries in western Europe, have a very different perspective on religion and it's relationship to government and public life than we do here in the US, because of a different history. America was settled in large part by people seeking free expression of religion. In the founding of their government, they were worried mostly about making sure no one religion was able to use government to persecute the other ones. Frankly it's a marvel that the various Protestant sects managed to co-exist as peacefully as they did.
But Europe has a history of religious wars and turmoils. As such I think there was and is a far greater concern that religion needs to be kept out of not only government, but public life in general. The European idea of secularism is to keep religion a private matter. Not only as a private choice (which is something that is true also in America) but as refraining as much as possible from public expression.
This seems to presuppose that the symbol is actually having an effect in all cases. When I say "by choice" I'm referring to women who wear it and don't think as a symbol of oppression or as something that is required, but rather because they like other cultural or aesthetic aspects it provides them.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Yes, and banning those things they would otherwise choose to do doesn't really address the underlying issue.
By the same token, we probably shouldn't assume that these women have no agency if we know nothing about them, save a few details about their wardrobe.
I don't know. But you don't consider the usage of the niqab as problematic? Because any way I look at it strikes me as problematic. From a sexist imposition upon women, to these women feeling they need to wear it so that they are not judged by a society that puts such a heavy emphasis upon physical attractivness. Let alone the fact that this is solely aimed at and used by women, which in and of itself makes the previously mentioned issues worse.
Doesn't mean you have to force them in the other direction. What matters is that they have the opportunity to make something of themselves. Whatever they choose to wear in that pursuit shouldn't be an issue. It should be their call one way or the other.
Banning the niqab, and forcing the niqab, are really two sides of the same coin: forcing women to dress or not dress in a certain way.
There's two issue at play here, though I think the religious aspect is the less active one.
On the one hand, yes, religion. It's France. The French Revolution, yadda yadda.
However, France since the Revolution has always actively sought assimilation of its ethnic minorities (traditionally linguistic minorities, but in the last few decades this has morphed into racial/religious minorities through Muslim immigration mainly from Africa). I would see this as far more a move towards ethnic assimilation than trying to preserve religious separation, though I could see where the religious argument is used as a cover.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Well, the belief in a secular state is part of the culture they would be assimilating into.
This doesn't really affect secularization though. The banning of the niqab doesn't prevent a problematic aspect of religious life affecting political life. It's only affecting aspects of religious life affecting private life.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
Whether restricting a manner of dress represents oppression depends on the context around it. In this case, the context is pretty clearly sexists on one side, and racists on the other.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I never realized that the country of France was actually just one really large bank.
I can certainly see how it can be problematic and in many cases probably is. However this is akin to trying to solve issues of poverty or class by banning wife beaters. There are a lot of factors involved and almost all of them are far more significant and consequential than clothing. Address those.
On one side I see people going "You can't wear this."
On the other I see people going "You can't wear anything but this."
I pretty much want to slap the both of them.
See, I don't think they think what you wear when you are out in public is "private life". Presumably, you can continue to wear the niqab in the privacy of your own home. No one is going to raid your house to check.
You could probably even wear it inside a mosque.
But wearing it on the street, or inside a government institution, or whatever, is no longer "private life" it's "public life" and is supposed to be secular.
I am no longer a private citizen when I walk out my door? o_O
I believe that is how Europeans think about it, yes.
Agreed.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wearing a different piece of clothing, or being easily identifiable as a member of a religious (or even ethnic group for that matter) is still a part of one's private life devoid of political action. If you're wearing it and then going around advocating the overthrow of the government, or protesting, or the like, then you're now in political life but that's not the issue in this case.
Currently DMing: None
Characters
[5e] Dural Melairkyn - AC 18 | HP 40 | Melee +5/1d8+3 | Spell +4/DC 12
...
What
Seconded.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAhahahahahahaha oh god he actually believes that shit.
Quakers were an oppressed minority even in America because they were an evil cult that murdered people for no fucking reason.
They banned it in schools as far as I know.