Dress codes in society

Discussion in 'Free Thoughts' started by S.A.M., Nov 12, 2010.

  1. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    Is there an elephant in the room or we all do agree this isn't really about the Burka per say. It's Islam. No one has any affection for this intolerant ideology. If you could get an honest answer from most non-Muslims you will find that to be the case. You could ask Europeans, or Chinese, Israelis, Americans, Russians, Thai, Singaporeans, Philippians, Indians pretty much anyone who has to live with Muslims. It's not a France thing. It's not a European history thing. It's Islam.

    Africans have to tolerate WASP White supremacists. That's the way life is. But don't walk around all up in their face with a klanhood on and not expect to get punched in the face. You can crap on all you want about African History this or African History that - the answer is obvious and shouldn't be surprising.

    This whole thing reminds me of an Indian Hindu who was interviewed on TV quite a number of years ago. He said as sure and the day is long that as the number of Muslims increase in any given society these exact problems will start to occur. Segregating in to Islamic slums. Calling for Shara Law. Teaching bigotry against non-Muslims. Finally violence against non-Muslims justified by a big dollop of self-pitty and warped sense of History. It's not like this guy had a crystal ball. It's the patter we seem to see over and over with Muslims. Like White-trash moving to Africa and teaching their kids that Blacks are inferior and then whining they aint got the God given right to wear their klanhoods in public. As if Africans are going to put up with that shit.
     
  2. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    What does this Hindu think of the caste system in India?

    Meanwhile, I agree that this burqa ban is not about the burqa but about Islam. And not just Islam. The same Belgium where the burqa ban is being legislated is known for kicking out Jews for wearing kippas. Not only that, the country where "The Nun's Story" was filmed is upset about women wearing headscarfs.

    Which is why this thread is about dress codes in society.
     
    Last edited: Nov 15, 2010
  4. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Banning one item is not dictating any others. This is the reactionary blind spot - an effect of religion, I've noticed.
    They have some fairly radical experience with gang colors - meanwhile, there's all kinds of adaptation, no?
    I doubt the threat is from the women.
     
  6. Guest Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Michael 歌舞伎 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    20,285
    And yet these same people are not put off by Hindu, Shinto or Buddhists. Why do you suppose that is the case SAM?
     
  8. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    And the French have their own Vel d'Hiver to live up to. I wonder if a thousand unthreatening women wore the full burka as a protest in Paris, would the police round them up as well? Whats the normal protocol for protests in France?

    And here I thought it was just common sense.
     
  9. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I've noticed that, yes.

    It's never too late to learn how to think and discuss honestly.
    Really.

    By insisting they are all the same phenomenon? Requisite uniforms, customary ties, burka bans, France, Belgium, the "West", all the same?
     
  10. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    You mean how "Banning one item is not dictating any others" - like banning a one type of choice of clothing is not the same as forcing another type of choice of clothing. Do you think banning freedom of expression does not dictate your choices? Or is banning the kind of expression you disagree with, how you define freedom of expression?

    The putative reason for the burqa ban is that it covers the face. So is it now a crime to walk down a Paris street with your hands covering your face, peeking through your fingers? Will you get arrested for that?


    Sure. How else do you define dress codes? And yes, it is a primarly western phenomenon. Apart from the Shiv Sena in Mumbai, I cannot think of any other country where there is a debate on banning any article of womens clothing [the Shiv Sena want to ban both the burqa and the pub culture in women as being against Hindu values]
     
  11. Lori_7 Go to church? I am the church! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,515
    imo, clothing should be worn to achieve one of two things, or a combination of those two things, which are functionality (utility) and/or artistic expression (fashion). and imo, uniforms are typically meant to achieve one thing, and that is conformity, which sucks.
     
  12. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    I don't think banning a specific item of clothing for a definite reason is "banning freedom of expression".
    I don't confuse customs, codes, habits, fashions, traditions, rules, requirements, and laws, in my definitions.

    As far as I know, not even the French require that specific kinds of clothing be worn by the general public. Speaking of only Western countries, of course.
    Muslim countries in general are pretty well known for the severity and rigorousness of their bans on various women's clothing items, at least visible ones - pants, for example, in Indonesia. And of course the dress codes in such places are quite detailed and rigorous in their demands otherwise. How did that slip your mind?
     
  13. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    I wouldn't say that they're "oppressed," since they choose to subject themselves to these strictures of their own free will.

    They waive the rights in question by freely agreeing to contracts that stipulate as much. If you don't want to wear a uniform, you don't have to be a soldier. If you don't want to wear a suit, you don't have to work for a company that requires that as part of its dress code. Once you freely sign up for such a legal contract, then that contract is legally enforceable - you obey the dress code you agreed to, or you suffer the consequences.

    Why would they? The ones that find this stuff unacceptable tend to pursue other careers. The ones who do find it acceptable presumably think the practice worth supporting and continuing.

    There were a couple of really, really big wars that required most of the able-bodied men to go and fight, and so the women had to run the factories while they were gone. Traditional women's dress made this very difficult, and so they switched to pants (short hair as well). This was accepted because the alternative was to cease factory production in wartime.

    The point of patriarchy-imposed female clothing is always to circumscribe the independence and capabilities of women, and so keep them oppressed and subject to men. The burqa is the single most egregious major example of this trend in the world today.

    Different answers for different societies. I could give you an answer for the US, but the countries you seem interested in (i.e., ones where there is public support for banning burqas), swimming and sunbathing are done naked and long have been.

    The pressure seems mostly to be directed at men to stop forcing "their" women to wear burqas. France's ban imposes only very light penalties for wearing a burqa, but rather stiff ones for forcing a woman to wear one.

    Of course. Such is done routinely the world over, and long has been.

    Given that large majorities in certain European countries favor such bans, I'm going to say yes. The same wouldn't be true in the US, where such a ban would fly in the face of standard social conformity (and, indeed, very large majorities of Americans, when polled, say that they'd oppose such laws here).
     
  14. SilentLi89 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    263
    Why the uniform hate? Uniforms don't have to mean forced conformity. I think they are moreso an expression of unity. It's all about the attitude behind wearing the uniform, do you wear it because you want to or because you're forced to? Many people who wear uniforms wear them because they want to. At least I know I do.
     
  15. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    Don't you? Girls or women who veil will/have become housebound after the ban. I would call that a serious curtailment of freedom of expression.

    Thats an extremely superficial way to look at it. A business suit is not a "custom" if not wearing it can lose you your job, nor is a uniform if wearing one when you are not entitiled to can have you thrown in prison for impersonation e.g. cops uniform. These are very rigid social dress codes.
    I'd like to see the laws covering these requirements.

    Once again, I'd like to see the laws regarding these requirements.

    Personally I see no difference between forcing a woman to wear something or banning her from wearing it. In either case, the choice is imposed from without. Apparently it crosses all boundaries, religion, culture and education with the very security and stability of society being incumbent on what women wear

    Apparently voluntary accepting a dress code can be a sort of Stockholm syndrome.

    Exactly, the social code demands they dress in a certain way or suffer the consequences. Women who veil could choose to stay at home when they are banned from publicly donning a veil as well.

    But if they want to follow that career [or as the choice may be, leave home] they have to follow the dress code imposed upon them.


    So once again, social stability is incumbent on what women wear.
    Strange, you ask an Arab woman and she will point out to the objectification of womens bodies as such an example. Nevertheless it appears that the extent to which a woman covers or uncovers her body has nothing at all to do with her.


    I can believe that of the French, although I did not realise that they were swimming and sunbathing naked throughout Victorian times as well or even prior to that and I have heard that Flemish families think nothing of sharing a bath naked with grown and young members together which would suggest a similar lack of inhibition in front of other people but was this extended to the public places like beaches?

    Regardless both bans levy a public penalty on women who veil and who even if there are only 30 of them, will have their lifestyle and choices restricted to their homes for the forseeable future.
    Could you give me an example of social pressure being brought upon men to wear or discard a self selected clothing choice under threat of legal consequences by women?


    At one point I would have agreed with you - except I remember the recent "debate" on the "mosque at Ground zero".

    Also I do not believe - but could be mistaken - that the US has reasonable accomodation laws as say, India or Canada do, where it comes to freedom of religious expression. I've read the opinions of Americans on this forum on the burqa varying from bank robbers to terrorists to gang colours, which if you know any women who veil at all, would be funny So, I would just say that while in the US, the force of law may not be applied to the burqa - and that is not something etched in stone - the attitude toward them is quite similar as the Europeans

    Its funny in a way, in the UK if a man rips off the veil of a woman he gets sentenced to two years in prison, in France, the government does it.

     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  16. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Sure it is. "Custom" does not mean "toothless suggestion." There are plenty of places where violating certain customs will endanger your life - but they are still customs.

    And failing to wear a suit can lose you your job even without any specific contractual agreement to do so (if it causes you to lose business, say), indicating that it is exactly a custom in the general case.

    Right, that one is a "law," not a simple custom.

    Which is not exclusive of them being "customs."

    The assertion was that no such laws exist.

    Then look them up:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab_by_country

    The two imposed choices are not equivalent. Being forced to wear something is exactly that: you wear the prescribed clothing or else, and so have no choice at all in how you dress. Being unable to wear a few particular banned items still leaves lots of room to decide which of the manifold non-banned items one will wear.

    I'm prevented by law from going around with my genitals exposed. But I still get to choose from a dizzying variety of pants, shorts, kilts, loin-cloths, overalls, panchos or whatever. That's not nearly as restrictive as saying that I have to wear, say, a three-piece suit whenever I'm out in public. Proscribing certain specific items for specific, secular reasons is not the same thing as forcing people to wear a specific item at all times.

    Not all religions and cultures, just patriarchal ones. And, yes, a central tenet of patriarchy is that control of women (and in particular, pervasive public demonstration of said control) is crucial to the very security and stability of the society. Such is exactly the justification that patriarchal systems provide for oppressing women - that we must do so, or society will collapse on itself.
     
  17. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    So its not at all "voluntary" is it?


    In general, customs are voluntary - anything that is customary can be enforced, but usually if it is enforced, it is not considered a custom.



    So when ice said that even the French require people to wear specific type of clothing, he was referring to social dress codes not enforced by law. Are there any other dress codes enforced by law other than those of law enforcement?


    I did, I found two country where niqab is mandated for women, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia, one where the headscarf is mandated after the revolution, Iran and two where the headscarf is banned. However iceaura said:


    and I wanted to see these severe laws in these Muslim countries - the tight pants ban in Indonesia will probably be adopted by other countries in te region, including quite possibly India. We already have bans in place in educational institution against shorts and revealing clothes by women. And the Shiv Sena wants to ban the burqa in women citing security reasons. So I think we will see more bans on clothing for women in the near future, not less.
    I am very sorry for you that you are not allowed to exercise a choice in exposing your genitals. I've seen members of the Naga tribe and they walk completely naked on the streets of India. Hopefully at some future point, you will be free to do so in your society as well. Who knows some enlightened chap may even ban covering the genitals in order to speed up the process.



    Oh I wouldn't say that. Expectations of womens dress are not limited to any particular society. If they don't expect them to cover up, they expect them to take it off.
     
  18. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    A "Stockholm Syndrome" would require that the initial acceptance was involuntary.

    Your annoying habit of throwing around loaded terms with little regard for their actual meanings has been getting pretty egregious lately.

    Yes. And the justification for said dress codes is that the society feels that the benefits of it outweigh the costs. Apparently France thinks it's better to prevent the burqa from becoming entrenched as socially acceptable in their country, despite the possibility that some burqa-wearing women may be further marginalized by this. They are doing this in order to protect their vision of French society, more than the individual women currently wearing veils in France.

    And while I can't say that I'd get on board with such a project, it is worth understanding where they're coming from if you're going to criticize them.

    Yep. Societies suck that way. If you want total individual autonomy, your only choice is to live in isolation. If you want a society whose rules align with your individual preferences, you can try migrating or you can be an activist. The latter requires you to understand what the society is actually doing.

    The point is that there are always going to be some kind of rules - the priority is to get rid of the onerous, unjust ones and keep the beneficial ones.

    Point?

    And she'll be right. Point?

    Note that the burqa is simply a different flavor of the objectification of women's bodies. And that objectification of women's bodies is a primary object of criticism by Western feminists, since forever. Paris Hilton is not supposed to represent the apex of western feminist enlightenment - rather the opposite.

    There were no "Victorian times" outside of the British Empire. Victoria was Queen of England, you may recall. And the French have long defined themselves culturally in opposition to the British, as you may or may not be aware. The libertines rode high there for centuries.

    Yeah, it's pretty standard to see completely naked people most anywhere that sunbathing/swimming are being done in Europe (which isn't so much in the north, due to the weather). Topless women are also very widespread on beaches.

    For that matter it's pretty common to see young people having sex in public parks in most of Europe, if somewhat serruptitiously.

    Or they can decide not to wear the veil in public, or they can move elsewhere. It's up to them. Point is that France as a whole thinks it's more important to prevent said oppression of women from becoming entrenched in their country, even if that means marginalizing a few currently-oppressed women. The rationale is not that it is necessarily what's best for the currently-veiled French women (although I'd suggest that for every one of your hypothetical anecdotes of a woman oppressed by this law, there's another of a woman liberated from her oppressive family and religion by it), but that it's best for French society as a whole, including all of the Muslim women that will live there in the future.

    Maybe they're wrong - it's not an approach I or many other Americans would take. We don't generally go in for that sort of prescriptive dictating of culture (especially, religious culture) by the state. But they seem to feel strongly about it, and it's within their prerogative, so... if you can't address that, you're just flinging shit around.

    In a patriarchal society? Certainly not, by definition. Now, if only we could find a matriarchal society, we'd presumably come up with some examples pretty quickly... but where can we find such?

    Also, the "legal consequences" would be "by" the state, and not "by women."

    Which debate ended with a failure to use the law or the state to prohibit the construction, which will now proceed with the explicit, forceful protection of the state.

    And so that makes a good test case: despite an ostensible majority of Americans not wanting that building constructed (if we believe the polls), the state is not going to intervene to stop it. Quite the contrary - they will in fact be using force to ensure that its construction proceeds in a peaceful and orderly fashion. And so we see that there is real meat to American committment to religious freedoms - even in cases where the majority doesn't like something, they like the prospect of using state power to interfere even less. The French (and inhabitants of ethnic nation-states generally) have typically not felt the same reservations about the relationship between their culture and the state. Also bear in mind that the USA was founded by refugees who fled religious state persecution in Europe.

    You believe wrong. The US has laws that are comparable or stronger, and has for generations.

    Meanwhile, the list of truly egregious offenders in this category reads like a list of Islamic States, with Saudi Arabia right at the top.

    America is a big country. You can find somebody who believes just about anything here. That has nothing to do with the laws, which are available online for you to read if you really care. That some American somewhere said something you didn't think was very nice is not a valid basis for drawing conclusions about US jurisprudence.

    Hogwash on both counts. Muslim women routinely wear religious clothing in public in the US, without harassment or imposition. And attitudes about this practice, and in particular the prospect of legislating it, are markedly different on either side of the Atlantic:

    http://articles.cnn.com/2010-10-07/...-ban-ban-last-year-full-face-veil?_s=PM:WORLD

    "Clear majorities also backed burqa bans in Germany, Britain and Spain, while two out of three Americans opposed it, the survey found."

    Assault is illegal in France as well.
     
  19. quadraphonics Bloodthirsty Barbarian Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,391
    Customs, in general? Not necessarily.

    You're just making a hash of this question. Customs are typically enforced informally - you violate them, people dislike/distrust you, and choose not to associate with you. If enforcement is elevated to the level of state activity, then what you have is a law. Etc. Do you have some point here, or are you just being obtuse for the hell of it?

    Iceaura said that the French do not require people to wear specific types of clothing. Which is accurate, and typical of Western countries. We have (short) lists of things you can't wear, and you have to cover your genitals. The rest is up to you, as far as the state is concerned.

    There's laws against indecent exposure, impersonating law enforcement, and probably a few other similar ones. All of them have specific, reasoned justifications for why they serve the (secular) public good. They are an entirely different beast than religious dress codes.

    It doesn't bother me (and I'm actually free to go naked in certain public spaces where it is actually called for, such as skinny dipping in reservoirs or streaking in college or bathing in mountain streams). And if it really bothered me, it'd be simple enough for me to frequent nudist get-aways or the various nude beaches around (one of which is only a few miles from my home).

    Nor men's dress. But the unjustness and oppressiveness of said expectations vary greatly between societies, with enlightened parts of the West on the "no big deal, at least without good reason" end of the spectrum, and places like Saudi Arabia or (worse) Taliban Afghanistan on the "RESPECT MY AUTHORITY, BITCH" end.
     
  20. S.A.M. uniquely dreadful Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    72,825
    As compared to "gang colours" "bank robbers" and terrorists? Maybe we should call the business suit and the uniform "gang colours" that would explain both the element of supposed voluntary adoption [enforced by work contract] and the peer pressure elements involved. Would that be more acceptable?



    Like I said, social stability is incumbent on what women wear... or not wear, in this case.

    I'm not criticising them. They are as fully entitled to a society of women who dress to uncover as the Saudis are to a society of women dressed to cover. There is a reason for social conventions and their longevity. What I deplore is the necessity to hide behind a PC culture. Why pretend its about security or womens lib? They should be honest and straightforward in their motives. Pretending to liberate a woman by branding her a criminal is specious behaviour.
    Agreed. In the conformity experiment I described earlier its clear that social approval is more important than being correct for a significant proportion of the population

    I think rules which cause women to quit school especially in a portion of the population that is undereducated or disenfranchised are not worth keeping.


    I think women exercise their [limited] power in many ways: in a recent conversation with an Indian Muslim, I was told that women treat men in their households as guests. They rule over the house and expect the men to take all the responsibility and pay all the bills, and stay "out of their way" during the day time, appearing only in the evening when they are then given a meal as a favour done to them. According to him, men in our [Indian] society are extremely insecure, dependent on the whims of women to maintain their home and family life. I have also heard this in a different way from men in Arab countries, who claimed that while men ruled outside the home, inside the home, the womans rule was absolute. A Paris Hilton may express her feminine power in another way by flouting social convention.

    Interesting. So the French did swim and sunbathe nude when the British were going through their Victorian times? Can I see a link to some evidence?

    We see topless women in India as well but they are either indigenous tribes too poor to wear clothes or foreign tourists. I was not aware that swimming and sunbathing in the nude has been common practice for a long time in Europe, if I thought about it at all, I would have considered it a post WWII convention

    Is it legal? We usually only see prostitutes having sex in public in India, mostly because they cannot afford a room. I've even seen one right outside my gate at home.

    I think you too should get to know the mindset of such women. I doubt a single woman who veils will leave home after the ban, the headscarf is a different matter, but a face veil is completely different. Women who veil their faces feel naked without it and are used to being able to see without being seen. It would be similar to a ban being imposed on women covering their genitals.

    I refer to women who veil traditionally, be they Hindu or Muslim, maybe there are French converts for whom it is only a passing fancy and hence too much trouble to continue in the face of the ban.

    I don't think you can address diversity in societies that are uncomfortable with multiculturalism. If you've read my previous posts you should know that I recommend they evict all the Muslims from their countries because, finally, that is the only way they will feel "safe". I also recommend that those Muslims who disagree with the ban should leave rather than socially segregate themselves in Muslim only schools followed by Muslim community centers, followed by Muslim political parties, Muslim ghettos, Muslim businesses etc - the kind of thing which I see steadily progressing in Europe.
    There is the Nair community in India, and yes, they have equivalent rules for womens clothing

    So if women were a majority in the state, one would expect to see a similar imposition of rules on men's clothing choices?

    But will do nothing to quell the anti-Muslim attitudes prevalent in the country, and not just in the right or far right [as there is no left to speak of]

    Like I said, we will see.





    Let me give an example:

    This is a boy in the sixth grade, where do you think he got his attitude?


    Not for the government. What will happen to a woman who comes out in public with a face veil in France?
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  21. rcscwc Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    721
    How does muslim society treat PUB culture? Surely, not benevolently. Muslim position is not different from your bad saffron brigade. In fact islamic fundies would like to shut all pubs even.

    How do the muslims take Valentine's day? Come on, extreme fundies even are against co-ed schools and colleges.

    Have burqa by all means. But no need to make it a fetish. A woman posing with a full face veil cannot be issued a passport or a driving license.

    PS: SAM. It was on velentine day in 76 I saw a dusky, slim, pure and innocent dame. I instantly lost my heart to Her. Later on Dushehra , 2 Oct, we were married.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    30,994
    Nothing in the French law requires anyone to "become housebound". Voluntary religious hermitage to avoid the evils of society has a long tradition in many places - including in France, with certain orders of nuns and (to a much lesser degree) monks - but it is not enforced by the government of France.
    No, it isn't. Your complaint here is based on the French making a law, and not contenting themselves with custom, tradition, and other social pressures.
    Google is your friend.
    Your inability to perceive fundamentally significant aspects of matters involving power and oppression is well demonstrated, and characteristic of the religiously addled - it is not an argument.
    Which is much different from demanding that they avoid wearing a specific, defined item of clothing - as the recognition of the extra and necessarily justified imposition, far above the general society's, by everyone involved, reveals, if ordinary reason fails one somehow.
    I don't think the French law specifies women. But yes, social stability in many places is held to depend on what women wear. Especially and notably, that is true of all Islamic countries - it is almost an identifying characteristic, in its severity and formal State enforcement.
    Arab women have not yet learned to recognize the objectification inherent in their home cultures, apparently. Feminism has yet to make the necessary inroads in common thought.

    In Western countries, it has a lot to do with her. That is visible on the street, where great variety is seen - as would be expected in a context of greater choice in the matter.
    It extended to public bathhouses in many places, before modern plumbing. In northern regions community saunas and such. In addition to beaches, of course.
    By their own psychiatric issues - no such restriction is imposed by the law.
    Not an Islamic one. Any woman owned bar in the US that bans gang colors, any school with a female teacher or principal that bans various clothing, can call the police for State enforcement. But you are confusing social pressure and legal consequences, once again.
    The one woman I've met who insisted on veiling in my town (there are many, but most are not allowed to get to know strange men) was a bank robber. The gang color comparison is obvious - perhaps you do not know many gang members, or spend time in neighborhoods with gangs?
    What are you talking about? Nothing I said, anyway.
     
    Last edited: Nov 16, 2010
  23. scifes In withdrawal. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,573
    double indeed, although i think it's more guts than brains.

    :scratchin:
    well you've got a point. it does boil down to personal belief of right and wrong in the end.

    yeah but it's just that usually married women buzz on their husbands when anybody wrongs them[i'm sure there're exceptions, my mom being one

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    ], unmarried women usually just suck it up or blow in your face[i've seen my aunt who'se a lawyer go off in a five star hotel once, boy did she mop the floor with them]. but generally men fight their wives' fights, it's ironic and funny that here when men were accused of wronging their women, women stood up for themselves, and pretty bluntly at that. i find it kinda awesome.
     

Share This Page