Explore the Debate: Bhurkas and Oppression

[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 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 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 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 http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/05/us/05amish2_lg.jpg" .

Even nuns no longer dress that way.

Some 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 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 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 ) 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 ) 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?