Bhurkas and oppression

[DaveC426913]

Not sure how close this is skirting to being banned, but we'll see. Please, let's stay on-topic.

We are seeing more and more middle-eastern garb here in the West. I am particularly talking about the full-length covered outfits. I believe they're called burkhas or burkas or burqas, but I think there are similar outifts by different names. Please educate me.

My wife sees these as a sign of oppression - as do many other people. Women are forced to wear these head-to-toe outfits - even in the heat of summer - as part of their religion (so as not to excite and entice the men).

I'm not refuting whether is is viewed as a sign of oppression, I am questioning the generalization. And this is what I've come here to ask.

It seems to me that it is quite possible that any - or even many - women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion, much like Jews wear a kippah/yarmulke or Amish wear their traditional garb. The key here hinges on not knowing whether an individual is being forced.

If this is the case, then one cannot, by rights, look at any individual wearing a burkha and decide that they are being oppressed. In other words, there cannot be a crime in principle, there can only be a crime in circumstance.

Just like it is unfair to look at porn mag models and decide they are "symbols" that are setting back the women's movement 20 years (this is actually objectifying her, labeling her, removing her individualism) - so it is unfair to objectifiy an individual as being any symbol of oppression without knowing their specific circumstance.

What think? Are all women that wear bhurkas - even hypothetical women that might do so voluntarily - being oppressed? Is it generally accepted (outiside of the Mid-East) that the bhurka is a symbol of oppression anywhere it is found?

[TheStatutoryApe]

I very rarely see women dressed like that around here. Usually they are elderly women and may as easily be eastern european and just wearing a head scarf.

There is actually one young lady I see frequently dressed like this though. She works at a coffee house. I have no idea whether her family owns the store but either way she is regularly there out on her own at a job with no parental supervision. I get no impression that she is being forced or oppressed in any way.

[Dadface]

I think there can be some health risks involved namely vitamin D deficiency.

[ideasrule]

It seems to me that it is quite possible that any - or even many - women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion, much like Jews wear a kippah/yarmulke or Amish wear their traditional garb. The key here hinges on not knowing whether an individual is being forced.


I disagree. Almost everybody in North Korea supports the government voluntarily, but that doesn't mean the North Korean government isn't oppressive; it simply means the citizens are brainwashed since birth to worship their leaders. Similarly, a large percentage of Islamic women (but not as large as the percentage of North Koreans who support the government) may willingly wear burqas, but that doesn't mean they are not being oppressed; it means they've been indoctrinated since birth by religion to accept the oppression.

A similar thing happened with the Canadian, and presumably also American, women's rights movement. In many cases, women's rights advocates received less opposition from men like their fathers than from women, who censured them for violating tradition. It would be ridiculous to say those women weren't being repressed by society, despite being denied jobs, forbidden to vote, and having little property rights on the basis of nothing but their gender.

[ideasrule]

It's also difficult to define the meaning of "voluntarily". Is the fear of ostracization enough to make a decision involuntary, for example? How about fear of being perceived as "weird"? How about hearing a story like this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9vzUQwMJ1I

about a girl who was murdered for standing up to religious oppression?

[Vanadium 50]

Not sure how close this is skirting to being banned

Pun intended?

[Doc Al]

The most insidious (and effective) kind of oppression is one that is voluntarily self-imposed.

[arildno]

"women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion"

And why do they, if they suddenly realize they forgot to buy tomatoes, go to the elaborate length of taking on the burka before going out, rather than just run over to the shop in their everyday clothes?

Or, even worse, that they think they must wait to go out until a male guardian (say, a son) can accompany them to the store?

[Alfi]

I've seen the Burka worn a few times here in Toronto and I admit it bothers me. I'm not really sure why though.
It's a bit like seeing a person with a ski mask on in the summer. I associate it with concealed identity.

[Focus]

"women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion"

And why do they, if they suddenly realize they forgot to buy tomatoes, go to the elaborate length of taking on the burka before going out, rather than just run over to the shop in their everyday clothes?

Or, even worse, that they think they must wait to go out until a male guardian (say, a son) can accompany them to the store?

Same reason that some people will put on makeup or hair gel just to go to their local shop for 5 mins. It isn't something that is difficult to put on and it is a norm for them. I have to put on my jeans to go to the shops which is an inconvenience for me. I am sure I wouldn't get arrested for indecent exposure if I didn't but I do it because it is a norm for me.

Most of the women (just as the men) are very religious. They all believe in someones interpretation of the Kuran and that if they disobey, they will burn for an eternity.

[TheStatutoryApe]

I've seen the Burka worn a few times here in Toronto and I admit it bothers me. I'm not really sure why though.
It's a bit like seeing a person with a ski mask on in the summer. I associate it with concealed identity.

Its never really bothered me at all. Sometimes I even find it somewhat attractive. I really like a pretty face. Admittedly though I never really feel like I could just strick up a conversation with a woman in a burqa.

Most of the women I have seen in burqas seem to be going about their life like any other person. Occasionally I see the woman walking behind her husband and being submissive though I can't say that I have never seen this among women of other cultures aswell.

[mgb_phys]

The French are discussing this http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8113778.stm

There is already a law banning religous symbols in schools http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3619988.stm

[rootX]

A related story:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8189793.stm

[DaveC426913]

I disagree. Almost everybody in North Korea supports the government voluntarily, but that doesn't mean the North Korean government isn't oppressive; it simply means the citizens are brainwashed since birth to worship their leaders. Similarly, a large percentage of Islamic women (but not as large as the percentage of North Koreans who support the government) may willingly wear burqas, but that doesn't mean they are not being oppressed; it means they've been indoctrinated since birth by religion to accept the oppression.
Perhaps so, but deciding that a particular person is being oppressed because they are brainwashed is, in itself, removing their human right to be treated as if they are a sound-minded, responsible person acting of their own accord.

i.e. it seems to me, it is just as objectifying to judge someone without knowing them - even if you think you're helping them.

[humanino]

Perhaps so, but deciding that a particular person is being oppressed because they are brainwashed is, in itself, removing their human right to be treated as if they are a sound-minded, responsible person acting of their own accord.

i.e. it seems to me, it is just as objectifying to judge someone without knowing them - even if you think you're helping them.You nailed it down.

We have this law in France which forbids "ostensible" religious clothing in (some) public places (at least schools and official government buildings). The crucial concept is "ostensible". It seems to have a different meaning in English. In French it means "designed to show, whose purpose is to display a message". It's not an obvious concept to use in the public law. Besides, it seems to difficult to apply in the US altogether, because of the emphasis on the individual's freedom of speech. The emphasis in France compared to the US is more on the community (yeah, we're communists).

I guess I should have read mgb_phys links before commenting.

[skeptic2]

You nailed it down.

We have this law in France which forbids "ostensible" religious clothing in (some) public places (at least schools and official government buildings). The crucial concept is "ostensible". It seems to have a different meaning in English. In French it means "designed to show, whose purpose is to display a message". It's not an obvious concept to use in the public law. Besides, it seems to difficult to apply in the US altogether, because of the emphasis on the individual's freedom of speech. The emphasis in France compared to the US is more on the community (yeah, we're communists).

I guess I should have read mgb_phys links before commenting.

Does French law guarantee freedom of religion and if so, how does it mesh with the law which you mentioned?

[mgb_phys]

Does French law guarantee freedom of religion and if so, how does it mesh with the law which you mentioned?

It doesn't ban them (religous symbols) in public, it bans them in public (ie state) schools, the French constitution has a very strong separation of church/state rule. They are permitted in private religious run schools, ironically a lot of Muslim students attend catholic schools where the headdress is allowed.

The ban on religous symbols in schools was an attempt to improve racial harmony in schools and prevent a "them and us" mindset. Remember France like most of Europe has a much higher levels of immigrants than the US and a lot of them from muslim countries.

[humanino]

Does French law guarantee freedom of religionYes.
Freedom of religion in France (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_of_religious_freedom_in_France)
laicite (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laïcité) in general and the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1905_French_law_on_the_separation_of_Church_and_St ate) in particular
The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion
Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Rights_of_Man_and_of_the_Citize n)
No one may be questioned about his opinions, [and the] same [for] religious [opinions], provided that their manifestation does not trouble the public order established by the law

to the extent that the cult has not been officially classified in a "sectarian list". The "official list of sects" again is not easy to define. Mostly it has to be considered on a case by case basis by an official "Parliamentary Commission on Cults". The most important criteria for falling into the sect category are risks for the individual (mental or financial hazards) and challenge to the collective order.and if so, how does it mesh with the law which you mentioned?As long as it has not been classified as a "sectarian cult", that is to say harmful for yourself or the republic, you have personal freedom in your own system of belief. As a consequence of "laicite", "ostensible" religious display is forbidden in public and republican places, preventing interferences between different individual beliefs. This is precisely the warrant of freedom of religion from the point of view of "laicite".

From the above articles in wiki you can contemplate the depth of the philosophical gap between US and French politics in this context.

[Math Is Hard]

Its never really bothered me at all. Sometimes I even find it somewhat attractive. I really like a pretty face. Admittedly though I never really feel like I could just strick up a conversation with a woman in a burqa.

Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg/150px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

[russ_watters]

Perhaps so, but deciding that a particular person is being oppressed because they are brainwashed is, in itself, removing their human right to be treated as if they are a sound-minded, responsible person acting of their own accord.

i.e. it seems to me, it is just as objectifying to judge someone without knowing them - even if you think you're helping them. A proponent of moral relativism would say that we cannot judge, but the reality is that we live in a moral absolutist world, whether people like it or not (and in my experience, people tend to be against moral absolutism at first blush).

Simply put, the requirement that women cover themselves this way for the purpose of modesty is a direct, specific, and blatant form of oppression. It is a visible manifestation of the more abhorrent forms of oppression that permeate many islamic cultures.

If it could be shown that there was no association between wearing a Bhurka and gender oppression, then a case could be made that this is just a harmless tradition or fashion statement. But I doubt that such statistics exist.

[DaveC426913]

A proponent of moral relativism would say that we cannot judge, but the reality is that we live in a moral absolutist world, whether people like it or not (and in my experience, people tend to be against moral absolutism at first blush).

Simply put, the requirement that women cover themselves this way for the purpose of modesty is a direct, specific, and blatant form of oppression. It is a visible manifestation of the more abhorrent forms of oppression that permeate many islamic cultures.

If it could be shown that there was no association between wearing a Bhurka and gender oppression, then a case could be made that this is just a harmless tradition or fashion statement. But I doubt that such statistics exist.

But what if a given woman were wearing it voluntarily, because she chose to? The act of wearing it is the choice of the individual, not a symbol of some larger cause.

[russ_watters]

I'm not refuting whether is is viewed as a sign of oppression, I am questioning the generalization. And this is what I've come here to ask.

It seems to me that it is quite possible that any - or even many - women wear the traditional outfits voluntarily, to support their religion, much like Jews wear a kippah/yarmulke or Amish wear their traditional garb. The key here hinges on not knowing whether an individual is being forced.

What think? Are all women that wear bhurkas - even hypothetical women that might do so voluntarily - being oppressed? Is it generally accepted (outiside of the Mid-East) that the bhurka is a symbol of oppression anywhere it is found? In my opinion, when you have such strong results-based evidence for the question, it isn't necessary to delve into the philosophy of the issue: it is what it is and you shouldn't let philosophy distract you from reality. This is the logic our supreme court uses when deciding on such issues. Ie, "separate but equal" could theoretically really be equal, but the reality is that it never is, so you outlaw it .

There is no traditional or statistical reason to associate the wearing of a yarmulke or Amish dress with oppression so no reason to consider the issue. Whether a person is really wearing these things of their own free will, uninformed or informed, is irrelevant. Perhaps there is a better example where it isn't as clear, but these examples (a yarmulke and a bhurka) are on opposite extremes of the issue.

[russ_watters]

But what if a given woman were wearing it voluntarily, because she chose to? The act of wearing it is the choice of the individual, not a symbol of some larger cause.
The only way for one to prove they were wearing it voluntarily and for oppression to not be a factor is for the person to not be muslim and to have no muslim influence involved in the decision. For a muslim, the dress and the oppression cannot be divorced from each other because the dress is a component of the oppression.

[russ_watters]

For reference, here is a list of countries and their male and female literacy rates: http://www.mrdowling.com/800literacyfemale.html

[Sorry!]

The only way for one to prove they were wearing it voluntarily and for oppression to not be a factor is for the person to not be muslim and to have no muslim influence involved in the decision. For a muslim, the dress and the oppression cannot be divorced from each other because the dress is a component of the oppression.

Actually it isn't for a 'muslim'. Burqa's are not required by Islam and are never mentioned in the Quran.

I think it's a cultural type of oppression. Just as 'oppression' here in North America was the female in the kitchen doing everything the male needs to keep da bills coming in. This is just the 'popular' form of oppression in this part of the world.

I would also just like to point out to Dave that most people in this thread are NOT considering the persons who live in say Canada who wear different garments of their own free accord. Regardless of those individuals existing the Burqa in MANY case is still a sign of oppression. However for your OP I don't think it is FAIR to assume that based upon seeing them dressed as such. I do believe most people do make this assumption though because they do not understand.

As well, it is possible for a female to wear this without any other influence other than what she wants to do. I had a friend who decided on their own to wear a hijab (like a burqa no face veil). Her parents and family actually insisted that she didn't wear it because of how the public would view her. Of course she did it anyways. She told me the first question out of a lot of peoples mouths had to do with how she was being 'forced' into wearing it.

[Sorry!]

For reference, here is a list of countries and their male and female literacy rates: http://www.mrdowling.com/800literacyfemale.html

That is interesting and all but does that make it ok for YOU to assume whenever you see say an Afghan female that they are being oppressed?

I don't think so.

[drankin]

But what if a given woman were wearing it voluntarily, because she chose to? The act of wearing it is the choice of the individual, not a symbol of some larger cause.

I wish some women would wear them.

[russ_watters]

Actually it isn't for a 'muslim'. Burqa's are not required by Islam and are never mentioned in the Quran. That's an intentional obfuscation of the issue. Burqas are worn by muslims. They aren't worn by Jews or Christians or athiests. Whether they are specifically cited in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that the Quran is used as a reasoning for mandating them. I think it's a cultural type of oppression. That may even be true, but it is still irrelevant: the way the religion is practiced may well be a manifestation of pre-existing misogynism but by now they are so intertwined they can't be divorced. More to the point, they aren't divorced anywhere that I've ever heard of.

I don't accept arguments against reality on philosophical grounds. I had a friend who decided on their own to wear a hijab (like a burqa no face veil). Her parents and family actually insisted that she didn't wear it because of how the public would view her. Of course she did it anyways. She told me the first question out of a lot of peoples mouths had to do with how she was being 'forced' into wearing it. What was the reasoning she gave for wearing it? That is interesting and all but does that make it ok for YOU to assume whenever you see say an Afghan female that they are being oppressed?

I don't think so. I made no such claim as it is unnecessary. Whether one individual Bhurka wearing Afghan woman gets a phd or not it doesn't mean that wearing it isn't a component of the oppression, it just means they defeated the oppression.

To use the "separate but equal" example again, it doesn't matter if a black person from a segregated high school succeeds in getting a phd. Separate but equal is still oppressive.

[skeptic2]

Western cultures also impose dress requirements and more so against women than men. Violating these dress laws can also land one in front of a judge. Is this anything more than a matter of degree? Are western women also oppressed because they are required to tops when swimming. Isn't the concept of decency for both cultures nothing more than the societal norm codified into law? If in western society people are indoctrinated into feeling extremely uncomfortable and embarrassed when in a state of undress, is that any different from a muslim woman feeling the same way when in public without her burka?

[Sorry!]

That's an intentional obfuscation of the issue. Burqas are worn by muslims. They aren't worn by Jews or Christians or athiests. Whether they are specifically cited in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that the Quran is used as a reasoning for mandating them. That may even be true, but it is still irrelevant: the way the religion is practiced may well be a manifestation of pre-existing misogynism but by now they are so intertwined they can't be divorced. More to the point, they aren't divorced anywhere that I've ever heard of.

I don't accept arguments against reality on philosophical grounds. What was the reasoning she gave for wearing it? I made no such claim as it is unnecessary. Whether one individual Bhurka wearing Afghan woman gets a phd or not it doesn't mean that wearing it isn't a component of the oppression, it just means they defeated the oppression.

To use the "separate but equal" example again, it doesn't matter if a black person from a segregated high school succeeds in getting a phd. Separate but equal is still oppressive.

For a muslim, the anger and the terrorism cannot be divorced from each other because the anger is a component of the terrorism.

lol. Arguments like this try to fly everyday, all day. It's not Islam it's the people.

In order to understand why it is common among these people we must look into their history as far as it involves burqa's. Then we must find why it stuck only to females and which group of people was responsible for it.

I think however you should re-read the OP. I'm pretty sure he intended a discussion of whether if we see a person wearing garments like these is it OK for us to automatically assume they are being oppressed. You are just going on about how it's a symbol of oppression. Ok, true, it is. This however does not mean it is ok for us to assume that every female we see wearing a burqa is being oppressed.

As well your example of segregation and a black person doesn't really fit the situation of the OP. Imagine that the same black person came from a hypothetical country in Africa where whites ruled and segregated (in a negative opressive way, since segregation isn't ALWAYs oppressive...) whites vs blacks. So he migrates over to Canada into Toronto and attends a hypothetical segregated school here. Of his own free will... should we say he was oppressed?

[DaveC426913]

The only way for one to prove they were wearing it voluntarily and for oppression to not be a factor is for the person to not be muslim and to have no muslim influence involved in the decision.
There is a way. Ask the individual.

We absolutely must go froward under the assumption that the person we are speaking to is a fully-fledged human-being of sound mind and with their own thoughts. If we do not enage in this study without that assumption then we are the ones eliminating the individuals from the equation, making generalizations and passing judgements as if we know better.

This is the dilemma I am having. Surely the Gold Standard must be asking the person in question.

[rootX]

There is a way. Ask the individual.

We absolutely must go froward under the assumption that the person we are speaking to is a fully-fledged human-being of sound mind and with their own thoughts. If we do not enage in this study without that assumption then we are the ones eliminating the individuals from the equation, making generalizations and passing judgements as if we know better.

This is the dilemma I am having. Surely the Gold Standard must be asking the person in question.

So, we go ahead and ask the individual and if their reply is voluntarily then we know that it is voluntarily?

How many or % of (non-western or even western) women victims of family violence would accept publicly that they are victims when asked for statistical purposes?

[Sorry!]

If we do not enage in this study without that assumption then we are the ones eliminating the individuals from the equation, making generalizations and passing judgements as if we know better.

This is the dilemma I am having. Surely the Gold Standard must be asking the person in question.

As I suspected, this WAS what you were directed the discussion towards. I read this last night when you first posted but waited to respond because I wasn't sure if it would even stay open long enough. :P

I don't agree with going and asking them though... if they were being oppressed they would just say it was voluntary anyways. HaHa.

But I believe my friends example a few posts back goes to show that some females do decide to wear garments like these of their own free will. We should respect that. I feel that since we don't know if a person walking in North America is dressing a particular way that we should assume it is their own free will and not just think 'those damn muslims oppressing their women again.'

[DaveC426913]

Western cultures also impose dress requirements and more so against women than men. ... Are western women also oppressed because they are required to tops when swimming.While I don't necessarily disagree with your point, I think this is a poor example.

Simply put, we cover up the sexual organs. Breasts are considered a sexual organ (whether you agree with that or not is a different matter). (Yeah, yeah, I know, arguably men have breasts too.)

The point is, sexism occurs when the gender should not be a relevant factor in a distinction, yet a distinction is made based on gender anyway. It's not sexism if the distinction is on relevant factors - even if that distinguishes between sexes.

[DaveC426913]

I don't agree with going and asking them though... if they were being oppressed they would just say it was voluntary anyways. HaHa.
Potentially, yes. But that means it's a flaw in our ability to gather accurate data. It does not change the underlying principle that we should not be making any assumptions about the subjects.



But I believe my friends example a few posts back goes to show that some females do decide to wear garments like these of their own free will. We should respect that. I feel that since we don't know if a person walking in North America is dressing a particular way that we should assume it is their own free will and not just think 'those damn muslims oppressing their women again.'
This is my argument, yes.

So, we go ahead and ask the individual and if their reply is voluntarily then we know that it is voluntarily?

How many or % of (non-western or even western) women victims of family violence would accept publicly that they are victims when asked for statistical purposes?
That is a logistical issue though. It doesn't change the principle. "We can't know how they really feel" is not a rationale for assuming that we do know.

[Sorry!]

Potentially, yes. But that means it's a flaw in our ability to gather accurate data. It does not change the underlying principle that we should not be making any assumptions about the subjects.


Yeah, I feel the same way as well. Am I the only one who's posted here so far?

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I feel the same way as well. Am I the only one who's posted here so far?
No, there's three pages of thread.

[rootX]

Potentially, yes. But that means it's a flaw in our ability to gather accurate data. It does not change the underlying principle that we should not be making any assumptions about the subjects.



That is a logistical issue though. It doesn't change the principle. "We can't know how they really feel" is not a rationale for assuming that we do know.

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Sooner religions go away, the better
2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so they should also accept the western culture when they come here.

[Sorry!]

No, there's three pages of thread.

Oh I was talking about your position if I was the only person to agree with you :P not the only person to post anything.

[Sorry!]

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Soon religions go away, the better
2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so they should also accept the western culture when they come here.

Arguments for religion staying or leaving both have strong points. As well western culture is more open and FREE. I'm pretty sure that's how things are now. They fit in perfectly fine; it's us that needs to stop being conservative and open up.

[DaveC426913]

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Well, that's why I'm asking.

One of my question is:
Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?


Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Soon religions go away, the better

That is a ridiculous rationale. I'll presume you are not serious.


2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so theyshould also accept the western culture when they come here.
a] We do not need to dress in their culture when we go there.
b] I live in Canada. We embrace diverse cultures.

[russ_watters]

Western cultures also impose dress requirements and more so against women than men. Violating these dress laws can also land one in front of a judge. Is this anything more than a matter of degree? No, because: Are western women also oppressed because they are required to tops when swimming? No. Such decency laws in western culture have no association with or alterior motive related to any actual oppression. They are a matter of decency only, and a judgement call. If wearing a Bhurka was strictly a matter of decency and in no way related to the general subjugation of women in Islamic culture, then it could be argued that it is a matter of degree. To be more specific, decency laws regarding women parallel decency laws regarding men in western culture. In Islamic culture, there is no parallel: decency laws target women almost exclusively. Why? Because there is more to these laws than just decency. These laws are part of the subjugation of women in Islamic society.

[russ_watters]

For a muslim, the anger and the terrorism cannot be divorced from each other because the anger is a component of the terrorism. I don't see what that has to do with anything. lol. Arguments like this try to fly everyday, all day. It's not Islam it's the people. We see the same crackpottery day in and day out in the Relativity forum, but just because we see it over and over again, that doesn't mean it has any validity. People may use the arguments a lot, but that doesn't mean they have any validity. I think however you should re-read the OP. I'm pretty sure he intended a discussion of whether if we see a person wearing garments like these is it OK for us to automatically assume they are being oppressed. That is precisely the question I answered: the answer is yes. You are just going on about how it's a symbol of oppression. Ok, true, it is. Glad you acknowledge it, but it is more than just a "symbol", it is part of a lager whole (and I was explicit about that as well). This however does not mean it is ok for us to assume that every female we see wearing a burqa is being oppressed. Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. Again, it is logically the same as "separate but equal"... As well your example of segregation and a black person doesn't really fit the situation of the OP. Imagine that the same black person came from a hypothetical country in Africa where whites ruled and segregated (in a negative opressive way, since segregation isn't ALWAYs oppressive...) whites vs blacks. So he migrates over to Canada into Toronto and attends a hypothetical segregated school here. Of his own free will... should we say he was oppressed? [emphasis added] You are assuming the answer in the framing of the question. And, in fact, you are assuming it counter to the way the question has been decided by those who are charged with making the decision: the Supreme Court.

Your logic is flawd because you are starting with a false premise on which to derive your position. You are arguing against reality.

In other words, the two errors are:
1. There is no de jure segregation in Canada.
2. De jure segregation is a form of oppression. But I believe my friends example a few posts back goes to show that some females do decide to wear garments like these of their own free will. As you gave no reasoning behind the decision, your example demonstrates nothing at all.

[russ_watters]

There is a way. Ask the individual.

We absolutely must go froward under the assumption that the person we are speaking to is a fully-fledged human-being of sound mind and with their own thoughts.

If we do not enage in this study without that assumption then we are the ones eliminating the individuals from the equation, making generalizations and passing judgements as if we know better

This is the dilemma I am having. Surely the Gold Standard must be asking the person in question. That is quite simply not a reality in the world in which we live. And it isn't just a matter of morality. This stance of yours has far reaching implications:

-You can't ask a convict if he thinks he was guilty.
-You can't ask a mentally ill person if he/she thinks he's mentally ill.
-You can't ask a building owner if he's followed the building codes (or just built a safe enough building).

All of these things absolutely must be decided by disinterested 3rd parties in order for society to be functional.

To get back to this specific issue, you have an issue with the concept of moral relativism vs moral absolutism. You don't like the idea that the collective "we" have developed a morality by which everyone in the world is to be judged. There are two ways around this:

1. Just plain accept that it is a reality of the world we live in. There is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in place in the UN (it isn't necessarily enforced, but the intent is there).
2. Explore the logic of moral relativism. Test it. See if it works. See if you can find any examples in history where it has succeeded. You'll find that not only does it lead to logical contradictions and isn't internally consistent, but it has been shown throughout history that moral failures cause societal failures. That is a logistical issue though. It doesn't change the principle. "We can't know how they really feel" is not a rationale for assuming that we do know. You misunderstand: we aren't saying we know how they feel. We are judging the action and its implications. How the person feels about the action is irrelevant. I would have hoped by now that that was clear: it is precisely because one's own feelings on a subject they are in the middle of can't be trusted to be accurate that feelings have no bearing on the question of whether someone is being oppressed. Oppression is judged on larger principles, completely separate from what is going on in the head of the person in question.

[DaveC426913]

Jeez. Not again. Can someone stop by Russ' house and change his batteries? :biggrin:

[ EDIT: Ah. thanks.]

[protonchain]

Not trying to be rude by any means at all here, but I was born in India as a Hindu and lived in a neighborhood of Muslim people.

I moved here to the US when I was 7 so while I was detached from that environment for 14-15 years, I still go back and still am able to connect with the surroundings and whatnot fairly easily.

The Muslim women there are some of the happiest women in the world. I've never seen more benevolent yet disciplinary and very motherly women that take care of their families and do let their husbands know at times that they aren't their boss. A lot of these women wear the Burqa voluntarily.

At the very least this is within the neighborhood I grew up in, but if you extrapolate, you can make the assumption that those who choose to wear the Burqa voluntarily are doing so because of religious beliefs, because of traditions, and because of a sense of connection with their history and culture. It's the same reason why a Brahmin like me would be vegetarian (which I am) even though my job isn't being a priest in a temple (which is the original reason for the vegetarianism back in the good old days).

We (as in my family and others) really tend not to dwell on the topic and let them be. After all they are what they are and who they are because of the way they think, speak, act, and believe. And these small things are what makes us different. I'm sure the non-educated ones are wondering why the women in our household put on the red dot or wear saris.

[DaveC426913]

Not trying to be rude by any means at all here, but I was born in India as a Hindu and lived in a neighborhood of Muslim people.

I moved here to the US when I was 7 so while I was detached from that environment for 14-15 years, I still go back and still am able to connect with the surroundings and whatnot fairly easily.

The Muslim women there are some of the happiest women in the world. I've never seen more benevolent yet disciplinary and very motherly women that take care of their families and do let their husbands know at times that they aren't their boss. A lot of these women wear the Burqa voluntarily.

At the very least this is within the neighborhood I grew up in, but if you extrapolate, you can make the assumption that those who choose to wear the Burqa voluntarily are doing so because of religious beliefs, because of traditions, and because of a sense of connection with their history and culture. It's the same reason why a Brahmin like me would be vegetarian (which I am) even though my job isn't being a priest in a temple (which is the original reason for the vegetarianism back in the good old days).

We (as in my family and others) really tend not to dwell on the topic and let them be. After all they are what they are and who they are because of the way they think, speak, act, and believe. And these small things are what makes us different. I'm sure the non-educated ones are wondering why the women in our household put on the red dot or wear saris.

Thanks. It is good to have input from someone who is at least standing next to the horse's mouth.

[DaveC426913]

You misunderstand: we aren't saying we know how they feel. We are judging the action and its implications. How the person feels about the action is irrelevant. I would have hoped by now that that was clear: it is precisely because one's own feelings on a subject they are in the middle of can't be trusted to be accurate that feelings have no bearing on the question of whether someone is being oppressed. Oppression is judged on larger principles, completely separate from what is going on in the head of the person in question.
So, our judgement on what is best for this adult citizen overrules her own personal wishes?

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, because: No. Such decency laws in western culture have no association with or alterior motive related to any actual oppression. They are a matter of decency only, and a judgement call. If wearing a Bhurka was strictly a matter of decency and in no way related to the general subjugation of women in Islamic culture, then it could be argued that it is a matter of degree. To be more specific, decency laws regarding women parallel decency laws regarding men in western culture. In Islamic culture, there is no parallel: decency laws target women almost exclusively. Why? Because there is more to these laws than just decency. These laws are part of the subjugation of women in Islamic society.

In western cultures women are still made to cover up more than men. Your cultural upbringing leads you to believe that it is only proper that a woman cover her breasts just as the upbringing of a muslim may lead them to feel it is only proper a woman cover up all of her body. You go to any number or tribal communities and you will find women with their breasts exposed regularly. It is IN FACT culture, and not mere propriety, which lead you to believe women ought to cover their breasts as a matter of decency.


Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg/150px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

Lol... I meant non-veiled. :-p I gues there is a different name for it if there is no veil.
I don't think I have ever seen a veiled woman around here.

[russ_watters]

In western cultures women are still made to cover up more than men. Could you explain that a little more because it doesn't seem to me to be true. As was pointed out, the breasts are considered sexual. In additon, it is generally frowned upon for men to wear cut or tight fitting bottoms like womens' bathing suit bottoms. Overall, the difference is quite small and is technical in nature - in other words, it is an interpretation of an evenly applied standard of propriety. Such a blanket male/female standard does not exist for muslims. Your cultural upbringing leads you to believe that it is only proper that a woman cover her breasts.... Ok.... just as the upbringing of a muslim may lead them to feel it is only proper a woman cover up all of her body. As I pointed out before, that norm does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it come anywhere close to the norm for male propriety. The example fails twice! You go to any number or tribal communities and you will find women with their breasts exposed regularly. And men's penises too. That's an example of an evenly applied standard and an argument against your point, not for it.

[russ_watters]

So, our judgement on what is best for this adult citizen overrules her own personal wishes?
Yes! Dave, I'm not trying to be condescending here, but whether you believe the concept should apply to this case or not is one thing, but you don't even seem to accept that the concept even exists! This is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

I gave a number of examples, but the one most relevant is that people - even adults - are not always qualified to judge whether or not they have been victimized. And Islamic culture provides us with one of the most basic and common criteria for judging whether someone is able to make an informed decision about their own life: education. Women in Islamic cultures tend to be less educated than men, by design. As a result, they are less able to judge their own predicament. That is, of course, a well-known, age-old method for ensuring the status quo via repression!

[russ_watters]

Jeez. Not again. Can someone stop by Russ' house and change his batteries? :biggrin:

[ EDIT: Ah. thanks.]
Believe me, it's tiring for me too, Dave.

[rootX]

Well, that's why I'm asking.

One of my question is:
Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?



So, you ask "Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?"
And then you admit that your method and the suggested ones are flawed. So, we can never answer this question?


That is a ridiculous rationale. I'll presume you are not serious.


a] We do not need to dress in their culture when we go there.
b] I live in Canada. We embrace diverse cultures.

Yes, I agree. I couldn't get enough time to elaborate my rationale.

[GeorginaS]

Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg/150px-Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

Yes, there's some lack of definition going on in this thread, I think. The picture MIH linked is a burqa. Complete head-to-toe covering including the entire face and eyes. There's also a naqib that is head-to-toe covering but the eyes are visible. There's the hijab that we most commonly see in Western countries and that's simply a head scarf. There's a vast difference between the garments.

I'd guess and say, originally, given their geographical situation, a hijab, naqib, or even a burqa likely makes all kinds of sense if you're part of a nomadic tribe living in the desert. Your hair, eyes, and skin would be protected from the harsh elements of the sun and blowing sand. Makes sense. The way that women are compelled and/or brainwashed into wearing those garments in this day and age is a whole other scenario.



Lol... I meant non-veiled. :-p I gues there is a different name for it if there is no veil.
I don't think I have ever seen a veiled woman around here.

It's interesting to me that a couple of people here, including Drakin, seem to think the idea of covering women up is funny. It's actually kind of frightening when you're confronted with it.

To answer MIH's question, no, you can't see a face, eyes, nothing, through that mesh. I've seen a woman wearing that very thing in a mall here in Alberta. She even had gloves on. You could not see one inch of a human being. All you could see was a moving hunk of blue cloth. That's it. What was walking about in front of me was nothing that was identifiable as human or as a human being. If the person under there was happy or sad no one would ever know.

And you see, that's one of the big things about the burqa -- not, you'll note, the other religious pieces of clothing those women wear -- that I object to immensely. First of all, the women who are wearing them come from countries such as Afghanistan where, yes, they are entirely oppressed. And if they leave their homes wearing anything but that entire covering, they risk imprisonment or death. You grow up with or live with that much fear for any length of time and tell me how willingly you'd let that piece of cloth go? It's a prison for their own self-preservation.

I'd also argue that, like inmates who become so institutionalised that they no longer are comfortable wandering loose and left to their own devices in society at large, I'd suggest that a lot of these women may feel the same way. They'd feel exposed without the covering and not because of any sense of moral propriety but because of a deeply embedded fear for their mortal safety without it.

And here's another thing to consider. I've often read about women being beaten or stoned to death on the streets of countries like Afghanistan and wondered how on earth it's possible to stone another human being to death. Then you encounter a woman wearing a burqa and you better understand. If you threw rocks at that moving hunk of cloth, you'd not be harming a person. You don't see a person; you don't identify that thing as a human being. You wouldn't see it suffer; it would be fairly easy to kill, like shooting at a target paper.

So yes, I see the burqa as oppressive because it's dehumanising. You'll note I've not commented on the other pieces of Muslim religious-related clothing and focused my ideas exclusively the burqa/bhurka, which is the specific item of clothing being referred to by the OP.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Could you explain that a little more because it doesn't seem to me to be true. As was pointed out, the breasts are considered sexual. In additon, it is generally frowned upon for men to wear cut or tight fitting bottoms like womens' bathing suit bottoms. Overall, the difference is quite small and is technical in nature - in other words, it is an interpretation of an evenly applied standard of propriety. Such a blanket male/female standard does not exist for muslims. Ok.... As I pointed out before, that norm does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it come anywhere close to the norm for male propriety. The example fails twice! And men's penises too. That's an example of an evenly applied standard and an argument against your point, not for it.

In the west men and women both have to cover their genitals. Only women have to cover their breasts. Women, by law, must wear about twice as much clothing as men at a minimum when in a public place. How do you come to the conclusion that this is an equitable standard? Note also that women in the US mostly wear bras regardless of necessity and most schools and employers, especially any that have uniforms, require females to wear bras regardless of necessity. Do you see this as an equitable standard aswell?

And yes, breasts are considered sexual on both men and women. Womens breasts are considered naughty primarily because they are most often hidden. Men though are quite welcome to display their chests as a sign of their virility (read: sexuality) and it is no problem what so ever. Once upon a time women were considered sluty if they showed ankle and men found ankles sexual. Have you read any literature from the time period? I've read some rather lusty descriptions of kissing wrists and arms myself. Would you not think that the reason for our society's continued preference for women keeping more of their bodies covered than men stems from those times when even western women were made to cover almost their entire body?

As for unevenness in application of propriety among muslims I am quite certain there are guidelines for proper dress for men aswell as women. I doubt that men are allowed to go out in public wearing speedos if they feel like it. I looked and I found you a link for proper muslim dress for men. This is also apparently the common mode of dress for men. You may find that there is not quite the gap you believed. The major difference is in the manner in which they are treated regarding their dress.
The idea of the islamic dress code for women is to protect women from the lustful gazes of men. So women should be made to cover their breasts in public in the US why? I believe you said its because they are considered sexual? So we need to protect them from the lustful gazes of men right? Of course we don't worry about protecting men from the lustful gazes of women. They are welcome to display any part of their body they wish save for their genitals and I think you will find that we are primarily 'protecting' women here again (and children too). I doubt you'll find many women who have been arrested for sexual assault because they bared their naughty bits. Men though have been made to register as sex offenders for as little as urinating in public. This isn't sexist or reminicent of our cultures oppression of women in anyway? Regardless of the letter of the law it is pretty obvious that in practice US laws on public indecency are used to protect women (and children) from men because women are seen as weak and delicate. They obviously need big strong men in uniform to come save them from the drunk guy pissing in the bushes or to ask them what their parents would think if they knew their daughter was flashing her breasts or to lecture them about how those guys they flashed may have tried to rape them.


The oppression of muslim women comes in with the way that these women are treated. The manner in which they dress is only a minor facet. If these women decide to continue to dress in this fashion when they move to other countries it is not oppression. They are not made to dress this way. They will not be arrested, beaten, or stoned to death if they one day decide to go out without their head cover. If you believe that these women prefer their mode of dress and are uncomfortable with the idea of men looking at them while not fully covered because they have been brain washed are you really of the mind to take that from them? Would you make them go out dressed in jeans and a t-shirt no matter how they feel about it just because it makes you feel better? Would you make a woman wear a bikini because hey she can and she oughtn't allow herself to be so oppressed?


Proper Dress For Muslim Men (http://southernmuslimah.wordpress.com/2007/08/30/the-muslim-mans-dress-code/)

Hamas Dress Code (http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=8188969&page=3) The last page refers to men being told to dress and act properly

Report on Female Sex Offenders (http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf) A large part of this discusses the view society takes on women and how this may be partly responsible for their severe under representation in sex offender statistics.

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's interesting to me that a couple of people here, including Drakin, seem to think the idea of covering women up is funny. It's actually kind of frightening when you're confronted with it.
I had not realized the difference. I have only seen women in the US wearing the hajib. My last post may give you a better idea of what I think. I am certainly appalled by the manner in which women are treated in some other countries. What I think is silly is the notion that such dress ought to be banned as a sybmol oppression or that the US and other western countries don't themselves show elements of oppression (though far far milder) in their standard mode of dress for females.

[DaveC426913]

Believe me, it's tiring for me too, Dave.
:tongue:It was not a gibe. Your post ended in the middle of a sentence. For a short time, it looked for all the world like you had just ground to a halt in the middle of writing.

[DaveC426913]

Yes! Dave, I'm not trying to be condescending here,
Likewise, don't second-guess my reactions. I am not dismissing what you say in disbelief, I am carefully considering it.

but whether you believe the concept should apply to this case or not is one thing, but you don't even seem to accept that the concept even exists! This is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

I gave a number of examples, but the one most relevant is that people - even adults - are not always qualified to judge whether or not they have been victimized.
Yes, but is that a call that can be made unilaterally? You examine a criminal's case, a mentally-ill patient's condition, a building's condition.

The equivalent would be to judge each garb-wearing women on the merits of her specific situation.



And Islamic culture provides us with one of the most basic and common criteria for judging whether someone is able to make an informed decision about their own life: education. Women in Islamic cultures tend to be less educated than men, by design. As a result, they are less able to judge their own predicament. That is, of course, a well-known, age-old method for ensuring the status quo via repression!
But we cannot state unilaterally that any given woman is uneducated and therefore ignorant and therefore oppressed.

[ideasrule]

I simply don't agree that multiculturalism means that oppression is permissible. Slavery and segregation were once a part of American culture; now they're not. Foot binding and other forms of sexism were once part of Chinese culture; now they're not. If the activists who protested against these injustices simply decided to be "tolerant" or "multicultural", we'd still be lynching blacks and considering women as property.

[cristo]

Let's please all remember the PF rules on religious discussion, and try to adhere to them. Failure to do so will result in the thread being locked.


I saw a programme once which was interviewing women wearing bhurkas and asking why they wore them in western society. Interestingly, some of the women stated that they didn't wear them "back home", but that in the western world they felt less safe, and that men were ogling at them so much that they felt it safer to cover up their bodies.

On a more practical note, I think there are times when a bhurka is pretty dangerous. I've been bumped into several times by women who effectively have no peripheral vision. One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!

[TheStatutoryApe]

I simply don't agree that multiculturalism means that oppression is permissible. Slavery and segregation were once a part of American culture; now they're not. Foot binding and other forms of sexism were once part of Chinese culture; now they're not. If the activists who protested against these injustices simply decided to be "tolerant" or "multicultural", we'd still be lynching blacks and considering women as property.
Is a woman who chooses to wear a burqa or hajib oppressing herself?

I saw a programme once which was interviewing women wearing bhurkas and asking why they wore them in western society. Interestingly, some of the women stated that they didn't wear them "back home", but that in the western world they felt less safe, and that men were ogling at them so much that they felt it safer to cover up their bodies.

On a more practical note, I think there are times when a bhurka is pretty dangerous. I've been bumped into several times by women who effectively have no peripheral vision. One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!
Do they wear them while driving? That is certainly dangerous. No one should be allowed to operate a heavy piece of machinery while obviously hindering their ability to do so safely.

Another danger they may want to consider is that with their vision hindered they will be less likely to observe persons who are attempting to target them. Like an ostrich sticking their head in the sand to avoid the lion.

[drankin]

Any objections with letting someone wear a burqa in a bank? Federal building? Airport? Anywhere where positive identification is req'd for public safety?

[TheStatutoryApe]

Any objections with letting someone wear a burqa in a bank? Federal building? Airport? Anywhere where positive identification is req'd for public safety?

This was something I had thought about. I remember a story maybe a couple of years ago about a muslim woman who refused to show her face for a DMV photo, which I thought was ridiculous. I believe that she eventually wound up agreeing to allow a female DMV worker to take the photo in an area where no one else could see her, but not after lodging complaints and threatening lawsuits and such.

I don't see any issue with allowing the person to speak only with a female employee/officer, or a single individual, with some level of privacy. In most cases this isn't going to put anyone out. If for what ever reason the particular situation does not allow for such niceties I do not believe that the womans feelings on the matter should trump legal and security issues.

[lisab]

Timely article today...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/12/generation.islam.hijab/index.html

The irony of wearing burqas, head scarves, etc. is that the intent is to be modest, to cover up. But when such clothing is worn in a non-Muslim country, it makes the wearer very conspicuous.

[robertm]

Here's Pat Condell's take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48

[DaveC426913]

Timely article today...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/12/generation.islam.hijab/index.html

The irony of wearing burqas, head scarves, etc. is that the intent is to be modest, to cover up. But when such clothing is worn in a non-Muslim country, it makes the wearer very conspicuous.

I don't really see this as ironic. Covering up is not diametrically opposite of conspicuousness. It's not like they're hoping it will act as camouflage.

[DaveC426913]

One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!
Do they wear them while driving?Oh driving!

That makes more sense. I thought she was just very large.

[Smurf]

I think this discussion so far is somewhat disorganized, namely no one has yet tried to define what they mean by 'oppression'. Rather important if we're trying to decide wether the bhurka is oppressive, isn't it?

If your a liberal, then you believe that freedom is a good thing. But you can't just be pro-freedom because reality is a lot more complicated than that. Who's freedom? How much freedom? So you reason that freedom should be given to the person who is chiefly concerned with whatever issue is at hand. Say person X wants to kill person Y. Person Y, the one being killed, has a hell of a lot more at stake than person X, who just wants the pleasure of killing/money/whatever. And so you decide in his favor. Murder should be illegal.

Then you have to deal with things that aren't about two individuals, but one individual vs. society (This is when the burka thing comes up). Again, you can generally decide in favor of whoever has the most interest invested in the circumstances. So when you make speed limits and such, it's because the interest of society (not having random people die) surpasses the interest of individuals who are going to be late for work.

I think this is a very sound way of thinking about politics. It's not the kind of thinking that leads to statements about burkas as "signs of oppression" though. That kind of language stems from a different logic, the logic of moralism.

You take some kind of moral ideal and make it the highest good. You effectively raise to the level of metaphysical law. These ideals don't have any reasons for them, they just say, for example "Women should be liberated and independent". You can have all sorts of arguments for moralism: god, historical materialism, whatever. But these are just as lacking in justification as the moral ideals. And so you conjecture from this lofty premise what should be done to bring the world into alignment with your moral ideals. So you identify signs of oppression and oppressed individuals and you go about enacting laws and trying to convince people not to be oppressed anymore.

That's generally what I've seen in this thread so far. The question "Are burkas oppressive?" is presented as a yes/no question. Well, it only has to be a yes/no question if your trying to answer it by comparing burkas to your moral ideals. When you compare them like that it either fits or it doesn't and that's all there is to it. If you think about burkas in terms of who's interest it's in you get a lot more options. You can allow them generally but ban them in places where it's in societies interest to not allow them. i.e. while driving and at security checkpoints, etc,.

So, do I think burkas are oppressive? No, because I don't believe in moral ideals. "Oppressive" to me isn't a matter of weather an individuals behavior matches up to my pre-conceived notions about behavior, it's a matter of weather or not they are being guaranteed their liberties where they are most concerned. So as long as they are freely choosing to wear it (they're reasons are irrelevant) and it's not more in societies interest to ban them or take any other actions, I don't see a problem.

Explore the logic of moral relativism. Test it. See if it works. See if you can find any examples in history where it has succeeded. You'll find that not only does it lead to logical contradictions and isn't internally consistent, but it has been shown throughout history that moral failures cause societal failures.
I'm not entirely sure what "moral relativism" means to you, but I suspect it describes me and I've never had any problems with it.
EDIT: Well, that's not true. But I don't have any problems with it ANYMORE.

[TheStatutoryApe]

SMURF!! Where the Smurf have you been?!

[Smurf]

I've been around. I made a few posts a week or two ago. Even when I wasn't popping I'd occasionally drop by and peek around. I couldn't leave you all here all by yourselves without any supervision. That would just be... irresponsible.

[ideasrule]

You take some kind of moral ideal and make it the highest good. You effectively raise to the level of metaphysical law. These ideals don't have any reasons for them, they just say, for example "Women should be liberated and independent". You can have all sorts of arguments for moralism: god, historical materialism, whatever. But these are just as lacking in justification as the moral ideals. And so you conjecture from this lofty premise what should be done to bring the world into alignment with your moral ideals. So you identify signs of oppression and oppressed individuals and you go about enacting laws and trying to convince people not to be oppressed anymore.


Although it rarely happens, I do believe that learning from history is the best way to go. Ideals that have been adopted and found beneficial in the past--for example, democracy, freedom of religion, gender equality, etc--are entitled to become morals; ideals that have proven harmful, like censorship, propaganda, and discrimination, should be considered evil and revolting by society. Islamic theocracies exist today, and we can see that they simply don't work. Instead of spectacular progress and a promising future, they have only oppression and economic stagnation to show off; they are ruled by dictators, not democratically-elected governments; instead of inspiring awe and admiration, they inspire fear and disgust. That is why I consider all symbols of fundamentalist Islam--and for that matter, all symbols of religious fundamentalism--to be symbols of oppression. The burqa, being an instrument of oppression, gets my condemnation two times over.

[kyleb]

That's an intentional obfuscation of the issue. Burqas are worn by muslims. They aren't worn by Jews or Christians or athiests.
Far from all Muslim woman wear burqas, some Christians and Jews hold to similar standards of dress as shown here (http://drawn-together-by-modesty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/together1.jpg), and I've know a few atheists who dress rather modest themselves.
Whether they are specifically cited in the Quran is irrelevant to the fact that the Quran is used as a reasoning for mandating them.
Actually, mention is made of veiling women in the Qur'an, but only in regard to Muhammad's wives. As for dress codes for women in general there is nothing nearly as strict. What is said I take to mean; always keep the crotch covered in front of others, don't let the curvy bits be seen outside of family, and wear a distinctive headscarf when traveling outside Muslim territory (so as to be identified as under Muslim protection). However, Muslims consider Muhammad's wives examples to strive towards, and hence particularly pious women often choose to veil themselves. Of course the strict standards which are currently enforced in some Mulsim countries is flagrant oppression, but that does nothing to make burqas oppressive in themselves. In fact, a generally accepted concept behind dressing modestly is to put aside worldly matters, freeing oneself to focus on enlightenment.

[ideasrule]

Far from all Muslim woman were burqas, some Christians and Jews hold to similar standards of dress as shown here (http://drawn-together-by-modesty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/together1.jpg), and I've know a few atheists who dress rather modest themselves.

That photo is deceiving for many reasons. Most obviously, as another poster mentioned earlier, the Muslim pictured isn't wearing a burqa. That head covering is a hijab; this is a real burqa: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Burqa_Afghanistan_01.jpg

No distinguishing features visible. What a way to guarantee complete loss of individuality.

Second, does your typical Christian or Jew dress like that? How many times have you seen a Christian with a cloth over her head, other than in the picture? You claim that some atheists dress modestly, but I'd like to know how many atheists you know who cover their heads with cloth.


Of course the strict standards which are currently enforced in some Mulsim countries is flagrant oppression, but that does nothing to make burqas oppressive in themselves. In fact, a generally accepted concept behind dressing modestly is to put aside worldly matters, freeing oneself to focus on enlightenment.

Now that you know what a burqa is, do you still think that?

[robertm]

In fact, a generally accepted concept behind dressing modestly is to put aside worldly matters, freeing oneself to focus on enlightenment.

Yeah like washing dishes and being utterly subservient to one's husband.

You are not seriously suggesting that enlightenment of Muslim women is what anyone has in mind while donning an costume, explicitly or implicitly forced or not, that completely disguises the wearer?

Also, by 'banning the burqa' I was under the impression that what is meant is that it should be unlawful to wear such a disguise in any public place in which a mask or the like is already prohibited, not an out right prohibition.

I remember a couple years back there was some controversy over muslim women who wanted to have there photo I.D.'s taken while wearing the burqa. :uhh:

[f95toli]

Far from all Muslim woman were burqas
Indeed, burqas were common in Afghanistan when the Taliban were in control (because they made illegal NOT to wear one) but it was never common even in Afghanistan before that. In fact, as far as I understand the type of burqua used in Afghanistan is quite "modern" in that the first women to wear it where the wifes (well, the harem) of one the Afghan rulers just over hundred years ago.
As far as I know there is no requirement for women to cover their faces in Islam; this is mainly a cultural phenomena and has nothing as such to do with religion.
Also, the type of Muslim women DO typically wear (in e.g. Iran)is quite similar to what most christian/Jewish women in the western world wore a couple of hundred years ago (married women covering their hair, etc); and it was still common in e.g. many countries until quite recently (parts Greece and rural Italy comes to mind). Moreover in many places women are still being asked to cover their hair before entering a church.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yeah like washing dishes and being utterly subservient to one's husband.

You are not seriously suggesting that enlightenment of Muslim women is what anyone has in mind while donning an costume, explicitly or implicitly forced or not, that completely disguises the wearer?
While there may be persons who seek to oppress women with the institution of dress codes it is not the actual point originally and is not the reason all persons abide it. Please refer to the blog I linked regarding proper dress for muslim men as described by a muslim woman along with her comments on why muslim men and women dress in this fashion. The idea it seems is that persons looking lustfully upon another, and the person being looked upon in such a fashion, are 'spritually' injured by it and so it should be avoided.
As we can see from several other cultures women can be just as easily oppressed without being made to dress like nuns. The burqa is just a particular cultural phenomenon.

Also, by 'banning the burqa' I was under the impression that what is meant is that it should be unlawful to wear such a disguise in any public place in which a mask or the like is already prohibited, not an out right prohibition.
The OP does not address any specific law but just the idea of the burqa being oppressive and whether or not it is right to prevent women from wearing them if it is their own choice.

[GeorginaS]

Far from all Muslim woman were burqas, some Christians and Jews hold to similar standards of dress as shown here (http://drawn-together-by-modesty.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/together1.jpg), and I've know a few atheists who dress rather modest themselves.

There's yet another clothing misunderstanding (I'm assuming it's a misunderstanding) with that photo. The two Christian women are wearing uniforms associated with their profession. They're nuns. No other Christian women dress that way. Even nuns no longer dress that way.

And the uniform/costume they have parallels the uniform/costume worn by male officiates of any religion -- such as the Catholic priest's collar -- that aren't donned by the population at large.

The burqa, naqib, and hijab are intended for the female Muslim population at large. Very different uses.

[kyleb]

That photo is deceiving for many reasons. Most obviously, as another poster mentioned earlier, the Muslim pictured isn't wearing a burqa.
As I said, far from all Mulsim women wear burqas, and some Christians and Jews hold to similar standards of dress.

Now that you know what a burqa is, do you still think that?
I've know what a burqa is long before now. Any chance you could reconsider my comments with that in mind?

You are not seriously suggesting that enlightenment of Muslim women is what anyone has in mind while donning an costume, explicitly or implicitly forced or not, that completely disguises the wearer?
Being familiar with the origin of the tradition, as I explained above, I don't see how one could seriously suggest otherwise.

As far as I know there is no requirement for women to cover their faces in Islam; this is mainly a cultural phenomena and has nothing as such to do with religion.
Well, as I alluded to previously, Qur'an (33:53) required Muhammad's wives to interact with others from behind a curtain/screen on the grounds that doing so "makes for greater purity for your hearts and for theirs". But yeah, for all other women the standards of dress for women required by Qur'an (24:31 and 33:59) are far more lenient, and adhering to stricter standards is a matter of choice for some woman, and a matter of oppression for others.
There's yet another clothing misunderstanding (I'm assuming it's a misunderstanding) with that photo. The two Christian women are wearing uniforms associated with their profession. They're nuns.
Seems to me you are struggling for misunderstanding, as the fact that those Christian women are nuns is clearly noted in the pic.

No other Christian women dress that way.
Some dress like this (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/05/us/05amish2_lg.jpg).

Even nuns no longer dress that way.
Some do (http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/sisters.jpg).

The burqa, naqib, and hijab are intended for the female Muslim population at large.
According to some, others disagree.

[GeorginaS]

Seems to me you are struggling for misunderstanding, as the fact that those Christian women are nuns is clearly noted in the pic.


I can't make sense of what you said. Evidently I'm not making my point clear. Nuns dress the way they do because that's their work uniform, just as nurses dress the way they do and police officers dress the way they do because it's associated with their job. Christian women (not living on secluded fringe-group colonies) do not have a standard uniform to wear.

Is that any clearer?

[kyleb]

Engaging in such generalizations is no means to clarity.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Christian women (not living on secluded fringe-group colonies) do not have a standard uniform to wear.
The burqa is 'standard uniform' only for women primarily living in areas dominated by extremist fringe groups.

[DaveC426913]

The burqa is 'standard uniform' only for women primarily living in areas dominated by extremist fringe groups.How confident are you that this is an objective and corroboratable observation compared to a subjectively-biased one?

[TheStatutoryApe]

How confident are you that this is an objective and corroboratable observation compared to a subjectively-biased one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa

[GeorginaS]

Engaging in such generalizations is no means to clarity.

Generalities? You're comparing a uniform worn to work as a condition of employment to everyday street wear clothing and saying they're deployed equally. I'm saying those are not equal comparisons.

Nope. I'm expressing myself very specifically.

[GeorginaS]

Christian women (not living on secluded fringe-group colonies) do not have a standard uniform to wear.

The burqa is 'standard uniform' only for women primarily living in areas dominated by extremist fringe groups.

That one particular line I wrote, SA, was referring to kyleb's assertion that certain Christian women do dress a particular way and he provided this link (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/05/us/05amish2_lg.jpg) to substantiate his/her claim. I was referring to the Amish as a secluded fringe-group colony.

[kyleb]

Generalities? You're comparing a uniform worn to work as a condition of employment to everyday street wear clothing and saying they're deployed equally. I'm saying those are not equal comparisons.

Nope. I'm expressing myself very specifically.
Actually, you are contradicting your previous statement:
Even nuns no longer dress that way.

Again, such generalizations are no means to clarity. If you rework those contradictory statements to reconcile them with each other, then you'll be on the path to clarifying the situation for yourself.
That one particular line I wrote, SA, was referring to kyleb's assertion that certain Christian women do dress a particular way and he provided this link (http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/05/us/05amish2_lg.jpg) to substantiate his/her claim. I was referring to the Amish as a secluded fringe-group colony.
Yet again, far from all Muslim woman wear burqas. As the kindly Ape noted, it "is 'standard uniform' only for women primarily living in areas dominated by extremist fringe groups."

And to save you a bit of typing in the future; I am a man.

[kyleb]

Also, I had skipped over adressing this argument previously:

And here's another thing to consider. I've often read about women being beaten or stoned to death on the streets of countries like Afghanistan and wondered how on earth it's possible to stone another human being to death. Then you encounter a woman wearing a burqa and you better understand. If you threw rocks at that moving hunk of cloth, you'd not be harming a person. You don't see a person; you don't identify that thing as a human being. You wouldn't see it suffer; it would be fairly easy to kill, like shooting at a target paper.
I have yet to see you so much as move cloth, but I've no trouble distinguishing you as a person. Also, when people stone women for not wearing a burqas; being veiled clearly doesn't play any part in the problem, as the victims are obviously not wearing burqas.

[Count Iblis]

I've decided that I, as an atheist man, will wear the burqa in protest if it is banned.

[mgb_phys]

Anybody planning to join this protest on Sunday ?
http://www.gotopless.org/index.php

[wildman]

One interesting way to think about bhurkas is by using natural selection. Keep in mind that the bhurkas come from desert cultures. Living in a desert myself, I very well understand that the sun is brutal here. Keep in mind that these cultures had no cure for skin cancer and no sun block. Behaviors that resulted in men and women covering up would be strongly selected for. This would have resulted in strong taboos against exposing one's self to the environment.

[DaveC426913]

One interesting way to think about bhurkas is by using natural selection. Keep in mind that the bhurkas come from desert cultures. Living in a desert myself, I very well understand that the sun is brutal here. Keep in mind that these cultures had no cure for skin cancer and no sun block. Behaviors that resulted in men and women covering up would be strongly selected for. This would have resulted in strong taboos against exposing one's self to the environment.

I'm with you all the way to the last sentence where you say 'taboo'. There you make a leap where I can't follow.

[skeptic2]

No, because: No. Such decency laws in western culture have no association with or alterior motive related to any actual oppression. They are a matter of decency only, and a judgement call. If wearing a Bhurka was strictly a matter of decency and in no way related to the general subjugation of women in Islamic culture, then it could be argued that it is a matter of degree. To be more specific, decency laws regarding women parallel decency laws regarding men in western culture. In Islamic culture, there is no parallel: decency laws target women almost exclusively. Why? Because there is more to these laws than just decency. These laws are part of the subjugation of women in Islamic society.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8241894.stm

Note in the above article that the woman was arrested for violating decency laws by wearing green pants. Lubna Ahmed Hussein, the woman arrested said she wanted her case to be a test case for women’s rights. The government saw it as an issue of decency and the woman as an issue of oppression. Are decency standards a form of oppression only when they affect one sex more than the other?

Are our decency laws really any different from theirs except in degree? If the words “appearing topless” were substituted for “wearing trousers” in the article, this article might have been written about a protest in the United States.

Main Entry: de•cen•cy
1 archaic a : fitness b : orderliness
2 a : the quality or state of being decent : propriety b : conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality
3 : standard of propriety —usually used in plural
4 plural : conditions or services considered essential for a proper standard of living
5 : literary decorum

As is evident from the definition, decency is simply a cultural norm, thus what is indecent in one culture may not be in another. To say that decency laws in other cultures are a form of oppression but in our culture they exist for decency only is overly naïve.

[lisab]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/8241894.stm

Note in the above article that the woman was arrested for violating decency laws by wearing green pants. Lubna Ahmed Hussein, the woman arrested said she wanted her case to be a test case for women’s rights. The government saw it as an issue of decency and the woman as an issue of oppression. Are decency standards a form of oppression only when they affect one sex more than the other?

Are our decency laws really any different from theirs except in degree? If the words “appearing topless” were substituted for “wearing trousers” in the article, this article might have been written about a protest in the United States.

Main Entry: de•cen•cy
1 archaic a : fitness b : orderliness
2 a : the quality or state of being decent : propriety b : conformity to standards of taste, propriety, or quality
3 : standard of propriety —usually used in plural
4 plural : conditions or services considered essential for a proper standard of living
5 : literary decorum

As is evident from the definition, decency is simply a cultural norm, thus what is indecent in one culture may not be in another. To say that decency laws in other cultures are a form of oppression but in our culture they exist for decency only is overly naïve.

There's a big difference between women wearing pants and women being topless, and this is not simply a cultural bias. Nearly universally, heterosexual men are sexually aroused by a topless woman, but maybe not so much by the sight of a woman wearing pants.

Now, why there are laws (passed mostly by men, btw) against women displaying themselves in an overtly sexual way, I really have no interest in exploring. My point here is, topless women <> women in pants.

[skeptic2]

I did not say there is not a big difference between the two. I did ask "Is this anything more than a matter of degree?" (however large).

I suggest that the regions where heterosexual men are sexually aroused by a topless woman correspond closely to the regions where a woman appearing topless is considered indecent. This still doesn't make it any more than a cultural bias.

[lisab]

I did not say there is not a big difference between the two. I did ask "Is this anything more than a matter of degree?" (however large).

I suggest that the regions where heterosexual men are sexually aroused by a topless woman correspond closely to the regions where a woman appearing topless is considered indecent. This still doesn't make it any more than a cultural bias.

Hmm...that exposes (sorry for the pun :smile:) the root of the issue. Is the sight of a topless woman arousing to men instinctively? Or is it the (culturally defined) indecency that is the driver...the fact that it's taboo?

[Ivan Seeking]

There's a big difference between women wearing pants and women being topless, and this is not simply a cultural bias. Nearly universally, heterosexual men are sexually aroused by a topless woman, but maybe not so much by the sight of a woman wearing pants.

Now, why there are laws (passed mostly by men, btw) against women displaying themselves in an overtly sexual way, I really have no interest in exploring. My point here is, topless women <> women in pants.

Not that long ago, it was considered inappropriate for women in the US to wear pants because they were sexually provocative.

Therefore, I support having topless women in pants.

[Ivan Seeking]

One of the reasons that traditional Mormon men and women wear the famous underwear is to avoid sexually tempting others of the opposite sex [presumably of the opposite sex]. And you will never see a traditional mormon woman wearing pants for the same reason. The same is true for the Mennonites and the Amish.

[lisab]

Not that long ago, it was considered inappropriate for women in the US to wear pants because they were sexually provocative.

Therefore, I support having topless women in pants.

:rofl:

But seriously, I think the objection back then was that women were stepping out of their well-defined box, and doing something that was seen as "male", i.e., wearing pants. I'd be surprised if this behavior was seen as sexually appealing...I bet it was more seen as uppity. But that's just my opinion.

[TheStatutoryApe]

Hmm...that exposes (sorry for the pun :smile:) the root of the issue. Is the sight of a topless woman arousing to men instinctively? Or is it the (culturally defined) indecency that is the driver...the fact that it's taboo?

There are tribal communities where women walk around topless regularly. In some places it is not unusual to see topless women at the beach. There are also several nudist colonies.

I am unsure if it still exists but there was a thread in GD not that long ago where a young muslim man posted about how he was unsure that he could prevent himself from going crazy with lust if he saw women walking around in revealing clothing. He seemed to be honestly flabbergasted at the idea of being around skantly clad women and not having any reaction.

:rofl:

But seriously, I think the objection back then was that women were stepping out of their well-defined box, and doing something that was seen as "male", i.e., wearing pants. I'd be surprised if this behavior was seen as sexually appealing...I bet it was more seen as uppity. But that's just my opinion.
I am pretty sure I have heard before of women checking out guys in pants. I am fairly certain there is something sexy or sexual that they are seeing there yeah?