Explore the Debate: Bhurkas and Oppression

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the cultural and social implications of women wearing burkhas, particularly in Western contexts. Participants explore themes of oppression, individual choice, and societal norms, questioning whether wearing such garments is a sign of oppression or a voluntary expression of faith. The conversation touches on personal observations, health implications, and the complexity of defining voluntary actions within cultural frameworks.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that women may wear burkhas voluntarily, similar to how individuals in other cultures adopt traditional attire, raising questions about the assumptions of oppression.
  • Others argue that the concept of voluntary choice is complicated by societal pressures and indoctrination, citing examples from other oppressive regimes to illustrate their points.
  • Health risks, such as vitamin D deficiency, are mentioned as potential concerns related to wearing burkhas.
  • Participants discuss the implications of societal norms and the fear of ostracization, questioning whether these factors can render a choice involuntary.
  • Some express discomfort with the sight of burkhas, associating them with concealed identity, while others find them attractive or do not feel bothered by them.
  • There is a mention of existing laws in France regarding religious symbols, indicating a broader societal debate on the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether wearing a burkha is inherently a sign of oppression or a voluntary act of faith. Multiple competing views remain, with some emphasizing individual choice and others highlighting societal coercion.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reflects varying definitions of oppression and voluntary choice, with participants acknowledging the complexity of individual circumstances and societal influences. There are also references to cultural practices that may influence perceptions of autonomy.

  • #61
ideasrule said:
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?

cristo said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #62
Any objections with letting someone wear a burqa in a bank? Federal building? Airport? Anywhere where positive identification is req'd for public safety?
 
  • #63
drankin said:
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.
 
  • #64
  • #66
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #67
TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
 
  • #68
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.

russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: gracy
  • #69
SMURF! Where the Smurf have you been?!
 
  • #70
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.
 
  • #71
Smurf said:
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.
 
  • #72
russ_watters said:
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.
russ_watters said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #73
kyleb said:
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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #74
kyleb said:
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. :rolleyes:
 
  • #75
kyleb said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #76
robertm said:
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.

Robert said:
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.
 
  • #77
kyleb said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #78
ideasrule said:
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.
ideasrule said:
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?
robertm said:
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.
f95toli said:
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.
GeorginaS said:
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.
GeorginaS said:
No other Christian women dress that way.
Some dress like http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2006/10/05/us/05amish2_lg.jpg" .
GeorginaS said:
Even nuns no longer dress that way.
Some http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/images/sisters.jpg" .
GeorginaS said:
The burqa, naqib, and hijab are intended for the female Muslim population at large.
According to some, others disagree.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
kyleb said:
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?
 
  • #80
Engaging in such generalizations is no means to clarity.
 
  • #81
GeorginaS said:
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.
 
  • #82
TheStatutoryApe said:
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?
 
  • #83
DaveC426913 said:
How confident are you that this is an objective and corroboratable observation compared to a subjectively-biased one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burqa
 
  • #84
kyleb said:
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.
 
  • #85
GeorginaS said:
Christian women (not living on secluded fringe-group colonies) do not have a standard uniform to wear.

TheStatutoryApe said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #86
GeorginaS said:
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:
GeorginaS said:
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.
GeorginaS said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #87
Also, I had skipped over adressing this argument previously:
GeorginaS said:
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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #88
I've decided that I, as an atheist man, will wear the burqa in protest if it is banned.
 
  • #90
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.