News Explore the Debate: Bhurkas and Oppression

[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?

[ 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?

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. 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 as well 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://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=8188969&page=3 The last page refers to men being told to dress and act properly

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.

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 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.

 

[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.

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.

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?