Yeah, I very pointedly wasn't talking about you, N1tSt4lker, but rather the societal function that causes heels & makeup to become a part of our definition of beauty... my posting is often pretty hurried (I couldn't keep up with PA if it were otherwise), and rereading that post I'm not sure it actually came across that way, but that was the intent.
While high heels do relate to gender, they are more a function of class in my mind. Wearing completely useless impractical footwear shows that you have the kind of money that doesn't require you to actually do anything except look pretty, obviously showing your superiority to those serving types. This has evolved in the past handful of decades, but that seems to be more of their origin.
I know plenty of ladies with restaurant shoes. As in, you only have to walk to your table in them. The women I work with love love love shoes and the guys don't give a fuck. Obviously, this is anecdotal and your mileage may vary.
On OP topic: I'm a six foot white male in a society full of them. I shave my head, and for warmth often wear a hooded top where you can't see most of my face. If I go into any shop, bank or government building, there's a security guard on me immediately telling me to remove the hood. Same for motorbike helmets. They want to know who the fuck is on their premises, and they want you to be identifiable on their security cameras. This sometimes applies with baseball caps.
If these laws were only about "you cannot make yourself unidentifiable on sight in areas where crime/extreme activism are a genuine threat", I'd have no problem with it. Even when based on intolerance, a stance like that is sensible in itself from a security standpoint.
But just walking down the street in a burqa is not an unacceptable security risk, so I can't behind this. Otherwise you'd have to ban rucksacks (see london bombings of 2005).
Raybies666 on
Beat me on Wii U: Raybies
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
given that men have worn makeup and heels in the past for the similar reason of looking good, and given that men do things like bathe, choose matching clothes and groom themselves today for the same reasons, I think using cultural aesthetic norms (which are universally present, if different in specifics) as an analogy for a specific garment of a specific subculture of a specific religion.
Come on, guys. I'm stunned to have read a couple posts along these lines. Are you seriously arguing that beauty standards for men are just as rigidly enforced, time-consuming and restrictive in the Western world as they are for women? How many of you would recommend makeup to a guy who had dark circles under his eyes? Guys, how many of you in this thread have worn heels over an inch for anything other than Halloween? How many male politicians are defined first by their hair colour and pantsuit and then by their politics?
None of this is to say that there isn't societal pressure on men to look good for women. . . but women in our society are told pretty much from birth that they exist to look pretty for men, and that our appearance defines us. I can certainly understand deciding "fuck it all, I'm going to cover my body from head to toe, I don't exist for your viewing pleasure."
(Also, none of this is to say that I haven't worn makeup or heels or performed my gender in all sorts of restrictive and time-consuming ways. But I think to go "THOSE people are oppressing women!" when we do too in the pretty much the opposite way is a bit short-sighted and prejudiced. Hell, at least the burqa isn't physically crippling.)
(Also, none of this is to say that I haven't worn makeup or heels or performed my gender in all sorts of restrictive and time-consuming ways. But I think to go "THOSE people are oppressing women!" when we do too in the pretty much the opposite way is a bit short-sighted and prejudiced. Hell, at least the burqa isn't physically crippling.)
Well yes, our socities aren't free from racism either, that doesn't mean we don't get to tell the BNP to knock it off.
Come on, guys. I'm stunned to have read a couple posts along these lines. Are you seriously arguing that beauty standards for men are just as rigidly enforced, time-consuming and restrictive in the Western world as they are for women? How many of you would recommend makeup to a guy who had dark circles under his eyes? Guys, how many of you in this thread have worn heels over an inch for anything other than Halloween? How many male politicians are defined first by their hair colour and pantsuit and then by their politics?
All of them. This is not a joke. Looks mean everything. Even more so if you're in the public eye.
And in some ways I'm not sure how attempting to look attractive to members of the sex you are interested in is bad... it's how you get a mate. You could argue that certain things (excessive thinness or musculature) are in fact detrimental, but I get the feeling that that's not quite all you are arguing.
Yis, I will agree there is a significant difference between
• dressing to look attractive
• dressing to avoid looking attractive
that kind of breaks the analogy.
I think the similarity is that in both cases, the woman's role is understood to be an "object," much moreso (or arguably morseso in the case of makeup/heels) than the man's at least. But I can definitely see how "I want to look my best (as an object)" has a different moral valence than "I want to stay completely hidden from view (as an object)."
As well, Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
Certainly, other than a handful of marginal extremist sects, mainstream Western culture offers no judgment on not wearing make up other than, "Maybe you should."
Comparing an optional social practice that has no religious connotation and minimal social connotation to an externally-enforced oppression of identity is more than a bit dishonest, no?
Atomika on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Yis, I will agree there is a significant difference between
• dressing to look attractive
• dressing to avoid looking attractive
that kind of breaks the analogy.
I think the similarity is that in both cases, the woman's role is understood to be an "object," much moreso (or arguably morseso in the case of makeup/heels) than the man's at least. But I can definitely see how "I want to look my best (as an object)" has a different moral valence than "I want to stay completely hidden from view (as an object)."
As well, Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
Certainly, other than a handful of marginal extremist sects, mainstream Western culture offers no judgment on not wearing make up other than, "Maybe you should."
Comparing an optional social practice that has no religious connotation and minimal social connotation to an externally-enforced oppression of identity is more than a bit dishonest, no?
Not really. You just seem to have no idea of the pressures involved to look attractive. See: black women's hair, for example.
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
Depending on how they keep themselves and their features, nope.
The point is, one is an additive choice that is useful but may be tainted by social pressures. The other is an extreme social law that forbids any choice in any matter.
Of course, you could say that the women have the choice to simply not wear the burqa, but were male figures in their household to find out they would become further abused.
Yeah, I very pointedly wasn't talking about you, N1tSt4lker, but rather the societal function that causes heels & makeup to become a part of our definition of beauty... my posting is often pretty hurried (I couldn't keep up with PA if it were otherwise), and rereading that post I'm not sure it actually came across that way, but that was the intent.
Well, my sarcasm and wit meter was completely off yesterday, so I do apologize if I was curt in response due to missing your intent.
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
Depending on how they keep themselves and their features, nope.
What do you mean by this?
The point is, one is an additive choice that is useful but may be tainted by social pressures. The other is an extreme social law that forbids any choice in any matter.
Of course, you could say that the women have the choice to simply not wear the burqa, but were male figures in their household to find out they would become further abused.
Congratulations, you've successfully shown that wearing makeup and wearing a burqa aren't identical. As impressive as that is, I don't think anyone made the claim you're arguing against.
For all the people saying it's optional to wear makeup and heels -- well, sure, no one's holding a gun to anyone's head. But how likely do you think it would be for a woman who, say, wore only flat, comfortable shoes, loose, baggy clothing, no makeup, and undyed, unstyled hair to face no negative ramifications for those choices? Do you think she'd be as likely to get a job? To rise up in that job? To become a politician?
I realize this seems like a derail, but my point is that there are harmful and restrictive female appearance standards all over the Western world that are simply shrugged off as "aesthetic" or "cultural" preferences. Of course women who wear makeup and heels are choosing to do so! They're just making themselves attractive! And of course women who wear burqas are being forced to, because what woman in her right mind wouldn't put enormous amounts of time, money, and effort into performing for the male gaze?
And I don't even know how to respond to that one claim that men apparently face just as much pressure as women to wear heels and makeup, and that male politicians' clothing choices are scrutinized just as closely as females'. You really must be joking.
Of course, you could say that the women have the choice to simply not wear the burqa, but were male figures in their household to find out they would become further abused.
And you think that Belgium passing a law outlawing burqas will magically cause those men to say "Ah well, I guess you can go outside dressed however you like"?
These women already have the choice to go outside however they like. If they where a burqa due to fear of confrontation with their men already, that's unlikely to change due to burqas being illegal. You're just reducing the chances of them being exposed enough to the outside world to gain self respect and stand up for themselves. Not to mention pissing off the women that want to wear burqas.
Nope, I never said Belgium's law was right or wrong. I have no real opinion since it's pretty gray. I see the point behind it but I also see how it can be detrimental.
Also, Squeefish, if men dressed that they would have the same negative result.
And Grid, I mean that attractive women can be attractive whether they wear makeup or not and won't necessarily be judged in the way you describe. My wife certainly isn't and she wears makeup with incredible infrequency.
Really, all you're saying is that attractiveness is a social pressure. This is true for both men and women. They both do a multitude of things to appear attractive to the rest of society (and I mean attractive in a broad sense, this applies to people that are "well kept"). I would argue that there's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes these things are unrealistic, and that I would argue is terrible.
Nope, I never said Belgium's law was right or wrong. I have no real opinion since it's pretty gray. I see the point behind it but I also see how it can be detrimental.
Also, Squeefish, if men dressed that they would have the same negative result.
And Grid, I mean that attractive women can be attractive whether they wear makeup or not and won't necessarily be judged in the way you describe. My wife certainly isn't and she wears makeup with incredible infrequency.
Really, all you're saying is that attractiveness is a social pressure. This is true for both men and women. They both do a multitude of things to appear attractive to the rest of society (and I mean attractive in a broad sense, this applies to people that are "well kept"). I would argue that there's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes these things are unrealistic, and that I would argue is terrible.
Yay, point beaten to death.
Your claims that men and women are expected to go through the same amount of time, money, and effort on their appearance are just utter bullshit. And I have seen plenty of male businessmen in suits (which perhaps aren't super loose and comfortable, but are certainly moreso than many female equivalents -- pantyhose, anyone?), undyed/unstyled hair (just short, usually) and flat, comfortable shoes doing quite well for themselves.
Sure, attractiveness is a social pressure for both men and women, but what constitutes "attractive" for each? And how much work does it take to get there?
Blegh, sorry for the derail. Umm, I don't particularly like burqas but I don't think they should be banned because it's bigoted bullshit!
Suits are expensive, usually tailored (also expensive), and men are expected to choose from a fairly small range of hair styles to be considered proper and "professional". They tend to have to wear one of a small selection of shoe styles that tend to also be expensive. They also have to remain either clean shaven or have well groomed facial hair of modest bent.
There are more things I could list too, but there's not much point. I'm sorry if you don't recognize the time, money, and effort that goes into social pressure for men.
Note: I'm not saying it's =, but rather closer to ==. This is all incredibly OT.
I have one suit. I have probably spent literally 1/10 the amount of money on clothes that my most slacker female friend has spent.
Is that just a non sequitur? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Some people enjoy consumerism and enjoy spending money on clothes, some don't. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
Nope, I never said Belgium's law was right or wrong. I have no real opinion since it's pretty gray. I see the point behind it but I also see how it can be detrimental.
Also, Squeefish, if men dressed that they would have the same negative result.
And Grid, I mean that attractive women can be attractive whether they wear makeup or not and won't necessarily be judged in the way you describe. My wife certainly isn't and she wears makeup with incredible infrequency.
Really, all you're saying is that attractiveness is a social pressure. This is true for both men and women. They both do a multitude of things to appear attractive to the rest of society (and I mean attractive in a broad sense, this applies to people that are "well kept"). I would argue that there's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes these things are unrealistic, and that I would argue is terrible.
Yay, point beaten to death.
Your claims that men and women are expected to go through the same amount of time, money, and effort on their appearance are just utter bullshit. And I have seen plenty of male businessmen in suits (which perhaps aren't super loose and comfortable, but are certainly moreso than many female equivalents -- pantyhose, anyone?), undyed/unstyled hair (just short, usually) and flat, comfortable shoes doing quite well for themselves.
Sure, attractiveness is a social pressure for both men and women, but what constitutes "attractive" for each? And how much work does it take to get there?
Blegh, sorry for the derail. Umm, I don't particularly like burqas but I don't think they should be banned because it's bigoted bullshit!
While not as bad as women, men have their own challenges. Generally, there are very few hairstyles that are considered proper, and they all require straight, unruffled hair (they're all short in back, long in front, and parted flat away from one eye). Women have many more options for hairstyle. Shoes are generally less fitted and end right below the ankle, so chafing is often an issue. Also, they don't usually have much arch support.
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
yeah, but do they get killed for it? hardly
Well, the claim was that there was "very little detrimental effect," so unless anything short of being killed is "very little detrimental effect," you're kind of moving the goalpost.
Second, the only time I've heard in recent years of a woman being killed for failing to adhere to Muslim dress is the story of the man who killed his daughter a few years back - which was over the hijab, not niqab or burka, and which the Muslim community was properly horrified about. Because that man was crazy.
So, again, given the approximately 300 women who even wear burkas in Belgium, this law is more and more looking like a punishment in pursuit of a crime.
I have one suit. I have probably spent literally 1/10 the amount of money on clothes that my most slacker female friend has spent.
Is that just a non sequitur? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Some people enjoy consumerism and enjoy spending money on clothes, some don't. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
It was a counterpoint to the idea that women's social requirements to look nice are about as burdensome as men's.
It's really not.
Qingu on
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
... Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
A bold claim.
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
The labels do matter, but any woman who may fit those labels generally does so of their own accord. The burqa and hijab, with very slight exception, is an external pressure and often not optional.
The whole issue of "labels" isn't even relevant, because the two scenarios are opposites. Being labeled for acting against social mores (however intangible and malleable they may be) as a personal choice is about as far away from being forced to wear clothing for religious reasons as the argument can get without being two totally separate things.
Simply, someone accused of being "butch" is being labeled for making a personal choice; a girl in a burqa or hijab has no say in the matter.
Not really. You just seem to have no idea of the pressures involved to look attractive. See: black women's hair, for example.
Oooh yes, please do ask me all about black women's hair and the community and outside pressures relating to the perceived attractiveness thereof.
The worst part about this is that in the past, it was pretty common for black women to wear natural hairstyles (and was even flaunted by some as a political statement), but since then we've moved backwards. I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that Obama's youngest daughter used to have natural hair but then she shows up at the inauguration with it all straightened out. I guess even if America could elect a black/biracial president, they just couldn't handle someone in the presidential family with AA hair.
I blame the cesspool of neuroses and superficiality that is the (white-dominated) fashion industry.
Not really. You just seem to have no idea of the pressures involved to look attractive. See: black women's hair, for example.
Oooh yes, please do ask me all about black women's hair and the community and outside pressures relating to the perceived attractiveness thereof.
The worst part about this is that in the past, it was pretty common for black women to wear natural hairstyles (and was even flaunted by some as a political statement), but since then we've moved backwards. I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that Obama's youngest daughter used to have natural hair but then she shows up at the inauguration with it all straightened out. I guess even if America could elect a black/biracial president, they just couldn't handle someone in the presidential family with AA hair.
I blame the cesspool of neuroses and superficiality that is the (white-dominated) fashion industry.
The way to love and attractiveness is to give yourself chemical burns! I can tell you that my family's response to my decision to a) cut my chemically processed hair (which I have had since I was nine, with some long-term hair loss as a result) off and go natural, and then b) start wearing dreadlocks, was perhaps one notch short of hysteria. Suggestions that no one would date me, fear that I would never get a job, etc. were piled upon me and I am hardly the only person to experience this: there are natural hair care forums filled with stories like this.
But we weren't beaten, so I guess that makes the whole point moot. o_O
Can we make a distinction between what is actually the case and what is perceived to be the case?
Actual: It is against the law in Belgium to mask one's face.
Perceived: ZOMG THEY HATES RELIGION!
"We cannot allow someone to claim the right to look at others without being seen," MP Daniel Bacquelaine of the French-speaking MR liberal-values party told the Associated Press. "It is necessary that the law forbids the wearing of clothes that totally mask and encloses an individual.”
Seems like a good idea to make persons identifiable via facial recognition.
Uh, yeah, nothing to do with Islamophobia at all...
The Belgian legislation specifically targets the burqa and the niqab, both of which which cover the face, although these are not commonly seen in Belgium. "We have to act as of today to avoid (its) development," Bacquelaine said. "Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society," he said.
Yeah, nothing discriminatory behind this law, it's all about "facial recognition". Sure thing.
Premise 1: Belgium is not full of racist / anti-muslim silly geese.
Premise 2: The burqa and niquab are problematic where all other manner of facial covering is not.
Given this, the problem has to be elongated slits.
...
OK, now I know you are fucking with me.
I'm just trying to figure out if an argument can be made within which Belgium's specifying burqas and niquabs is not anti-muslim, but rather is a manifestation of a unique quality to these garments.
And the only thing I can think of is "elongated slits".
So you have been trolling. Fantastic.
No. The premise of the OP is that the only explanation is anti-muslim sentiment.
But that is not the ONLY explanation. I have provided another explanation.
now we need to discern which is correct.
There is another MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE non-anti-muslim (directly, at least) explaination, though.
That is that this law has nothing to do with Muslims, and everything to do with women.
It is possible that this law thinks that it is saving women, without any sentiment towards muslim beliefs and practices at all.
It is STILL wrong, even in this context, for having a bunch of legislators think that they are "freeing" these women by limiting how they practice their faith.
Posts
Much my problem with those who want to ban the burqa, actually.
(I think nescientist was being sarcastic.)
--LeVar Burton
On OP topic: I'm a six foot white male in a society full of them. I shave my head, and for warmth often wear a hooded top where you can't see most of my face. If I go into any shop, bank or government building, there's a security guard on me immediately telling me to remove the hood. Same for motorbike helmets. They want to know who the fuck is on their premises, and they want you to be identifiable on their security cameras. This sometimes applies with baseball caps.
If these laws were only about "you cannot make yourself unidentifiable on sight in areas where crime/extreme activism are a genuine threat", I'd have no problem with it. Even when based on intolerance, a stance like that is sensible in itself from a security standpoint.
But just walking down the street in a burqa is not an unacceptable security risk, so I can't behind this. Otherwise you'd have to ban rucksacks (see london bombings of 2005).
Beat me on 360: Raybies666
I remember when I had time to be good at games.
Come on, guys. I'm stunned to have read a couple posts along these lines. Are you seriously arguing that beauty standards for men are just as rigidly enforced, time-consuming and restrictive in the Western world as they are for women? How many of you would recommend makeup to a guy who had dark circles under his eyes? Guys, how many of you in this thread have worn heels over an inch for anything other than Halloween? How many male politicians are defined first by their hair colour and pantsuit and then by their politics?
None of this is to say that there isn't societal pressure on men to look good for women. . . but women in our society are told pretty much from birth that they exist to look pretty for men, and that our appearance defines us. I can certainly understand deciding "fuck it all, I'm going to cover my body from head to toe, I don't exist for your viewing pleasure."
(Also, none of this is to say that I haven't worn makeup or heels or performed my gender in all sorts of restrictive and time-consuming ways. But I think to go "THOSE people are oppressing women!" when we do too in the pretty much the opposite way is a bit short-sighted and prejudiced. Hell, at least the burqa isn't physically crippling.)
Well yes, our socities aren't free from racism either, that doesn't mean we don't get to tell the BNP to knock it off.
All of them. This is not a joke. Looks mean everything. Even more so if you're in the public eye.
And in some ways I'm not sure how attempting to look attractive to members of the sex you are interested in is bad... it's how you get a mate. You could argue that certain things (excessive thinness or musculature) are in fact detrimental, but I get the feeling that that's not quite all you are arguing.
As well, Western women have always had the option to not wear make-up or accentuating clothing with very little detrimental social effect, generally.
Certainly, other than a handful of marginal extremist sects, mainstream Western culture offers no judgment on not wearing make up other than, "Maybe you should."
Comparing an optional social practice that has no religious connotation and minimal social connotation to an externally-enforced oppression of identity is more than a bit dishonest, no?
Is it your position then that women who eschew makeup and wear looser clothes aren't labelled "unladylike," "tomboyish," or "butch"? Or that such labels do exist but don't matter?
If they're already regulating the influence of expression on culture then I don't see how this is that far off.
Of course, if this law was proposed in the US then my reaction would be "FUCK OFF, FASCIST!"
I'd be surprised if that was mainstream in Saudi Arabia, not least because the burqa is pretty much the opposite of mandatory pilgrimage clothing.
Depending on how they keep themselves and their features, nope.
The point is, one is an additive choice that is useful but may be tainted by social pressures. The other is an extreme social law that forbids any choice in any matter.
Of course, you could say that the women have the choice to simply not wear the burqa, but were male figures in their household to find out they would become further abused.
Well, my sarcasm and wit meter was completely off yesterday, so I do apologize if I was curt in response due to missing your intent.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
Congratulations, you've successfully shown that wearing makeup and wearing a burqa aren't identical. As impressive as that is, I don't think anyone made the claim you're arguing against.
I realize this seems like a derail, but my point is that there are harmful and restrictive female appearance standards all over the Western world that are simply shrugged off as "aesthetic" or "cultural" preferences. Of course women who wear makeup and heels are choosing to do so! They're just making themselves attractive! And of course women who wear burqas are being forced to, because what woman in her right mind wouldn't put enormous amounts of time, money, and effort into performing for the male gaze?
And I don't even know how to respond to that one claim that men apparently face just as much pressure as women to wear heels and makeup, and that male politicians' clothing choices are scrutinized just as closely as females'. You really must be joking.
And you think that Belgium passing a law outlawing burqas will magically cause those men to say "Ah well, I guess you can go outside dressed however you like"?
These women already have the choice to go outside however they like. If they where a burqa due to fear of confrontation with their men already, that's unlikely to change due to burqas being illegal. You're just reducing the chances of them being exposed enough to the outside world to gain self respect and stand up for themselves. Not to mention pissing off the women that want to wear burqas.
Also, Squeefish, if men dressed that they would have the same negative result.
And Grid, I mean that attractive women can be attractive whether they wear makeup or not and won't necessarily be judged in the way you describe. My wife certainly isn't and she wears makeup with incredible infrequency.
Really, all you're saying is that attractiveness is a social pressure. This is true for both men and women. They both do a multitude of things to appear attractive to the rest of society (and I mean attractive in a broad sense, this applies to people that are "well kept"). I would argue that there's nothing wrong with this. Sometimes these things are unrealistic, and that I would argue is terrible.
Yay, point beaten to death.
Your claims that men and women are expected to go through the same amount of time, money, and effort on their appearance are just utter bullshit. And I have seen plenty of male businessmen in suits (which perhaps aren't super loose and comfortable, but are certainly moreso than many female equivalents -- pantyhose, anyone?), undyed/unstyled hair (just short, usually) and flat, comfortable shoes doing quite well for themselves.
Sure, attractiveness is a social pressure for both men and women, but what constitutes "attractive" for each? And how much work does it take to get there?
Blegh, sorry for the derail. Umm, I don't particularly like burqas but I don't think they should be banned because it's bigoted bullshit!
There are more things I could list too, but there's not much point. I'm sorry if you don't recognize the time, money, and effort that goes into social pressure for men.
Note: I'm not saying it's =, but rather closer to ==. This is all incredibly OT.
Is that just a non sequitur? Not sure what that has to do with anything. Some people enjoy consumerism and enjoy spending money on clothes, some don't. I'm honestly not sure what your point is.
Oooh yes, please do ask me all about black women's hair and the community and outside pressures relating to the perceived attractiveness thereof.
While not as bad as women, men have their own challenges. Generally, there are very few hairstyles that are considered proper, and they all require straight, unruffled hair (they're all short in back, long in front, and parted flat away from one eye). Women have many more options for hairstyle. Shoes are generally less fitted and end right below the ankle, so chafing is often an issue. Also, they don't usually have much arch support.
yeah, but do they get killed for it? hardly
Well, the claim was that there was "very little detrimental effect," so unless anything short of being killed is "very little detrimental effect," you're kind of moving the goalpost.
Second, the only time I've heard in recent years of a woman being killed for failing to adhere to Muslim dress is the story of the man who killed his daughter a few years back - which was over the hijab, not niqab or burka, and which the Muslim community was properly horrified about. Because that man was crazy.
So, again, given the approximately 300 women who even wear burkas in Belgium, this law is more and more looking like a punishment in pursuit of a crime.
It's really not.
The labels do matter, but any woman who may fit those labels generally does so of their own accord. The burqa and hijab, with very slight exception, is an external pressure and often not optional.
The whole issue of "labels" isn't even relevant, because the two scenarios are opposites. Being labeled for acting against social mores (however intangible and malleable they may be) as a personal choice is about as far away from being forced to wear clothing for religious reasons as the argument can get without being two totally separate things.
Simply, someone accused of being "butch" is being labeled for making a personal choice; a girl in a burqa or hijab has no say in the matter.
The worst part about this is that in the past, it was pretty common for black women to wear natural hairstyles (and was even flaunted by some as a political statement), but since then we've moved backwards. I couldn't help but notice, for instance, that Obama's youngest daughter used to have natural hair but then she shows up at the inauguration with it all straightened out. I guess even if America could elect a black/biracial president, they just couldn't handle someone in the presidential family with AA hair.
I blame the cesspool of neuroses and superficiality that is the (white-dominated) fashion industry.
It may be more common in women but I've met guys that spend 90% of their disposable income on beauty products and clothes.
Ever been to New Jersey?
The way to love and attractiveness is to give yourself chemical burns! I can tell you that my family's response to my decision to a) cut my chemically processed hair (which I have had since I was nine, with some long-term hair loss as a result) off and go natural, and then b) start wearing dreadlocks, was perhaps one notch short of hysteria. Suggestions that no one would date me, fear that I would never get a job, etc. were piled upon me and I am hardly the only person to experience this: there are natural hair care forums filled with stories like this.
But we weren't beaten, so I guess that makes the whole point moot. o_O
I wonder if he realized the irony as he said it.
Burqa and Niqab are worn by Muslims
Pikachu mask, ski mask, and balaclava are worn by all people.
So, obviously, Muslims are problematic while other people are not.
There is another MUCH MORE PLAUSIBLE non-anti-muslim (directly, at least) explaination, though.
That is that this law has nothing to do with Muslims, and everything to do with women.
It is possible that this law thinks that it is saving women, without any sentiment towards muslim beliefs and practices at all.
It is STILL wrong, even in this context, for having a bunch of legislators think that they are "freeing" these women by limiting how they practice their faith.