News Explore the Debate: 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:



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 religion

Yes.
Freedom of religion in France
laicite in general and the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State in particular

The Republic neither recognizes, nor salaries, nor subsidizes any religion

Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen

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?

 

[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?

[ 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?

Lol... I meant non-veiled. 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.