Burkas in France

[Primum non nocere]

In what way?

Consider the following article:

Gender Equality and Religion: Using the Burqa Ban as a Jumping-Off Point | Feminism | fbomb - Really, the dilemma is that all three religions seek to assign gender roles to how people should live. Wives are still sex objects, but only to their husbands. Husbands must fulfill the role of provider for the family. In each religion, this concrete separation evolved into intensely patriarchal systems. Oh, and don?t even think about trying to do anything differently, lest you be stoned to death.

I disagree with his notion at the end however, that wearing a Burka really is a completely independent "choice". Are the women not pressured into wearing one? I know of a few who have been berated or rejected by their famlies in their refusal to wear one. Would they not seek the path of least conflict?

To whom would it show this?

Those that advocate the tradition...

[rmnunez]

I know of a few women who have been berated or rejected by their famlies in their refusal to wear one.

In Iran they have "vice & virtue" enforcers who ride on scooters and strike women with a switch if they show too much hair or expose their ankles.

[Primum non nocere]

WTF... just the image of that! And yet it brings much contempt to my thoughts, that this is completely believable without a shadow of a doubt...

[The Bacon Guy]

Consider the following article:

http://thefbomb.org/2009/07/gender-e...ing-off-point/

All it says is what you've said: it's a symbol of a sexist culture. It doesn't explain how banning the burka would change this culture.

Really, the dilemma is that all three religions seek to assign gender roles to how people should live. Wives are still sex objects, but only to their husbands. Husbands must fulfill the role of provider for the family. In each religion, this concrete separation evolved into intensely patriarchal systems. Oh, and don?t even think about trying to do anything differently, lest you be stoned to death.

They don't stone people to death in France.

I disagree with his notion at the end however, that wearing a Burka really is a completely independent "choice". Are the women not pressured into wearing one?

That's not been established in this debate. If you can find any more evidence of it than Gem, feel free to post it. And even if the woman is pressured, it is still ultimately her decision whether to bow to this pressure. As long as no one forces her, any decisions she, as a legal adult, makes are her own responsibility.

Those that advocate the tradition...

And what makes you think they'll take any notice and change their views?

[Primum non nocere]

All it says is what you've said: it's a symbol of a sexist culture. It doesn't explain how banning the burka would change this culture.

No one said it would, you have a bad habit of putting words into people's mouths. Banning slavery didn't nessacerliy have a spontaneous effect on the racist culture that implemented it in the first place, but rather took a long period of time to seriously accept blacks as equal. Could this not be relavent to Islamic culture as well?

They don't stone people to death in France.

This was of course an exaggeration. Not by much though...

(cont.)

[Primum non nocere]

That's not been established in this debate. If you can find any more evidence of it than Gem, feel free to post it. And even if the woman is pressured, it is still ultimately her decision whether to bow to this pressure. As long as no one forces her, any decisions she, as a legal adult, makes are her own responsibility.

I'm sorry I should of clarified, when I said pressured I meant beaten, I meant mental conditioning at an early age that not wearing a burka was of the highest insult to Allah and his followers... So of COURSE they'll "choose" to wear one.

Death for Refusal of Burka and the Deceptive Muslim Denials - Blogcritics Culture -When I was growing up as a Muslim, my religious teachers at my school and madrasa used to tell us that a righteous Muslim parent...

And what makes you think they'll take any notice and change their views?

I don't know... did we really give a shit when slave owners were complaining about loss of profit and luxery?

[rmnunez]

Scanning Muslim countries we find the burka is not generally used in many, it was practically the only thing women could wear in Afghanistan until US intervention and its favoured in Iran, but they are more "laid back" in some Muslim societies which allow women to show some hair and even not to veil their faces.

[The Bacon Guy]

No one said it would,

No one said you said it would. I'm pointing out that it doesn't, because it it doesn't, there isn't anything to be gained from banning it.

Banning slavery didn't nessacerliy have a spontaneous effect on the racist culture that implemented it in the first place, but rather took a long period of time to seriously accept blacks as equal. Could this not be relavent to Islamic culture as well?

Terrible example. Slavery was banned because it's a human rights violation; not as a means of promoting racial tolerance.

I'm sorry I should of clarified, when I said pressured I meant beaten,

Then you have to prove that this happens in a significant number of cases.

I meant mental conditioning at an early age that not wearing a burka was of the highest insult to Allah and his followers... So of COURSE they'll "choose" to wear one.

Everyone is conditioned by their culture. Young girls in Western cultures are conditioned to believe that it's feminine to wear uncomfortable high-heeled shoes. Young boys are conditioned to believe that it's manly to wear football shirts. Yet no one suggests that these people's decisions to wear said attire are anyone's other than their own. Cultural influence does not negate the decisions of legal adults.

Death for Refusal of Burka and the Deceptive Muslim Denials - Blogcritics Culture -When I was growing up as a Muslim, my religious teachers at my school and madrasa used to tell us that a righteous Muslim parent...

One case don't prove much.

I don't know... did we really give a shit when slave owners were complaining about loss of profit and luxery?

Fatuous example (see above).

And if they don't take any notice and change their sexist views, what is the advantage of banning the burka?

[Primum non nocere]

Terrible example. Slavery was banned because it's a human rights violation; not as a means of promoting racial tolerance.

Your right we need to go a bit forward in time. Racial segregation laws were also a human rights violation, but you'd have to be foolish to say that the banning of said laws didn't promote racial tolerance. Racism is of course far less prominent now because its no longer socially acceptable(for the most part).

Everyone is conditioned by their culture.

And everything you listed is also connected to sexism and is not something to approve of.

To say that our conditioning doesn't directly effect an individuals decisions and outlook on the world is overlooking one thing, religion. Religion is in a whole other league of mental conditioning, because when we threaten our young with an invisable overlord that will punish us for not appeasing him, were then inclined to make... "choices."

(cont.)

[Primum non nocere]

One case don't prove much.

That was a three page article and there were numerous cases listed... could it be selective reading perhaps?

And if they don't take any notice and change their sexist views, what is the advantage of banning the burka?

Because we'll be saying that openly sexist views cannot be socially acceptable thereby making it far more possible for a less prominently sexist soceity to come about. Depsite the fact that it will not be eradicated.

[GeminiBrian]

[QUOTE]

Because it's a debate forum and things don't get resolved if you ignore arguments.

Nor do they get resolved if you whack every argument over the head with a baseball bat as soon as they show themselves above the parapet, without bothering to interpret what is really being said in any depth - as you do as a matter of course, Bacon.

No they don't. Three or four people agreeing with you, without offering anything new of substance, does not lend support to your argument.

That these people have strong anti-burka feelings, which often run counter to their preferred stance of supporting choice (as I do) is the real significance you habitually overlook. . . I quote such people, not because they are known for their reactionary or illiberal views, but precisely because that have consulted their conscience and decided that to support the burka is the wrong thing to do despite their loyalty to their liberal credentials.

I daresay all these writers would prefer to be 100% politically correct and go along with your sort of arguments, but like me, they clearly see the burka as an affront to women, whether it is worn through compulsion or because the power of religious and cultural brainwashing has deprived them of the power to reject the mark of their own humiliation. Your view that such women are all emancipated and confident enough to resist male pressure is plain silly - the mindset of women trained to fear men from childhood is not that easily dismantled... and the inevitable upshot is that women go on suffering, regardless of your airy assumptions to the contrary.

I'm perfectly willing to explore these if you'd only explain clearly what they are. Simply saying things like "Wider social context" and "Multiple factors" and "profound humanistic complexity" mean absolutely nothing if you don't define and explain the terms.

If an idea isn't one-diminutional and monochrome, I have learnt not to throw it at you in any detail - all you do is ridicule it, if you bother to address it at all. The debate HAS to be conducted in terms you can easily relate to - anything more abstruse is a waste of time. The bible says something about pearls and swine in this context, oddly enough, but I can't quite bring it to mind at the moment.

Just to clarify -- when I talk of such things as "profound humanistic complexity" I'm referring to all the underlying factors that apply to the debate, historical as well as cultural, so that to discuss the burka in terms of it being a few innocuous yards of cloth - a mere item of clothing - is to lose sight of its profound significance primarily as an icon in the sad history of patriarchal societies and their ruthless domination of women. . . Banning it would be a landmark statement that far outweighs the banning of other nasty symbols such as the swastika because what is signified by the latter has already been consigned to history, and is not an on-going threat to the welfare of people living at the present time. . . (except in the hands a few social misfits and inadequates belonging to various hate parties, maybe).

And for that matter, I think your usual retort that banning a symbol doesn't affect the problem is unsound - make the symbol a badge of shame, (as the swastika now is, thank god) - and you make its wearers confront its unacceptability, and start to associate it with repression rather than with harmless cultural preference.

While you may see the burka as a symbol of sexism, it's certainly not the cause of sexism. Banning it isn't going to affect any of these values you feel are so unwelcome in our society.

That, Bacon, is exactly what it represents - the worst kind of sexism - and whilst not the direct cause, it is a powerful means of perpetuating it.

[grandpa]

That these people have strong anti-burka feelings, which
often run counter to their preferred stance of supporting choice
(as I do) is the real significance you habitually
overlook. . .

Again, you distort the argument. I also have "strong anti-burka feelings," just like I have strong anti-government of France feelings. Women -- be they Muslim or otherwise -- do not need any authority figure telling them what to wear, or what not to wear. If people claim to generally support choice, then, in this case, they are merely contradicting themselves. The "significance" you mention is that they are to some degree hypocritical. That is significant, yes. Keep in mind, I'm not proposing that we take out these hypocrital French; that they should have their throats sliced by broken glass or anything like that. I'm merely saying they have no more right to impose policies than a Muslim cleric does. Similarly, I don't think religious authorities, parents or the government should have unchallenged authority over women, men and children in the US. These are general principles, and perfectly reasonable.

Grandpa h.