I understand. But their banning of the Niqab is tremendously and absolutely sexist. They aren't targetting people who wear a rosary, people who grow their beards for specific reasons, or any other form of clothing or ritual. They are targeting women and women specifically.
They might as well just say "Yeah so we don't think you ladies there have the ability to make decisions for yourself. So we'll just do it for you. Enjoy."
They often don't. I mean in the UK we have about a dozens honour killings a year, to the point where the met had to set up a tea to specifically deal with them. Do you not think that this is reflective of wider attitudes as opposed to a few nuts? Anecdotally, I grew up just outside Tooting, and personally know a girl who took off her hijab whenever she got to school, she was forced to wear it and afraid of her farther beating her if she refused. How does other women 'choosing' to wear the hijab or niqab act within that context (of others being forced to use it)?
You simply can't divorce the act from the wider cultural context.
I've heard this argument before, but again I support women's choice.
Why do these women have to be punished for the choices they make when the perpetrators, the "bad" people if you will go unpunished?
To keep a woman from being beaten and raped, you can certainly put her in a safehouse. But why would you leave her rapist out in about without proper legal proceedings?
If a woman CHOOSES to wear the Niqab, she should. If her ass of a father is going to beat her, then that ass of a father should be taken care of.
This is a thing we call Victim Blaming.
Banning the Niqab is blaming the victim. It isn't going to solve the greater issues at hand - which is that there are a lot of men that hate women whether or not she wears the veil.
What I'm saying is banning the Niqab isn't going to protect women of anything. If you are suggesting that much hatred and violence exists for women, then that hatred and violence will just continue to exist veil or not. It doesn't solve the problem.
What's the alternative, though? If you maintain the choice of wearing the garment, you're still going to have women who wouldn't choose to wear it wearing it out of fear or coercion. And getting domestic violence reported, especially if it's psychological in nature, is a crapshoot in the best of scenarios.
I have major issues with banning any sort of personal expression, but the reality here isn't as clear cut as all that.
What's the alternative, though? If you maintain the choice of wearing the garment, you're still going to have women who wouldn't choose to wear it wearing it out of fear or coercion. And getting domestic violence reported, especially if it's psychological in nature, is a crapshoot in the best of scenarios.
I have major issues with banning any sort of personal expression, but the reality here isn't as clear cut as all that.
You approach it the same way you approach domestic violence. Create a support network for those that want to escape abusive relationships to fall back on, fund and staff a social work system that can engage with communities and pick up on when this kind of thing happens, apply soft pressure through religious groups and organisations (assuming we're talking about specifically targeting Muslim communities), etc.
What's the alternative, though? If you maintain the choice of wearing the garment, you're still going to have women who wouldn't choose to wear it wearing it out of fear or coercion. And getting domestic violence reported, especially if it's psychological in nature, is a crapshoot in the best of scenarios.
I have major issues with banning any sort of personal expression, but the reality here isn't as clear cut as all that.
No alternative. Just allow the veil to be as it is, let women wear it. Taking it away won't stop the violence, leaving it there won't stop it either.
If the French government wants to spin it that they are trying to protect women by removing the Niqab, maybe all that money and all that legislation and all that time would be better spent creating protection programs, helplines, advertisement, and giving women the option to escape their lives if it is so incredibly harsh. Or cracking down on bad apples that hurt women, instead of cracking down on the women themselves.
Seriously. The logic doesn't make sense. Its like saying... since I am a woman, to protect me from being raped, my Government is going to keep me from wearing a bikini cuz that makes soooo much sense.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of curbing expression. But at the same time there's a cultural component here that needs addressed. Is removing the headwear going to magically fix the problem? No. Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
Dismissing it out of hand seems just as silly as implementing it without considering the consequences.
Like I said, I'm not a fan of curbing expression. But at the same time there's a cultural component here that needs addressed. Is removing the headwear going to magically fix the problem? No. Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
Dismissing it out of hand seems just as silly as implementing it without considering the consequences.
Dealing with an abuse problem using that logic can also be simplified to using prejudice motivation.
There are many many women being raped, beaten, and killed who are not muslim. It just makes a better news story when you hear someone was murdered for removing her veil.
One woman's veil is just another woman's bad relationship with a drunken dumbass.
Seriously. Its bad logic fueled by fear of "the other". Stories of how bad Muslims are get circulated way more then stories of how bad normal white catholic dudes are. We just don't have nice terms like "honor killings" and "honor rapes" to attach to our own problems.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
What I'm saying is banning the Niqab isn't going to protect women of anything. If you are suggesting that much hatred and violence exists for women, then that hatred and violence will just continue to exist veil or not. It doesn't solve the problem.
The veil is an extension of that (seriously check the original reaosn behind the thing, not pretty) and a powerful symbol in reards to the oppresion suffered. Choosing to don it, whilst being fully aware of these factors strikes me as a questionable choice. In the same way, say a gay man who goes around throwng around the word faggot would be, even if he's comfortable with that he's ignoring the wider picture.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
What I'm saying is banning the Niqab isn't going to protect women of anything. If you are suggesting that much hatred and violence exists for women, then that hatred and violence will just continue to exist veil or not. It doesn't solve the problem.
The veil is an extension of that (seriously check the original reaosn behind the thing, not pretty) and a powerful symbol in reards to the oppresion suffered. Choosing to don it, whilst being fully aware of these factors strikes me as a questionable choice. In the same way, say a gay man who goes around throwng around the word faggot would be, even if he's comfortable with that he's ignoring the wider picture.
But he has the choice to do it.
I've studied Islam for three years, I'm familiar with the veil's background. I've been following "middle east" trends since 2006, since I figured sitting around watching the news wasn't going to give me a broader understanding of Muslim culture or people who are constantly demonized by the west, hence why I know a lot of lady friends who choose to wear the hijab.
Suggestions that removing the veil in order to help women (by making them more "westernized") is not only sexist but with extreme prejudice INCREDIBLY eurocentric. We can claim left and right that it is to protect people, but if people really don't want to be "protected" then that is their god given right.
Maybe giving people options instead of enforcing rules is a better and more humane way to go about things.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
Westernizing the wardrobe by force has also effed up a lot of cultures, created a great deal of disenchantment between families, ruined united areas, and caused a great deal of warfare between neighbors.
Look at the history of the Ottoman empire or Iran. Heck, just check out Iran. The women were completely stripped of their rights to wear the hijab and anyone who wore traditional clothing were taxed. Come the revolution, there is a complete segregation between those who are religious and those who are "western". No one wins in the end.
Before the Ottoman Empire's disintigration and colonial rule, Christians, Jews, and Muslims were all neighbors and actually lived quite peacefully. There was no aggression towards a specific religious community. Granted, Christians and Jews had to pay a special tax, but they weren't liable for armed service which kind of made everyone happy. The empire was a vast amount of land that was mixed and united. Then, all of the sudden, you have colonial rule. You have the French who are forcing western ideas on Christians and trying to protect them from Muslims, you have the British infiltrating Western ideals as well. After the empire fell, Ataturk remodelled Turkey in a completely western fashion. His sense of nationalism killed millions upon millions of people.
And now, in Turkey, like a timeclock, every twenty years the national guard is holding a coup to prevent religion from staking into its western-based government.
If history speaks for itself, then there you go.
Forcing anyone to be westernized for whatever reason (Even if you might think it is morally just) is never a wise idea.
Giving people options allows for a peaceful transition. Hell, maybe allowing the other culture to influence your own ideals would make for some broadened horizons.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
There's no way around it like home-schooling or private schools?
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
I would not be in the least surprised.
There are still options for home-schooling and private schools. In addition to education, Muslim women would be denied social security and healthcare.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
Dude. That's entering serious human rights violation grounds there, to have the government totally intervene into the private lives of families of a specific group.
That there be a nice combination of outright prejudice. By the state.
There are still options for home-schooling and private schools. In addition to education, Muslim women would be denied social security and healthcare.
And That... THAT is what is pissing me off, Japan. Is that so many people in Europe and America are nodding their heads going "Oh yeah ban the veil, it'll help make women happier!" and not realizing just how downright anti-human rights that is.
We really haven't changed much since before the civil rights movement. We think we are so damn politically correct, but when we run around talking about protecting people for their own good without their consent, it seems like a bright and happy idea. That is just blindness. That is just pure blind prejudice.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
Dude. That's entering serious human rights violation grounds there, to have the government totally intervene into the private lives of families of a specific group.
That there be a nice combination of outright prejudice. By the state.
What? We are a state with laws. Breaking those laws is illegal and needs enforcement. Or is arresting people who bury their 'whore' daughter alive, an equally prejudice imposition? It’s only prejudice if they were totally okay with say Christians pulling their daughters put of school. Which isn’t the case.
There are still options for home-schooling and private schools. In addition to education, Muslim women would be denied social security and healthcare.
And That... THAT is what is pissing me off, Japan. Is that so many people in Europe and America are nodding their heads going "Oh yeah ban the veil, it'll help make women happier!" and not realizing just how downright anti-human rights that is.
We really haven't changed much since before the civil rights movement. We think we are so damn politically correct, but when we run around talking about protecting people for their own good without their consent, it seems like a bright and happy idea. That is just blindness. That is just pure blind prejudice.
I'm mostly just thinking back to Glasgow's history, when there were similar restrictions placed on schools with the intention of pissing off Catholics. The upshot of this was that the Catholic Church and wealthy Catholic citizens established their own schools, and as a result, to this day there are "Catholic" and "Protestant" areas of Glasgow, and rampant sectarian prejudice.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
Dude. That's entering serious human rights violation grounds there, to have the government totally intervene into the private lives of families of a specific group.
That there be a nice combination of outright prejudice. By the state.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
Dude. That's entering serious human rights violation grounds there, to have the government totally intervene into the private lives of families of a specific group.
That there be a nice combination of outright prejudice. By the state.
What? We are a state with laws. Breaking those laws is illegal and needs enforcement. Or is arresting people who bury their 'whore' daughter alive, an equally prejudice imposition? It’s only prejudice if they were totally okay with say Christians pulling their daughters put of school. Which isn’t the case.
Because they wouldn't have to! There are no laws that are trying to get in place about banning Christians from being Christians.
I'm sorry Leitner, but every time you bring up horrid actions done by a few horrible people and make it sound like it is universally muslim, I really cringe. I really do.
Telling a woman that she can't wear a veil shouldn't have to be a law. There are other ways the state can solve violence against women. Telling women NOT to do something is just stupid. Why can't we just kill two birds with one stone and attack the MEN who are causing these issues, be they muslim or not?
I'm mostly just thinking back to Glasgow's history, when there were similar restrictions placed on schools with the intention of pissing off Catholics. The upshot of this was that the Catholic Church and wealthy Catholic citizens established their own schools, and as a result, to this day there are "Catholic" and "Protestant" areas of Glasgow, and rampant sectarian prejudice.
EXACTLY. Dude, you should totally read the history of Lebanon. Same damn thing. The whole country was cut up into three sections after certain people of power kept placing restrictions on specific groups - The Marionites, The Sunni, and the Druze. Four hundred years ago, the mixed religious area was perfectly happy and quite peaceful. Now? It is still pretty segregated and can be downright violent.
Does it have the potential to allow for faster and more thorough westernization of the culture as a whole, including gender roles and relationships? Yes.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
Westernizing wardrobe has traditionally had a huge impact on assimilation. Combine that with the fact that you'd be removing an outward marker of gender inequality within the culture and you may be looking at a major shift in cultural mentality. Women that are raised wearing the garment (and men that grow up in the culture that calls for them to) will have a much different baseline in relating to the greater western culture than those who grow up dressing more like everyone else. Something as obtrusive as a face covering has a huge impact on how one views the world and their place in it, especially in regard to those who don't wear it.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
What are their options for further isolation? The main issue here is schools and uniforms and such, right? Are they going to pull their kids out of every school in the country, and force their daughters to stay in the house? Because that seems like grounds for further legal intervention on a much less questionable level.
I would not be in the least surprised.
There are still options for home-schooling and private schools. In addition to education, Muslim women would be denied social security and healthcare.
And denying them social security and healthcare falls under a rights violation, which is prosecutable by the state.
Because they wouldn't have to! There are no laws that are trying to get in place about banning Christians from being Christians.
I'm sorry Leitner, but every time you bring up horrid actions done by a few horrible people and make it sound like it is universally muslim, I really cringe. I really do.
Telling a woman that she can't wear a veil shouldn't have to be a law. There are other ways the state can solve violence against women. Telling women NOT to do something is just stupid. Why can't we just kill two birds with one stone and attack the MEN who are causing these issues, be they muslim or not?
I refer you to Optimuses post above.
And I quite clearly wasn't making the case that the case is universal to all muslims. Rather I was using an outrageous case, to point out the idea that it is a tad silly to say that enforcing an existing law is prejudice.
Because they wouldn't have to! There are no laws that are trying to get in place about banning Christians from being Christians.
I'm sorry Leitner, but every time you bring up horrid actions done by a few horrible people and make it sound like it is universally muslim, I really cringe. I really do.
Telling a woman that she can't wear a veil shouldn't have to be a law. There are other ways the state can solve violence against women. Telling women NOT to do something is just stupid. Why can't we just kill two birds with one stone and attack the MEN who are causing these issues, be they muslim or not?
I refer you to Optimuses post above.
And I quite clearly wasn't making the case that the case is universal to all muslims. Rather I was using an outrageous case, to point out the idea that it is a tad silly to say that enforcing an existing law is prejudice.
There are outrageous cases being thrown around that men who are drunk often rape women. I don't see alcohol being banned anytime soon. The logic is as sound as that.
You can say it is a tad silly, but it is prejudice when you are telling a woman of a specific religion that she cannot wear the veil, especially when there is already enough disenchantment conveyed by Europeans & Americans towards muslims as is.
but my feelings remain the same. If history has anything to say about the situation, then this is a bad idea. And if logic has anything to say about it, it is a super bad idea.
And denying them social security and healthcare falls under a rights violation, which is prosecutable by the state.
Uh. It is the State that is talking about denying veil-wearing women social security and healthcare. It is how the ban would be enforced.
Then that aspect of the ban needs reworked. I agree that that would be a stupid thing to do. I disagree that pressure to remove the garment as a culture is a bad thing, but they should find another way to enforce it. Especially since those women who need the government to help them deal with abusive spouses through social security channels will likely be wearing the veil out of fear anyway.
Still, family pressure to wear the garment that denies you crucial healthcare is probably worth a child endangerment rap. It's a shitty way to go about dealing with the problem, but it's there.
There was no aggression towards a specific religious community. Granted, Christians and Jews had to pay a special tax, but they weren't liable for armed service which kind of made everyone happy
yeah
lets ignore the forcefull removal of christian children from their parrents to indoctrinate them into the janissary corps
Telling a woman that she can't wear a veil shouldn't have to be a law. There are other ways the state can solve violence against women. Telling women NOT to do something is just stupid. Why can't we just kill two birds with one stone and attack the MEN who are causing these issues, be they muslim or not?
We do. Their communities close ranks, distance themselves further from society (why integrate with people who are attacking our values?) and nobody benefits.
The ban is not the way to target the veil, but attacking the men is an equally foolish way of tackling it.
The Fourth Estate on
0
Options
surrealitychecklonely, but not unloveddreaming of faulty keys and latchesRegistered Userregular
edited February 2010
I remember talking to a social worker who wanted it banned so he could see the bruises and black eyes.
Robman pretty much nailed it when he said the best way to tackle domestic abuse and help its victims is to set up support agencies and such. You won't reduce the problem by banning a specific piece of clothing.
Well I mean it sounds fucking enraging to be like "you've got to help other people help themselves" but it's true. Ask anyone in the social services field and they'll tell you that people can only be helped when they want to be. Forcing "help" on others is clumsy imperialist thinking. Letting others escape bad situations when they're ready is how you really break the system of abuse - other people will take note that escape is possible, and that starts sowing the seeds of discord that bring abusive power structures tumbling down.
I think you can make a pretty solid argument for banning any item of clothing that completely covers your face. A specific ban is unnecessary.
I don't think you can do that and have it be consistent with other situations where certain attire is exempted for religious reasons. For example, Sikhs with hair that necessitates a turban are exempted from the requirement to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle (edit: in the UK).
EDIT: Having checked, in France a turban apparently also counts as a religious symbol, so it would be consistent for them I suppose.
Posts
I've heard this argument before, but again I support women's choice.
Why do these women have to be punished for the choices they make when the perpetrators, the "bad" people if you will go unpunished?
To keep a woman from being beaten and raped, you can certainly put her in a safehouse. But why would you leave her rapist out in about without proper legal proceedings?
If a woman CHOOSES to wear the Niqab, she should. If her ass of a father is going to beat her, then that ass of a father should be taken care of.
This is a thing we call Victim Blaming.
Banning the Niqab is blaming the victim. It isn't going to solve the greater issues at hand - which is that there are a lot of men that hate women whether or not she wears the veil.
I have major issues with banning any sort of personal expression, but the reality here isn't as clear cut as all that.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
You approach it the same way you approach domestic violence. Create a support network for those that want to escape abusive relationships to fall back on, fund and staff a social work system that can engage with communities and pick up on when this kind of thing happens, apply soft pressure through religious groups and organisations (assuming we're talking about specifically targeting Muslim communities), etc.
No alternative. Just allow the veil to be as it is, let women wear it. Taking it away won't stop the violence, leaving it there won't stop it either.
If the French government wants to spin it that they are trying to protect women by removing the Niqab, maybe all that money and all that legislation and all that time would be better spent creating protection programs, helplines, advertisement, and giving women the option to escape their lives if it is so incredibly harsh. Or cracking down on bad apples that hurt women, instead of cracking down on the women themselves.
Seriously. The logic doesn't make sense. Its like saying... since I am a woman, to protect me from being raped, my Government is going to keep me from wearing a bikini cuz that makes soooo much sense.
Dismissing it out of hand seems just as silly as implementing it without considering the consequences.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Dealing with an abuse problem using that logic can also be simplified to using prejudice motivation.
There are many many women being raped, beaten, and killed who are not muslim. It just makes a better news story when you hear someone was murdered for removing her veil.
One woman's veil is just another woman's bad relationship with a drunken dumbass.
Seriously. Its bad logic fueled by fear of "the other". Stories of how bad Muslims are get circulated way more then stories of how bad normal white catholic dudes are. We just don't have nice terms like "honor killings" and "honor rapes" to attach to our own problems.
How?
I can't see any feasible way that this is a likely outcome.
The veil is an extension of that (seriously check the original reaosn behind the thing, not pretty) and a powerful symbol in reards to the oppresion suffered. Choosing to don it, whilst being fully aware of these factors strikes me as a questionable choice. In the same way, say a gay man who goes around throwng around the word faggot would be, even if he's comfortable with that he's ignoring the wider picture.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
This seems to be based in the assumption that a ban on wearing the niqab would result in people behaving the same way, but dressing differently, as opposed to dressing the same and further isolating themselves from the culture you are apparently trying to persuade them to assimilate into.
But he has the choice to do it.
I've studied Islam for three years, I'm familiar with the veil's background. I've been following "middle east" trends since 2006, since I figured sitting around watching the news wasn't going to give me a broader understanding of Muslim culture or people who are constantly demonized by the west, hence why I know a lot of lady friends who choose to wear the hijab.
Suggestions that removing the veil in order to help women (by making them more "westernized") is not only sexist but with extreme prejudice INCREDIBLY eurocentric. We can claim left and right that it is to protect people, but if people really don't want to be "protected" then that is their god given right.
Maybe giving people options instead of enforcing rules is a better and more humane way to go about things.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Westernizing the wardrobe by force has also effed up a lot of cultures, created a great deal of disenchantment between families, ruined united areas, and caused a great deal of warfare between neighbors.
Look at the history of the Ottoman empire or Iran. Heck, just check out Iran. The women were completely stripped of their rights to wear the hijab and anyone who wore traditional clothing were taxed. Come the revolution, there is a complete segregation between those who are religious and those who are "western". No one wins in the end.
Before the Ottoman Empire's disintigration and colonial rule, Christians, Jews, and Muslims were all neighbors and actually lived quite peacefully. There was no aggression towards a specific religious community. Granted, Christians and Jews had to pay a special tax, but they weren't liable for armed service which kind of made everyone happy. The empire was a vast amount of land that was mixed and united. Then, all of the sudden, you have colonial rule. You have the French who are forcing western ideas on Christians and trying to protect them from Muslims, you have the British infiltrating Western ideals as well. After the empire fell, Ataturk remodelled Turkey in a completely western fashion. His sense of nationalism killed millions upon millions of people.
And now, in Turkey, like a timeclock, every twenty years the national guard is holding a coup to prevent religion from staking into its western-based government.
If history speaks for itself, then there you go.
Forcing anyone to be westernized for whatever reason (Even if you might think it is morally just) is never a wise idea.
Giving people options allows for a peaceful transition. Hell, maybe allowing the other culture to influence your own ideals would make for some broadened horizons.
There's no way around it like home-schooling or private schools?
https://twitter.com/Hooraydiation
I would not be in the least surprised.
There are still options for home-schooling and private schools. In addition to education, Muslim women would be denied social security and healthcare.
Dude. That's entering serious human rights violation grounds there, to have the government totally intervene into the private lives of families of a specific group.
That there be a nice combination of outright prejudice. By the state.
And That... THAT is what is pissing me off, Japan. Is that so many people in Europe and America are nodding their heads going "Oh yeah ban the veil, it'll help make women happier!" and not realizing just how downright anti-human rights that is.
We really haven't changed much since before the civil rights movement. We think we are so damn politically correct, but when we run around talking about protecting people for their own good without their consent, it seems like a bright and happy idea. That is just blindness. That is just pure blind prejudice.
What? We are a state with laws. Breaking those laws is illegal and needs enforcement. Or is arresting people who bury their 'whore' daughter alive, an equally prejudice imposition? It’s only prejudice if they were totally okay with say Christians pulling their daughters put of school. Which isn’t the case.
I'm mostly just thinking back to Glasgow's history, when there were similar restrictions placed on schools with the intention of pissing off Catholics. The upshot of this was that the Catholic Church and wealthy Catholic citizens established their own schools, and as a result, to this day there are "Catholic" and "Protestant" areas of Glasgow, and rampant sectarian prejudice.
I find this surprising.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
Because they wouldn't have to! There are no laws that are trying to get in place about banning Christians from being Christians.
I'm sorry Leitner, but every time you bring up horrid actions done by a few horrible people and make it sound like it is universally muslim, I really cringe. I really do.
Telling a woman that she can't wear a veil shouldn't have to be a law. There are other ways the state can solve violence against women. Telling women NOT to do something is just stupid. Why can't we just kill two birds with one stone and attack the MEN who are causing these issues, be they muslim or not?
EXACTLY. Dude, you should totally read the history of Lebanon. Same damn thing. The whole country was cut up into three sections after certain people of power kept placing restrictions on specific groups - The Marionites, The Sunni, and the Druze. Four hundred years ago, the mixed religious area was perfectly happy and quite peaceful. Now? It is still pretty segregated and can be downright violent.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I refer you to Optimuses post above.
And I quite clearly wasn't making the case that the case is universal to all muslims. Rather I was using an outrageous case, to point out the idea that it is a tad silly to say that enforcing an existing law is prejudice.
Uh. It is the State that is talking about denying veil-wearing women social security and healthcare. It is how the ban would be enforced.
There are outrageous cases being thrown around that men who are drunk often rape women. I don't see alcohol being banned anytime soon. The logic is as sound as that.
You can say it is a tad silly, but it is prejudice when you are telling a woman of a specific religion that she cannot wear the veil, especially when there is already enough disenchantment conveyed by Europeans & Americans towards muslims as is.
but my feelings remain the same. If history has anything to say about the situation, then this is a bad idea. And if logic has anything to say about it, it is a super bad idea.
good night.
Still, family pressure to wear the garment that denies you crucial healthcare is probably worth a child endangerment rap. It's a shitty way to go about dealing with the problem, but it's there.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
lets ignore the forcefull removal of christian children from their parrents to indoctrinate them into the janissary corps
We do. Their communities close ranks, distance themselves further from society (why integrate with people who are attacking our values?) and nobody benefits.
The ban is not the way to target the veil, but attacking the men is an equally foolish way of tackling it.
Did he also want to ban really chunky sunglasses and rouge?
Because clearly the only way to hide bruises is with a niqab, and the fact that it is possible is the reason abuse occurs.
There's a lot of civic upside to being able to see everyone's face, both in terms of cultural friendliness and public safety.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
I don't think you can do that and have it be consistent with other situations where certain attire is exempted for religious reasons. For example, Sikhs with hair that necessitates a turban are exempted from the requirement to wear a helmet while riding a motorcycle (edit: in the UK).
EDIT: Having checked, in France a turban apparently also counts as a religious symbol, so it would be consistent for them I suppose.