I call you a bigot, because I think you are somewhat of a bigot. You call me dumb, because you obviously think I am dumb. :shrug: Slowly now. I have said that women are sometimes forced to wear it and in France and countries like Syria now, they are being forced to not wear it. Both are misogynistic, because they deny women the right to choose for themselves. How about the kind that does not make women political pawns in their bid to win votes from the anti-Muslim crowd (with calls of the dangers of Islam and the security risks of the garb) and let women decide for themselves what they want to wear without fear or persecution and denigration of their religious expression? What do you think Geoff? I'll put it this way. I trust women who choose to wear it to know what they want for themselves. I don't need to question their motives or their interpretation of their own religion. This is what should be said to such individuals: This from the man who got so desperate that he tried to goad me into attacking his family... Which I never did. So you have forgotten the comments you made about my husband? Geoff, dear dear Geoff... The greater majority of Muslim women choose to not wear the veil. At all. The greater majority of Muslim women are free to do whatever they damn well please. Yes, some women are affected, just as some women in the West and elsewhere in the world are equally affected by similar types of domestic violence and pressure. How about instead of denigrating these women and their choices and basically questioning whether they are capable of making a decision for themselves, we let them choose for themselves without pressure or fear of repercussions either way? You know, let them be free? In doing so, we also ensure that women who live in oppressive households and communities won't feel marginalised and excluded from society and should they wish to seek help, won't feel that they are going against their religious beliefs by having to remove the burqa in public to seek said help? Because you're still a Catholic! Do you know what happens to Catholics who speak out in favour of a woman's right to choose? They are excommunicated. So you have obviously done nothing in that regard and your silence on the issue is, to your church, implied acceptance and agreement with the doctrine of the Catholic Church. Each time you say the Creed and declare your belief in the Church, what do you think you're doing? I'm sorry, but I am supposed to know all this about your family how exactly? He has an opinion on the garb, but he does not ban her from wearing it, but respects her decision to wear it, even if he doesn't agree with it. Do you understand now? And? If they choose to still wear it, it's their choice and they should not be denigrated or ostracised for doing so. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I beg your pardon? Where have I ever hidden behind my "status" on this forum? You think I had something to do with those warnings? And just so you know, those warnings were all reversed. You accused me of libel while blithely ignoring your own libel against me. You wanted to portray me as being the big bad bully. So I thought it best to let you go for it... I didn't participate in that thread because you had already made yourself look like a horses arse, and frankly, I didn't want to lower myself to your level by continuing an argument that had already died a violent death. As I have said, if you have a complaint against me, then take it to the administrators and owners of this site. What I do not appreciate are snide accusations from you scattered here and there about my supposed abuse of power, when I don't think I have even so much as given you a warning or used my status to my benefit against you. Apologise for what? For having an opinion that you don't agree with? Should I apologise for your snide comments about my attacking your family when I have never even done such a thing and then you tried to say that I would, when you know I would never and have never done such a thing? Should I apologise for pointing out your bigotry and your bias and your sometimes underhanded way of debating on this forum? Should I apologise for responding to you in kind? What exactly should I be apologising to you for exactly?
Katoliker Raus, 'veiled' insults and The Life of Brian You forgot "bigot". :shrug: And again: which is the more preferable misogyny? And why? How about you define what that kind is (the one that doesn't make women political pawns) instead of presenting a slogan? If you wish to stick with the slogan: who represents this platform of objection? What are their interests? I would be genuinely interested in such a group. I think your article is a little dismissive of the potential threat to women's rights, frankly, in favour of the other threat to women's rights. But which one shall I choose? And why? That's a very small part of the issue: you trust women who choose to wear it, but ignore those who wear it without choice? Now, that is a useful comment. I agree that this is possible in some cases. It doesn't address the discriminatory basis of the thing in the first place; it also doesn't seem to distinguish in this response to bans between those who would wear the full berka and those that go only with head coverings. I think it could be argued that the former is naturally worse, although it's possible others will disagree. People will naturally adopt reactive attitudes when confronted; but why is this any better or worse than, say, American reactionist tendencies on gun control? I would consider gun control, for example, generally a good thing. Not desperate; merely exasperated with your libel. You'd thrown everything else and I wanted to give you the chance to expand your range. Ah, now I remember: the comments I made after you passed on his insults to me? If he's apologizing, then of course I similarly retract, if I haven't done so already. Well, first off, let's discuss the numbers by region or nation, Bells dear Bells. How many people are we talking about here? What are the penalties or pressures, if any, for transgression? You're making wide speculative statements about a subject with no support at all. Ach! Ich bin endlich einen Katoliker! I forget. So...because I'm a Catholic...I must agree with every one of the Church's positions, however flawed...and support every evil act carried out behind its walls. I see. It's just like me being a Communist...because I remain a Communist, I must agree with every shitty thing Communism has done to people: the Ukraine Genocide, Pol Pot, the Cultural Revolution, and so forth. Not to mention some pretty hideously gray outfits. This is an interesting point. Bells - I think we've been over this bridge before - have you renounced your Australian citizenship yet? Because Australia, well...it's not all kosher, if you follow me. Lots of atrocities going on under the auspices of Australian jurisprudence and law. Surely you aren't still an Australian? Guh. This whole thing is really, really sad in its way. It's a funny thing, isn't it: when I criticize something, I rarely advocate throwing it out completely, eh? It's always "well, this could be reformed", or "maybe this aspect isn't such a good idea", or "this part here is profoundly inhumane". I could go on. But when people like you 'debate on me', it's a study in factorial contrasts: no grey area, just a patina of screaming black and white. "How dare you still be a Catholic!" Eh; it's shit, you know? I don't know if it's disappointing, exactly, or disillusioning, or what. Maybe I shouldn't care, but it's kind of a downer when I stop to think that the vocal sector of humanity is composed of people with your attitudes. I'm wondering now: does Bells go around telling everyone to get out of everything? No, that seems kind of unlikely: I suspect it's just the Catholics. But in a wierd way, that's almost more hopeful, the idea that, in the view of you and people like you, reformers can be reformers without leaving whatever it is they're trying to reform, like an endless series of Judean organizations from The Life of Brian: splitters (or 'splinters?') all. Is this what I get for being fair and trying to always answer every single one of an opponent's points? Few others do this; and none of my regular opponents. I'm going to be very frank with you: no. As a point of actual fact, many Catholics are for abortion rights, and while they are often blasted from the pulpit or by Catholic leaders, I think you would find it extraordinarily rare to find anyone actually excommunicated, Bells. (Your next move will be to post a single case study: why not address the stats about the issue instead? Surely there must be some.) I know many Catholics quite in favour of abortion rights and they have not been excommunicated. It's quite rare insofar as I've observed. So let's have an end to that hysteria here, unless you can demonstrate conclusively otherwise. All right? Lastly...have you mentioned to Sam and Zak and Challenger and Ja'far and all the Muslims on the forum that they must - as you insist I must leave Catholicism - leave Islam? How about the Hindus? Hindu women get thrown on fires, you know. All kinds of nasty things there too. How about Episcopalians? Atheists? Stalin was an atheist. Pol Pot also. Must they leave atheism too? And what shall we all leave for? Myuunitarianism? Er...affirming my faith in the articles of...well, you know...faith? God, and all that? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you know how the Creed goes? You know, when I say "I believe in the Church", it doesn't mean I exculpate them for every horrible thing they've ever done, you know. It would be - yes - astoundingly stupid to conclude otherwise. The above is indeed an odd statement. God Almighty - if you don't know, Bells, don't assume, yes? Making an ass, etc? I've only already mentioned it a dozen times anyway. Good god! He dares have an opinion? You should castrate him immediately. How dare a male - like me - not agree with burka, or agree with it, or even say nothing at all!? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do you get it now? I almost hate to ask, but: who's suggesting that they should? I'm sure I can guess your answer, but still. Very simple: if a regular poster libels me, I can complain about it. I'm not aware of any mod being thus reined in, and certainly not banned. I've never got so much as an apology; I conclude that those rules as such may well not apply, although I could be wrong. And I didn't say you had something to do with the warnings - please, please read. I said that as soon as we got into it, hype showed up and started passing out demerits and warnings, apparently under the influence of alcohol. And this makes it all right? Well, you're a mod and you're engaging in character assassination. (All mods certainly do not behave this way.) You claim you've never used your power against me, but being above remediation while unjustly attacking my character is abuse. I'm sure you won't find it on the Forum Rules, but it stands nonetheless. And which libel against you? Of course not. Given your behavior recently, I'm afraid I don't know any such thing about you. I don't trust you, Bells. Sorry. You should be apologizing for those accusations, yes. I'll live with "underhanded", if you like. But bigotry and bias have to be demonstrated at the very least, Bells.
Of course. How silly of me. Anything else you wish to add to the list? How about neither? You know, let women decide for themselves - God forbid they should have an opinion about themselves..Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I mean, you don't think this is misogyny? This is meant to empower Muslim women? You see the complaint of these women as being a slogan? In that you need to question their complaints? You don't think they are trustworthy or know or understand their situation enough to your liking? They need to explain their beliefs to you, great white man of the West? So you think male politicians telling women what to wear and not to wear isn't a threat to their rights? Okay then. What's going to be next I wonder? We already have the Government telling women what their body shape should be like. Quite the contrary. I think such bans put women who are being forced to wear it further from help and even more closed off from society. And it runs the risk of pushing them into more radical beliefs systems - in protest against even more men telling them what they can and can't wear. These women are being forced to adhere to male rules at home. What such bans do is reduce the options for women in society - their daughters can sometimes be pulled out of public schools, for example, which would be detrimental to those girls. Banning the burqa gives women who are forced to wear it less freedom and less options because they will be further ostracised from society as a whole as they will be forced to withdraw from said society due to the ban. That is what many don't quite understand in this debate. Well shortly in France, if you wear it, you can find yourself arrested and forced to remove it and possibly fined. You think that is the lesser of two evils? In France for example, there were approximately 1900 Muslim women who wear it. What's going to happen to those women when it becomes banned entirely from public spaces? Personally I think pressure on women to wear it is just as bad as the pressure that exists in Western society for them to not wear it. As we have seen in Turkey, for example, more women have started to wear a head cover or the veil in protest. It is fast becoming a symbol of freedom for Muslim women who are being denied the right to choose. The problem in France now is that Muslim women who wear the burqa may end up being denied access to public services, so a Muslim woman who is being forced to wear it and may be seeking help from outside sources, may find herself in a position to not be legally allowed to access it and having to remove it could place her life in danger if she is recognised. A Muslim woman who wears the full face veil who falls ill could end up being denied help in a public hospital if she arrives with the veil on.. The scope of this ban is astounding - will paramedics be forced to not provide help to women who wear it for example? What bothers me about the latest round of possible bans in France is that it will endanger many Muslim women. I don't like it (the burqa), but if it allows these women who are being forced to wear it, access to the outside world and possible help, then it should not be banned. Banning it will further ostracise these already ostracised women. My point, Geoff is that you live in a glass house. You shouldn't be throwing stones about misogyny of other religions, when yours is just as bad. I really don't care if you are a Catholic. *Sigh*.. Be whatever you want to be Geoff. I really do not care. But don't accuse other religions of misogyny when your own is just as bad. Yes I am. But I speak out openly about it and actively try to change things. And you don't really have that option. Instead, you seem to focus so much more on Islam as a religion, that you barely even mention the inequalities in your own society. I am overly critical of the Australian Government and the over-representation of Aboriginals in the legal system, not to mention the fact that the Australian Government has done fuck all in helping or providing adequate health and education to them as a group. You know, I have often thought about migrating elsewhere. But where? What place isn't tainted? I think there are some aspects of all religions that should be thrown away entirely. There was only one time that I ever told someone, no, begged them to not join or do something religious. And that was my cousin who had decided to marry a violent and very Christian man who beats her and cites the bible to her as he beats her. I still remember standing there sobbing like a baby as I begged her to not get into that limo that would take her to the Church. But she did and now when he goes into a rage, I am the one she calls to come and get her and the children out of the house. *Sigh*.. My point is that as a Catholic, you are unable to speak out without fear or threat of being expelled from the Church. The thing with the Church is that it will silence the voices that call for what is right by expelling them entirely. And the simple fact that you belong to such a sexist and homophobic organisation - isn't it better to concentrate on cleaning your own religious house before you try to force other religions to do what yours refuses to do? Try and make your glass house into at least a flexi glass house that isn't breakable? I won't hold you to a higher standard anymore. Your friends had best be careful about how they word or make public their support of pro choice. My mother's parish is facing quiet and veiled threats of excommunication because they all support their priests who gives homosexual couples communion and has even blessed some commitment pledges some have made. My mother, ever the strict Catholic, is quite proud of the stance the group has taken. And I am proud of her. Why do you think the Church has you say it? "The purpose of a creed is to act as a yardstick of correct belief." (Source) About your family? I have never seen you say anything like that about your family. Contrary to what you may believe, I don't read all the posts you make on this forum, so if you have mentioned it, it is not in a thread that I have read. I believe she castrated him when he bought her a bikini when she was 7 months pregnant with their second child. Go back a couple of pages and read about the bus driver in the UK who openly humiliated and refused two Muslim to get on his bus and then told them they were a threat to him and passengers on the bus because one of them wore the burqa and the other a hijab. I see. But you worded it in such a way that outsiders to our sorry saga would assume that I had. Geoff, if you have a complaint about me, please, for the love of all that is almond flavoured, PM an administrator. If you feel that I have breached a law against you, contact an administrator straight away, instead of snide comments and innuendo without proof. Nope. But that is something you need to take up with Hype. Not me. Interesting. So when you post like a bigot, pointing out that you are posting like a bigot is character assassination? Okay then. Again, if you feel that way, PM an administrator and have them read the whole thread in question to determine for themselves. And just in case you were wondering, when you question my abilities as a lawyer, as you have done in the past, then yes, I can consider that a character assassination against me and also libel, since some of my colleagues also frequent this forum from time to time. Interesting. My behaviour has been to never once make derogatory comments about your family, no matter how much you have goaded me to do so and then claimed that you wanted to give me a chance to do so. At the time, I believe I reminded you that I was not you. You don't trust me? Fine. I don't trust you either and I have reason to not trust you. But if you feel my behaviour is against this site's rules and against the law, then please, again, contact an administrator. You never know. If they agree with you, you could have a happy day as I am promptly banned and demoted.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Then of course you'd have nothing to whine about and be a victim about, but you'd have a small victory. So really.. PM away instead of just whining and doing nothing about what you deem to be a problem for you. Where would I even start cherie?
“Hand-wringing”? But, again: women aren't strictly deciding for themselves on this issue, are they? I think you’re imagining some perfect world in which there's no social (or mortal) pressure. This world does not presently exist. It does have the effect of promoting the equal treatment of all women. But you point out above in defense of your position via links and some of your own arguments, I believe, that any social or familial enforcement of the burka affects few women anyway. Can one now argue that, since few women would be affected, Tch. My race has to do with this argument? How is that? As for the slogan: yes, you are presenting a slogan – “I choose the group that would let people do whatever they want to do, and be free!” Well, great. I too would choose such a group. But back on Earth, who is this “group”? How will they assure such freedom? Or would they balance the freedom to wear hijab/burka with the possible threat to personal liberty in some cunning way that I cannot perceive? I’m sure you’ll agree that this is an imaginary scenario, without the parameters to explain it. So, what you are presenting is a slogan for a faction that doesn't seemingly exist. In short: I would be more than happy to support such an idea, except that I don't know how that opinion would work. I presently remain undecided. Against the option of family members telling them what to wear at the threat of losing their social status and/or their life? I'm still not convinced that your perspective is any better. You make out that women should have free choice on this issue, and I agree - but there is no way to establish that free choice. (You may save the succeeding feminist paranoia, if you will; clearly, the example presented is clearly absurd and discriminatory to all unbiased viewers.) I agree that this is also a possibility. Mind you, two Saudi imams also recently expressed a new religious opinion allowing women not to wear the burka in France, precisely because there is a ban. Now, that all seems ludicrous from the get-go anyway – male religious scholars telling women how it ought to be – but it does represent an adaptation. Perhaps even liberalization? I think that if a ban were to be imposed, it alone could be detrimental to such women. It would – as a rough starting guess – need to be applied in conjunction with social re-education and outreach to those women. But as for making them more radical: well, I did present the “America loves guns” scenario. Reactionary habits aren’t necessarily rational. Against death, abuse or dislocation? Yes, clearly. As I said: human reactionism is often irrational. I would disagree that paramedics or hospitals would refuse to treat a woman with the burka on…which would generate some very dark irony if she were beaten for not wearing it. But I think that scenario unlikely. How would you balance social protections against personal identification? Surely a better system exists anyway: biometric scanning? /sigh Slight contradiction there, and with your posts above. So I am now permitted to be Catholic without the accusation of inherent bias? Your personal affirmations are meaningless in such a case, Bells, since you have affirmed that my personal case is also irrelevant: clearly, your representative body has done wrong and there is no personal excuse. When are you tearing up your passport? How does one go about refusing an Australian citizenship? I assume you will not be seeking citizenship in your new country either. And when are you leaving atheism? Who does one contact about this? Should I email Richard Dawkins? Here we agree: although I expect you will intimate that I disagree on basis of my religion, race or gender. Then you should call the authorities. Then your point is in error: I consider this no threat whatsoever. If challenged thereof, I might even cry ”Who will rid me of this troublesome priest?” and then strut about menacingly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! There are Catholics who are indeed so threatened, which is abominable and wrong. I have written letters to the respective Bishops, though I expect this will do little in the short term. Er…haven’t I already explained that I am doing so? Look, which is it you want: i) that I should leave Catholicism, or ii) that I should fix my own house (Catholicism)? You can’t have both, logically. Decide on your criticism, please. If that means “libel the hell out of you”, that would be welcome. But if you could hold me to an equal standard, that would be better still. But…she hasn’t even left Catholicsm! How could you possibly be proud of someone who belongs to such a sexist and homophobic organization? I suspect you’re not trying hard enough. Maybe you could attack her, or call her vile names in public. Yeeeesss….. And? You realize belief in God is kind of central to Catholicism? It’s sort of the point. I don’t do the part immediately following that where the congregation roams out in the street to attack heathens any more. This is possible, although I believe I mentioned it directly to you. Then this is clearly wrong. I don’t agree with you here. I don’t know that it isn’t so, but I believe it isn’t. I appreciate your candor, but I don’t think this would be effective. What should I say? “Bells and I are arguing, and she repeatedly libels me.”? Who would care? If I disagree with your specious interpretations and positions, I am a bigot. Well I'm sure that's never been tried before. The problem in this case is your evidentiary process: by what evidence do you call me one? See also below. Then you should refrain from dishonest argumentation and libel. I don’t believe that the claim of “ignorance” or “poor understanding”, as critiques of your rhetoric, are not libelous as such, but I could be wrong. Where morals fail the law provides. “Bigot” on the other hand is libel, unless you can demonstrate the contrary, and here’s where it gets tricky for you: First, and foremost, I am not a bigot: my detractions concern the intersection of conservative Islam (up to and including Salafism, Qutbism and Wahhabism) with politics, sociality and social behavior, not with Islam itself. I indeed consider the former a serious social threat; partially for reasons of usage and commonality, and partially since the critique of such systems invariably generates the kind of responses I see from you and others. I have made this clear many times now, although I had hoped it would be obvious. It follows the old rule: your right to self-expression stops at my nose. It is a somewhat subtle difference, and it is possible you have not understood this point, although I think that this is very unlikely given the pains I have taken to make it clear. I consider it more likely that you simply disagree with this self-characterization. This in itself is also not really grounds for libel as I understand it; but the accusation thereof of bigotry is libelous if presented without evidence. In this you are indeed lacking: we must discuss this functionally here, regrettably. I have not written “I think those Muslims is bad” or “I don’t likes ‘em” or “I think all Muslims should leave Islam”, because these statements are completely false vis-à-vis myself. They are inherently unfair: why should they be so, or should I not like them, or should they leave anything? I have specified areas in which conservative Islam – again, as it intersects with sociality – ought to be changed. I think I have even specified where conservative interpretations of Islam themselves ought to be changed; but I also feel this is true of Christianity, Judaism, and all other world religions. Many Muslim reformers themselves feel the same: can they be bigots also? All this reminds me of an old Kids in the Hall sketch: a woman collapses and her soul leaves her body, floating above her family. Panic ensues as they attempt to decide what to do; some suggest the Heimlich maneuver, others pressing on her chest, but no action is ultimately taken because “nothing must be done until a trained professional arrives”. Eventually they conclude that the best course of action is to “call a trained professional”, but are stopped by one family member who shrieks hyperbolically that “nothing should be done until a trained professional arrives”. This is evocative of the scenario we have playing out between you and I. In my critique of (conservative) Islamic law, politics and sociality, I am attempting to support Islamic reformation. The latter is the “trained professionals” in this scenario: reformation and reformers shall ‘doctor themselves’, if you will. But your perspective appears to be that I cannot do so for reasons of gender, race or religion: I can make no corrective suggestions, being again of the wrong gender, race or religion. And now I may not even “call the trained professionals” by critiquing a field we have in common. I must, perhaps, wait and hope that happenstance will bring change by, as the actors in the above scenario must wait for a hopeful “trained professional” to simply appear. (The mother lives in the scenario: bad olive pops out or somesuch.) I can neither treat the symptoms of Islamic conservatism, nor call attention to it. I must simply wait and hope for the best. I’m unaware of the success rate of such a strategy; presumably this is also the way in which one takes on Christian Conservatism, and Zionism, and Naziism, and all the other ‘isms’. Secondly: if we specifically contrast your accusations with yourself, we run into some interesting ground. I have never described people of different groups as “species”; I would call such a description deplorable. Yet, you have done so, repeatedly. It seems very unlikely that this is some kind of “over-the-top” Naziism or racialism, but it is curious. I have also never accused anyone of inherent bias or immorality for the act of simply belonging to some particular social, religious or racial group. It could be argued that such a meme is a recurrent theme in any given religion (Abrahamic, at least), but it is not one that I am prey to. I have outlined my dealings with Muslims in past and daily life (I am now scrambling to attempt to find a project for a Muslim girl who wants to work in the lab…Myuu alone knows what I can have her do). It is or should be abundantly clear from my record that I do not feel that in order to be moral, Muslims should leave Islam; I have said on several occasions that Islam does not inherently encompass evil or immorality, but that conservative Islam is easily used to oppress others, and that there is theological room for this to occur. (This is also true of other religions, BTW.) You, on the other hand, insist that no person in Catholicism can be good: I am apparently a bad person specifically because I have not left Catholicism. I believe I am correct in asserting that you make such a distinction for no other group. The hypocrisy in your positions is thereby astounding: you first claim that I am evil strictly for being Catholic – and your subsequent work suggest for being European as well – and then backpedal sharply to say that you don’t mind me being Catholic, and that I should be whatever I want, but that I should make no comment about anything because I am from a religion that is “just as bad”. I refer you to the first point, above, regarding the latter: but I am unable to simply excuse you on the former. It is incorrect, and actually – truly – “bigoted”, without refrain or restriction. It is an expression of complete and unadulterated bias. It is precisely what you have been accusing me of; a statement of hypocrisy and bigotry at the same time. And you are able to sit there, carrying on with the same noise, as if nothing had occurred. You even go on in your post above to drag my race into the discussion. I appreciate that I am indeed a “great” man, but I don’t see how that or my race has to do with our discussion. You’ll excuse me for considering that this scenario is highly unlikely. I think you mean: post. As for “doing nothing”, I think by keeping our discourse in the public record, I can avoid the implication of bias or unfairness. The reader then may judge. He or she may come to a false conclusion, but that, too, will be immediately apparent to the truly impartial observer. You start with: I'm sorry. I was mistaken about your intentions. I believe a fair-minded person would do this, and I have given you many opportunities to do so. Perhaps it would be best if we take the personal half of this discussion to another thread. I do not say "end it", since I wish you to have your full personal shot at me; but it isn't helping here.
As already mentioned, there are plenty of Muslim women that choose to wear it. What do you say to these women? I think more women cover their hair (with hijab - not the burka) in the UK than compared to Pakistan or other countries. And it might be the same with beards, most of the younger lot in Pakistan seem to be clean-shaven. The Burka or Niqab is most common in the countries like Saudi Arabia, Yemen etc. Their interpretation is more stringent, unlike some other Arab and Muslim countries - the general consensus amongst scholars is that women should cover their hair and wear modest clothing. As a Muslim I don't think a woman needs to wear a burka in the West, it actually brings more attention, simply covering your hair would be sufficient. But as mentioned earlier, if a woman wants to wear one, its really no one else's business.
This is, as opposed to, the female founders, current--and past--prominent female scholars and leaders of Islam that, conversely, demand that the members of their gender wear the veil. Wait. Shit. What prominent female founder and author of Islam? What female contributors to the Haditha? What current female prominent Imams? At least in Britain, about a fifth of the elected parliamentarians are women and have well over a hundred (143 to be exact) voices to defend female rights. How many women are represented in the upper echelons of Islam to defend female rights? ~String
She was illustrating that many Muslims 'break the rules', and that there is no hegemonic 'group-think' common to that religion; this is demonstrably true, and expected.
They don't seem to agree. There are Muslim feminists. Why do you assume there are not. But you cannot expect them to be like Western feminists. When one considers that the most populace Muslim countries on earth have had more female leaders than Western countries, that's not really a question you should be asking, now is it? But seriously, what's wrong with letting women decide what they want to wear? Do we need politicians tell women what they can and cannot wear on their heads? In a time where the UK (as per this thread) is involved in 2 wars, is suffering from the global financial crisis.. they are discussing what women wear on their heads? Is it a slow news day? As one member pointed out, apparently Western men telling women what not to wear is the preferred type of misogyny compared to Muslim men telling women what to wear.. I still /facepalm at that.. Because apparently, we have a preferred type of misogyny.. *sigh*.. But what makes Western misogyny better than Islamic misogyny?
You're assuming that I inferred that there are no female Muslim feminists. You would be wrong. I know there are. In fact, I was just exploring the travails of a female feminist in Turkey fighting for women's rights. Remember: I was speaking about the upper echelons of Islamic leadership, not politics nor social life. That's more a matter of family dynasties than some intrinsic respect for female leadership and empowerment. Just as with the west (though the trend is less so now), powerful families beget powerful dyansties. Sometimes a female or two ends up in the fortuitus position to head one. By and large, the females who've led Muslim countries all inherited a powerful political apparatus from their fathers or husbands (Benazir Bhutto, Sheikh Hasina, Megawati Sukarnoputri). The one lone, sort of, exception is Tansu Çiller who--while coming from a reasonably established political family--did work her way up through the political echelons. This doesn't distract away from some of their talent (though I wonder about Çiller's), it does put things into perspective. To infer that these women were elected out of some passionately egalitarian body politic is chimerical (thanks Quad) at best. I never said they shouldn't. I come from a country where women have the expressed constitutional right to wear them and I'm content to leave it that way. I'm just trying to put into perspective your odd belief that "British men are forcing this on Muslim females" while simultaneously ignoring female parliamentarians support for this law and Islam's lopsided dominance by men who force ridiculous doctrines on their often times suppressed and brain-washed female members. Maybe. Here in the states there is a unique labor law that bars employers from allowing employees to even--willingly--forfeit their break time and work through them. Even if the employee voluntarily writes a letter requesting to not take their 15 minute break (or half hour lunch), even if they are willing to work unpaid, of their own volition, employers (and managers, by default) are barred from allowing them to do so. This has nothing to do with insurance not covering them while off the clock or other such nonsense (insurance does cover employees, even when they are off the clock). It has to do with environment. See, an employee who works through their breaks or off the clock--even willingly--creates an atmosphere where other employees might feel obligated to do so. By not forcing employees to take their breaks, management is willfully allowing an atmosphere to be created that might deny others their break rights. Moreover, when it comes to productivity, usually the employee who willingly worked through breaks and lunches got more done. Therefore, the employee who takes their breaks, might (and often times did) get less done. The US department of labor found that employees were often time promoted based on their "willingness to stay and get things done. . ." (attitude implied) while those who took breaks "just didn't do what it took to get the job done." and were therefore passed over for promotion. The Congress and Dept. of Labor decided that everybody had to take breaks, even if they didn't want to. Everybody had to be paid for their work, even if they came in--willingly and without being requested by management--on their time off to work. This is because such instances, as I said, created an atmosphere where others felt the need to do the same in order to be considered productive, retain-able or promotable which is wholly unfair. In Britain and France, this is the approach they feel is correct when it comes to the veil. Women who willingly wear the veil in public can create an atmosphere where other women feel pressured to do the same. Women who don't want to wear the veil in public, but are pressured to do so by their family, now have a legal alibi in not doing so. Women who are forced to show their faces will just have to show their faces until all instances of women's oppression within faith is removed. This is why--for instance--female nuns are not required to wear remove their habit in public (even if, in the rare case, it covers the face). There is no credible proof of women in modern France being forced into convents, and the Catholic church has since dropped all requirement to wear head coverings for nuns. To bolster the proof that women are not pressured to do so, the many nuns still in France and Britain often times go without them with no ill effects from family or the church. Muslim women cannot say the same with the same degree of freedom. Non sequitur. And a lousy one at that. Being involved in wars or other foreign affairs doesn't deny Britain the right to govern its homeland the way it chooses. Believe it or not, most nations can walk and chew gum at the same time. And women!!! Misogyny is defined as hatred of women. . . forcing women to not wear a veil which was forced on them by a culture and religion that is utterly dominated by men doesn't really rise to the level of "misogyny". ~String
Simply ignoring the "consensus among scholars" should be sufficient. Simply not being subjected to the opinions of people who impose this or that "as a Muslim" should be sufficient. Because nobody, anywhere, "needs" to wear a burka for any but seriously objectionable reasons, Islamic oppression (and misogyny - yes, it's there) being among them. They aren't. They are naming one particular thing they cannot wear. That's different.
I thought that was clear: which of the two strategies, both called misogynist, is the less offensive or harmful? And how can we know?
Is your post really a response to mine? Did you even read what I had to say? We can argue about this all day but the fact remains, "choosing" to do something is not necessarily free will. Women can "choose" to stay in violent relationships, and many do. Or do they? They are indeed "choosing" to do this, but why are they choosing it? I might also "choose" to get drunk and then drive my car on the highway because I'm depressed. Doesn't mean my choosing is a sound one. Yes but wearing modest clothing can be accomplished in a million ways that do not require the covering of their faces or entire bodies. This explains your inability to think from an outsider's perspective and see the big picture from the unbiased angle. If an exhibitionist woman wants to run around in public naked, is that also nobody else's business? Can she not "choose" to do this without complication? Why or why not? Covering your face whilst walking around in public and trying to interact with other people is problematic. I'd feel just as uncomfortable talking to a naked woman as I would talking to a walking mystery blob of cloth. This whole debate is one of freedom. No society grants its citizens pure freedom... that would be anarchy. We are not allowed to drive without a seat belt on, we are not allowed to roam naked in public, nor are we allowed to pee in a rubbish bin, even if we may "choose" to do so. It's very clear to most that Islam suppresses women's rights to being free in the public sphere. The indirect and direct societal manipulation and coercion that takes place is unmissable. This fact alone suggests that any sort of "choosing" that may be taking place amongst Muslim women is probably much more complex than them simply "choosing" to cover themselves because they genuinely like it.
^^^ "If an exhibitionist woman wants to run around in public naked, is that also nobody else's business?" I wouldn't mind lol Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! probably enjoy it more than a hijabi walking around in public but I kid I kid... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! keep going on ppl! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well, I suppose in many ways Syria is un-British and they have just banned the burkha at universities.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1296152/Syria-bans-burka-niqab-universities.html
