Can't we just punish the husbands of women wearing burqas? I mean that kind of insanity seems more in line with the idea behind the burqa
What's more crazy: Punishing people who wear burqas because we presume they are being forced to do so or punishing the husbands/fathers of women who wear burqas because we presume they are forcing them to do so?
Or passing laws that are based in nothing more than religious bigotry? (How'd that get in there?)
I love that people are rationalizing the defense of sexist barbarism just because its restriction isn't being evenly applied.
Excuse me?
Nobody is rationalizing Islamic misogyny. Nobody is rationalizing the burqa. I think Islam is idiotic and a major force of harm in the modern world. I think women who wear burqas by choice are silly goose cultists who are subjugating themselves to a sexist bronze-age ideology.
I also believe that it's not a modern democratic government's business how its citizens choose to dress or what cult they choose to follow, or not follow.
Oh, and I think fathers or husbands who force, through violence or threat of violence, women to dress like that should be prosecuted.
Passing a law banning burqas isn't going to magically make Muslim women currently pressured into wearing them all of a sudden assert their rights against their oppressors (that's a run-on sentence, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it). What it will do is drive them to stay at home, out of the public eye where good old-fashioned Europeans don't have to be bothered by looking at something different. If you're concerned with changing the culture, do it through education of the victims. Teach them self-worth, show them that men aren't inherently superior to women. Otherwise, no actions taken by government will be effective, the women will just deny any charges to avoid getting the men in their lives punished. Don't pretend that you're acting in their best interests by passing a law against the victims.
Peccavi on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Passing a law banning burqas isn't going to magically make Muslim women currently pressured into wearing them all of a sudden assert their rights against their oppressors (that's a run-on sentence, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it). What it will do is drive them to stay at home, out of the public eye where good old-fashioned Europeans don't have to be bothered by looking at something different. If you're concerned with changing the culture, do it through education of the victims. Teach them self-worth, show them that men aren't inherently superior to women. Otherwise, no actions taken by government will be effective, the women will just deny any charges to avoid getting the men in their lives punished. Don't pretend that you're acting in their best interests by passing a law against the victims.
Yes, because you know what doing away with "White's Only" lunch counters did? Kept the Negroes home in droves. I've never met a real one to this day. Certainly not while at a lunch counter.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that oppression and sexism should be ordained by freedoms of religion and speech. What many of you here are advocating is no different than supporting barbarism so the victims won't be punished too badly by their abusers. So while we're at it, let's make wife-beating legal, too. I mean, what would happen to those poor women if they spoke out? It's for their own good.
Just because the burqa is worn by women doesn't mean that women are being punished here. If my parents and my religion insisted I wear a steel trap on my arm, it's not a punishment to me when I take it off.
Passing a law banning burqas isn't going to magically make Muslim women currently pressured into wearing them all of a sudden assert their rights against their oppressors (that's a run-on sentence, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it). What it will do is drive them to stay at home, out of the public eye where good old-fashioned Europeans don't have to be bothered by looking at something different. If you're concerned with changing the culture, do it through education of the victims. Teach them self-worth, show them that men aren't inherently superior to women. Otherwise, no actions taken by government will be effective, the women will just deny any charges to avoid getting the men in their lives punished. Don't pretend that you're acting in their best interests by passing a law against the victims.
Yes, because you know what doing away with "White's Only" lunch counters did? Kept the Negroes home in droves. I've never met a real one to this day. Certainly not while at a lunch counter.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that oppression and sexism should be ordained by freedoms of religion and speech. What many of you here are advocating is no different than supporting barbarism so the victims won't be punished too badly by their abusers. So while we're at it, let's make wife-beating legal, too. I mean, what would happen to those poor women if they spoke out? It's for their own good.
Just because the burqa is worn by women doesn't mean that women are being punished here. If my parents and my religion insisted I wear a steel trap on my arm, it's not a punishment to me when I take it off.
Passing a law banning burqas isn't going to magically make Muslim women currently pressured into wearing them all of a sudden assert their rights against their oppressors (that's a run-on sentence, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it). What it will do is drive them to stay at home, out of the public eye where good old-fashioned Europeans don't have to be bothered by looking at something different. If you're concerned with changing the culture, do it through education of the victims. Teach them self-worth, show them that men aren't inherently superior to women. Otherwise, no actions taken by government will be effective, the women will just deny any charges to avoid getting the men in their lives punished. Don't pretend that you're acting in their best interests by passing a law against the victims.
Yes, because you know what doing away with "White's Only" lunch counters did? Kept the Negroes home in droves. I've never met a real one to this day. Certainly not while at a lunch counter.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that oppression and sexism should be ordained by freedoms of religion and speech. What many of you here are advocating is no different than supporting barbarism so the victims won't be punished too badly by their abusers. So while we're at it, let's make wife-beating legal, too. I mean, what would happen to those poor women if they spoke out? It's for their own good.
Just because the burqa is worn by women doesn't mean that women are being punished here. If my parents and my religion insisted I wear a steel trap on my arm, it's not a punishment to me when I take it off.
You're absolutely right. Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression and desperately longs to remove the dreaded clothing.
While we're at it, let's just ban clothes in general. Women shouldn't be forced into wearing tops because of the tyrannical shackles of modern society, so logically we should make laws banning them from wearing tops at all! It's for their own good, of course.
Passing a law banning burqas isn't going to magically make Muslim women currently pressured into wearing them all of a sudden assert their rights against their oppressors (that's a run-on sentence, but I'm too lazy to figure out how to fix it). What it will do is drive them to stay at home, out of the public eye where good old-fashioned Europeans don't have to be bothered by looking at something different. If you're concerned with changing the culture, do it through education of the victims. Teach them self-worth, show them that men aren't inherently superior to women. Otherwise, no actions taken by government will be effective, the women will just deny any charges to avoid getting the men in their lives punished. Don't pretend that you're acting in their best interests by passing a law against the victims.
Yes, because you know what doing away with "White's Only" lunch counters did? Kept the Negroes home in droves. I've never met a real one to this day. Certainly not while at a lunch counter.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that oppression and sexism should be ordained by freedoms of religion and speech. What many of you here are advocating is no different than supporting barbarism so the victims won't be punished too badly by their abusers. So while we're at it, let's make wife-beating legal, too. I mean, what would happen to those poor women if they spoke out? It's for their own good.
Just because the burqa is worn by women doesn't mean that women are being punished here. If my parents and my religion insisted I wear a steel trap on my arm, it's not a punishment to me when I take it off.
During desegregation, black people weren't forbidden from eating where they had prior, nor were they forced to eat in diners that had previously been "White Only". They were just given the choice to. I'm all for saying that it's illegal for men to force women to wear burqas, I support that wholeheartedly. NOBODY in this thread is saying otherwise. Give them the choice to dress how they want, but don't force it on them "for their own good."
Edit: Only got through the first paragraph before writing my response. As to the second analogy, it IS a punishment if you actually wanted to keep the steel trap on, or if YOU were fined because you were forced to keep the steel trap on by your parents and religion.
and desperately longs to remove the dreaded clothing.
And this is obviously not true, but to return to the rather extreme "racism in the US" comparison, you wouldn't have had to look far, in the atmosphere of the '50s and earlier, to find a black person who genuinely believed themselves to be inferior. There are still real-life Uncle Ruckus-types around.
For the record, I'm pretty sure that this Belgian law is more anti-muslim than anti-sexist, and I'm terrified of the precedent such specificity could provide when large groups of believers turn their legislative might towards my much-maligned absence of religion. But I do believe that laws like France's head-covering rule (which is extended to all displays of religious affiliation) are a step in the right direction.
EDIT: ack I don't know how to not embed youtube videos, and this frustrates me.
EDIT2: The comparison to racism in the US is extreme, and could easily be misused, but it is not inherently flawed. I think some people are hung up on the idea that burqa-wearers are oppressed, not oppressors, so legislating against them is tantamount to blaming the victim. That's bullshit. They're both oppressors and oppressed at the same time. By perpetuating this oppressive tradition, they are contributing to the oppression of others even as they are oppressed by it themselves.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
Once again, this isn't law yet. Parliament hasn't even voted on it.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that it's expected to pass.
The Belgian Parliament is made up of 150 representitives from 11 different political parties, the two largest hold 53 seats between them and they seem to support the bill. I don't know how the others intend on voting.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
If they make the personal choice to do something that oppresses them, that's their decision and it should be respected.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them.
What. A major part of oppression is the lack of choice.
Eh. I can sorta see where he's coming from. Hypothetically, the American people could vote for a guy who says "Once elected, I will turn you all into my personal slaves, and use my allies in the military to make sure Congress and the Supreme Court go along with it."
Still silly goosery of absolutely incredible proportions, but it kind of makes some sort of twisted sense.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
If they make the personal choice to do something that oppresses them, that's their decision and it should be respected.
Broadly speaking, I agree with this. Especially when it comes to terrain as uncertain as religion and culture. But that doesn't mean that they aren't being oppressed, and more importantly, oppressing others. Basically, my position can be summed up as "fuck the burqa, hijab, niqab, islam, and the horse they all rode in on. But even people dumb enough to voluntarily embrace such nonsense should fear no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
If they make the personal choice to do something that oppresses them, that's their decision and it should be respected.
Broadly speaking, I agree with this. Especially when it comes to terrain as uncertain as religion and culture. But that doesn't mean that they aren't being oppressed, and more importantly, oppressing others. Basically, my position can be summed up as "fuck the burqa, hijab, niqab, islam, and the horse they all rode in on. But even people dumb enough to voluntarily embrace such nonsense should fear no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
If they make the personal choice to do something that oppresses them, that's their decision and it should be respected.
Broadly speaking, I agree with this. Especially when it comes to terrain as uncertain as religion and culture. But that doesn't mean that they aren't being oppressed, and more importantly, oppressing others. Basically, my position can be summed up as "fuck the burqa, hijab, niqab, islam, and the horse they all rode in on. But even people dumb enough to voluntarily embrace such nonsense should fear no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Oh, okay, so you're just a bigot.
If disliking the precepts of Islam makes me a bigot, then I'll gladly accept the mantle. Would it make things any better if I informed you that I'm not fond of Christianity for almost identical reasons?
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
It's function is to fulfil the standards of modesty interpreted from the scriptures. Some people have a stricter standard for what constitutes "modest" than others.
Given that even western society sets down similar rules and conventions (laws against public nudity, for example), at what point does a standard of modesty become oppressive?
Posts
What's more crazy: Punishing people who wear burqas because we presume they are being forced to do so or punishing the husbands/fathers of women who wear burqas because we presume they are forcing them to do so?
Or passing laws that are based in nothing more than religious bigotry? (How'd that get in there?)
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Yes, because heaven knows history has no examples of European nations having the balls to legally restrict the expression of religious beliefs. :P
Well fairness is kind of a fundamental principle of a free society.
Fairness isn't a suicide pact.
You realize that quote is from Adam's justification of the Alien and Sedition Act right? A massively oppressive law?
But you're right, a religious restriction that only applies to women's practice of their religion is sexist.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Only because the practice is performed by women only.
It would apply to men too, if Islam said men should also cover up.
Nobody is rationalizing Islamic misogyny. Nobody is rationalizing the burqa. I think Islam is idiotic and a major force of harm in the modern world. I think women who wear burqas by choice are silly goose cultists who are subjugating themselves to a sexist bronze-age ideology.
I also believe that it's not a modern democratic government's business how its citizens choose to dress or what cult they choose to follow, or not follow.
Oh, and I think fathers or husbands who force, through violence or threat of violence, women to dress like that should be prosecuted.
Does that clear things up?
Alternatively, can white christians walk around with ski masks on unpunished?
Yes, because you know what doing away with "White's Only" lunch counters did? Kept the Negroes home in droves. I've never met a real one to this day. Certainly not while at a lunch counter.
I'm sorry, but I don't feel that oppression and sexism should be ordained by freedoms of religion and speech. What many of you here are advocating is no different than supporting barbarism so the victims won't be punished too badly by their abusers. So while we're at it, let's make wife-beating legal, too. I mean, what would happen to those poor women if they spoke out? It's for their own good.
Just because the burqa is worn by women doesn't mean that women are being punished here. If my parents and my religion insisted I wear a steel trap on my arm, it's not a punishment to me when I take it off.
Neither of those analogies makes any sense.
You're absolutely right. Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression and desperately longs to remove the dreaded clothing.
While we're at it, let's just ban clothes in general. Women shouldn't be forced into wearing tops because of the tyrannical shackles of modern society, so logically we should make laws banning them from wearing tops at all! It's for their own good, of course.
During desegregation, black people weren't forbidden from eating where they had prior, nor were they forced to eat in diners that had previously been "White Only". They were just given the choice to. I'm all for saying that it's illegal for men to force women to wear burqas, I support that wholeheartedly. NOBODY in this thread is saying otherwise. Give them the choice to dress how they want, but don't force it on them "for their own good."
Edit: Only got through the first paragraph before writing my response. As to the second analogy, it IS a punishment if you actually wanted to keep the steel trap on, or if YOU were fined because you were forced to keep the steel trap on by your parents and religion.
For the record, I'm pretty sure that this Belgian law is more anti-muslim than anti-sexist, and I'm terrified of the precedent such specificity could provide when large groups of believers turn their legislative might towards my much-maligned absence of religion. But I do believe that laws like France's head-covering rule (which is extended to all displays of religious affiliation) are a step in the right direction.
EDIT: ack I don't know how to not embed youtube videos, and this frustrates me.
EDIT2: The comparison to racism in the US is extreme, and could easily be misused, but it is not inherently flawed. I think some people are hung up on the idea that burqa-wearers are oppressed, not oppressors, so legislating against them is tantamount to blaming the victim. That's bullshit. They're both oppressors and oppressed at the same time. By perpetuating this oppressive tradition, they are contributing to the oppression of others even as they are oppressed by it themselves.
A thread of dubious analogies. The cosmic ballet goes on...
Many, if not most women who wear burqas do so because they are forced to. Does that imply all women who wear burqas do so because they're forced to? Of course not.
This should be a matter of personal choice. If a woman wants to wear a burqa, it's her right to do so.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that it's expected to pass.
Islam is a race?
The Belgian Parliament is made up of 150 representitives from 11 different political parties, the two largest hold 53 seats between them and they seem to support the bill. I don't know how the others intend on voting.
A person can choose to do something which oppresses them. It doesn't follow that this choice should be legislated against, I know, but the fact remains.
If they make the personal choice to do something that oppresses them, that's their decision and it should be respected.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
Eh. I can sorta see where he's coming from. Hypothetically, the American people could vote for a guy who says "Once elected, I will turn you all into my personal slaves, and use my allies in the military to make sure Congress and the Supreme Court go along with it."
Still silly goosery of absolutely incredible proportions, but it kind of makes some sort of twisted sense.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Broadly speaking, I agree with this. Especially when it comes to terrain as uncertain as religion and culture. But that doesn't mean that they aren't being oppressed, and more importantly, oppressing others. Basically, my position can be summed up as "fuck the burqa, hijab, niqab, islam, and the horse they all rode in on. But even people dumb enough to voluntarily embrace such nonsense should fear no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
Oh, okay, so you're just a bigot.
If disliking the precepts of Islam makes me a bigot, then I'll gladly accept the mantle. Would it make things any better if I informed you that I'm not fond of Christianity for almost identical reasons?
It's function is to fulfil the standards of modesty interpreted from the scriptures. Some people have a stricter standard for what constitutes "modest" than others.
Given that even western society sets down similar rules and conventions (laws against public nudity, for example), at what point does a standard of modesty become oppressive?