Feminists who support burqas are pathetic

[Shadow Wolf]

How is it any more oppressive than any other cultural stricture?

A big reason is that Saudi women have no choice but to wear that in Saudi Arabia. Cultural structures are one thing, but burqa strips personhood, individuality, and they have to do it because they are blamed for the actions of men.
What's the difference between that and other cultural structions? In the Western structure women are able to choose what they wear and can even legally walk around with their breasts exposed in many places.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

A big reason is that Saudi women have no choice but to wear that in Saudi Arabia. Cultural structures are one thing, but burqa strips personhood, individuality, and they have to do it because they are blamed for the actions of men.
What's the difference between that and other cultural structions? In the Western structure women are able to choose what they wear and can even legally walk around with their breasts exposed in many places.

I think you mean Afghanistan under the Taliban. Saudi women don't. But anyway, it's just a matter of degree. If you accept that it's alright for a culture to impose strictures like "you must wear at least a bikini", that is, essentially, the same thing as requiring someone to wear a burqa.

If you can explain an inherent fundamental difference other than degree of coverage, I'd love to hear it.

By the way, here's some Saudi women;

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think you mean Afghanistan under the Taliban.

Yes, that was my error.

If you accept that it's alright for a culture to impose strictures like "you must wear at least a bikini", that is, essentially, the same thing as requiring someone to wear a burqa.

I have yet to see any law any where that demands that a woman must wear a bikini.

If you can explain an inherent fundamental difference other than degree of coverage, I'd love to hear it.

You seemed to have missed where I said those women are REQUIRED to cover up. We aren't talking about a folkway or norm, but something that has legal reinforcement.
And if it weren't required, the ideas behind the burqa, niqqab--and all the way back to OT demands that women cover up--are preposterous in that women are blamed for the sexual misdeeds of men. Women have to cover up because the books of Abraham's god put women solely in control over the sexual cravings of men. She must cover up because he can't control his dick, basically.

 

[suncowiam]

I was saying that I've seen many liberals come to the defense of Islam when people speak the truth about it.

Most likely they were defending moderate Islam. Who would defend terrorists using suicide bombs or cutting heads off.

Defending a Muslims is like defending Christians or other religions. I don't agree with religion on many things being that I'm an atheist but I still defend freedom of speech as long as it doesn't promote violence, hate and bigotry. Not all of Islam promotes the latter.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hanson is an idiot who literally builds policy based on urban myths. I have never once seen anyone wearing a burqa in Australia... except Hanson herself!

I have...but it's a very small minority.
(Coburg area, if you know Melbourne)

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Hanson slams feminists who support burqa

Australian senatrix Pauline Hanson, whom I follow on twitter, has recently criticized her feminist colleagues opposing the burqa-ban.

You follow Pauline Hanson? Why? For the lols???

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Since balaclavas are forbidden, so must burqas.

Btw...Hanson told the truth. If you really are a feminist, your duty is to condemn not only burqas and niqabs (which are ridiculous Carnival costumes), but also the veil...which is an instrument of subjugation of women.
Or as Oriana Fallaci said, the veil is a Middle-Ages rag.

So feminists don't have the right to determine their own position? That's some next level meta-oxymoron there.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Yes, that was my error.

I have yet to see any law any where that demands that a woman must wear a bikini.

You seemed to have missed where I said those women are REQUIRED to cover up. We aren't talking about a folkway or norm, but something that has legal reinforcement.
And if it weren't required, the ideas behind the burqa, niqqab--and all the way back to OT demands that women cover up--are preposterous in that women are blamed for the sexual misdeeds of men. Women have to cover up because the books of Abraham's god put women solely in control over the sexual cravings of men. She must cover up because he can't control his dick, basically.

I don't know about where you live, but here, walking around in less than a bikini would get you arrested for public indecency.

Further, I think we're gett8ng off track. The whole point of the thread is about restricting what women may wear because we feel entitled to make such decisions for them. The whole point is that many (most?) women who wear what others may consider overly modest garb would feel terribly uncomfortable wearing anything less? That's not just Muslim women, that's ANY woman from a conservative background. Now, we can discuss the patriarchy until the cows come home, but at the end of the day, if a woman WANTS to wear what you or I think are overly modest clothes, who are we to tell them they can't?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I have...but it's a very small minority.
(Coburg area, if you know Melbourne)

I'll take your word for it. I'm in Brisbane. My point, though, is that they're extremely uncommon here, and Hanson is doing nothing more than rabble rousing, or, if we're generous, getting swept away in a well meaning moral panic.

Wombat attacks are LITERALLY a more significant issue for any average Australian.

 

[Estro Felino]

So feminists don't have the right to determine their own position? That's some next level meta-oxymoron there.

They are not that credible...since they are the same feminists who wanted beauty pageants contestants not to wear swimsuits because those outfits "objectify" women.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

hem...I follow Mussolini's granddaughter too...

They are not that credible...since they are the same feminists who wanted beauty pageants contestants not to wear swimsuits because those outfits "objectify" women.

Which is twisted- it's swimsuits that empower women, not head-covering

Which feminists are these? You've yet to provide a single quote, much less quotes from anyone showing the double standard you claim. I think you're building a straw man.

 

[Willamena]

Hanson slams feminists who support burqa

Australian senatrix Pauline Hanson, whom I follow on twitter, has recently criticized her feminist colleagues opposing the burqa-ban.

Her target is misplaced. It's not the burqa itself that is the problem, but attitudes.

Replace "burqa" with "ice cream" in her argument, and it becomes clear.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I don't know about where you live, but here, walking around in less than a bikini would get you arrested for public indecency.

You'd be surprised. Even in America many places have no laws on the books against women being topless and some cities explicitly allow it.

if a woman WANTS to wear what you or I think are overly modest clothes, who are we to tell them they can't?

If she wants to, that is one thing. But unless she comes from such a background and has it deeply embedded into her from an early age I find it very unlikely that any woman or man would chose to wear it. Especially the face being covered, which is utterly dehumanizing. Not even Nuns and the Amish cover a woman's face and all but the utmost extreme of Muslim views do not fully cover a woman's face in such a way. At least in the lesser extreme views she can view the world without a screen in front of her eyes.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

I'll take your word for it. I'm in Brisbane. My point, though, is that they're extremely uncommon here, and Hanson is doing nothing more than rabble rousing, or, if we're generous, getting swept away in a well meaning moral panic.

Wombat attacks are LITERALLY a more significant issue for any average Australian.

Wait, wait, wait...you're a Queenslander?
Can you please slap some of your fellow Northerners around for giving that muppet an excuse to get on tv? Please?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

hem...I follow Mussolini's granddaughter too...

Does she also lack credibility, and uses sensationalism to try and stay relevant? Whilst I have a fair handle on Il Duco, I don't know too much of his granddaughter.

They are not that credible...since they are the same feminists who wanted beauty pageants contestants not to wear swimsuits because those outfits "objectify" women.

Which is twisted- it's swimsuits that empower women, not head-covering

I'd humbly suggest you're strawmanning, but in the interests of the thread topic I'll say you're strawwomaning.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Wombat attacks are LITERALLY a more significant issue for any average Australian.

What insect or animal native to Australia doesn't pose a great danger to the average Australian?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You'd be surprised. Even in America many places have no laws on the books against women being topless and some cities explicitly allow it.

Bikinis don't just cover the breasts. I chose my example specifically. Anywhere were anything less than complete public nudity is legal, my point stands.

If she wants to, that is one thing. But unless she comes from such a background and has it deeply embedded into her from an early age I find it very unlikely that any woman or man would chose to wear it.

Well that's the real point about different cultures. They don't often make a lot of sense to outsiders. But they don't have to. And you don't have to leave it up to what you do or don't find unlikely. You can ask people with different cultural practices how they feel about them. And guess what? It isn't Muslim MEN who are particularly vocal about face coverings being legal.

Especially the face being covered, which is utterly dehumanizing.

In your opinion. In their opinion, it isn't. And I reiterate my earlier point, how is it any more dehumanising than any other form of body covering?

Even Nuns and the Amish cover a woman's face and all but the utmost extreme of Muslim views fully cover a woman's face in such a way. At least in the lesser extreme views she can view the world without a screen in front of her eyes.

And you're entitled to you're opinion about that, but we are specifically talking about telling people they aren't allowed to be as covered as they want in a nominally free society. I wear face coverings for sport every weekend. Should I not be allowed to do so because it's "dehumanising"? Or if, as I'm sure you instantly thought, "that's different", how is it?

Here I am. Face fully covered. If you don't think people should be allowed to wear burqas, should I be allowed to wear this?

 

[lewisnotmiller]

What insect or animal native to Australia doesn't pose a great danger to the average Australian?

This is a fine point, well made.
It should be remembered that tourists are at even greater risk, since the 'average Australian' is obviously well ABOVE average, on a global scale.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

What insect or animal native to Australia doesn't pose a great danger to the average Australian?

Quokkas. But that's it.

fig. 1, a quokka

Fig. 2, a guy getting attacked repeatedly by a wombat

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Bikinis don't just cover the breasts. I chose my example specifically. Anywhere were anything less than complete public nudity is legal, my point stands.

In some places. And I do not agree with laws that require clothing. They serve a purpose, but people put too much emphasis and focus on them. And one way these laws in the West are starkly different is our women get to choose how they will cover up, and have very great freedoms in choosing how much they will cover up.

Well that's the real point about different cultures. They don't often make a lot of sense to outsiders. But they don't have to. And you don't have to leave it up to what you do or don't find unlikely. You can ask people with different cultural practices how they feel about them. And guess what? It isn't Muslim MEN who are particularly vocal about face coverings being legal.

Let's ask about female genital mutilation. It probably, and does get, some high remarks. But that doesn't make it any better. Is a slave owning society going to speak ill of slavery? Probably not.

n your opinion. In their opinion, it isn't.

It is a psychological fact that a complete face covering like that is dehumanizing, and not only that it directly nullifies one of the crucial ways we have evolved to communicate as a species.

And I reiterate my earlier point, how is it any more dehumanising than any other form of body covering?

Mandatory; complete body and face covering; all sense of individuality and identity are removed (they are very against our nature as social animals).

And you're entitled to you're opinion about that, but we are specifically talking about telling people they aren't allowed to be as covered as they want in a nominally free society. I wear face coverings for sport every weekend. Should I not be allowed to do so because it's "dehumanising"? Or if, as I'm sure you instantly thought, "that's different", how is it?

A sporting event isn't walking out of the house and being covered because someone else can't control their sexuality or where their dick goes.