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.

  • #91
wildman said:
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.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #92
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #93
skeptic2 said:
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.
 
  • #94
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.
 
  • #95
skeptic2 said:
I did not say there is not a big difference between the two. I did ask "Is this anything more than a matter of degree?" (however large).

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

Hmm...that exposes (sorry for the pun :smile:) the root of the issue. Is the sight of a topless woman arousing to men instinctively? Or is it the (culturally defined) indecency that is the driver...the fact that it's taboo?
 
  • #96
lisab said:
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.
 
  • #97
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.
 
  • #98
Ivan Seeking said:
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.

:smile:

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.
 
  • #99
lisab said:
Hmm...that exposes (sorry for the pun :smile:) the root of the issue. Is the sight of a topless woman arousing to men instinctively? Or is it the (culturally defined) indecency that is the driver...the fact that it's taboo?

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

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

lisab said:
:smile:

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?