french muslim women forbidden to go to the pool beccause of her burkini

[danyboy27]

discrimination or strict application of the pool rules? you choose.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8197917.stm

Personally i think it was a right move, i believe exceptions should be made for those suffering special physical conditions like for exemple skin disease.

[Kukulofori]

how is this not discrimination

or are you pro-discrimination

[Havet]

If you don't like watching women bath with those suits and/or watch people bath with skin disease, then look away.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

What a ridiculous outfit. Even Victorian bathing suits showed more skin. What's the point in going swimming if you're going to wear pretty much the exact same thing you wear when not?

[#FF0000]

Goddamn, France. Why are you so dumb

[Bud Struggle]

As the article said--it's a health issue. The lady is using the pool as a washing machine for her clothes. The same rule of no swimming with clothes on applies to everyone.

[khad]

As the article said--it's a health issue. The lady is using the pool as a washing machine for her clothes.
What a frankly ridiculous thing to say. If you wear so much as a speedo to the pool, guess what? You're guilty of using the pool as a washing machine for your clothes.

[Havet]

As the article said--it's a health issue. The lady is using the pool as a washing machine for her clothes. The same rule of no swimming with clothes on applies to everyone.

We should take our swimming suits then, we wouldn't want to use the pool as a washing machine for our swimming suits.

We should take our bodies away too. God knows where that filthy people have been around naked in their own flesh :rolleyes:

Seriously Bud, that's why its a burkini. It's supposed to only be used to take a bath. She has burkas for casual wear.

[Bud Struggle]

What a frankly ridiculous thing to say. If you wear so much as a speedo to the pool, guess what? You're guilty of using the pool as a washing machine for your clothes.

Well then the less the better. Besides the law says no swimming with clothes on--the fact that the clothes have some sort of fancy name doesn't make them any less "clothes."



Seriously Bud, that's why its a burkini. It's supposed to only be used to take a bath. She has burkas for casual wear. Do you really expect French pool attendants to follow the exotic swimwear fashions of Dubai?

She's an attention whore--nothing more.

[RedAnarchist]

Seriously Bud, that's why its a burkini. It's supposed to only be used to take a bath. She has burkas for casual wear.

Baths are for washing yourself, not lying in fully clothed.

[RedAnarchist]

Do you really expect French pool attendants to follow the exotic swimwear fashions of Dubai?

She's an attention whore--nothing more.


Why Dubai? The woman is French.

She's not an attention whore, shes just taking her religion too far. The Koran says nothing about bathing suits, and I bet plenty of Muslim women who wear burkahs use Western bathing suits in public.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Well then the less the better. Besides the law says no swimming with clothes on--the fact that the clothes have some sort of fancy name doesn't make them any less "clothes."


Do you really expect French pool attendants to follow the exotic swimwear fashions of Dubai?

She's an attention whore--nothing more.

I hate to be the token anti-theist, but more important than her right to wear clothes that cover her as a symbol of subjugation, is the fact that she shouldn't have to wear such things at all. The Burka, whether tight or loose fitting, in a pool or outside of a pool has only one function and that is to mark women as different to men - different and subordinate.

What is curious about the hijab/burka/etc. is that it appears innocent until you articulate it, with what other words could you descirbe something that covers women but not men, that exists to ensure women are not exposed to males, other than sexist and misogynistic?

When women in Iran are imprisoned for 'inproper' veiling by the Pardaran and feminists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir are greeted with acid to their faces when they mobilise for secularism and against veiling, this story is an afront to those people. The left has for too long defended and often tailed backward religious ideas, nobody here should be defending this.

[Bud Struggle]

Why Dubai? The woman is French.

That's where she bought the thing.


and had bought the swimsuit in Dubai so that she would not have to uncover herself to go swimming.


And:
What is curious about the hijab/burka/etc. is that it appears innocent until you articulate it, with what other words could you descirbe something that covers women but not men, that exists to ensure women are not exposed to males, other than sexist and misogynistic? I agree here. I think the entire thing smacks of sexism.

[RGacky3]

What a ridiculous outfit. Even Victorian bathing suits showed more skin. What's the point in going swimming if you're going to wear pretty much the exact same thing you wear when not?

Because it has to do with their religious beliefs douche bag.


Well then the less the better. Besides the law says no swimming with clothes on--the fact that the clothes have some sort of fancy name doesn't make them any less "clothes."

The fact is this has nothing to do with sanitation or whatever. France is an extreamly racist and discriminatory country, this is'nt the first time muslims have been attacked legally in france. I think its great this gets attention, THIS is real racism (religious descrimination actually), much worse than some comedian loosing his temper and calling a black heckler a nigger, which gets a bunch of attention.


Do you really expect French pool attendants to follow the exotic swimwear fashions of Dubai?

She's an attention whore--nothing more.

What do pool attendants have to do with what bathingsuits people wear?


The left has for too long defended and often tailed backward religious ideas, nobody here should be defending this.

No, but we DO defend peoples rights to practice their own religion and we do not defend racist or discriminatory laws, even against religions we consider backward.


I hate to be the token anti-theist, but more important than her right to wear clothes that cover her as a symbol of subjugation, is the fact that she shouldn't have to wear such things at all.

This has nothing to do with theism or anti-theism. She is CHOOSING to wear this thing, in this case. People should have that right.


Baths are for washing yourself, not lying in fully clothed.

Its a swimming pool.

This is just another case of France being discriminatory and racist.

[Nakidana]

I hate to be the token anti-theist, but more important than her right to wear clothes that cover her as a symbol of subjugation, is the fact that she shouldn't have to wear such things at all. The Burka, whether tight or loose fitting, in a pool or outside of a pool has only one function and that is to mark women as different to men - different and subordinate.

What is curious about the hijab/burka/etc. is that it appears innocent until you articulate it, with what other words could you descirbe something that covers women but not men, that exists to ensure women are not exposed to males, other than sexist and misogynistic?

When women in Iran are imprisoned for 'inproper' veiling by the Pardaran and feminists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir are greeted with acid to their faces when they mobilise for secularism and against veiling, this story is an afront to those people. The left has for too long defended and often tailed backward religious ideas, nobody here should be defending this.

What a load of crap. Many Muslim women wear the hijab of their own volition, and they should be allowed to do so. It's a piece of clothing. I know many well educated and very independent Muslim women who wear the hijab. If I were to suggest they were being suppressed by men, I'd get slapped across the face. In fact it's becoming a mixed fashion and political statement. Muslim women who have never before worn the hijab have taken to wearing it as a show of defiance against the racist and Islamophobic governments in Europe. That's what the demonization of Muslim people has achieved; an increased interest among the Muslim population in their faith. I laugh because I know the governments and media would get better results if they just shut the fuck up about it.

We have a controversial (Derided for speaking out against the occupation of Iraq, and the right of the Iraqi people to self defence) Muslim leftist social worker and politician in this country. She wears the hijab (much derided for this as well of course) and was asked what she thought of Iranian "forced hijab". She answered that if she lived in Iran she, as a show of defiance against the Iranian government, probably wouldn't wear the hijab.

Now I don't care what people wear, they should be free to wear whatever the fuck they want. And that's the key point here, in Iran people are not allowed to wear what they want. That should be struggled against. In France, as civilised, modern and up to date as it's supposed to be, people are also not allowed to wear what they want. This too should be struggled against.

So in my opinion, leftists certainly should defend her right to wear what she wants. If there was a genuine problem with hygiene, then of course it should be considered. IMO, it's total bullshit. The connection between this case and the Islamophobia abound in French society is obvious.

As for the burqini or whatever the hell you want to call it, it looks perfectly fine. I remember reading an article in a bourgeois newspaper about a female Muslim lifeguard who was wearing the same thing. It's just a swimsuit covering the whole body. Yeah it's weird, but who gives a shit how people get their kicks. You want laws against "attention whores" now?

Found a website that makes 'em:

http://www.ahiida.com/index.php?a=subcats&cat=20

http://www.ahiida.com/img/products/20-977-1150420524.jpg

EDIT: Very nice post RGacky3, I'd thank you if I could. :che:

[danyboy27]

hoo well, i never wanted to support discrimination, its just that personally, i think religions have nothing to do in public places, and if i remember this Pool is a public place.

anyway, this is my opinion, and i am glad to hear yours.

[Bud Struggle]

What a load of crap. Many Muslim women wear the hijab of their own volition, and they should be allowed to do so. It's a piece of clothing. I know many well educated and very independent Muslim women who wear the hijab.

Sure and some Muslim women are also talked into being suicide bombers. And there are places where Muslims bomb schools for girls and throw acid in girls faces so they don't ever try to become educated and independent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7724505.stm

[danyboy27]

sure and some muslim women are also talked into being suicide bombers. And there are places where muslims bomb schools for girls and throw acid in girls faces so they don't ever try to become educated and independent.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/7724505.stm

nononono bub no!

[RHIZOMES]

Wow the amount of white liberal chauvinism in this thread is ridiculous. Yes, burqas and hijabs in the Islamic religion is subjugation, but by banning "burkinis", it doesn't mean Muslim women are gonna start wearing Western bathing suits, since many quite devoutly follow those religious practices you're basically barring them from enjoying swimming pools. Argue against these ideas rather than just banning them, you're making life for Muslim women in the West even harder.

[Kukulofori]

I hate to be the token anti-theist, but more important than her right to wear clothes that cover her as a symbol of subjugation, is the fact that she shouldn't have to wear such things at all. The Burka, whether tight or loose fitting, in a pool or outside of a pool has only one function and that is to mark women as different to men - different and subordinate.

What is curious about the hijab/burka/etc. is that it appears innocent until you articulate it, with what other words could you descirbe something that covers women but not men, that exists to ensure women are not exposed to males, other than sexist and misogynistic?

When women in Iran are imprisoned for 'inproper' veiling by the Pardaran and feminists in Pakistan, Afghanistan and Kashmir are greeted with acid to their faces when they mobilise for secularism and against veiling, this story is an afront to those people. The left has for too long defended and often tailed backward religious ideas, nobody here should be defending this.

What the hell is this?

Forcing someone to show more skin than they're comfortable with is as bad if not worse than stopping them from doing so.

I'm not even muslim and sometimes I wear a hijab as a symbol of defiance or just not wanting to be ogled. :/

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I have no sympathy for people who are restricted from doing stupid things that they are only interested in because of their religion. Yeah, there might be grounds that they should have the "right," but I don't really care. A member of a cult who honestly believes they have a right to jump off a bridge will be upset if we stop them, claiming an infringement of "rights." Honestly, if you're being really damn stupid, I don't have much sympathy for your right to be a moron.

Religious fundamentalists need psychological assistance, not enabling. I'm a huge fan of France's "discrimination" against the Muslim community.

[Kukulofori]

I have no sympathy for people who are restricted from doing stupid things that they are only interested in because of their religion. Yeah, there might be grounds that they should have the "right," but I don't really care. A member of a cult who honestly believes they have a right to jump off a bridge will be upset if we stop them, claiming an infringement of "rights." Honestly, if you're being really damn stupid, I don't have much sympathy for your right to be a moron.

Religious fundamentalists need psychological assistance, not enabling. I'm a huge fan of France's "discrimination" against the Muslim community.

Please point me to the part in the quran where it says to wear a hijab.

When I wear a hijab it's not because I'm Muslim (I'm not.). It's because it has the practical purpose of saying, "No, up here."

What you're basically advocating is opressing people who practice their religion, just to make life more difficult to them and hopefully convert them to atheism. You are as bad as any religion.

[danyboy27]

okay, so, just to sum it up, you guy believe we should be allowed to publicly wear distinctive religious icons?

i am not judging nobody, just clearing this one up.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Because it has to do with their religious beliefs douche bag.

Her religious beliefs are stupid. There's nothing wrong with showing skin.

[#FF0000]

okay, so, just to sum it up, you guy believe we should be allowed to publicly wear distinctive religious icons?

i am not judging nobody, just clearing this one up.

Yeah why not. I mean the "burkini" isn't even necessarily a religious thing.

And just saying "lol B&" isn't an option here. By banning clothes like this you really just cast these women even further into the margins of society. I mean, I guess it looks like progress was made, but the problem is then just swept under the rug. I think that's a step back, not forward.


The lady is using the pool as a washing machine for her clothes. The same rule of no swimming with clothes on applies to everyone.I imagine there is a difference between regular clothing and a bathing suit. Isn't the material different? If it is then there is no reason she should not be allowed to wear the burkini.

[RHIZOMES]

I have no sympathy for people who are restricted from doing stupid things that they are only interested in because of their religion. Yeah, there might be grounds that they should have the "right," but I don't really care. A member of a cult who honestly believes they have a right to jump off a bridge will be upset if we stop them, claiming an infringement of "rights." Honestly, if you're being really damn stupid, I don't have much sympathy for your right to be a moron.

Religious fundamentalists need psychological assistance, not enabling. I'm a huge fan of France's "discrimination" against the Muslim community.

Fuck you and your authoritarian, paternalistic liberalism.


Her religious beliefs are stupid. There's nothing wrong with showing skin.

Have you ever spoken to a Muslim in your life? Muslim women are not all going to start wearing bikinis just because some concerned white politicians ban burkinis. It just means another thing Muslim women cannot do now. And don't you liberals want Muslim women to have MORE freedoms?

[RotStern]

This is fucking stupid.
What is the difference between this and a once piece??
I see no difference other than it covers more.
I do think that the wearing of Hijabs and Burkhas should be a personal thing.
But it is true that a lot of muslim women are forced to wear it.
In Canada not too long ago there was a case of a muslim teenager who's father killed her for not wearing a hijab.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Have you ever spoken to a Muslim in your life? Muslim women are not all going to start wearing bikinis just because some concerned white politicians ban burkinis.

And mollycoddling ridiculous practices is no way of getting rid of them.


It just means another thing Muslim women cannot do now.Bullshit. There's nothing preventing her from wearing a proper bathing suit.


And don't you liberals want Muslim women to have MORE freedoms?Someone who feels they have completely cover up, even when going to the fucking swimming pool, is not in a "free" state of mind.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Please point me to the part in the quran where it says to wear a hijab.

When I wear a hijab it's not because I'm Muslim (I'm not.). It's because it has the practical purpose of saying, "No, up here."

What you're basically advocating is opressing people who practice their religion, just to make life more difficult to them and hopefully convert them to atheism. You are as bad as any religion.

The Q'uran preaches modesty. I'm not a religious expert. I know that from the viewpoints on modesty, it has been logically argued women should wear a hijab. It's also expected culturally in some circles. A culture expectation is a religious expectation. What a religion "is" does not soley come from its text. After all, the text itself is simply fiction. I'm not sure if the argument from modesty in teh Q'uran is being streched to justify the hijab or if it's got a rational basis. Either way, the whole foundation is a religious philosophy and culture that's logically unjustified.

If you can't tolerate people looking at your body instead of your face (who cares?), you should be dealing with it instead of hiding yourself. That's all your doing. Nobody sees your hijab as a "statement." They think you're a Muslim women who is subjugated. They'll most likely feel sorry for you. For a statement to be successful, it has to achieve its goal. You're not accomplishing anything by wearing a hijab except hiding your insecurity (oh no, somebody is looking at me). Women are trained to have a problem with men looking at their breasts. In reality, who gives a shit? You can look at my genatalia, look away, or look at porn while you talk to me. I don't care. If you have a problem with someone staring at your chest, confront them. That's like me not working because I dislike capitalism. It's a statement. It's also going to make everyone think I'm lazy and do nothing to accomplish my goal. The effectiveness of a statement is contextual. For your statement to be effective, you'd have to tell them why you wear it. Since your goal is to avoid people looking at your chest, it's just as easy to tell them you have a problem with "that." You're taking extra steps instead of using a simple solution, perhaps because you're uninterested in taking an active rather than passive stance on the issue.

You don't "convert" people to atheism. You show them that it's the case. Furthermore, the issue isn't that it's important to be atheist. The issue is that it's important "not" to be religious. Why? We've all seen the dangers of religion. Yes, a particular religious person is probably not hurting anything. However, me not paying the bus fare is probably not hurting the effectiveness of service. We need a universal principle to stop things from getting out a hand. A principle of paying the fare, or in this case, discouraging religious belief. It's the same rational that is applied to stopping fascism and nazism. One person isn't that bad, but you have to stop it before it spreads like a cancer.

As for the other accusation, of "liberal paternalism." Any society that doesn't try to discourage people from making bad decisions is not a humane society. Laws usually aren't the best way to do that, I'll admit. However, I see this situation and I think, "why do I care?" Noxion is making a better argument than I am on this one. I could be swayed either way on this. I just have no "emotional sympathy." Rationally, I'm open to arguments.

[Kukulofori]

The Q'uran preaches modesty. I'm not a religious expert. I know that from the viewpoints on modesty, it has been logically argued women should wear a hijab. It's also expected culturally in some circles. A culture expectation is a religious expectation. What a religion "is" does not soley come from its text. After all, the text itself is simply fiction. I'm not sure if the argument from modesty in teh Q'uran is being streched to justify the hijab or if it's got a rational basis. Either way, the whole foundation is a religious philosophy and culture that's logically unjustified.

There are absolutely no irrational cultural norms that don't come directly from religion. None whatsoever.

Unless you are proposing that we less-than-subtlely coerce everybody out of every social norm that doesn't make rational sense period, which makes you worse than most if not every religion.


If you can't tolerate people looking at your body instead of your face (who cares?), you should be dealing with it instead of hiding yourself. That's all your doing.

Maybe I don't feel like directly fighting patriarchy 24/7. Maybe I just wanna get a burger.


Nobody sees your hijab as a "statement." They think you're a Muslim women who is subjugated. They'll most likely feel sorry for you. For a statement to be successful, it has to achieve its goal. You're not accomplishing anything by wearing a hijab except hiding your insecurity (oh no, somebody is looking at me).

At the very least (although i emphasise that usually my motive has less to do with political statements) it will bring to attention that it's not just scary desert people on camels who wear them.


Women are trained to have a problem with men looking at their breasts. In reality, who gives a shit? You can look at my genatalia, look away, or look at porn while you talk to me. I don't care. If you have a problem with someone staring at your chest, confront them.

You basically just asked me to walk up to complete strangers and ask them to stop staring at my chest, like somehow that's an easier solution than wearing a hijab.

MOST female-bodied people I know have been sexually abused at one point. It's not an issue of "oh, sorry about that, now that you pointed it out to me I'll stop being so patriarchal."


That's like me not working because I dislike capitalism. It's a statement. It's also going to make everyone think I'm lazy and do nothing to accomplish my goal.

If your goal is not having to participate in capitalism then by all means.


The effectiveness of a statement is contextual. For your statement to be effective, you'd have to tell them why you wear it. Since your goal is to avoid people looking at your chest, it's just as easy to tell them you have a problem with "that." You're taking extra steps instead of using a simple solution,

Putting on a hijab is worlds easier than walking up to each and every male, some of whom i feel threatened by, and confronting them and educating them on the issues of patriarchy.


perhaps because you're uninterested in taking an active rather than passive stance on the issue.

I take it you spend every minute of every day revolting then.


You don't "convert" people to atheism. You show them that it's the case.

Guess how many Crusaders said the same thing.


Furthermore, the issue isn't that it's important to be atheist. The issue is that it's important "not" to be religious. Why? We've all seen the dangers of religion.

Yeah. Religion forbids people from doing things they want to do, and...

oh.


Yes, a particular religious person is probably not hurting anything. However, me not paying the bus fare is probably not hurting the effectiveness of service. We need a universal principle to stop things from getting out a hand. A principle of paying the fare, or in this case, discouraging religious belief. It's the same rational that is applied to stopping fascism and nazism. One person isn't that bad, but you have to stop it before it spreads like a cancer.

Coercing people into uniting in universal principles so things don't get out of hand whether the people participating like it or not is the same principle that comes directly from fascism. And I like the comparison between wearing a hijab and cancer, very tasteful and appropriate.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I don't even know where your coming from on this issue. People stare at your chest and it makes you uncomfortable, so you cover yourself up, thus going through extra effort rather than doing nothing. How does people looking at you hurt you? Why do you feel it necessary to cover yourself up simply because people look at certain parts of your body?

The rates of sexual abuse are terrible. Covering yourself up is like that, in my opinion, seems a total waste of time. I can't imagine it being comfortable to be completely clothed, especially when the weather is hot. I see nothing that could motivate wearing a hijab except fear, religious or of men. Women shouldn't start covering themselves up to avoid mistreatment from men. That's moving in the opposite direction. If we want women to be able to be wearing regular clothing and not be discriminated against, how is hiding yourself serving your goal?

If I want to be able to go to the park during the day without getting attacked by local hooligans, why should I go to the park at night to avoid them? It's not accomplishing the goal I want. I'm simply sidestepping around the issue rather than addressing it. By doing such activities, I would be encouraging passivity. Going to the park at night because you feel like it is one thing. Going because you're avoiding the day is something different altogether. Similarly, why wear a hijab when societies goal should be women in everyday, comfortable clothing, able to show their skin, without being discriminated against? We have to take steps forward, not backward.

Perhaps I can't understand because I'm not a women. I really don't understand the "fear" people have of others. People are not as dangerous as we like to believe. The average person isn't going to hurt anyone. Public spaces are relatively safe. Women experience sexual harassment. It's unacceptable. I just don't see the rational behind wearing a hijab. There are plenty of ways to secure yourself (when it comes to being looked at, it's a mindset). Carry pepperspray. Hell, with the statistics on sexual abuse, all women should probably carry it (sadly).

As for the religious issue, "crusaders" are simply people fighting for something. Communists are "crusaders." Everyone who acts on a belief is being dogmatic. That's life. Why should we "gently coerce" irrational norms rather than directly confront them? After all, communist philosophy is built on confrontation. Why have a reformist attitude towards changing cultural norms? You might be right. I'm just curious of your rationale.

I wasn't actually intending to compare the hijab to cancer, specifically. My comparison was appropriate, though. The average religious person is not dangerous. A principle of treating religious people as not dangerous, based on how religion operates, creates a climate where religion spreads and causes harm. Why? Because religion plays off of human flaws, not reason, like racism plays off hatred - hence why nazism and fascism are dangerous to be left unchecked, even though the average ideologue isn't a big threat.

If I try to bring myself back down to a more respectful tone. Be generous. Remember, my motivations are in the right place at least. I do want women to achieve more equality. If you're wearing the hijab for nonreligious reasons, it "might" be legitimate. I am simply not persuaded by your rationale, as you've argued so far, for why it's legitimate to wear it.

If religion did not exist, I would say wear it if you like even if you're being irrational. The issue is that targeting religious practices can be useful in preventing the spread of dangerous ideologies. Islam is a rapidly growing faith with a lot of fundamentalists followers. Any faith, whether Christianity, Islam, or otherwise, should be watched for what kind of actions it causes in its followers. Islam shows a tendency towards subjugating women, violence, terrorism (so does Christianity, mind you). That might be a perversion of the faith. It's simply the faith itself that leads to those dangerous mindsets.

Perhaps I'm mistaken in all this. I'm basically revising an argument in Richard Dawkin's "The God Delusion" to give it a communist flare. I simply don't see how "unchecked religion" is something safe to allow in society, even if it seems "benign" at first glance.

[RHIZOMES]

And mollycoddling ridiculous practices is no way of getting rid of them.

Bullshit. There's nothing preventing her from wearing a proper bathing suit.

Someone who feels they have completely cover up, even when going to the fucking swimming pool, is not in a "free" state of mind.

I'm not debating that at all bro, I agree. I'm debating the fact that it's deeply engrained in their culture so banning it is not gonna solve the problem. For the ones who aren't being forced to and it's part of their religious beliefs, well it's another thing a Western government is barring immigrants from doing and it's just creating another wedge for them to either choose maintaining their non-Western beliefs or "integrating". No matter how wrong it may be, that isn't the debate, which you're still trying to frame it is. For the ones who are FORCED to, guess what jackass that means they can't go to a swimming pool without being beaten by their abusive family or husband or something. Don't you even know what a "consequence" of something is? It's like the drug war, outlawing the drugs isn't going to solve the problem. Education will.

[Aeval]

If someone doesn't feel comfortable wearing something then why shouldn't they find an alternative? I think you'll find a lot of women in general don't like wearing swinsuits and bikinis, I certainly don't, and knowing that they have to wear one at the beach or pool leads them to do all sorts of crazy stuff - crash dieting, wrapping themselves in cling film to sweat out the excess water - all sorts, just so that they fit into the beauty standard that comes with wearing a bikini. So, this is fine, to force women to wear something that doesn't exactly make them look wonderful if they're over a certain size, makes them feel uncomfortable in public, not to mention all the crazy dieting that goes on, but if some women find something else to wear (which is made out of a different material from normal clothes if you actually look) that makes them feel comfortable then that should be banned.

Ridiculous. Why is it that at most swimming pools (in the UK certainly) men get the choice of tiny speedos if they want to show off their flat stomachs and tight buttocks (or not) or massive baggy shorts if they feel more comfortable in them - whereas women get the choice between tight swimsuit which covers your belly and tight bikini that doesn't. Forcing a muslim woman - or any woman - to wear a swimsuit/bikini instead of what they feel comfortable in isn't stopping them being treated differently just for being a woman, it's just making them be treated differently as western women instead.

[danyboy27]

Yeah why not. I mean the "burkini" isn't even necessarily a religious thing.

And just saying "lol B&" isn't an option here. By banning clothes like this you really just cast these women even further into the margins of society. I mean, I guess it looks like progress was made, but the problem is then just swept under the rug. I think that's a step back, not forward.

I imagine there is a difference between regular clothing and a bathing suit. Isn't the material different? If it is then there is no reason she should not be allowed to wear the burkini.

this measure dont force them to go hide into the margin of society, they are doing that themselves, its their choice to wear that after all, or at least that what most people say here.

to be serious, i think its not fair, that just beccause some people hold x belief they have to be exempted of x or y rules. if they put a rule that would allow everyone in pants and t-shirt to be allowed there it wouldnt bother me at all that women wearing burkini would come.

if that rule is stupid, then people should challenge it, and if most of the folk in the sector really find that rule stupid, they will sign the damn petition.

i am not supporting governement opression, that why if most of the people find a rule dumb they should challenge it.

[bricolage]

Why is it that at most swimming pools (in the UK certainly) men get the choice of tiny speedos if they want to show off their flat stomachs and tight buttocks (or not) or massive baggy shorts if they feel more comfortable in them

Not any more!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/10/alton-towers-speedo-ban

[hayat khan]

islam is hate capitalisam and socialisam and islam same the western capitalist media and thos system use islam and releasion against socialisam
be coz capitalist know about islam emotional thoughts and not now

[RGacky3]

Her religious beliefs are stupid. There's nothing wrong with showing skin.

So what, thats your opinion, that does'nt mean to make it law, if she does'nt want to show her skin its up to her, not you.


Sure and some Muslim women are also talked into being suicide bombers.

Wait, are you comparing Muslim women covering their skin in a pool to being suicide bombers?

The fact that people here are actually supporting the State taking away someones right to choose what they wear is rediculous.

[danyboy27]

The fact that people here are actually supporting the State taking away someones right to choose what they wear is rediculous.

right can be restricted for health concerns, if there was nobody to restrict people to dump fecal matter into municipal water supply we would be all sick.

but still, if the burkini respect hygiene standards for a pool i guess an execption is somehow more acceptable. if the whole thing is made of spandex or other proper material then the whole thing is unjustified.

even if i dislike the fact that people show religious symbols in public, i guess if it respect hygiene standards and dosnt hurt anyone its somehow acceptable.

[Pogue]

I don't see how this could be called unhygenic. Perhaps they were not sure if it was safe. In which case they should have researched it, not banned her, or maybe asked some questions. I think banning her seems like a really strong handed approach, its irrational and does seem like racism, or at the least bullying. If I saw someone wearing this I would ask them why and if it was suitable etc. Maybe they could have monitored her swimming to make sure if was safe. Thats not hard to do.

I think the point about banning it is right. I think if we want to deal with the issue of hijabs having people who do not know the context of it argue loudly over the radio or whatever about it is stupid. Obviously a complex issue like this needs to be dealt with. I think our best source of information would be through feminist organisations in Islamic countries or communities. I would like to hear their opinion on this. Also you could try talking to Muslims. They are not scary. I talk to people about their religious beleifs alot, I find it interesting although I think most of what they believe is to me irrational and I don't share the beliefs, the only way you can get anywhere is meaningful discussion.

I think if you want to debate this issue and whether it constitutes patriarchy, oppression etc, you need to bring in people who experience it. I'd like to find a context in which I could talk to someone who feels the need to cover up and ask them about it. I've never been in this situation, and I'd probably only do it with a friend so it didn't seem like I was invading someones space. No one I know feels obliged to dress like this so I couldn't do that at the moment.

Does anyone have any articles or websites by feminists from Islamic communities? I'd like to see what they have to say about things like the veil, hijab, covering up, etc. I think thats the only source that could give us answers because alot of people seem to enjoy speculating from the outside in which annoys me.

[Conquer or Die]

The good part about this thread is that it shows who revleft's social engineers are.

If she cannot wear a hijab, then other women cannot wear their bathing suits. It shows the difference of the sexes and therefore oppresses them.

Social engineer solution: Women and Men wear bottoms only, it may not highlight the differences between female and male anatomy. Men who do not physically conform to the bathing suit standard are barred from entering the pool or are given an appropriate solution.

Now, that actually DOES sound like a perfect world.

[danyboy27]

The good part about this thread is that it shows who revleft's social engineers are.

If she cannot wear a hijab, then other women cannot wear their bathing suits. It shows the difference of the sexes and therefore oppresses them.

Social engineer solution: Women and Men wear bottoms only, it may not highlight the differences between female and male anatomy. Men who do not physically conform to the bathing suit standard are barred from entering the pool or are given an appropriate solution.

Now, that actually DOES sound like a perfect world.

if we could determine the real hygiene and security risk of a burkini, a rational decision could be taken regarding this issue.

if there is no hygiene issue then an exception could be made for this specific costume.

[Aeval]

if there is no hygiene issue then an exception could be made for this specific costume.


Ahiida® Burqini®™ Swimsuits are made in Australia with
quality high performance innovative fabrics.

All of our Swimwear are:
100% Polyester

50+ UV protected

Chlorine Resistant

Water repellent

Have Low Water Absorbency and are very very quick drying.


polyester is a common fabric used for swimwear and it's been specially treated with anti UV and chlorine resistant stuff - pretty much like every other type of swimsuit so I can't imagine any hygiene issues there could be.

[Nakidana]

The French have a long history of this kind of racism, as described in the article below.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20071210/lalami


Beyond the Veil
By Laila Lalami
This article appeared in the December 10, 2007 edition of The Nation.

November 21, 2007

"A kind of aggression." "A successor to the Berlin Wall." "A lever in the long power struggle between democratic values and fundamentalism." "An insult to education." "A terrorist operation." These descriptions--by former French President Jacques Chirac; economist Jacques Attali; and philosophers Bernard-Henri Lévy, Alain Finkielkraut and André Glucksmann--do not refer to the next great menace to human civilization but rather to the Muslim woman's headscarf, which covers the hair and neck, or, as it is known in France, the foulard islamique.

In her keenly observed book The Politics of the Veil, historian Joan Wallach Scott examines the particular French obsession with the foulard, which culminated in March 2004 with the adoption of a law that made it illegal for students to display any "conspicuous signs" of religious affiliation. The law further specified that the Muslim headscarf, the Jewish skullcap and large crosses were not to be worn but that "medallions, small crosses, stars of David, hands of Fatima, and small Korans" were permitted. Despite the multireligious contortions, it was very clear, of course, that the law was primarily aimed at Muslim schoolgirls.

The decade-long debate in France over the foulard was marked by three specific controversies. The first erupted in October 1989, when Ernest Chénière, the principal of a high school in Creil, north of Paris, expelled three students: Samira Saidani and Leila and Fatima Achaboun. The reason for the expulsion, Chénière claimed, was that he had to enforce laïcité, the French notion of secularism, in the school. The national debate that followed took place within the context of the fatwa against Salman Rushdie and the West's confrontation with Iran, on the one hand, and the celebration of the bicentennial of the French Republic, on the other.

At the time that France's attention was focused on three teenage girls with headscarves, the country had more than 3 million Muslims. French-Algerian novelist Leïla Sebbar, writing in Le Monde, qualified the controversy as "grotesque." In the end, the Socialist Lionel Jospin, who at that time was minister of education, chose to let the courts decide the case. The Conseil d'État eventually ruled that students could not be refused admission simply for wearing headscarves, but it also gave teachers and principals the power to decide, on a case-by-case basis, whether such signs of religious affiliation were permissible.

The second foulard controversy ignited in 1994 with the same Ernest Chénière. He was no longer a high school principal, having capitalized on his earlier fame and won a Parliament seat as a deputy for the center-right party Rassemblement pour la République, representing the department of Oise. In this new capacity, he sponsored a bill to ban all "ostentatious" signs of religious affiliations in schools. The same arguments were offered up as in 1989, but the political context this time was supplied by the civil war in Algeria. For Chénière and his large and diverse number of supporters, the fight against Islamic fundamentalism in Algeria and elsewhere mandated a strengthening of the secularist state at home.

The third and most recent foulard controversy occurred in 2003, when two teenage sisters, Alma and Lila Lévy, were expelled from their high school in the Paris suburb of Aubervilliers for refusing to take off their headscarves. The Lévy sisters are the daughters of a lawyer who considers himself "a Jew without God" and a Kabyle teacher who had been baptized a Catholic during the Algerian war. The girls had converted to Islam after their parents' separation and had donned the scarves as part of that process. In an interview with Le Monde, the girls' father declared, "I am not in favor of the headscarf, but I defend the right of my children to go to school. In the course of this business I've discovered the hysterical madness of certain ayatollahs of secularism who have lost all their common sense."

That year, a commission led by former government minister Bernard Stasi, which had been formed to study the feasibility of a law on religious displays, held interviews with various specialists. It later issued a report that reaffirmed the importance of secularism to the Republic and suggested a law on "conspicuous" religious signs but also made some recommendations to acknowledge the plurality of religions in France. (For example, the commission suggested the recognition of Yom Kippur and Eid-al-Adha as national holidays.) The sole recommendation that Jacques Chirac took from the Stasi commission was the law banning the headscarf. Scott writes:

There was to be no room for the compromises that had been negotiated in years past (scarves on shoulders, "lite" scarves, bandanas); the law was designed to dispel the tensions these compromises had embodied. It became the law of the land in March 2004, and its enforcement began the following October. Without the softening effect of the other recommendations, the headscarf ban became a definitive pronouncement: there would no longer be compromises or mediation--it was either Islam or the republic.

In order to understand how a small piece of cloth became a national obsession (compared, by philosophers no less, to terrorism), one must go back quite a few years in French history, to the era that current French President Nicolas Sarkozy recently told his compatriots they must stop repenting for: colonization. Indeed, Scott argues, it is impossible to understand modern-day attitudes in France toward the foulard without delving into the history of racism in that country, because the headscarf has played a "significant part as a continuing sign of the irreducible difference between Islam and France" and is perceived to express "not only religious incompatibilities but also ethnic/cultural ones."

When the French government invaded Algeria, in 1830, it started a vast campaign of military "pacification," which was quickly followed by the imposition of French laws deemed necessary for the civilizing mission to succeed. Women were crucial to that enterprise. In articles, stories and novels of the day, Algerian women were universally depicted as oppressed, and so in order for civilization truly to penetrate Algeria, the argument went, the women had to cast off their veils. General Bugeaud, who was charged with administering the territory in the 1840s, declared, "The Arabs elude us because they conceal their women from our gaze." Algerian men, meanwhile, were perceived to be sexual predators who could not control their urges unless their womenfolk were draped in veils. Colonization would solve this by bringing the light of European civilization to Arab males, who, after a few generations of French rule, would learn to control their urges. The governor-general of Algeria remarked in 1898 that "the Arab man's, the native Jew's and the Arab woman's physiology, as well as tolerance for pederasty, and typically oriental ways of procreating and relating to one another are so different from the European man's that it is necessary to take appropriate measures." As late as 1958, French wives of military officers, desperate to stop support for the FLN, which spearheaded the war of liberation against France, staged a symbolic "unveiling" of Algerian women at a pro-France rally in the capital of Algiers.

Decades later, millions of French citizens with ancestral roots in North Africa are being told much the same thing: in order to be French, they must "integrate" by giving up that which makes them different--Islam. The religion, however, is not regarded as a set of beliefs that adherents can adjust to suit the demands of their everyday lives but rather as an innate and unbridgeable attribute. It is easy to see how racism can take hold in such a context. During the foulard controversies, it did not appear to matter that 95 percent of French Muslims do not attend mosque, that more than 80 percent of Muslim women in France do not wear the headscarf or even that the number of schoolgirls in headscarves has never been more than a few hundred. The racist notion of innate differences between French citizens of North African origin and those of European origin defined the debate. For instance, the Lévy sisters were sometimes referred to in the press as Alma and Lila Lévy-Omari, thus making their ancestral link to North Africa (on their mother's side) clearer to the reader.

If racism has been the subtext of the foulard controversy in France, Scott argues, then laïcité was its expression. Those who supported the ban on headscarves argued that laïcité was not simply secularism but a universal notion that was also unique to France. They called it une singularité française. Upon closer scrutiny, however, this particular notion seemed to be quite accommodating to Catholics and rather intransigent to others. For instance, the 1905 law that separated church and state allowed students to have Sundays off to attend church and gave them an additional weekday for religious instruction in the church. The French government currently contributes 10 percent of the budgets of private Christian schools. The school calendar observes Catholic holidays only. Still, despite the discrepancies with which laïcité is applied in schools, those who opposed the foulard fervently claimed their attachment to laïcité and its necessity for the survival of the Republic. Laïcité was what made France unique. Therefore, to support the freedom of girls to dress as they please could only mean being an apologist for the oppression of women and an enemy of laïcité, and to uphold laïcité meant being in favor of a ban on the foulard.

At the height of the controversy, everyone seemed to have an opinion about the law. More than sixty public personalities--including actresses Emmanuelle Béart and Isabelle Adjani, philosopher Élisabeth Badinter, former government ministers Corinne Lepage and Yvette Roudy, and activist Fadela Amara--appealed to Chirac in the pages of Elle magazine to pass a law banning the foulard. Few voices were heard in defense of both laïcité and Muslim girls' civil right to attend school. Among these were comic book artist Marjane Satrapi, who wrote in the Guardian that to forbid schoolgirls to wear the veil was as repressive as forcing them to wear it, and philosopher Pierre Tévanian, who argued that laïcité applied to institutions, not people.

In The Politics of the Veil, Scott does a good job of conveying the hysteria that surrounded the foulard debate in France, although the book could have used some copy-editing. For instance, Ernest Chénière, the high school principal who started the 1989 controversy, gets rebaptized, becoming Eugène Chenière. In addition, Scott neglects to mention an important postscript to the affaires des foulards: the kidnapping, in August 2004, of French journalists Georges Malbrunot and Christian Chesnot by an obscure Islamist group in Iraq, and the group's demand that the law be repealed. (French citizens, Muslim and otherwise, rejected the intrusion into their internal affairs.) But Scott's broad and exhaustive research makes for a bracing account of the debate.

Aside from prevalent racism and a rigid understanding of laïcité, a third reason for the focus on the foulard is a narrow conception of individualism. Scott demonstrates that French Muslim girls, who were primarily affected by the law on the foulard, were "strikingly absent from the debates." The Stasi commission interviewed just a few girls, and in private sessions only, so that their voices and opinions were never part of the larger public discussion. While acknowledging that some girls may have worn the foulard for reasons other than pressure by fathers or brothers, commentators viewed it simply as a symbol of "the alienation of women." However much the girls or opponents of the law insisted that the foulard was "an expression of individual conviction," the state and supporters of the law declared that "this could not logically be the case," because the headscarf could only mean "an abandonment of individuality and a declaration of one's primary allegiance to communal standards and obligations." In order to be truly French, therefore, Muslim girls had to renounce the foulard, since in this view it was a signal that they were neither loyal to France nor individuals capable of free thought.

The last, and perhaps most disturbing, reason for the focus on the foulard is its sexual connotation. Commentators often contrasted Islamic tradition, which advocates the headscarf as a means of curbing women's "dangerous sexuality," and French culture, which "celebrates sex and sexuality as free of social and political risk." In reality, both Islamic Sharia and strict French laïcité produced gender systems that essentially deprived women of the right to dispose of their bodies as they wished. Indeed, in Islamic tradition, women are urged to be modest and to steer clear of tabarruj. This Arabic noun has its roots in the verb baraja, which means "to display" or "to show off," and the noun can be translated as something like "affectation." In A Season in Mecca, his narrative book about the pilgrimage, Moroccan anthropologist Abdellah Hammoudi uses the term "ostentation" to translate tabarruj, "the invariable term for a bearing that is deemed immodest or conspicuous, a hieratic stance." Similarly, the French law born out of strict definitions of laïcité warned schoolgirls about displaying "conspicuous" signs of religious affiliation. In short, the battle between the two modes of thinking was played out in women's bodies.

The sexual argument against the foulard was common in France in 2003, although by that point the word "foulard" had all but disappeared from public discourse and was replaced by voile, or veil, which covers the entire face except for the eyes. This was erroneous but not entirely innocent, of course, because it made it possible for commentators to talk in terms of more general stereotypes of Muslim women in places like Yemen, where the veil is prevalent, rather than the reality of suburban Paris, where it is not. More recently, in an interview with a London-based newspaper, Bernard-Henri Lévy went as far as to say that "the veil is an invitation to rape." It is perverse to suggest that a woman is inviting rape by the way she dresses, but such is the extreme that Lévy will go to in order to preserve the idea of a homogeneous female European identity. In this view, a European woman is uncovered, and that signifies both her availability to the male gaze as well as her liberation.

It is interesting, too, that Lévy demands for himself that which he is not willing to give others. In 2004 he hired the designer Andrée Putman to renovate his vacation home in Tangier. The home lies next to the famous Café Hafa, whose regulars once included Paul Bowles, Tennessee Williams and Jean Genet, and which has unparalleled views of the Mediterranean. Patrons of the cafe can no longer enjoy an unobstructed view, however, because during the renovations Lévy constructed a wall around his terrace, where his wife, the actress and singer Arielle Dombasle, likes to sunbathe. Lévy reportedly wanted to protect her from the eyes of the men at the Café Hafa. Unveiling only goes one way, it seems.

There is in France today a pervading hypocrisy that invokes freedom of expression when cartoonists from Charlie Hebdo or France Soir offend Muslim sensibilities but remains stubbornly quiet when a Muslim woman's right to dispose of her body as she wishes is denied. This is the same hypocrisy that calls soccer star Zinedine Zidane a French citizen without any qualifications but refers to Zacarias Moussaoui as a French citizen of Moroccan origin. It is the same hypocrisy that organizes support committees for teachers in Flers who refuse to teach girls wearing the foulard but does not appear to care that 40 percent of French youths living in the largely impoverished and North African banlieues are unemployed. It is the same hypocrisy that celebrates the work of North African soldiers in the fight against the Nazis in World War II but until last year refused them the same army pensions as their French counterparts. It is the same hypocrisy that condemns humorist Dieudonné for his abhorrently racist remarks on Jews but condones former Le Point editor Claude Imbert when he says, "I am something of an Islamophobe and I'm not embarrassed to say so."

It is the same hypocrisy, finally, that expends boundless intellectual energy and enormous state resources on a small number of schoolgirls in headscarves but does next to nothing to ensure that these schoolgirls--most of whom are stuck in low-performing high schools designated as ZEPs (or zones d'éducation prioritaires)--gain access to the same educational and employment opportunities as their white compatriots. In the end, the successive controversies in France have served as fantastic distractions from real problems and have provided comfort and support to Islamic fundamentalists, who recruit Muslim youngsters by telling them that France does not want them. The foulard in France, therefore, is nothing more than a fig leaf; however long one stares at it, the eye will eventually have to face the nakedness of racism and discrimination.

To paraphrase another French philosopher: I do not approve of the headscarf, but I will defend to the death the right of women to wear it.

[danyboy27]

i do believe that the whole measures taken by the french governement to abolish everything linked to religion inside the state is dirrectly caused by the fear to loose control.

they are aware of the huuge number of immigrant, and by reducing the number of religious symbols in public places they try to reduce potential clashes between people of different faith.

but eventually something will have to change into peoples mind, xenophobia is litteraly widespread in france, probably caused by how proud they are about where they live, they fear to loose their identity i guess.

[SourDonughts]

You basically just asked me to walk up to complete strangers and ask them to stop staring at my chest, like somehow that's an easier solution than wearing a hijab.

She has a point there, a hijab can be a great device to force men to pay attention to what counts (What's up in your head) rather than your chest. Easier than constantly telling them to look up as well :lol:

[danyboy27]

She has a point there, a hijab can be a great device to force men to pay attention to what counts (What's up in your head) rather than your chest. Easier than constantly telling them to look up as well :lol:

you know, you can find a women good looking and actually have a meaningful dialog about chemistry or any other important subject at the same time.

[#FF0000]

you know, you can find a women good looking and actually have a meaningful dialog about chemistry or any other important subject at the same time.

Yeah but the point is that lots of people still ogle people in public. And one can wear a hijab to avoid that. Is it that big a deal? It might be for some people. Who cares. let them wear their burqinis and hijabs. What does it matter?

[SourDonughts]

Yeah but the point is that lots of people still ogle people in public. And one can wear a hijab to avoid that. Is it that big a deal? It might be for some people. Who cares. let them wear their burqinis and hijabs. What does it matter?

Exactly right, I was simply commenting on the often unevolved natures of the patriarchy, and how they often they prize cleavage over intelligence, and how it could be a way to shield one from such reactions.

But anyway, it's not like I'm suggesting anyone should have to wear anything. Let people wear what they want.

[Pogue]

Let me reiterate.

Talk. To. Muslims.

[Nakidana]

Yeah but the point is that lots of people still ogle people in public. And one can wear a hijab to avoid that. Is it that big a deal? It might be for some people. Who cares. let them wear their burqinis and hijabs. What does it matter?

Yeah, it's really very simple. Don't know why some people are so hell-bent on deciding what other people should or should not wear.

[SourDonughts]

Let me reiterate.

Talk. To. Muslims.

What's your point?

[Bud Struggle]

Let me reiterate.

Talk. To. Muslims.

Fine. Also talk to Catholics, talk to Jews, talk to Capitalists, talk to Nazis, talk to Social Democrats, talk to everyone.

Talk. OK, they give a little in talks, you give a little. You think you are going to wind up with Communism in the end?

[danyboy27]

Yeah but the point is that lots of people still ogle people in public.

i guess maybe my lack of understanding is to blame in that case, i never really understood the point for people to hide themselves beccause a minority of people could stare at them.to me it feel like they think we are a bunch of obsessional rapist that cant control our urges.

[SourDonughts]

i guess maybe my lack of understanding is to blame in that case, i never really understood the point for people to hide themselves beccause a minority of people could stare at them.to me it feel like they think we are a bunch of obsessional rapist that cant control our urges.

It's unfortunately, not a minority of men, but a majority.

[danyboy27]

It's unfortunately, not a minority of men, but a majority.

i could understand that you dont like being stared at, but are you suggesting that its a bad thing for all women?

[SourDonughts]

i could understand that you dont like being stared at, but are you suggesting that its a bad thing for all women?

No no, have your own preference, I'm just referring for women who want to avoid such a thing through the hijab.

[nikolaou]

haha burkini.

good 1

sarkozy for the win once again.

[communard resolution]

I agree Burkas are a sign of oppression, but you know - that's probably the way she was brought up, and she's not going to change her anxiety of revealing skin in public overnight. Banning her from using the pool just because her costume offends our socially liberal sensibilites will achieve absolutely nothing - she will not come back with a more revealing costume the next day.

I suppose the fact that we cover our sexual organs in public is probably rooted in some sort of cultural oppression/repression. But that's how we were brought up, so most of us wouldn't feel comfortable walking down the street naked even though there's technically nothing wrong with it.

I also agree that given France's racist track record, this is just the latest instance of trying to ban muslims from public life.

Yes, her costume is ludicrous (to our cultural perception) - and yes, so is her religion. And yes, ideally these things would not exist. But it's not this woman's fault, so for the time being: a bit more tolerance please.

BudStruggle, how come that you display so little tolerance given that you're very religious yourself? And how do you like the idea of your wife flashing her boobs in public? If you don't like it, I'm calling you out on applying double standards.

[danyboy27]

No no, have your own preference, I'm just referring for women who want to avoid such a thing through the hijab.

haa okay. still, i find it sad that some women feel the need to hide themselves from other people sight, but has i said earlier my lack of understanding is probably the cause of that.

being a boy, if women would stare at me i would take it has a compliment.

[SourDonughts]

haa okay. still, i find it sad that some women feel the need to hide themselves from other people sight, but has i said earlier my lack of understanding is probably the cause of that.

being a boy, if women would stare at me i would take it has a compliment.

I know what you mean, but for many women, it can get tiresome, and can impede their image of being taken seriously. It's ideal to approach the situation with that in mind:)

[danyboy27]

even if i would be allowed i wouldnt run around naked.

this is verry impractical, i want my balls to be protected, and i dont want to get scratches every time i fall or accidently touch a sharp object with my back while i work.

[Module]

'Islamic modesty' isn't encouraged simply because 'it makes women feel more comfortable'. Let's not whitewash this. Of course no form of clothing should be 'banned'. That does not mean that Islam is not a deeply misogynistic religion, or that the hijab, even if not specifically mentioned in the Quran, is not a natural development of that misogyny.

[SourDonughts]

'Islamic modesty' isn't encouraged simply because 'it makes women feel more comfortable'. Let's not whitewash this. Of course no form of clothing should be 'banned'. That does not mean that Islam is not a deeply misogynistic religion, or that the hijab, even if not specifically mentioned in the Quran, is not a natural development of that misogyny.

Depends on the individual wearer. Many women wear as a symbol of great self respect.

[Devrim]

It is a swimsuit. It is not the job of either the state, or swimming pool ascendents to decide how people dress.


I agree Burkas are a sign of oppression, but you know - that's probably the way she was brought up,

Well if you read the article she wasn't. She was a Western convert.

I am sorry. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are forced to wear this sort of thing from a young age.

I have no sympathy at all for Westereners who convert to Islam.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Well if you read the article she wasn't. She was a Western convert.


Right. I didn't read the actual article and assumed she was brought up a Muslim. Which renders my previous post kind of superfluous, though I'm still not bothered what people prefer to wear in public baths.

[Wanted Man]

Some responses in this thread are pretty amusing, and unfortunately they're not just from restricted people. How can you claim to be a communist and support the "right" of a capitalist to ban certain clothing items from his property? Especially when they evidently do not pose any health or safety risk.

As usual, this response comes from the "advocates of reason", who nevertheless see fit to support a capitalist banning clothing because of their personal, emotional reaction that it's "fucking ridiculous", "not normal", etc. Mind boggles. Goes to show the silliness of "militant anti-theism" and the likes.

By the way, this does not imply any endorsement of the hijab, burqa, or anything else.

[Hiero]

I wonder if they stop the larger kids from wearing a t-shirt.

[Robert]

It is not the job of either the state, or swimming pool ascendents to decide how people dress.

Says you. If the majority of any sane society want to impose regulations on how the people use public facilities, the minority should either find a specific constitutional right that is being violated or ...

get outta the pool.

Does nobody here think she should go to the pool nude, or as the Frenchman says, "au naturel," just to protest the ban on her suit?

I'm just asking. Personally, I think it depends.

[Devrim]

Says you. If the majority of any sane society want to impose regulations on how the people use public facilities, the minority should either find a specific constitutional right that is being violated or ...

Yes, well you are right and I am wrong. In many cases it is the job of the state, from the Iranian state forcing women to wear bags on their heads to the Turkish state telling school teachers that they can't. In France and other western countries there is what, in my opinion is a campaign to stigmitise Muslims and one of its tools is telling women who they can't dress.

The difference is that as a communist I object to state interference in people's lives.

Devrim

[Luís Henrique]

http://images.quebarato.com.br/photos/big/7/8/132278_1.jpg


Yes, I know. It is a stereotype. But dammit, I liked the old stereotypes better than the new ones.

Luís Henrique

[*Red*Alert]

I'm with the French on this one. Only two months ago I couldn't go into a pool because I wore swimming shorts instead of "trunks", basically Y-front style togs, for hygience reasons. I still think shorts are more hygienic though

So I don't see why anyone should be allowed in wearing this:

http://xicoriasexicoracoes.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/burkini230607mos-468x810.jpg

[Muzk]

Baths are for washing yourself, not lying in fully clothed.


4 pages, CBA to watch through all of them, so I'll only quote this

Public pools are mainly for fun, sports and relaxing - you can wash yourself at home... I've seen that one in TV too. Not in france though, a muslim woman went to the pool to see it for theirself - when she went into the whirlpool all those fat old men went out - leaving her alone.
Everyone stared and made nasty comments. Mainly old, white men. Stereotypes? At least they die soon.

[Jazzratt]

There is no concievable reason for banning what looks, to me, like a fairly loose wetsuit with something that covers the hair. From a hygeine standpoint I really don't see the problem - hell covering the head makes sense from that point of view.

At issue, though, is obviously the sexist implications of islamic modesty. Liberation from these ideas, though, cannot simply come from impositions by the ruling classes; legislating freedom in such a fashion has always proved a non-starter. The only way to solve that at all is to destroy the entire religious ediface, this is what anti-theists should aim for, not to simply plaster over the cracks with boilerplate bans.

The practical implications of such a ban would simply be to force muslim women away from pools - any that do go in "normal" (ugh) swimming clothes will be denounced and intimidated by their clerics and other community members. It's de facto segregation and ghettoisation of vulnerable people within the community and as such should be opposed vehemently by the left.

[*Red*Alert]

It's de facto segregation and ghettoisation of vulnerable people within the community and as such should be opposed vehemently by the left.
In fairness, they segregate themselves from us any time we attempt to reach out to them. A large amount of Islam seems to incompatible with the West, sadly.

[Jazzratt]

In fairness, they segregate themselves from us any time we attempt to reach out to them. A large amount of Islam seems to incompatible with the West, sadly.

So? This doesn't justify forcing them further out. They are not a single homogenous group and they do not all wish to stay apart and every oppurtunity should be given to allow them to intergrate. If they really wish to segregate themselves that's their problem, and not one that can easily be solved especially by "enlightened" groups on the outside issuing high-handed dictats.

[brigadista]

'Islamic modesty' isn't encouraged simply because 'it makes women feel more comfortable'. Let's not whitewash this. Of course no form of clothing should be 'banned'. That does not mean that Islam is not a deeply misogynistic religion, or that the hijab, even if not specifically mentioned in the Quran, is not a natural development of that misogyny.

i think you will find that most religions are mysogynist not just islam- the wearing of a hijab/bhurka/bhurkhini etc is not the issue - for example the US campaign against iraq and afghanistan used the bhurka issue a lot [not worn in iraq]however - if women no longer wore hijabs / bhurkas any mdore but did not have equality with men there would still be an issue and there is an issue in this respect in places where women do not wear hijabs or Bhurkas etc-

when looking at this issue context is imporatant as mentioned above- the hijab in the west can be worn as a political statement - by the way - the way the scarf is tied can say alot about your political beliefs-


womens equality has nothing to do with clothing ...

regarding the honor killing and dv issues - dv is also a huge problem in non muslim communities

- just as every muslim is not a "suicide bomber" not every muslim family carries out honor killings or locks the women in the family in the house etc-

what about mormons? orthodox jews [women there also have to cover up when they swim] ....i am sorry to say there are some real stereotypical views being expressed on this thread...

[Robert]

You guys in solidarity with the ladies have overlooked what is to me the most obvious objection that they should raise. This is how modern female olympians dress for the pool. I personally prefer an itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini, but hey, they swim faster than I do.

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Olympics+Day+5+Swimming+5a7xsLxKPI5l.jpg

[Plagueround]

How amusing to watch a bunch of men judge women "not being comfortable enough with their bodies" to wear a "proper" bathing suit, as if there is some kind of universal inherent standard of bathing suit that was handed down to us when we arrived on this planet. If a woman wants to cover her body when she goes for a swim, I don't think the only possible reason is insecurity or issues with her body. Even if it was, who could begrudge them for that? Even this thread demonstrates how objectified women are.

In any event, all sentiment about islam or the hijab aside, anyone advocating this as some sort of positive victory should be ashamed of themselves.

And Robert, that's immediately what I thought of when I first read about this. Of course, maybe those Olympiads are just insecure with people seeing their bodies. :rolleyes:

[*Red*Alert]

I certainly won't be swimming in any pool with covered up women, and certainly not while I can't do the same.

[Robert]

Robert, that's immediately what I thought

Really? You mean the part about itsy bitsy teeny weeny yellow polka dot bikini?

[SoupIsGoodFood]

I personally think burkas are fucked up and oppressive to women, but its not up to me to decide what other people wear.

[khad]

^The fact that people here are whining about "burqas" just shows their ignorance of this entire subject. It's a hijab. "Burqa" is only one of the many variations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartorial_hijab

[SoupIsGoodFood]

Well, shit sorry I don't know everything about Islam. I hijabs and burqas are both oppressive. It wouldn't be sexist if Muslim men also had to keep themselves covered, but the fact that only women have to dress "modestly" makes it sexist as fuck.

[Devrim]

^The fact that people here are whining about "burqas" just shows their ignorance of this entire subject. It's a hijab. "Burqa" is only one of the many variations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sartorial_hijab

Why on earth should people know the foriegn language names of various styles of 'covering'? Knowing them doesn't make their political opinions mor or less valid. Generally it just makes them sound pompus whilst, often, wrong, for example:


think you will find that most religions are mysogynist not just islam- the wearing of a hijab/bhurka/bhurkhini etc is not the issue - for example the US campaign against iraq and afghanistan used the bhurka issue a lot [not worn in iraq]however - if women no longer wore hijabs / bhurkas any mdore but did not have equality with men there would still be an issue and there is an issue in this respect in places where women do not wear hijabs or Bhurkas etc-

when looking at this issue context is imporatant as mentioned above- the hijab in the west can be worn as a political statement - by the way - the way the scarf is tied can say alot about your political beliefs-

Firstly, it is worn in Iraq. I have seen them there.

Secondly it doesn't say 'a lot' about your political beliefs. In our country, it is either 'Islamicist' or when worn by peasants shows which region they come from. The scarf worn by Palestinian men does show something about political allegiencies in the way it is tied.


In fairness, they segregate themselves from us any time we attempt to reach out to them. A large amount of Islam seems to incompatible with the West, sadly.

I think this quite typifies the whole 'us' and 'them' dicotomy which is being presented here.

Unlike it may be presented in the West, people from Muslim backgrounds are not all religious fanatics, and the women don't all go round with bags on their heads. Neither is everyone a suicide bomber for that matter.

In our country, which I know is not the most Islamic in the world, these sort of swimsuits are extremely rare. You see them occasionaly, but occasionally enough for it to make people comment when you do. Tomorrow I will go to the swimming pool with my friends, the female ones of which will all be wearing bikinis. Last time I went to the sea, in quite a small conservative town, I saw lots of women in bikinis, some in one piece swimming costumes and absolutely non wearing something like this. In fact the last time I saw one was the summer before last.


The practical implications of such a ban would simply be to force muslim women away from pools - any that do go in "normal" (ugh) swimming clothes will be denounced and intimidated by their clerics and other community members. It's de facto segregation and ghettoisation of vulnerable people within the community and as such should be opposed vehemently by the left.

I am a bit unsure about this too. Yes, 'denounced and intimidated' by people in their families. Not everyone from a Muslim background is a hardline Islamicist. Even with people who believe in God, it doesn't mean that they are all fanatics. For example the guy I often go for a drink with on Thursday nights after work, gets up in the morning hungover to go to the mosque, his wife wears a bikini on holidiay (I have seen their holiday snaps) and he hates the (governing) religious political party.

Devrim

[John_Fitgerald_Kennedy]

Fuck Islam !!!

[Rosa Provokateur]

If they interpret the rule that strictly, only nudists would be allowed to swim. It's a type of swim-suit, she's innocent, islamophobia is still present in France.

[Jazzratt]

I am a bit unsure about this too. Yes, 'denounced and intimidated' by people in their families. Not everyone from a Muslim background is a hardline Islamicist. Even with people who believe in God, it doesn't mean that they are all fanatics. For example the guy I often go for a drink with on Thursday nights after work, gets up in the morning hungover to go to the mosque, his wife wears a bikini on holidiay (I have seen their holiday snaps) and he hates the (governing) religious political party.

Devrim

Ah, yes. I was talking mainly of hardliners within the community which tend to be quite prevelant in islamic communities in places like france perhaps as a backlash to the attitudes taken by a lot of the rulership there. Of course I recognise that not all muslims are hardliners or even close but I'm not sure how closely my (admiteddly limited) experience mirrors reality.

[Devrim]

Ah, yes. I was talking mainly of hardliners within the community which tend to be quite prevelant in islamic communities in places like france perhaps as a backlash to the attitudes taken by a lot of the rulership there. Of course I recognise that not all muslims are hardliners or even close but I'm not sure how closely my (admiteddly limited) experience mirrors reality.

It is difficult to be sure. For example the parts of the Turkish community that I know in the UK and Germany are very 'unislamic', but that doesn't mean that there is not a more Islamic community there too.

Certainly the more Islamic ones tend to catch the headlines though.

Devrim

[communard resolution]

Well, shit sorry I don't know everything about Islam. I hijabs and burqas are both oppressive. It wouldn't be sexist if Muslim men also had to keep themselves covered, but the fact that only women have to dress "modestly" makes it sexist as fuck.

Yes, you're 100 per cent right. But we should always consider who it is making a fuss about the burqua and in what broader context. Don't forget that, aside from terrorism, the burqua was to the invasion of Afghanistan what WMD's were to the invasion of Iraq.

*recent reports state that the oppression of women has got even worse in Afghanistan since those noble liberators have invaded the country and installed a puppet government.

[Raisa]

Personally I am a muslim, and I still think the burkini is stupid and would rather just wear my clothes. However, but so forth and such and such this is not a muslim issue and even non muslims should be alarmed that they are telling people what to wear in the pool. There is chlorine in the pool so whether a person has hepatitis and goes in naked or craps in the pool or whatever, it shouldnt matter that much. Whats the deal with the rule about clothes. People PISS in pools! Some people dont want to be in swimsuits. Muslim or not, and people should have the right what parts of their bodies to show or not.

Anyway, this is Raisa and its been a long time no see for yall, i missed yall, I was homeless for a while and some stuff getting my life back together, and started to feel dissasociated with the computer. But I still dig revleft and im swinging back to say hey.

[Bud Struggle]

Anyway, this is Raisa and its been a long time no see for yall, i missed yall, I was homeless for a while and some stuff getting my life back together, and started to feel dissasociated with the computer. But I still dig revleft and im swinging back to say hey.

Welcome back. RevLeft is a richer place (in an egalitarian way, of course ;)) by your presence.

[Pirate turtle the 11th]

What the hell is this?

Forcing someone to show more skin than they're comfortable with is as bad if not worse than stopping them from doing so.

I'm not even muslim and sometimes I wear a hijab as a symbol of defiance or just not wanting to be ogled. :/

This is fucking tragic.

[Robert]

I wear a hijab as a symbol of defianceI quite understand this, but wouldn't your energies be more profitably (sorry for the cappie adverb, comrade, I can't help it) expended defying muslim clerics who would publicly beat and humiliate your sisters and your mother for not wearing one?

Flogging is a little more severe than excluding you from some malodorus pool filled with unwashed Frenchmen and chlorinated water, n'est-ce pas?

[Jack]

I'm tired of sympathy and support of Muslims on the Left while there is still a mocking of Christians and other religious groups that are homegrown. I don't care if she felt offended that she couldn't wear her burka. What if my reliion dictates I should shove things up my ass and swim naked? Would it be "discrimination" to not let me do that in a public pool?

If you hold attacking someone's backward beleifs as "discrimination", then you must acknowledge my right to do whatever I want, so long as it's a part of my religion.

[RGacky3]

What if my reliion dictates I should shove things up my ass and swim naked? Would it be "discrimination" to not let me do that in a public pool?

How is this anything close to shoving things up your ass and swimming naked?

[Jazzratt]

I don't care if she felt offended that she couldn't wear her burka. What if my reliion dictates I should shove things up my ass and swim naked?

You're a complete moron. Just stop posting.

[Jack]

How? It's a legitimate question? If we give validity to Islam we must give validity to every wackjob religion out there, ones that include shoving things up your ass in public as a sacrament as well.

[Jack]

How is this anything close to shoving things up your ass and swimming naked?

Because it's about religion, something people choose to believe in, not that are genetically made to or anything like it. This is merely an extension of the seperation of religion and mainstream society.

Merely dismissing me as an "idiot" does not address my point. If we can support one idiotic reactionary beleif's "right" to wear religious clothing in a public atmosphere, and attack anything that would disallow them as "discrimination", we must also hold that to all religions. If my religion says I must sacrafice animals to Satan, not letting me could be called discrimination.

[Havet]

I'm tired of sympathy and support of Muslims on the Left while there is still a mocking of Christians and other religious groups that are homegrown.

Talking @ a woman: "Their face is your tits. Different body parts, same religious bullshit" -Doug Stanhope

[RGacky3]

Because it's about religion, something people choose to believe in, not that are genetically made to or anything like it. This is merely an extension of the seperation of religion and mainstream society.

Merely dismissing me as an "idiot" does not address my point. If we can support one idiotic reactionary beleif's "right" to wear religious clothing in a public atmosphere, and attack anything that would disallow them as "discrimination", we must also hold that to all religions.

I can't believe I have to explain this.

Swimming naked with stuff up your ass would be considered obscene by most people and offensive. Covering yourself up MORE, is not obscene, the only reason for this law is religious discrimination and parhaps racism.

[Jack]

I can't believe I have to explain this.

Swimming naked with stuff up your ass would be considered obscene by most people and offensive. Covering yourself up MORE, is not obscene, the only reason for this law is religious discrimination and parhaps racism.

I consider the burqa to be more repulsive than that, it's a tool to hold women down. Justifying it or saying she should get to wear it and promote such a sick form of oppression is disguisting.

[Blackscare]

It's always amazing to see how certain members on here are ready to jump to the defense of sexism, etc when it involves a religion like Islam.

[RGacky3]

I consider the burqa to be more repulsive than that, it's a tool to hold women down. Justifying it or saying she should get to wear it and promote such a sick form of oppression is disguisting.



It's always amazing to see how certain members on here are ready to jump to the defense of sexism, etc when it involves a religion like Islam.

SHE'S CHOOSING TO WEAR IT, its sexist to assume that women can't make desicions for themselves, or that their religious beliefs are not their own.

[Jack]

I'm saying it's stupid and I don't care if she's discriminated for this. I also support the banning of headscarves from public schools and of any other religious attire in schools.

This is a purely religious issue, and has nothing to do with race by the way, the woman was ethnically French, not Arab.

[Robert]

What if my reliion dictates I should shove things up my ass and swim naked?So long as we're not talking a partially exposed giant Baby Ruth bar, I'd probably be okay with it. Discrimination is wrong.

[Devrim]

I'm saying it's stupid and I don't care if she's discriminated for this. I also support the banning of headscarves from public schools and of any other religious attire in schools.

Why is it not really so surprising to see anarchists arguing for state intervention in people's lives?


It's always amazing to see how certain members on here are ready to jump to the defense of sexism, etc when it involves a religion like Islam.

It isn't about 'defending sexism'. It is about who has the 'right' to tell people how to dress.

Devrim

[Jack]

Why is it not really so surprising to see anarchists arguing for state intervention in people's lives?

I would support it whether or not the state did it. Are you also opposed to pro labor laws, universal healthcare, welfare, and other state programs?

[RGacky3]

I'm saying it's stupid and I don't care if she's discriminated for this. I also support the banning of headscarves from public schools and of any other religious attire in schools.

This is a purely religious issue, and has nothing to do with race by the way, the woman was ethnically French, not Arab.

So your ok with discrimination, infact not just discrimination, state-induced discrimination, becasue you think its stupid, am I correct in that Jack?


Are you also opposed to pro labor laws, universal healthcare, welfare, and other state programs?

Those don't discriminate against people for their religion (which by the way, would set the precident for discriminating based on political beliefs, the only argument that you would have that would'nt se the precident is you saying "its stupid".)

[Jack]

So your ok with discrimination, infact not just discrimination, state-induced discrimination, becasue you think its stupid, am I correct in that Jack?

You're making a false assertion that I support all kinds of discrimination. I don't even really consider it discrimination because it's based on something someone chooses, and is especially reactionary.




Those don't discriminate against people for their religion (which by the way, would set the precident for discriminating based on political beliefs, the only argument that you would have that would'nt se the precident is you saying "its stupid".)

I know that, but Devrims comment was about me supporting state intervention, so I brought up other instances where state intervention can be a good thing.

[RGacky3]

I don't even really consider it discrimination because it's based on something someone chooses, and is especially reactionary.

Ahhh, so if you descriminate against the way someone CHOOSES to live, then its ok. So Its also ok for the state to ban, say, communist books, because they think its stupid right, thats not discrimination? Or its ok for them to ban cross dressers or transvestites (the ones that do it because they enjoy it, not transgender, which is'nt actually a choice) because they think its repulsive, I'm guessin your ok with that as well, unless your a hypocrite.

[Jack]

Ahhh, so if you descriminate against the way someone CHOOSES to live, then its ok. So Its also ok for the state to ban, say, communist books, because they think its stupid right, thats not discrimination? Or its ok for them to ban cross dressers or transvestites (the ones that do it because they enjoy it, not transgender, which is'nt actually a choice) because they think its repulsive, I'm guessin your ok with that as well, unless your a hypocrite.

Transvestites aren't supporters of a reactionary ideology. You're argueing completely different things, it's like me asking if someone supports state intervention with things like welfare, then asserting that they support state intervention on the behalf of the bourgeoisie. After all, it's all intervention.

[RGacky3]

Transvestites aren't supporters of a reactionary ideology.

Depends who you ask, thats the point, at this point all it is, is you saying "its stupid."

[narcomprom]

Imagine if they forced an American tourist take off her bra and bathe like the french women! :laugh:

[khad]

Transvestites aren't supporters of a reactionary ideology.
What if they're like Rudy Giuliani?

http://rachelmarsden.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/giuliani_trump_drag.jpg

[Devrim]

I would support it whether or not the state did it. Are you also opposed to pro labor laws, universal healthcare, welfare, and other state programs?

I don't belive that the state is a neutral body that just enacts pro-labor laws. Nor do I belıeve that the US state is about to introduce 'universal healthcare'.

There is a difference though between workers calling for a defence of the social wage, and calling for the state to interfere in how people dress.

Devrim

[Raisa]

"Well, shit sorry I don't know everything about Islam. I hijabs and burqas are both oppressive. It wouldn't be sexist if Muslim men also had to keep themselves covered, but the fact that only women have to dress "modestly" makes it sexist as fuck. "

Muslim men do have to dress modestly. It says in the Quran to follow Allah's Messenger, and the men who follow the example of Prophet Muhammad (saws) wear almost the same thing women do. A long long garment called a thobe that usually has long sleeves, and they also wear a kufi on their head.

Women wear a jilbab that is usually made of waaaaaay thinner and breathable fabric then what men are supposed to wear and and use something similar to cover their hair. We do not have to cover our faces and the majority of sisters I know who cover their faces came to that conclusion alone and do it because they want to.

Let me ask you something, when a woman leaves her house, why do you have to be able to physically enjoy her to consider her "free".

My clothes give me freedom to be treated like a human being when I leave my house. I am not going outside hoping that people will give me better treatment because I have a perfect body or giant breasts, I go outside to handle what I have to and wear clothes that command people to only look at my face when we have to talk so I can be reguarded as a person because my body belongs to me, not the whole world, and I determine who sees it. That is womans rights, Allah is free from imperfection.

You know men look at womens bodies all the time, even "enlightened" or "educated" or "revolutionary" men. Because the class system instills in men how they should look at everything, and some things you can stop but others are so subtle you cant always control your outlook. Hijab frees a woman from being subjugated to being seen as an exploitable object. Because a womans role in Islam is a leader and educator, not a toy.

[Blackscare]

SHE'S CHOOSING TO WEAR IT, its sexist to assume that women can't make desicions for themselves, or that their religious beliefs are not their own.


Ok, and it's absurd to think that the culture/religion someone grows up in couldn't warp their values. I don't care if she "chooses" to wear it, her "choice" is indicative of the effects of sexist social norms being instilled in the heads of people from a young age. We need to combat the cause as well as refuse to tolerate the symptoms.


An American women raised in a sexist household may honestly believe that her place is only in the home, and that her husband is the only one in the family who can make decisions, and I would still think such an attitude is wrong. Granted, how you'd "refuse to tolerate" such an attitude in the latter situation is a bit more hairy, but the basic point that a subjects "willingness" doesn't effect whether or not such and such is wrong, remains.

[RGacky3]

Ok, and it's absurd to think that the culture/religion someone grows up in couldn't warp their values. I don't care if she "chooses" to wear it, her "choice" is indicative of the effects of sexist social norms being instilled in the heads of people from a young age. We need to combat the cause as well as refuse to tolerate the symptoms.


So what, your opinion about her culture, is your opinion, now you can voice your opinion, you can voice it to her if you want, but who are you, or anyone, to mandate your opinion about culture in law?

Many young girls in America wear extreamly "slutty" (I don't like to refer to it as that, but thats all I can come up with right now) clothes, because American market culture has tought them that you have to dress sexually provocative to give yourself value. Does that mean we should BAN slutty clothes?

Who the hell are you to mandate culture?


An American women raised in a sexist household may honestly believe that her place is only in the home, and that her husband is the only one in the family who can make decisions, and I would still think such an attitude is wrong. Granted, how you'd "refuse to tolerate" such an attitude in the latter situation is a bit more hairy, but the basic point that a subjects "willingness" doesn't effect whether or not such and such is wrong, remains.

I agree, however, we are arguing about a law here.

[khad]

Ok, and it's absurd to think that the culture/religion someone grows up in couldn't warp their values. I don't care if she "chooses" to wear it, her "choice" is indicative of the effects of sexist social norms being instilled in the heads of people from a young age. We need to combat the cause as well as refuse to tolerate the symptoms.
I think it's even more sexist that you feel like you have the right to command a woman to disrobe.

[Blackscare]

I think it's even more sexist that you feel like you have the right to command a woman to disrobe.


I didn't say that exactly, don't go putting words in my mouth. The fact is that this is a religious garment though, and if the French want to maintain a secular culture then this needs to be examined. I never said that I'd command her to disrobe, but if you're going to have a secular public space then having people prance about in religious costumes might be something you would ban. It's childish to think that I'd have some henchmen run up and tear her clothes off, but if I were in control I'd probably have kicked her the fuck out as well.


That said, this raises the question of how we eradicate this sort of silly bullshit (religious superstition) from society. I don't have answers, but I sure as fuck am not going to jump to the aid of religious nutters and their "right" to wear silly clothes in a pool.

[Wanted Man]

I didn't say that exactly, don't go putting words in my mouth. The fact is that this is a religious garment though, and if the French want to maintain a secular culture then this needs to be examined. I never said that I'd command her to disrobe, but if you're going to have a secular public space then having people prance about in religious costumes might be something you would ban.
"Secular public space"? What does that mean, that anything religious should be banned from the public eye? So what about a church or a mosque, maybe they should be banned from having the sign of the cross or the crescent on the outside of the building. Or even the indication that it is a church or mosque. Otherwise religion would be visible in public (to many more people than one woman in a pool, I might add).

You'd have to, in order to be consistent about your "secular public space".


It's childish to think that I'd have some henchmen run up and tear her clothes off, but if I were in control I'd probably have kicked her the fuck out as well.
How brave. Are you sure you'd dare do it alone? Lord knows, kicking an unarmed woman "the fuck out" of a place can be a bit daunting, even to the most manly manarchist.

[communard resolution]

"Secular public space"? What does that mean, that anything religious should be banned from the public eye? So what about a church or a mosque, maybe they should be banned from having the sign of the cross or the crescent on the outside of the building. Or even the indication that it is a church or mosque. Otherwise religion would be visible in public (to many more people than one woman in a pool, I might add)

I think his problem is that he misunderstands what we're saying here: he thinks we defend sexism if perpetuated by an 'alien' religion because attacking it might have xenophobic overtones. So he assumes the diametrically opposed position, trying to prove how he's not some dupe who will defend anything and everything on grounds of 'culture'.

But no one here is defending religion or sexism. What we're saying is that the state has no right to impose its ideas of the correct swimming attire upon people, and furthermore that you won't liberate people from the yoke of religion by discriminating against them and banning them from public spaces.

Anti-sexism can be a pretext. When the US and UK invaded Afghanistan, the news were full of reports about Afghani women subjugated to the iron rule of Islam. While these reports were not untruthful, their purpose was to create an atmosphere in which even the more liberal segments of the Western public (those who weren't receptive to the 'War on Terror' narrative) could be convinced that the war effort was essentially a good thing, or at least had some positive aspects.

So what we are saying is: be aware who is posturing as anti-sexist, why they are doing it, and what the context is. In this case, it's useful to take a look at France's more recent track record of ethnic and religious discrimination.

[narcomprom]

I didn't say that exactly, don't go putting words in my mouth. The fact is that this is a religious garment though, and if the French want to maintain a secular culture then this needs to be examined. I never said that I'd command her to disrobe, but if you're going to have a secular public space then having people prance about in religious costumes might be something you would ban. It's childish to think that I'd have some henchmen run up and tear her clothes off, but if I were in control I'd probably have kicked her the fuck out as well.
Just how do you want to decide wether a cloth is religious and which is not? I think it's christian to cover the shame - off with your pants! The Hijab bans came around with the tidal wave of Islamophobia accopanying Western aggression on Iraq and the secularism argument, borrowed from Turkish Kemalism is a lame anarchostic excuse to impose something on a minority that goes in line with propagated prejudice.

The Young Turks banned all traditional garments - both the Hijab and the Turkish male hat in an effort to create an imagine of progress - in similar circumstances the Bolsheviks churned out a law requiring all the beardy Russian men to shave. Should that also be become policy? The muslims, after all, sport beards.

[Devrim]

I didn't say that exactly, don't go putting words in my mouth. The fact is that this is a religious garment though, and if the French want to maintain a secular culture then this needs to be examined. I never said that I'd command her to disrobe, but if you're going to have a secular public space then having people prance about in religious costumes might be something you would ban. It's childish to think that I'd have some henchmen run up and tear her clothes off, but if I were in control I'd probably have kicked her the fuck out as well.

I don't believe in any way that you are a racist, but you are echoing the arguments of the far right here, even down to the talk of national, in this case French, culture. I really wonder at people who can not see that their is a massive racist campaign against people from the Middle East and South Asia going on in Western Europe and the US. It is a campaign that uses people's natural unease with Islam to mobilize people against the 'outsiders'. Racists tend to be more subtle nowadays. Instead of just coming out with it and saying 'we don't want the darkies here', they talk about attacks upon freedom of speech and women's rights. The message is the same though. It saddens me to see anarchists giving a left cover to these right wing media campaigns.

Nero sums it up pretty well here:

Anti-sexism can be a pretext. When the US and UK invaded Afghanistan, the news were full of reports about Afghani women subjugated to the iron rule of Islam. While these reports were not untruthful, their purpose was to create an atmosphere in which even the more liberal segments of the Western public (those who weren't receptive to the 'War on Terror' narrative) could be convinced that the war effort was essentially a good thing, or at least had some positive aspects.

So what we are saying is: be aware who is posturing as anti-sexist, why they are doing it, and what the context is. In this case, it's useful to take a look at France's more recent track record of ethnic and religious discrimination.



That said, this raises the question of how we eradicate this sort of silly bullshit (religious superstition) from society. I don't have answers, but I sure as fuck am not going to jump to the aid of religious nutters and their "right" to wear silly clothes in a pool.

I don't think we will do it by echoing the arguments of the right wing press either.

Devrim

[Rascolnikova]

We've come to liberate you, now take off your clothes.

[Rascolnikova]

As a note--on an individual, psychological level, counteracting sexual harassment and other related ills is all about returning power and control to the victim.

Therefore, if you actually want to liberate women, focus on preserving and expanding choices they make for themselves. If you've an objection to misogyny in Islam, do not satisfy it by further restricting women's choices.

I willingly support the right of males to cover themselves, at the pool or anywhere else.


If there were an actual health risk, perhaps a case could be made, but this seems unlikely.

[Revy]

Putting aside the utter idiocy of calling this Islamic swimsuit a "burkini", I don't see how this should be an issue.

I cannot imagine for the life of me how I would feel bothered by a woman wearing this in the pool, but I can imagine that certain people prejudiced toward Islam would.

[LeninKobaMao]

I don't really mind the hijab but the burqa is just plain wrong.

[Yazman]

The problem is that your opinion doesn't matter. If you legislate your opinion on what others are wearing, you're basically fucking with people's freedom. IMO government has no place telling people what they can and can't wear. Thats just fucking wrong, and I don't care what the clothes are - we should be able to at the very least WEAR WHAT WE WISH!

[Rascolnikova]

I would prefer it if this sort bathing gear were more common--common enough to not draw stares. If it were, there would probably be days when I'd choose to swim in something nearly that covering. . . and other days when I'd wear a lot less. I know more than a few women who have considered veiling with no interest whatsoever in Islam. I know a few women who have considered Islam because it would give them an excuse to veil.

The present Western tradition, which simultaneously insists that a)women who present themselves for public viewing must conform to a certain aesthetic standard and b)women must present themselves for public viewing, is not liberating.

[Invariance]

Covering yourself up isn’t liberating. It is a complete capitulation to misogynistic standards which seek to curb the role women play in society and seek to deny her sexual agency. It shows that you want to alienate yourself from society even further. The only political statement you are making is to the male chauvinists: you have won. The statement you are making to other women is: cover yourself up like me.

If you want to make a ‘political statement’ in defying Western culture you’re going about it the wrong way by adopting reactionary chauvinistic standards. It isn't just a piece of clothing that can be viewed in the abstract, its a piece of clothing which is typically oppressive to women. That some women voluntarily chose to wear it is irrelevant to that role, just as when workers 'voluntarily' enter a contract, or when some women protest against abortion, or when some women advocate the role of a woman as a domestic servant/breeder.

To be clear, I don’t support any move by the government in deciding what someone can wear, and I think this action is motivated by racism. But that doesn’t mean I think that covering yourself up is ‘liberating.’

You want to fight sexism, don't become a nun.

[khad]

If you want to make a ‘political statement’ in defying Western culture you’re going about it the wrong way by adopting reactionary chauvinistic standards. It isn't just a piece of clothing that can be viewed in the abstract, its a piece of clothing which is typically oppressive to women. That some women voluntarily chose to wear it is irrelevant to that role, just as when workers 'voluntarily' enter a contract, or when some women protest against abortion, or when some women advocate the role of a woman as a domestic servant/breeder.

What about certain "standards" in the west which grant the right to male employers to fire women who do not put on makeup, wear high heels, wear pantyhose, etc?

http://www.kdvr.com/news/wjw-makeup-job-0522,0,6934953.story


SAN DIEGO - A woman who was fired because she refuses to wear makeup on the job is looking at her legal options.

Shenoa Vild worked for Trophy's restaurant in Mission Valley for five years until she was fired last month. She says the reason, she would get dolled up.

"It was a shock! The even bigger shock, was when I found out, it was within his legal rights to do so."

Vild, 27, has never "put a face on."

"I have never worn makeup in my life. I just don't like it," Vild said. "When (the boss) told me I need to dress like I am going out with the man of my dreams, that did it for me."

Several years ago, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that it is not discriminatory for employers to require women wear makeup.

"Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right," Vild said.

Vild said it was alright for her to work at Trophy's for five years, but she's convinced that she was terminated because of her refusal to wear makeup. She said this isn't the first time her former boss has fired someone for not putting on makeup.

Misogyny works both ways, and simply conforming to Western expectations is not a political statement against sexism either.

[Rascolnikova]

Covering yourself up isn’t liberating. It is a complete capitulation to misogynistic standards which seek to curb the role women play in society and seek to deny her sexual agency. It shows that you want to alienate yourself from society even further. The only political statement you are making is to the male chauvinists: you have won. The statement you are making to other women is: cover yourself up like me.

If you want to make a ‘political statement’ in defying Western culture you’re going about it the wrong way by adopting reactionary chauvinistic standards. It isn't just a piece of clothing that can be viewed in the abstract, its a piece of clothing which is typically oppressive to women. That some women voluntarily chose to wear it is irrelevant to that role, just as when workers 'voluntarily' enter a contract, or when some women protest against abortion, or when some women advocate the role of a woman as a domestic servant/breeder.

To be clear, I don’t support any move by the government in deciding what someone can wear, and I think this action is motivated by racism. But that doesn’t mean I think that covering yourself up is ‘liberating.’

You want to fight sexism, don't become a nun.


The right to say yes is meaningless without the right to say no.


Edit: Also, I'd thank you not to make judgments about my sexuality based on how much of it I'd constantly like to leave on display.

[narcomprom]

Covering yourself up isn’t liberating. It is a complete capitulation to misogynistic standards which seek to curb the role women play in society and seek to deny her sexual agency. It shows that you want to alienate yourself from society even further. The only political statement you are making is to the male chauvinists: you have won. The statement you are making to other women is: cover yourself up like me.

If you want to make a ‘political statement’ in defying Western culture you’re going about it the wrong way by adopting reactionary chauvinistic standards. It isn't just a piece of clothing that can be viewed in the abstract, its a piece of clothing which is typically oppressive to women. That some women voluntarily chose to wear it is irrelevant to that role, just as when workers 'voluntarily' enter a contract, or when some women protest against abortion, or when some women advocate the role of a woman as a domestic servant/breeder.

To be clear, I don’t support any move by the government in deciding what someone can wear, and I think this action is motivated by racism. But that doesn’t mean I think that covering yourself up is ‘liberating.’

You want to fight sexism, don't become a nun.

Point taken, but you should have changed your avatar before posting this. It 'isn't liberating'.

[Invariance]

@ Khad.

No, it isn't.

But we're not cultural relativists. Cultural standards should be judged politically and socially.

There's a huge difference between a culture which encourages sexual emancipation, even if it has other misogynistic elements, versus a culture which discourages sexual emancipation which has other misogynistic elements. One allows for the possibility of women to at least be sexually liberated, the other denies that capacity altogether.

There are levels of oppression and we should recognize them as such. A law requiring the wearing of a Niqāb is more oppressive than a law requiring the wearing of a simple headscarf. A law requiring the wearing of a headscarf is more oppressive than a law which requires an employee to wear make-up, or to wear stockings.

I work in a restaurant. I'm required to wear black pumps, typically a black skirt etc. Looking presentable is a requirement of the job. And its not just applied to women - men have to shave, they have to wear polished black shoes, they have to have appropriate hair styles. I think its nonsense that this person was fired for not wearing make-up, because its often not necessarily required to look presentable. But its totally incomparable, for example, with a state that persecutes people for not wearing clothing which covers everything apart from your eyes. Simply put, not all forms of discrimination are equal, and this is no exception.

"Feminists", in opposing male chauvinism in the West, oddly adopt puritanical standards in order to oppose that very chauvinism. In order to stop being 'objectified' we must dress moderately. That strikes me as fundamentally hypocritical and counter-productive to the very things feminists have struggled for.


Also, I'd thank you not to make judgments about my sexuality based on how much of it I'd constantly like to leave on display.No where did I make a judgment on your sexuality. I'm highly unconcerned with it.


Point taken, but you should have changed your avatar before posting this. It 'isn't liberating'.:D Wearing a mask helps keep me liberated from jail. :tt2:

[Ultra_Cheese]

The organ within me which generates feminist outrage is flaccid right now. No one wears a burka out of personal preference. It is out of oppressive religious and cultural traditions that they are driven to wear them. I'd like to see them disappear completely along with all notions of modesty, but a ban on burkinis isn't helping with that; however, the shitshow that follows is well worth it.

[Rascolnikova]

Covering yourself up isn’t liberating. It is a complete capitulation to misogynistic standards which seek to curb the role women play in society and seek to deny her sexual agency. It shows that you want to alienate yourself from society even further. The only political statement you are making is to the male chauvinists: you have won. The statement you are making to other women is: cover yourself up like me.

If you want to make a ‘political statement’ in defying Western culture you’re going about it the wrong way by adopting reactionary chauvinistic standards. It isn't just a piece of clothing that can be viewed in the abstract, its a piece of clothing which is typically oppressive to women. That some women voluntarily chose to wear it is irrelevant to that role, just as when workers 'voluntarily' enter a contract, or when some women protest against abortion, or when some women advocate the role of a woman as a domestic servant/breeder.

To be clear, I don’t support any move by the government in deciding what someone can wear, and I think this action is motivated by racism. But that doesn’t mean I think that covering yourself up is ‘liberating.’

You want to fight sexism, don't become a nun.



@ Khad.

No, it isn't.

But we're not cultural relativists. Cultural standards should be judged politically and socially.

There's a huge difference between a culture which encourages sexual emancipation, even if it has other misogynistic elements, versus a culture which discourages sexual emancipation which has other misogynistic elements. One allows for the possibility of women to at least be sexually liberated, the other denies that capacity altogether.

There are levels of oppression and we should recognize them as such. A law requiring the wearing of a Niqāb is more oppressive than a law requiring the wearing of a simple headscarf. A law requiring the wearing of a headscarf is more oppressive than a law which requires an employee to wear make-up, or to wear stockings.

I work in a restaurant. I'm required to wear black pumps, typically a black skirt etc. Looking presentable is a requirement of the job. And its not just applied to women - men have to shave, they have to wear polished black shoes, they have to have appropriate hair styles. I think its nonsense that this person was fired for not wearing make-up, because its often not necessarily required to look presentable. But its totally incomparable, for example, with a state that persecutes people for not wearing clothing which covers everything apart from your eyes. Simply put, not all forms of discrimination are equal, and this is no exception.

"Feminists", in opposing male chauvinism in the West, oddly adopt puritanical standards in order to oppose that very chauvinism. In order to stop being 'objectified' we must dress moderately. That strikes me as fundamentally hypocritical and counter-productive to the very things feminists have struggled for.



No where did I make a judgment on your sexuality. I'm highly unconcerned with it.

A vow of chastity--"marriage to Christ," in the Christian traditions--is the central component of being a nun.



Sexual emancipation is not just freedom towards sex; it's freedom to reject sex, and expressions of sexuality, at will. Both are absolutely essential for sexual liberation. I quite agree that mandatory veiling would be absolutely terrible, and--probably, though not certainly, in distinction from yourself, I am frequently called upon to defend this view among people who actually disagree with it.

Of course there's a difference between the misogynist brutality of Islamic fundamentalism and the dress code at your work. No one is comparing those things but you. I am not, either, suggesting "puritanical" dress codes, or even dress codes at all--for anyone, as you seem to insist that I am by sometimes choosing to cover myself more.


Any time a culture has a modesty norm--and if we have clothes or adornment of any kind, there will be a modesty norm--what is sexual to wear, do, or present, depends on it's relation to that modesty norm. If we wish to have a culture that reflects and encourages healthy boundaries, we must start accepting variance in personal presentation.

Let's not allow our backlash against conservative cultures get in the way of acceptance that would allow individuals to make the choice they actually want to make--not in capitulation to a religious standard, but out of empowered personal choice. Modesty norms are not going away, regardless of how they might change over time, and berating someone for choosing to express their sexuality less or differently than yourself isn't useful to anything.

[Partizani]

The french pool workers were trying to use the same rule that applies to wearing swimming shorts in the pool, the idea being that because people sometimes wear swimming shorts outside of the pool that they can carry dirt around with them. This of course can not apply the burkini because its purely for swimming, if anyones seen the pictures of them they are clearly made out of the light weight material that you get on rash vests.

As for calling it 'racism'? thats just like UAF shouting NAZI at UKIP. It is discrimination yes, but not racism.

Im all for womens rights and equality among sexes but you cant force change upon someone who has chosen (the article explains that she was a french born convert) to take up a religion, thus she has chosen to wear the burkha.

When the Mayor stated 'this isnt in the koran', thats just being ignorant and discriminating against others who do not follow similar beliefs to his own. Let them follow what they want, wear what they want, as long as its not harming me or others (and i cant remember last time a piece of lightweight material harmed me) let them do it.

[Wanted Man]

@ Khad.

No, it isn't.

But we're not cultural relativists. Cultural standards should be judged politically and socially.

There's a huge difference between a culture which encourages sexual emancipation, even if it has other misogynistic elements, versus a culture which discourages sexual emancipation which has other misogynistic elements. One allows for the possibility of women to at least be sexually liberated, the other denies that capacity altogether.

There are levels of oppression and we should recognize them as such. A law requiring the wearing of a Niqāb is more oppressive than a law requiring the wearing of a simple headscarf. A law requiring the wearing of a headscarf is more oppressive than a law which requires an employee to wear make-up, or to wear stockings.

That's very interesting, but ultimately not relevant here. After all, nobody is arguing for an Islamic theocracy in which a niqab or burqa is mandatory. Instead, people are arguing against the idea that private property owners and the state have a "right" to dictate what people can wear. As Devrim (who, as everybody knows, is not some "cultural relativist" or apologist for religious oppression) has noted, such a ban is not some "feminist" move towards liberation, but part of a wider campaign to mobilize people against any "outsiders".

It's very nice that "we" (the royal we?) are not cultural relativists, but that line of argument usually leads "us" down the road of the politicians who say that "western civilization" is superior and needs to be conserved. Like BR above, who spoke of the need to protect "French culture", of which the French bourgeoisie and its state are apparently a legitimate force.

In any case, I'm seeing little social or political judgement, but I do see a lot of moral judgement, including examples in this thread of "It's plain wrong!" or "It's not normal!" So far, I have seen no solutions proposed to the problem at hand, except for some weak justifications of the pool owner and the French government by some people here. Unless one truly believes that the solution is to hassle and discriminate muslimas to push them further out of public life in "our national culture" - we're not cultural relativists after all, so what does it matter if people are discriminated against? :rolleyes:

Indeed, it's quite disturbing that someone would call themselves anarchist, and yet grant legitimacy to the idea that there is a "national culture" that needs to be conserved, and that the capitalists and the state are the agents to do so.


I know more than a few women who have considered veiling with no interest whatsoever in Islam. I know a few women who have considered Islam because it would give them an excuse to veil.

That is a pretty sad reflection on society, in my opinion. It's not a good or liberating thing. If someone is pushed to convert to a religion for such reasons, that's actually really saddening. It also shows that sexual liberation has not been achieved in this society, contrary to what our "anarchists against cultural relativism" here are arguing. They are right to say that such an act is not "liberating", but it's also not some concession to the conservative, bearded Islamic foreigner. The fact that it happens simply proves them wrong about our "superior culture".

[Invariance]

That's very interesting, but ultimately not relevant here.It was a comment on statements by several of the members here who expressed the view that by covering themselves (or that women who covered themselves) they are doing something progressive and making a 'political statement.' This thread is 7 pages long, sorry if the discussion expands past the original post into other areas. :rolleyes:


After all, nobody is arguing for an Islamic theocracy in which a niqab or burqa is mandatory.No, we were discussing and comparing being required to wear make-up versing being required to wear a Niqab. Incidentally, my original post made no reference to Islam, because I recognize that the wearing of headscarves etc isn't simply monolithic to Islam (I know Christian women who wear headscarfs, for example).


Instead, people are arguing against the idea that private property owners and the state have a "right" to dictate what people can wear.Which is a poor way to frame this discussion anyway; since it focuses on property rights versus individual rights as an abstract discussion. Most would think that it is legitimate for a state to fight socially oppressive standards. And if we were to simply frame this discussion in that context it may be justified. But that would be ignoring the whole context that, as you say, this is part of a wider movement aimed at discriminating against Muslims and serves a wholly reactionary purpose. As you yourself said, this is a political and social discussion, not a moral judgment.


As Devrim (who, as everybody knows, is not some "cultural relativist" or apologist for religious oppression) has noted, such a ban is not some "feminist" move towards liberation, but part of a wider campaign to mobilize people against any "outsiders".

And as I exactly stated:

To be clear, I don’t support any move by the government in deciding what someone can wear, and I think this action is motivated by racism.


It's very nice that "we" (the royal we?) are not cultural relativists, but that line of argument usually leads "us" down the road of the politicians who say that "western civilization" is superior and needs to be conserved.My point wasn't to depict this as a battle of cultures, as right-wing and left-wing leaders wish us to believe. As I stated: Cultural standards should be judged politically and socially.

This includes so-called Western standards.


In any case, I'm seeing little social or political judgement, but I do see a lot of moral judgement, including examples in this thread of "It's plain wrong!" or "It's not normal!"Uh, pointing out that covering yourself up is a reflection of a deeply misogynistic society isn't a moral judgment. Its a political judgment which puts at its forefront woman's emancipation, asshole.


Unless one truly believes that the solution is to hassle and discriminate muslimas to push them further out of public life in "our national culture" - we're not cultural relativists after all, so what does it matter if people are discriminated against? :rolleyes::rolleyes: yourself you ignorant asshole. I have not once justified the actions of the French government or the pool-owners. You're a pathetic liar.


Indeed, it's quite disturbing that someone would call themselves anarchist, and yet grant legitimacy to the idea that there is a "national culture" that needs to be conserved, and that the capitalists and the state are the agents to do so. I'm certainly not an anarchist, but even if this isn't aimed at me, don't quote something I have written and then write a tirade directed at someone else. It misrepresents my position and only serves the purpose of avoiding criticizing that particular person and thereby avoiding their criticism of you. Quote the person and question their specific statements instead of having a little rant to yourself whereby you can avoid dissent.


But on the other hand, that will never be understood by the aforementioned "anarchists" who seem to think that sexual liberation has already been achieved in this society...Shock and horrors: to a large extent it has. I can have sex with whoever I want to and there are no oppressive social repercussions from that, provided abortion is freely available. I have access to the pill, and men have access to condoms. Young people are more and more informed about sex and use that education to their benefit. Yes, in Western nations women are more emancipated than in, for example, Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. Pointing that out isn't chanting the supremacy of West, its simply stating a basic fact.

Incidentally, I completely agree with this point:


I am sorry. I have a lot of sympathy for people who are forced to wear this sort of thing from a young age.

I have no sympathy at all for Westerners who convert to Islam.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The problem is that your opinion doesn't matter. If you legislate your opinion on what others are wearing, you're basically fucking with people's freedom. IMO government has no place telling people what they can and can't wear. Thats just fucking wrong, and I don't care what the clothes are - we should be able to at the very least WEAR WHAT WE WISH!

Does that include Waffen-SS uniforms? Certain clothing "sends a message" - and some of those messages aren't just unpleasant, but entirely reactionary. The burqa is insulting not only to women, reducing them to faceless objects, but also has precious little good to say about men - the implication being that men are sexual monsters who lose all self-control at the sight of a female body.

Also, say what you like about Western beauty standards and expectations towards women, but at least I've yet to hear of a woman having acid thrown in her face for not wearing make-up or sexy clothing.

[Partizani]

Does that include Waffen-SS uniforms?
As general style if i saw someone walking down the street in a untersturmfuhrer uniform sieg heiling people i would simply shout out 'TWAT'.
However if they wore it as a political uniform then that would be against the law in the United Kingdom as Political uniforms have been banned since the public order act of 1936 which is there to control fascists.

[danyboy27]

that suck, to me it feel that both side in that discussion actually make sense, i am so confused.

i think its true that people should wear what they like, but on the other hand i think its would be okay to restrict some sort of clothing for the message they send.

[narcomprom]

Also, say what you like about Western beauty standards and expectations towards women, but at least I've yet to hear of a woman having acid thrown in her face for not wearing make-up or sexy clothing.
We don't throw around acid because we have vacuum bombs to enforce our standards of beauty. And domestically we have can use other methods, as described by OP.
http://thenonist.com/images/uploads/TUNGERER4.jpg
We imperialists are fond of dressing the savages like us. That is the burden of white men: to put a western tie on the hindu. And when his oppressed brothers foolishly lynch the conformist we have our martyr!

[TheCultofAbeLincoln]

What a ridiculous outfit. Even Victorian bathing suits showed more skin. What's the point in going swimming if you're going to wear pretty much the exact same thing you wear when not?

Cardiovascular excersicise that doesn't tear up your knees.


I think the rule is pretty dumb and obviously aimed at a certain demographic. Yes, you can't swim clothed but what she was wearing was obviously a swim suit. I am curious if a person wearing a wet suit (ie what many surfers wear) would get kicked out.


Does that include Waffen-SS uniforms?

Only when rounding up reactionary apparrel.

A yarmukle gets a boot in the face. A burka is a beat down with a rifle butt. A turban gets you lined up against a wall.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We don't throw around acid because we have vacuum bombs to enforce our standards of beauty.

If you really think that's the case then you're shallow and fucking stupid.


And domestically we have can use other methods, as described by OP.

Because being barred from a pool is just as bad as being permanently mutilated. :rolleyes:


We imperialists are fond of dressing the savages like us. That is the burden of white men: to put a western tie on the hindu. And when his oppressed brothers foolishly lynch the conformist we have our martyr!

Because non-Westerners never, ever choose to wear Western apparel and makeup. It's always, always some evil white devil twisting their arm to do it! :lol: Honestly, don't you see how arrogant and patronising your view of non-Western people is? It paints them all as a bunch of faceless, conformist clones that live in a static culture and that have no agency beyond being the pawns in the game between imperialists and self-proclaimed anti-imperialists.

[Havet]

just let the poor woman have a bath and some fun already. Isn't it enough that she's oppressed by a religion, and you want to oppress her freedom to take a bath as well?

[Jazzratt]

just let the poor woman have a bath and some fun already. Isn't it enough that she's oppressed by a religion, and you want to oppress her freedom to take a bath as well?

This, really. I'm at a loss, really, as to what harm actually comes of allowing people in "burkinis" into swimming pools. The outfit itself is obviously a tool of religious oppression but you're not going to magic that away by appealing to higher powers to hide it from your sensitive sight.

NoXion:


Because being barred from a pool is just as bad as being permanently mutilated. :rolleyes:

No it isn't, but so what? We don't justify our actions by pointing at someone who is doing something worse and saying "at least we aren't as bad as those guys". Surely you can see the disadvantages in booting people out of pools for this kind of thing?

[Robert]

How about a rule that requires everyone to swim nude? We all go into the pool as God had us come into the world.

I'll go first.

"Back off ladies, I'm taken."

Alternative possibility: there might be a stampede for "les sorties" as the Frenchman says. Then I'd have the pool all to myself.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

No it isn't, but so what? We don't justify our actions by pointing at someone who is doing something worse and saying "at least we aren't as bad as those guys". Surely you can see the disadvantages in booting people out of pools for this kind of thing?

I can understand how banning the burkini can be counter-productive in this instance, but that wasn't my point - I was just demolishing this apparent false equivalency that a lot of lefties seem to put between different societies - this sort of disgusting cultural relativism is a dreadful rot that eats away at any idea of progress.

I mean, think about it; I can walk down the streets of Brighton in a skirt, high-heels and tights and draw little more than looks and the occasional comment (which in my experience tend to be positive) - but there's no way I would get the same reaction if I walked down the streets of Medina dressed in the same fashion.

Of course, those are two extremes. But they do exist and I think it's counter-productive to act as if they don't.

[Ele'ill]

I mean, think about it; I can walk down the streets of Brighton in a skirt, high-heels and tights and draw little more than looks and the occasional comment (which in my experience tend to be positive) -

As a male, how much experience do you have with this?


I'd gander that the people working made a knee jerk decision which was possibly based on a complaint by someone else. We're not talking about an entire institution backing an international ban on clothing in pools.

And surely this is a way for racists to target other cultures but I think this was an isolated incident.

[eyedrop]

As a male, how much experience do you have with this?
SO males can't work around in high heels and a skirt? Although a male would probaby draw an enterily different set of comments than a female.

[Ele'ill]

SO males can't work around in high heels and a skirt? Although a male would probaby draw an enterily different set of comments than a female.

They should be able to. I was questioning how much experience NoXion had with wearing a skirt.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

They should be able to. I was questioning how much experience NoXion had with wearing a skirt.

About 3 days. Do you think I would have lasted that long in Medina? Or, for variety's sake, Bumfuck, Texas?

[Ele'ill]

About 3 days. Do you think I would have lasted that long in Medina? Or, for variety's sake, Bumfuck, Texas?

Impressive.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Impressive.

Oooh, I can feel the sarcasm from here. But hey, at least I was honest.

If you've got a point to make, come right out with it already.

[eyedrop]

Although the whole point is irrelevant for the discussion, as males wearing "cheap" clothes gets a different reaction from a female wearing the same. (Unless they try to and achieves to pass as female)

[Jazzratt]

I can understand how banning the burkini can be counter-productive in this instance, but that wasn't my point - I was just demolishing this apparent false equivalency that a lot of lefties seem to put between different societies - this sort of disgusting cultural relativism is a dreadful rot that eats away at any idea of progress.

Right, of course I agree with you on cultural relativism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/cultural-relativism-patronising-t60679/index.html?p=930290#post930290). The equivelance is not in the action taken (acid in the face vs. inconvienience at a swimming pool) but in the reasoning (your clothes make us uncomfortable). Just as, say, section 28 in the UK was made for the same reasons as the death penalty for homosexuals in Iran but the latter is obviously worse; this is not a reason to oppose both.


I mean, think about it; I can walk down the streets of Brighton in a skirt, high-heels and tights and draw little more than looks and the occasional comment (which in my experience tend to be positive) - but there's no way I would get the same reaction if I walked down the streets of Medina dressed in the same fashion.

I never argued you would. I have no idea what the penalty is for cross dressing is in Saudi Arabia (a google search seems to indicate gaol time) but I imagine it to be far worse than being chucked out of a pub - but I imagine you and I would both be outraged if the 'Lion had instituted a [barmy, given the circumstances] "no cross dressing" policy. Do you see where I'm coming from now?


Of course, those are two extremes. But they do exist and I think it's counter-productive to act as if they don't.

Quite.

[Devrim]

I never argued you would. I have no idea what the penalty is for cross dressing is in Saudi Arabia (a google search seems to indicate gaol time) but I imagine it to be far worse than being chucked out of a pub - but I imagine you and I would both be outraged if the 'Lion had instituted a [barmy, given the circumstances] "no cross dressing" policy. Do you see where I'm coming from now?

But then again, Saudi Arabia is an extreme example, kind of like the small town in Texas with the funny name that was mentioned earlier. In Ankara you see transvestites all the time and nobody really cares, more so in Istanbul.

Devrim

[narcomprom]

If you really think that's the case then you're shallow and fucking stupid.
Just as stupid as it is to claim the sectarian warfare of recently annexed regions forces French women to wear the hijab. What you and NATO propagandists are basically doing is blaming a such a fictional entity as an eastern culture or islamism for the killlings and mutilations caused by your side.
http://nationalsocialists.files.wordpress.com/2009/05/collaboration-1.jpg
It's like fascists blaming subhuman cultures for the trials and humiliation of their collaborateurs after the war in the West.


Because being barred from a pool is just as bad as being permanently mutilated. :rolleyes:
Multilation is horrible and your example shows perfectly how it's done in the name of the feminist argument about the horrors of a fashion different from ours. The upsurge of sectarian violence in Iraq and Afghanistan was sparked by our invasions.

Because non-Westerners never, ever choose to wear Western apparel and makeup. It's always, always some evil white devil twisting their arm to do it! :lol: Honestly, don't you see how arrogant and patronising your view of non-Western people is? It paints them all as a bunch of faceless, conformist clones that live in a static culture and that have no agency beyond being the pawns in the game between imperialists and self-proclaimed anti-imperialists.Don't you twist my words. I just mirrored your argument against the Hijab, that is, that French girls are forced to wear them by acid throwing radicals in Afghanistan and now must be saved by domestic cultural descrimination.

[Rascolnikova]

Also, say what you like about Western beauty standards and expectations towards women, but at least I've yet to hear of a woman having acid thrown in her face for not wearing make-up or sexy clothing.


Obviously, life-threatening plastic surgery and anorexia are irrelevant here.

[Robert]

Rasco, I'm sure you see a difference between a lunatic throwing acid in a girl's face and a girl deciding to have an elective face lift.

[Bud Struggle]

Rasco, I'm sure you see a difference between a lunatic throwing acid in a girl's face and a girl deciding to have an elective face lift.

Don't you see Robert women are FORCED to have elective face lifts by Capitalist social norms of feminine beauty set on them by evil lecherous men like vous et moi! :D

[Jazzratt]

Don't you see Robert women are FORCED to have elective face lifts by Capitalist social norms of feminine beauty set on them by evil lecherous men like vous et moi! :D

Fun fact: I just got my fucked up, stopped, watch out of my pocket and it was telling the right time, it does that twice a day. You may well have been taking the piss (well, that's pretty much a certainty) but you have bumbled accidentaly into an insightful point. There is a definate bias toward, and pressure to aspire to, a certain body shape with certain facial features. It's part of what makes images like the ones in these galleries (http://www.laurietobyedison.com/galleries.asp) [NSFW in some cases, I'm sure you can guess which ones] seem "repellent" to some.

Obviously you and robert don't get together with another clutch of lecherous weirdos to decide what is hot and what is not for the female body but our culture as it stands is dominated to a great extent by a small group of people with some truly insane ideas about what people should look like and aspire to be (all women should look like stick insects with spine-breaking boobs and everyone should aspire to be as rich and vacuos as possible [see "reality" TV]); a small group that dominates by owning massive slices of the culture we are immesed in daily (think Fox, Universal, EMI, Rupert Murdoch owning so fucking many papers). Its thanks to this and a vast number of other factors (factors which would make for another post perhaps) that we have demented beauty standards.

What the bloody hell does this have to do with burkinis and battery acid, bulimia and boob-jobs?Well it shows that for all our criticism of the former we are not without fault and with all our ("we" and "our" here being used to me people in non-islamic and/or "western" countries) self-righteousness we should not get carried away. We have done away with brutalising people physically because we have a way of targetting the psyche and while our way may be more "humane" it is not without its victims.

Or something.

[RGacky3]

There is a definate bias toward, and pressure to aspire to, a certain body shape with certain facial features.

OF coarse, but that for the most part based on biological reasons, its natural.

No one is forcing you to go by those standars, people will perceve you as less attractive maybe, because, you ARE less attractive (at least to them).

Thats being said I agree that the media has taken that, exploited it, and taking it to an extreme, where it puts unrealistic expectations on people and really mixes it with deplorable values which people (especially children) pick up on.

But this is Capitalism.

This woman put on her burkini out of her own free will, she converted to islam, she was doing this out of principle.

Her right to wear it is MUCH more noble in my opinion than some 13 year old dressing like a MTV whore.

[Comrade Akai]

The purpose of Muslim women covering themselves is so that they are not degraded and viewed as sexual objects, but rather, viewed as what they are - intelligent human beings with thoughts and feelings. That said, I do believe there is discrimination going on here. A lot of it.

And as my comrade above has said, this is capitalism. She did everything out of her own free will, and I find it abhorrent that the government would step in and stop her from doing that based on their own pseudo-liberal fascism-esque bias.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Her right to wear it is MUCH more noble in my opinion than some 13 year old dressing like a MTV whore.

And in my opinion it's better to be a so-called "whore" than a submissive doormat.

[Comrade Akai]

And in my opinion it's better to be a so-called "whore" than a submissive doormat.

Islam does not teach women to be submissive doormats; it's Middle Eastern culture that does that. There's a very big difference between the two and they consistently clash in ideology.

[h0m0revolutionary]

The purpose of Muslim women covering themselves is so that they are not degraded and viewed as sexual objects, but rather, viewed as what they are - intelligent human beings with thoughts and feelings. That said, I do believe there is discrimination going on here. A lot of it.



Re-read what you've just said.

So me showing myself, being able to communicate with people in a recognisable way with no bold physical barriers would have me degraded and viewed as a sexual object, but if i were to implant a barrier over myself, making communication infinatly more difficult, making me distinctive based only on my sex and making my appearence as generic as the next person who is wearing the same custom female islamic dress, i'd be thought of an intelligent person?

[Comrade Akai]

Re-read what you've just said.

So me showing myself, being able to communicate with people in a recognisable way with no bold physical barriers would have me degraded and viewed as a sexual object, but if i were to implant a barrier over myself, making communication infinatly more difficult, making me distinctive based only on my sex and making my appearence as generic as the next person who is wearing the same custom female islamic dress, i'd be thought of an intelligent person?

Depends on the details and what you mean of bold physical barriers. If you're oiled up and in a bikini, chances are you will be viewed as a sexual object.
This is the real obstacle in communication, and Islamic dress removes it.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Islam does not teach women to be submissive doormats; it's Middle Eastern culture that does that. There's a very big difference between the two and they consistently clash in ideology.

So? Being a friggin' doormat is still no state for any human being to be in. And the burka is part of that.


Depends on the details and what you mean of bold physical barriers. If you're oiled up and in a bikini, chances are you will be viewed as a sexual object.
This is the real obstacle in communication, and Islamic dress removes it.

Unlike the burka, "oiled up and in a bikini" is not everyday dress.

At least there's the possibility of facial contact with a woman in a bikini - remember that not all men are drooling morons who think with their dicks.

[Comrade Akai]

So? Being a friggin' doormat is still no state for any human being to be in. And the burka is part of that.

The burka is part of Middle Eastern culture, not Islam. Islam only calls for the hijab.
And yes, the burka is part of the submissive image of the Middle Eastern woman. I'd just like to clarify that the hijab is not, since I'm fairly certain the debate will get to that.


Unlike the burka, "oiled up and in a bikini" is not everyday dress.

At least there's the possibility of facial contact with a woman in a bikini - remember that not all men are drooling morons who think with their dicks.
Your first sentence is correct, no argument there.

Still, lots of men are. I won't defend the burka much, since it is part of Middle Eastern culture and not Islam.

The hijab, which is Islamic dress, does not cover the face.

[RGacky3]

And in my opinion it's better to be a so-called "whore" than a submissive doormat.

We'll this woman clearly is doing this out of principle, very few young girls dressing like MTV whores are doing out of principle.


So? Being a friggin' doormat is still no state for any human being to be in. And the burka is part of that.

I don't think this woman sees herself as a doormat, remember this is 100% her choice.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The burka is part of Middle Eastern culture, not Islam. Islam only calls for the hijab.

So it's a shitty aspect of a culture rather than a shitty aspect of a religion. Point taken.


Still, lots of men are.

In which case the onus should be on the men to buck up their ideas and improve their attitude - women should feel comfortable wearing revealing clothing without having men talk to their tits instead of their face.


The hijab, which is Islamic dress, does not cover the face.

I've not mentioned the hijab.

[Comrade Akai]

So it's a shitty aspect of a culture rather than a shitty aspect of a religion. Point taken.
Pretty much.


In which case the onus should be on the men to buck up their ideas and improve their attitude - women should feel comfortable wearing revealing clothing without having men talk to their tits instead of their face.

While I agree, I don't think the idea is very compatible with simple human nature, or indeed, nearly any heterosexual male.


I've not mentioned the hijab.

This is correct. I was merely preparing for what I thought was the inevitable, and it seems I had jumped the gun, comrade.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

We'll this woman clearly is doing this out of principle, very few young girls dressing like MTV whores are doing out of principle.

Her principles are crap, frankly.


I don't think this woman sees herself as a doormat, remember this is 100% her choice.

Great! So I can wear Nazi uniforms in public because I think they look nice? They were designed by Hugo Boss after all!

[Rascolnikova]

Don't you see Robert women are FORCED to have elective face lifts by Capitalist social norms of feminine beauty set on them by evil lecherous men like vous et moi! :D

That's the spirit! Those women are choosing to kill themselves to be thin, so it's all ok. :)

[communard resolution]

That's the spirit! Those women are choosing to kill themselves to be thin, so it's all ok. :)

Yes, just like other people choose to eat fatty food until they look like a Big Mac and die of obesity - others choose to starve themselves. It's tragic, but what do you intend to do against it? Ban images of thin women?

[Rascolnikova]

Yes, just like other people choose to eat fatty food until they look like a Big Mac and die of obesity - others choose to starve themselves. It's tragic, but what do you intend to do against it? Ban images of thin women?

That's at least as good of a solution as not allowing people to cover themselves at the pool is for Islamic misogyny.

Edit: actually, it's much better.

[Comrade Akai]

That's at least as good of a solution as not allowing people to cover themselves at the pool is for Islamic misogyny.
Islam doesn't teach misogyny.

[Rascolnikova]

Islam doesn't teach misogyny.

What exactly do you call it when gender roles are strictly enforced and women are not permitted to hold positions of power?


Those, by the way, are two of the three strongest predictive factors for what are known as "rape prone" cultures.

[Comrade Akai]

What exactly do you call it when gender roles are strictly enforced and women are not permitted to hold positions of power?


Those, by the way, are two of the three strongest predictive factors for what are known as "rape prone" cultures.
That, my friend, is a product of Middle-Eastern culture, and not Islam. This is an honest mistake on your part, and I understand, since everything that happens over there looks like one giant clusterf***.

I should mention that Middle-Eastern culture and Islam clash on various fronts and the two do not go together very well. People often confuse the crazy crap that happens in Middle-Eastern culture with Islamic teachings, and I can't really blame them for it.

[communard resolution]

That's at least as good of a solution as not allowing people to cover themselves at the pool is for Islamic misogyny.

Edit: actually, it's much better.

No, it's as bad a solution.

[Rascolnikova]

That, my friend, is a product of Middle-Eastern culture, and not Islam. This is an honest mistake on your part, and I understand, since everything that happens over there looks like one giant clusterf***.

I should mention that Middle-Eastern culture and Islam clash on various fronts and the two do not go together very well. People often confuse the crazy crap that happens in Middle-Eastern culture with Islamic teachings, and I can't really blame them for it.

So, to be clear--what exactly are you defining as being Islam? Am I correct in assuming that anything straight from the Koran should qualify?

[Comrade Akai]

So, to be clear--what exactly are you defining as being Islam? Am I correct in assuming that anything straight from the Koran should qualify?
It should. If you have anything particular to cite, please do so. Please keep in mind that any translation you read should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is after all a translation and thus much is lost. Additionally, Arabic is a very difficult language to translate, making even more lost in translation. But go ahead.

[Rascolnikova]

It should. If you have anything particular to cite, please do so. Please keep in mind that any translation you read should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is after all a translation and thus much is lost. Additionally, Arabic is a very difficult language to translate, making even more lost in translation. But go ahead.

Dear God. You aren't telling me that I can't possibly understand Islam until I speak Arabic, are you?

How about this?


"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34
Translated by A. Yusufali



I should be clear that I make these exact same criticisms of my own native culture/faith, which, in Utah, has no middle eastern mess to blame itself upon.

[Comrade Akai]

Dear God. You aren't telling me that I can't possibly understand Islam until I speak Arabic, are you?

Sorry, comrade. What I meant was the Qur'an's translations might just be more open to misinterpretation.



"Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more (strength) than the other, and because they support them from their means. Therefore the righteous women are devoutly obedient, and guard in (the husband's) absence what Allah would have them guard. As to those women on whose part ye fear disloyalty and ill-conduct, admonish them (first), (next), refuse to share their beds, (and last) beat them (lightly); but if they return to obedience, seek not against them means (of annoyance):... "
The Book of Women 4.34


Not a fantastic translation. Firstly, about "obedience". This refers to obedience to God almost entirely. A wife should listen to her husband as well, but not to the extent where her freedom is infringed upon.

Secondly, the infamous "beat them" line. Badly translated. I should mention that this is only supposed to happen when the wife is not only abusive to you but causing serious problems. This physical contact is supposed to be light and never on the face, intended not for physical pain but for symbolism. It's supposed to be fairly gentle and more equivalent to a tap on the arm, etc. I should clarify that I'm not a scholar so I may be slightly off on certain things.

[Devrim]

That, my friend, is a product of Middle-Eastern culture, and not Islam.

Islam is a product of Middle eastern culture.


So, to be clear--what exactly are you defining as being Islam? Am I correct in assuming that anything straight from the Koran should qualify?
It should.


Muslim communist


Hey guys, I'd just like to point out that I'm a Muslim, so if you've got any questions I'll happily answer.

I'll try to clear up as much misconception as I can, and I'll tell you everything I know. Please keep it civil, remember that we're all on the same side here.http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/001_smile.gif

I don't think that we are on the same side. I think that it is impossible to be both a Muslim and a communist. First communists believe in a world without money. The ideal society of Islam is a world that definately has money. How would the idea of 'Zakat' ,alms, be practisable in any kind of communist society, and let it be clear, this is seen within the ideal behavıor for Muslims, not the ideal behavior for Muslims before communism is established. Without going into details the Koran is the product of mercantilism and contains lots of rules governing trade, something which is the anti-thesis of a communist society.

Secondly communists believe in a materialist conception of history. Something which is in direct contradiction with the idea of God intervening in society.


Please keep in mind that any translation you read should be taken with a grain of salt, since it is after all a translation and thus much is lost. Additionally, Arabic is a very difficult language to translate, making even more lost in translation. But go ahead.

I actually have a copy of the Koran besides me at the moment (the newspaper gave it away the other day at the start of Ramazan. It has an orginal Arabic text, which I can read with a little difficulty, and a Turkish translation.


Not a fantastic translation.

It seems ok to me.


Secondly, the infamous "beat them" line. Badly translated. I should mention that this is only supposed to happen when the wife is not only abusive to you but causing serious problems. This physical contact is supposed to be light and never on the face, intended not for physical pain but for symbolism. I should clarify that I'm not a scholar so I may be slightly off on this.

So what you seem to be saying is that you think it is acceptable to beat people in personal relationships if they are 'causing serious problems'. I don't.

Devrim

[eyedrop]

Not a fantastic translation. Firstly, about "obedience". This refers to obedience to God almost entirely. A wife should listen to her husband as well, but not to the extent where her freedom is infringed upon.

Secondly, the infamous "beat them" line. Badly translated. I should mention that this is only supposed to happen when the wife is not only abusive to you but causing serious problems. This physical contact is supposed to be light and never on the face, intended not for physical pain but for symbolism. It's supposed to be fairly gentle and more equivalent to a tap on the arm, etc. I should clarify that I'm not a scholar so I may be slightly off on certain things.

Isn't it likely that your personal cultural bias is warping Islam just as much as those other muslims with a "middle eastern culture". (Not that "middle-eastern culture" is no more homogeneous than "western culture")

[Comrade Akai]

Islam is a product of Middle eastern culture.


That's simply not true. Islamic values and Arab values conflict, and they always have. Before the coming of Islam, that place was a lot worse, believe it or not.




I don't think that we are on the same side. I think that it is impossible to be both a Muslim and a communist. First communists believe in a world without money. The ideal society of Islam is a world that definately has money. How would the idea of 'Zakat' ,alms, be practisable in any kind of communist society, and let it be clear, this is seen within the ideal behavıor for Muslims, not the ideal behavior for Muslims before communism is established. Without going into details the Koran is the product of mercantilism and contains lots of rules governing trade, something which is the anti-thesis of a communist society.
Is communism not the ultimate form of alms?

All those rules would no longer be necessary in communism.

Secondly communists believe in a materialist conception of history. Something which is in direct contradiction with the idea of God intervening in society.
Please elaborate?



I actually have a copy of the Koran besides me at the moment (the newspaper gave it away the other day at the start of Ramazan. It has an orginal Arabic text, which I can read with a little difficulty, and a Turkish translation.


I also have a copy, right here.


So what you seem to be saying is that you think it is acceptable to beat people in personal relationships if they are 'causing serious problems'. I don't.
Please re-read my post.

[Comrade Akai]

Isn't it likely that your personal cultural bias is warping Islam just as much as those other muslims with a "middle eastern culture". (Not that "middle-eastern culture" is no more homogeneous than "western culture")
Not really. I'm a Muslim by choice and I have no connection with Middle Eastern/Arab culture, so I learn Islam exclusively without any biases that come from culture and so it is fairly easy for me to see where they conflict.

[eyedrop]

Not really. I'm a Muslim by choice and I have no connection with Middle Eastern/Arab culture, so I learn Islam exclusively without any biases that come from culture and so it is fairly easy for me to see where they conflict.

You have your cultural bias as everyone else does. It doesn't exist a platonic Islam (or any other religion) disconnected from culture. A "western" person has a "western" cultural bias s/he influences his/hers version of Islam with.

[Comrade Akai]

You have your cultural bias as everyone else does. It doesn't exist a platonic Islam (or any other religion) disconnected from culture. A "western" person has a "western" cultural bias s/he influences his/hers version of Islam with.
I was referring specifically to Middle Eastern and Arab culture, which many so quickly like to associate Islam with.

[Rascolnikova]

Not a fantastic translation. Firstly, about "obedience". This refers to obedience to God almost entirely. A wife should listen to her husband as well, but not to the extent where her freedom is infringed upon.

Secondly, the infamous "beat them" line. Badly translated. I should mention that this is only supposed to happen when the wife is not only abusive to you but causing serious problems. This physical contact is supposed to be light and never on the face, intended not for physical pain but for symbolism. It's supposed to be fairly gentle and more equivalent to a tap on the arm, etc. I should clarify that I'm not a scholar so I may be slightly off on certain things.

First, I do not see any textual support for the interpretation of Islam you defend.

Secondly, even if I accept the mildest possible interpretation you have suggested, my criticism holds; it is the man who symbolically punishes the woman, because the man is in charge. There is no stronger psychological enforcement of gender roles--for one who believes in God--than "God said so."

[eyedrop]

I was referring specifically to Middle Eastern and Arab culture, which many so quickly like to associate Islam with.

You are seeing the divergence your biased version of Islam compared to the stereotypical arab-biased version of Islam.

Sorry, but you are no closer to "pure" Islam than the "Middle Eastern" muslims are.

[Comrade Akai]

You are seeing the divergence your biased version of Islam compared to the stereotypical arab-biased version of Islam.

Sorry, but you are no closer to "pure" Islam than the "Middle Eastern" muslims are.
Then please, enlighten me as to what "pure Islam" is.

[eyedrop]

Pure Islam doesn't exist, which is why you can't say; "that Middle-Eastern culture and Islam clash on various fronts".

What you probably meant was that your own culturally biased version of Islam clashes with the "Middle-Eastern" culturally biased version of Islam.

[Devrim]

That's simply not true. Islamic values and Arab values conflict, and they always have. Before the coming of Islam, that place was a lot worse, believe it or not.

That Islam is a product of Middle Eastern culture is plainly true. It is certainly not a product of Nordic culture. Religions are cultural products of society. There is another alternative of course, which is that they come from God, but that seems a pretty absurd one to me.


Is communism not the ultimate form of alms?

No, it isn't. Alms are about the rich throwing crumbs to the poor. Communism is about constructing a classless society without money.


All those rules would no longer be necessary in communism.

The Koran does not lay down rules about how to live in a pre-communist society. It lays down rules about how to live. Do you imagine that an all knowing God would have forgotten to mention that these are actually temporary rules, and that later a form of society would come where they don't apply.


Please elaborate?

Basically communists believe in an idea called historical materialism. They believe that class forces govern the unfolding of history, not divine intervention.

Besides what would be the point of struggling if everything were predestined anyway.


Please re-read my post.

Do you or do you not agree that hitting people, however lightly, is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts in personal relationships as advocated in the Koran.

Devrim

[Bud Struggle]

Is communism not the ultimate form of alms?


One of the truest posts ever on RevLeft if Socialism was a "gift" from the capable to those less able. But unfortunately people seem to think that an economic saftey net is some sort of a right.

[communard resolution]

One of the truest posts ever on RevLeft if Socialism was a "gift" from the capable to those less able. But unfortunately people seem to think that an economic saftey net is some sort of a right.

You really went down a lot lately, Bud. You used to be witty, and your posts were challenging in a good-humoured way to us commies. Now it's all social darwinism, right-wing commonplaces, and chauvinistic one-liners.

[Bud Struggle]

Fun fact: I just got my fucked up, stopped, watch out of my pocket and it was telling the right time, it does that twice a day. You may well have been taking the piss (well, that's pretty much a certainty) but you have bumbled accidentaly into an insightful point. There is a definate bias toward, and pressure to aspire to, a certain body shape with certain facial features. It's part of what makes images like the ones in these galleries (http://www.laurietobyedison.com/galleries.asp) [NSFW in some cases, I'm sure you can guess which ones] seem "repellent" to some.

Obviously you and robert don't get together with another clutch of lecherous weirdos to decide what is hot and what is not for the female body but our culture as it stands is dominated to a great extent by a small group of people with some truly insane ideas about what people should look like and aspire to be (all women should look like stick insects with spine-breaking boobs and everyone should aspire to be as rich and vacuos as possible [see "reality" TV]); a small group that dominates by owning massive slices of the culture we are immesed in daily (think Fox, Universal, EMI, Rupert Murdoch owning so fucking many papers). Its thanks to this and a vast number of other factors (factors which would make for another post perhaps) that we have demented beauty standards.

What the bloody hell does this have to do with burkinis and battery acid, bulimia and boob-jobs?Well it shows that for all our criticism of the former we are not without fault and with all our ("we" and "our" here being used to me people in non-islamic and/or "western" countries) self-righteousness we should not get carried away. We have done away with brutalising people physically because we have a way of targetting the psyche and while our way may be more "humane" it is not without its victims.

Or something.

That was quite a great post.

But maybe, just maye there's some built in hard wired human nature involved, too. Maybe guys (most guys) just like skinny-women-with-big-tits because that's what nature decided they should like. Then it's hardly my or Robert's fault for likeing women that we are hard wired by nature to like.

Maybe you can't blame Playboy for showing women that nature created men to like. Westurn cultre could be totally natural and Islamic culture--hiding the "goods" could be considered to be artificial.


You really went down a lot lately, Bud. You used to be witty, and your posts were challenging in a good-humoured way to us commies. Now it's all social darwinism, right-wing commonplaces, and chauvinistic one-liners. Nobody seemed to like the old Bud. :(

[communard resolution]

Nobody seemed to like the old Bud. :(

I did! I'd like to have him back please.

[Bud Struggle]

I did! I'd like to have him back please.

No problem--I just kept getting all of these PMs calling me a troll. But your wish is my command. (And they say Capitalists arn't easy to deal with. ;) )

[Comrade Akai]

That Islam is a product of Middle eastern culture is plainly true. It is certainly not a product of Nordic culture. Religions are cultural products of society. There is another alternative of course, which is that they come from God, but that seems a pretty absurd one to me.

It was originally spread from that part of the world, but that does not necessarily mean it came from their culture. Culture is a word that means way of life. Their culture was almost entirely antithetical to the teachings of Islam. They treated women like objects, they were the ultimate promoters of capitalism, they treated the poor like dirt. Did you know that if a man and woman had a baby daughter, they would often bury the kid alive just because he wanted a son? Islam did away with all this. Yeah, there's still some stupid crap going on, but Islam is the only thing there that says no.



No, it isn't. Alms are about the rich throwing crumbs to the poor. Communism is about constructing a classless society without money.

Communism is about peace, freedom from oppression, and equality. Communism is about feeding the starving children who die because some rich bastard is sitting in his mansion, sipping champagne out of a diamond-encrusted gold goblet and going to sleep with nary a regret. Communism is about making the world a better place, for everyone.

There could be no better form of charity.


The Koran does not lay down rules about how to live in a pre-communist society. It lays down rules about how to live. Do you imagine that an all knowing God would have forgotten to mention that these are actually temporary rules, and that later a form of society would come where they don't apply.

Temporary rules? Look, despite my idealism, and despite my willingness to fight for communism to the end, I doubt it would cover the whole world, ever. Capitalism will always exist in some way, shape or form.

There is a hadith (Islamic prophecy) which states that near the end of times, everyone will be wealthy, and global wealth would be so good that it would be hard to find people to give charity to.

Hard, but not impossible. What I think this indicates is that we will overallsucceed in bringing about our revolution, and small parts of the world will still have capitalism.



Basically communists believe in an idea called historical materialism. They believe that class forces govern the unfolding of history, not divine intervention.

Besides what would be the point of struggling if everything were predestined anyway.

That's hardcore Marxist belief. Like, really hardcore. As in thinking exactly the same way Marx did and agreeing with every word. That's not me, and I also doubt it's most communists. There are many different people with many different trains of thought.



Do you or do you not agree that hitting people, however lightly, is an acceptable way to resolve conflicts in personal relationships as advocated in the Koran.

Do not twist words. You have ignored what I have said.

[communard resolution]

Yeah, there's still some stupid crap going on, but Islam is the only thing there that says no.

That's not strictly true - there are also communists in Islamic countries who say no to Islam as well as to all the 'stupid crap going on' in the name of Islam - as a consequence, they frequently end up dead. A campaign that I'm involved is in touch with some of these good people.


Communism is about feeding the starving children who die because some rich bastard is sitting in his mansionNo, communism is about doing away with the rich bastard so there's no starving children in the first place.

[Comrade Akai]

That's not strictly true - there are also communists in Islamic countries who say no to Islam as well as to all the 'stupid crap going on' in the name of Islam - as a consequence, they frequently end up dead. A campaign that I'm involved is in touch with some of them.

There are also many communists who say yes to Islam, in "Islamic countries" and out.


No, communism is about doing away with the rich bastard so there's no starving children in the first place.
I worded that wrong, my mistake.

[communard resolution]

There are also many communists who say yes to Islam, in "Islamic countries" and out.


I'm not sure why you wrapped Islamic countries in sarcastic quotation marks. I would certainly call Iran an Islamic country, and I would think that in such countries, Muslims are a negligible minority among communists.

[Devrim]

It was originally spread from that part of the world, but that does not necessarily mean it came from their culture. Culture is a word that means way of life. Their culture was almost entirely antithetical to the teachings of Islam. They treated women like objects, they were the ultimate promoters of capitalism, they treated the poor like dirt. Did you know that if a man and woman had a baby daughter, they would often bury the kid alive just because he wanted a son? Islam did away with all this. Yeah, there's still some stupid crap going on, but Islam is the only thing there that says no.

I thought that Isalm was deeply connected to lots of things in the Middle East that you might include within 'stupid crap', such as murders of religious minorities, stonning of adultresses etc, but hey what would I know. I only live there.

On the main point, I don't see how you can believe that Islam is not a cultural cration of the Middle East unless you believe that wither religion is not a cultural creation, or that it came from somewhere else.


Communism is about peace, freedom from oppression, and equality. Communism is about feeding the starving children who die because some rich bastard is sitting in his mansion, sipping champagne out of a diamond-encrusted gold goblet and going to sleep with nary a regret. Communism is about making the world a better place, for everyone.

There could be no better form of charity.

Communism certainly isn't about charity. It is about creating a world where charity doesn't exisit because it is a qorld without money where everybody's needs are met.


Temporary rules? Look, despite my idealism, and despite my willingness to fight for communism to the end, I doubt it would cover the whole world, ever. Capitalism will always exist in some way, shape or form.

So you don't actually believe that communism is a real possibility. That makes you quite an interesting type of communist.


That's hardcore Marxist belief. Like, really hardcore. As in thinking exactly the same way Marx did and agreeing with every word. That's not me, and I also doubt it's most communists. There are many different people with many different trains of thought.

Actually I am somebody who thinks that Marx was right about everything. I think that it is just a basic statement of common communist ideas.


Do not twist words. You have ignored what I have said.

I didn't twist anything. I merely asked a question, which you declined to answer.

Devrim

[Comrade Akai]

I'm not sure why you wrapped Islamic countries in sarcastic quotation marks. I would certainly call Iran an Islamic country, and I would think that in such countries, Muslims are a negligible minority among communists.
That's because the system is often not very Islamic in nature.

I believe Muslims are a minority among communists because the golden Islamic age of prosperity has been over for some time; today the Muslims are an uneducated, divided and broken people, with capitalism being the main cause.

[Comrade Akai]

I thought that Isalm was deeply connected to lots of things in the Middle East that you might include within 'stupid crap', such as murders of religious minorities, stonning of adultresses etc, but hey what would I know. I only live there.

On the main point, I don't see how you can believe that Islam is not a cultural cration of the Middle East unless you believe that wither religion is not a cultural creation, or that it came from somewhere else.

Islam teaches mercy over violence. Islam does not teach to murder religious minorities. I do admit that the stoning of an adulteress is not forbidden, but the same goes for an adulterer.

I believe that Islam came from God, not the Arab people. I have already cited my reasons for this.


Communism certainly isn't about charity. It is about creating a world where charity doesn't exisit because it is a qorld without money where everybody's needs are met.

So where's the problem?


So you don't actually believe that communism is a real possibility. That makes you quite an interesting type of communist.

If you had actually read my post and attempted to understand it, you would know that what I meant was the opposite, that communism is not only a possibility but inevitable.


Actually I am somebody who thinks that Marx was right about everything. I think that it is just a basic statement of common communist ideas.

Marx, while a great thinker, was still only human, and thus it would be nothing short of irrational to believe he was a perfect human being and/or right about everything.


I didn't twist anything. I merely asked a question, which you declined to answer.

Devrim

I believe violence is wrong in settling any conflict unless absolutely necessary. What the Qur'an advocated was not a smack or a pound or anything of that sort, but a form of physical contact somewhere between a tap and a grab.

[communard resolution]

That's because the system is often not very Islamic in nature.

Explain and we shall listen.

Also: do you think an Islamic world would be preferable to a secular communist one and why? What if I, like many people, simply don't believe in some spirit in the sky and don't wish to concern myself with the scriptures and abide to the rules contained therein?

[Devrim]

Islam teaches mercy over violence. Islam does not teach to murder religious minorities.

One could quote from the Koran where it actually advocates it. I don't think that that is the point though. The fact is that today members of religious minorities are murdered in the name of Islam.


I believe that Islam came from God, not the Arab people. I have already cited my reasons for this.

Yes, right. It doesn't really fit in with the materialist view of history bit does it.


If you had actually read my post and attempted to understand it, you would know that what I meant was the opposite, that communism is not only a possibility but inevitable.


Hard, but not impossible. What I think this indicates is that we will overallsucceed in bringing about our revolution, and small parts of the world will still have capitalism.

It is really, really confused. Communist don't believe that you can have communism except as a world system.


Marx, while a great thinker, was still only human, and thus it would be nothing short of irrational to believe he was a perfect human being and/or right about everything.

As I said. I think he was often wrong. Irrational beliefs about a perfect human being are much more akin to the Islamic view of Muhammed.


I believe violence is wrong in settling any conflict unless absolutely necessary. What the Qur'an advocated was not a smack or a pound or anything of that sort, but a form of physical contact somewhere between a tap and a grab.

That is your interpretation. I am sure that many would beg to differ. The Koran certainly advocates violence in many contexts though.

Personally, I have no interest in continuing this conversation with you though. If I want to talk to Islamicists my next door neighbour is an Imam.

Devrim

[Comrade Akai]

Explain and we shall listen.

Also: do you think an Islamic world would be preferable to a secular communist one and why? What if I, like many people, simply don't believe in some spirit in the sky and don't wish to concern myself with the scriptures and the rules contained therein?
I would, but it would take all day. I just don't know where to begin. The whole system has it up the ass, thanks to capitalism.

An Islamic world and a communist world have very few differences. I would obviously prefer everyone to be guided by Islam because I believe it would mean a happy eternal afterlife for everybody. But that is extremely unlikely.

In a world where Islam was the prominent religion, and you did not believe, no one would force you. That's all. Many would offer to teach you about Islam, but nobody would force the belief on you, because Islam teaches it is sinful to do so.

[Comrade Akai]

-snip-

My final statement in this debate is that I simply believe you have a misguided view of Islam and a different take on communism than I do. At that, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree.

[Rascolnikova]

That was quite a great post.

But maybe, just maye there's some built in hard wired human nature involved, too. Maybe guys (most guys) just like skinny-women-with-big-tits because that's what nature decided they should like. Then it's hardly my or Robert's fault for likeing women that we are hard wired by nature to like.

Maybe you can't blame Playboy for showing women that nature created men to like. Westurn cultre could be totally natural and Islamic culture--hiding the "goods" could be considered to be artificial.

Nobody seemed to like the old Bud. :(


Obviously I've been giving you too much credit; I thought you were better educated than that.

Unless something has changed a lot since I read up on it, research in the field shows that biological attraction has to do with ratios, not skinniness. We can observe this as well from a lot of different instances, noteably the ancient Greeks and most African and pacific islander cultures.

Eating disorders basically appeared in the pacific islands with television.

I would not object at all if the people's press decided that, say, 95% of all working models (in the public press) had to be within 10% of a healthy BMI.

[Bud Struggle]

Obviously I've been giving you too much credit; I thought you were better educated than that.

Unless something has changed a lot since I read up on it, research in the field shows that biological attraction has to do with ratios, not skinniness. We can observe this as well from a lot of different instances, noteably the ancient Greeks and most African and pacific islander cultures.

Eating disorders basically appeared in the pacific islands with television.

I would not object at all if the people's press decided that, say, 95% of all working models (in the public press) had to be within 10% of a healthy BMI.

This is what I based my post on:

What men like: Men defined a woman's beauty by her physical attributes. Women who appeared to be thin and seductive received the highest ratings. Men were also particularly attracted to women who appeared to be confident. Men were very similar to each other in the body type they preferred.

http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/08/05/female-body-type-men-most-prefer/

Further:

http://www.wfu.edu/news/release/2009.06.25.a.php

[Rascolnikova]

In research for my post I found this:

What men like: Men defined a woman's beauty by her physical attributes. Women who appeared to be thin and seductive received the highest ratings. Men were also particularly attracted to women who appeared to be confident. Men were very similar to each other in the body type they preferred.

http://personals.aol.com/articles/2009/08/05/female-body-type-men-most-prefer/



Please tell me you aren't about to make a case about the universiality/biological basis of this culture based only on evidence gathered in this culture . .


Edit: Ouch, too late.

[Bud Struggle]

Please tell me you aren't about to make a case about the universiality/biological basis of this culture based only on evidence gathered in this culture . .


Edit: Ouch, too late.

But this is the culture we live in. If I were a pigmy, I guess I'd like women that are pigmies. The above is the norm for American males.

Nothing wrong with that. Nothing says that a women has to conform to what man thinks.

BTY: the study also said men liked women that were self confident--Anorexic women are far from that. So a women who starves herself is far from attractive to men. They may have other reasons for their disorder.

[RGacky3]

Please tell me you aren't about to make a case about the universiality/biological basis of this culture based only on evidence gathered in this culture . .

Of coarse, every cultures standard of beauty is effected by its culture. In some cultures slightly tubbier women are considered more attractive, because they are considered well fed, and thus helthier.

Now runway models are generally MUCH thinner than what most men find attractive, this is because much their purpose is to showcase clothes, and thin models generally showcase clothes better.

Other models, such as magazine models or the such are generally more full.

Men find things more attractive biologically, signs of youth, fertility, health, and the such. In western culture that means thin, full breasts, an average 7-10 hip-weist ration. The same way women find men that are muscular, masculine face, full hair and so on.

Does the media exploit this? Yeah sure. Does it lead to unhealthy self-esteem issues? Yes. However to claim that attraction is purely cultural and manufactured is rediculous.

THe same condition that causes anorexia would cause obesity if larger women were considered more attractive. Its a self image issue, which I agree, the media does have a large role in. Thats Capitalism however, its not patriarchy or sexism.

[communard resolution]

An Islamic world and a communist world have very few differences.

Since your ideas of communism have been rather vague so far - not to mention a bit confused - maybe it's best you tell us first what communism entails in your view. Then you tell us what a world dominated by Islam would entail. Then we collectively decide whether communism and Islam are compatible.

[Jazzratt]

Of coarse, every cultures standard of beauty is effected by its culture. In some cultures slightly tubbier women are considered more attractive, because they are considered well fed, and thus helthier.

That's just scratching the surface of the whys and wherefores of what is and isn't considered attractive but it is at least a step beyond the "DURR HURR MEN LIKES SKINY WIMINZ BIOLGOICAL FACT" path you were treading down earlier.


Now runway models are generally MUCH thinner than what most men find attractive, this is because much their purpose is to showcase clothes, and thin models generally showcase clothes better.

What utter bollocks. Clothes are not designed to exist for their own sake but to be worn by people, so showcasing them would be better achieved by putting them on someone that looks remotely human.


Other models, such as magazine models or the such are generally more full.

Hahaha. If that's "full" then I must hang around with a pod of fucking whales.


Men find things more attractive biologically, signs of youth, fertility, health, and the such.

And we're back at the beginning. I can only assume you received a blow to the head midway through your post.


In western culture that means thin, full breasts, an average 7-10 hip-weist ration. The same way women find men that are muscular, masculine face, full hair and so on.

And why does it mean that in the west, do you think? Try to at least pretend to have operational critical faculties.


Does the media exploit this?

The cart is placed before the horse. The media isn't exploiting the image of what is "naturally" attractive. It creates it.


Yeah sure. Does it lead to unhealthy self-esteem issues? Yes. However to claim that attraction is purely cultural and manufactured is rediculous.

Oh of course how silly of me, it's just ridiculous (http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/) that anything is culturally or socially constructed. Just as race isn't constructed at all or ideas of what constitutes "success" aren't at all coloured by culture.


THe same condition that causes anorexia would cause obesity if larger women were considered more attractive. Its a self image issue, which I agree, the media does have a large role in. Thats Capitalism however, its not patriarchy or sexism.

Look, I'm hardly surprised that someone who wishes to deny women basic autonomy is unable to recognise patriarchy and sexism when it is staring them in the fucking face but for fuck's sake do you have to barge in when the adults are talking?

[communard resolution]

I must admit I'm getting confused. Why would the media/capitalism want to specifically create the image of skinny women as desirable? What would be the media's/capitalism's vested interest in that be, and what is particularly sexist about images of skinny women as opposed to images of well-fed women?

The restricted poster suggests that magazine models are fuller bodied than catwalk ones. This is generally true. It is also true that the average body type in mainstream pornography is different to the average fashion model's body type. So, what most straight men find attractive and jerk off over doesn't seem to correspond with what is presented in non-pornographic mainstream media. Madonna/whore syndrome?

He also suggests that certain physical attributes signify fertility, health, etc, and therefore create attraction. If we accepted this narrative, it would be easier to explain why certain body types are promoted by capitalism and the mainstream media - certain physical signifiers may correspond with (and psychologically signify to the potential partner) particular roles attributed to the respective gender by specific societies or economic systems.

If they signify absolutely nothing, as Jazzratt claims, then why on earth would sexists completely randomly select a bunch of bodily attributes and decide that this is the body type that women or men should aspire to? These attributes have to correspond to something, no?

It's also remarkable how different body types are promoted in different social milieus. In the UK, a lot of young 'working class' women might model themselves after someone like Katie Price aka Jordan while young 'middle class' women might aspire to someone like Kate Moss as an ideal female. Two completely different body types. Why?

These are all things worth looking into.

[RGacky3]

double post sorry.

[communard resolution]

so showcasing them would be better achieved by putting them on someone that looks remotely human.

I'm a bit bewildered by this. Skinny people exist - we're human too.

[Jazzratt]

I'm a bit bewildered by this. Skinny people exist - we're human too.

I'm underweight, I'm well aware that people are skinny. I'm also well aware that most people are not that thin and ribcages do not make a regular appearnce. Illustrating what clothes look like on a minority of people is just a stupid way of illustrating what they look like.

[RGacky3]

That's just scratching the surface of the whys and wherefores of what is and isn't considered attractive but it is at least a step beyond the "DURR HURR MEN LIKES SKINY WIMINZ BIOLGOICAL FACT" path you were treading down earlier.

Well in the western world they do, and have for a while, its like the question, why are people homosexual, is it biological? Its the same type of thing, attraction is attraction, nothing to ***** about.

The fact is media exploits attraction, if fat chicks were considered attractive it would be the same.


What utter bollocks. Clothes are not designed to exist for their own sake but to be worn by people, so showcasing them would be better achieved by putting them on someone that looks remotely human.

Well, that actually IS the justification designers use for using such thin models, that thin models act more like walking hangers and the clothes fall better, because of the lack of curves. Its not at all bollocks, which is why most models have small than what would be considered most attractive breasts.


Hahaha. If that's "full" then I must hang around with a pod of fucking whales.


Well you do live in england homeboy ;) (I'm just joking)


And we're back at the beginning. I can only assume you received a blow to the head midway through your post.


No, those are scientifically shown to be basically universal aspects that effect attraction.

If you think I'm such a doofis, tell me that you Do not believe that there are biological aspects of attraction, and I'll dig up some evidence.

I'm saying both are involved, culture and biology, and they intertwine, you seam to think that without culture everyone is pretty.


And why does it mean that in the west, do you think? Try to at least pretend to have operational critical faculties.


Because in the west food is abundunt, and no one worries about food shortages, in some areas where thats more of an issue theres a slightly higher precentage.

Also, those basic generalized components of what men find attracrative generally, did'nt start once the media game around, they've been around for quite a while.


Oh of course how silly of me, it's just ridiculous (http://how-to-spell-ridiculous.com/) that anything is culturally or socially constructed. Just as race isn't constructed at all or ideas of what constitutes "success" aren't at all coloured by culture.


I sait its not purely socially constructed did'nt I?

This is about sexual attraction, not some metaphysical apriori thing like "success" or "race", you can generally tell off the bat if someone is sexually attractive TO YOU or not.


Look, I'm hardly surprised that someone who wishes to deny women basic autonomy is unable to recognise patriarchy and sexism when it is staring them in the fucking face but for fuck's sake do you have to barge in when the adults are talking?

I'm hardly suprised someone that argues like this can't realize that sometimes things are more complicated then just men trying to keep women down by prefering thin ones.

Is it sexist that women prefer fit non bald men to fat bald men? Give me a break.


Illustrating what clothes look like on a minority of people is just a stupid way of illustrating what they look like.

Well thats the way they do it, and if you think its a dumb way to sell clothes, and the people putting on the shows are doing it wrong, then ***** to them, don't ***** to me, but that IS waht they are trying to do, sell clothes.

BTW, thank you Nero, I could'nt have said it better myself.

[Bud Struggle]

Ouch! We've certainly gotten off the path to Communism and began treading on the much more delecate "Politically Correct" path to happiness and fufillment. Even though the paths aren't always similar it just shows that if you scratch a Communist you find a Liberal underneath. And if you really know why Communism has failed--maybe that's the answer.

That being said: so what if some men are wired to like a certain type of women more than another? It's just natural. As all good Communists know that to punish people for how they created is just plain--reactionary.

The problem isn't with MEN liking skinny women--the problem is with women acceeding to the pressure to be thin. It's unfortunate that most "healthy" women either give up on being sexy or starve themselves to be what they are not.

Anyway all of you miss the all important point of the survey that I posted--men may like skinny women--but they like self confident women, too. Remember sex is in the mind not in the body--and fat, skinny or inbetween, a self confident women is the sexiest of all. :)

[Edit] I just looked at some "pornography" (not something I usually do) and the defining factor of all these women isn't their body--it's their (real or imagined) security and self confidence.

No matter what body type or no matter how good their bodies are--they all look you in the eye. Fat or skinny--they all project confidence.

They know what boys like.

[Robert]

I think most males actually prefer voluptuous to skinny anyway. That's the skinny, anyway.

It's the fashion designers that have made everybody crazy with this stick figure business, beginning with Twiggy in the 60's, not the capitalists. (Must we be blamed for everything?:lol:)


Voluptuous:
1 a : full of delight or pleasure to the senses : conducive to or arising from sensuous or sensual gratification : luxurious (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/luxurious) <a voluptuous dance> <voluptuous ornamentation> <a voluptuous wine> b : suggesting sensual pleasure by fullness and beauty of form <voluptuous nudes>

[RGacky3]

Why what men are attracted to is somehow an issue of womens liberation is beyond me.

[Havet]

Why what men are attracted to is somehow an issue of womens liberation is beyond me.

Ditto. Just let the woman enjoy a bath already!

[eyedrop]

The problem isn't with MEN liking skinny women--the problem is with women acceeding to the pressure to be thin. It's unfortunate that most "healthy" women either give up on being sexy or starve themselves to be what they are not.. The problem is that women are judged too much on their outer appearence. Men can be sexy by just being sucessfull, smart and rich, while women can't to the same extent. Media does it's part too by streamlining what attractive is.

[Bud Struggle]

The problem is that women are judged too much on their outer appearence. Men can be sexy by just being sucessfull, smart and rich, while women can't to the same extent. Media does it's part too by streamlining what attractive is.

Interesting point: according to the study I posted earlier women do judge men on all those things--men want skinny and self assured.

I agree media does it's nasty job but everyone in responsible for how much they let media or society affect their lives. If we are going to be "free" people--all sources of information should be open to us nothing we want should be forbidden to us--then we have to choose for ourselves. And if women CHOOSE to be influenced by the media and CHOOSE to make their bodies into things they are not--then that's their choice.

Should we stop advertising products by using sex just because some women have problems with their bodies? Whould we stop selling liquor just because some people have a drinking problem?

With freedom there comes responsibility. The Bible is right, in every Garden of Eden--there is a snake.

[RGacky3]

The Bible is right, in every Garden of Eden--there is a snake.


I don't think thats the point at all :P, great spinning of scripture.

[Rascolnikova]

Modesty and Feminism in the West vs. Islam

I know a lot of people here aren't Zizek fans, but I think his framework for understanding violence, in this case, is very justified. Zizek classifies violence* into three categories: subjective, symbolic, and systemic. Subjective is the violence we can easily see and emotionally respond to, like throwing acid in a woman's face for wearing makeup. Symbolic violence is the limitation inherent in language; systemic violence is the damage done, accepted as inevitable, and generally ignored, as part of the normal functioning of the system.

I posit that Islamic misogynies and Western objectification of women are founded in common symbolic violence—that is, that women are substantially defined as sexual objects who exist for the sexual gratification of men.

In the West, despite protests that we are sexually liberated, this is still how women see themselves. For example**, in 1990, Holland and Eisenheart found that among their sample of high achieving female college students with serious intentions towards having a career, “less than 25% of their activities were directed towards schoolwork or career. . . the dominant topic of conversations between participants and their peers was relationships with men. Even talk about other women centered around those women's ties to men.” Confirming earlier research, they also found that while social status and prestige for men were centered around achievement, social status and prestige for women were centered around relationships with men. We can observe women's pathetic position in Islamic society by the very victories that Islamic feminists see fit to tout; for instance, that it is not explicitly forbidden, in Islamic doctrine, for women to drive.*** Objections surrounding treatment of women in Islamic cultures constitute a path so well traveled that it hardly seems fruitful to go down it here.

This is a difficult argument to make sensibly, because sexuality necessarily entails some level of objectification; individual subjectivity/conciousness is not physical, and to make inter-subjectivity physical is a difficult task indeed. However, the differences in how men and women experience identity and sexuality (as evidenced in Holland and Eisenheart) --and therefore, the different ways in which they experience sexual objectification--form a solid basis for critique. On top of this, it is very clear^ that cultures which emphasize gender roles—or stated differently, that have a larger difference in the way the genders percieve their identity and sexuality—have greater levels of violence against women. There's an interesting account of this correlation in the following passage from Violence:


“In the autumn of 2006, Sheik Taj Din al-Hilali, Australia's most senior Muslim cleric, caused a furore when, after a group of Muslim men had been jailed for gang rape, he said: “If you take uncovered meat and place it outside on the street. . . and the cats come and eat it. . . whose fault is it—the cats' or the uncovered meat? The uncovered meat is the problem.” The explosively provocative nature of this comparison between a woman who is not veiled and raw, uncovered meat distracted attention from another, much more surprising premise underlaying al-Hilali's argument: if women are held responsible for the sexual conduct of men, does this not imply that men are totally helpless when faced with what they perceive as sexual temptation, that they are simply unable to resist it, that they are utterly in thrall to their sexual hunger, precisely like a cat when it sees raw meat? In contrast to this presumption of a complete lack of male responsibility for their own sexual conduct, the emphasis on public female eroticism in the West relies on the premise that men are capable of sexual restraint, that they are not blind slaves of their sexual drives.”
This strikes close to essence of the usual Islam vs. West women's liberation debate, and yet reading it I can't help but feel I've experienced some deceptive slight of hand. After all, sexual violence is not about sexuality as much as it is about power and control. Zizek has identified a quirk in some justifications of subjective violence. He has not made explicit what systemic and symbolic violence are at play. In my own attempts to explore this, one ugly pattern has stood out in relief; what we are seeing is a transition from subjective to systemic.

Eating disorders, like sexual violence, are a battle for power and control that often takes place in and over the bodies of women.^^ Anorexia is a serious pathology, not just to the individuals who battle it, but for society at large. Anorexia is the compulsion—there comes a point when even those who want very badly to eat and be healty have great difficulty doing so, even with extensive treatment resources available to them—to starve one's self to death. It is not elective; to treat it as a petty vanity is disgusting, misogynist tripe. It is not less serious for the fact that the violence which sustains it is symbolic and systemic rather than subjective. Women choose to be invested in their appearance in the same way workers choose to be invested in their jobs, and have about as many options. Without defeating the symbolic violence behind the subjective, a liberalization of modesty norms does not serve to reduce the oppression of women, but only to displace it.

As with sexual violence, many people draw the connection between eating disorders and modesty norms. Unlike the case of sexual violence—where, as has been astutely pointed out, emphasis on modesty is irrelevant and wrongly shifts responsibility from one subjective entity to another—there is actually a reason for eating disorders and modesty norms to be correlated.^^^


So we find our candle burning from both ends. What does this mean for modesty norms? Taken from the conventional framework, it is problematic for a feminist to veil—there's a sense of taking responsibility for the actions of men. Under a more modern framework, where men are expected to take responsiblility for their sexual agression but objectification is the lingua franca, veiling makes a certain amount of sense as a way of rejecting objectification. Ultimately, though, both of these protests—veiling or not veiling—can be effective only insofar as they can attack the symbolic violence underlaying the subjective.





*Source of the framework and the quote. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B001GS75TO/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_1?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0312427182&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=1RWZM3VT059KZ9TYQV1R


**Summarized from Smart Girls, chapter 5
http://www.amazon.com/Smart-Girls-Gifted-Women-Barbara/dp/B000MN86P6/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1251396061&sr=8-2

An interesting related article, not in the book, is here, in the journal of clinical psychology:
http://www.atypon-link.com/GPI/doi/pdf/10.1521/jscp.2009.28.1.94?cookieSet=1


***As I broach the topic of Islam, I wish to be clear that I am discussing Islamic cultures, not doctrine. Women driving in islam-- http://www.arabnews.com/?page=1&section=0&article=37834&d=11&m=1&y=2004


^I'm pretty sure this has been confirmed by several studies, but the most recent place I've run into it was this book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0816053065/ref=pd_lpo_k2_dp_sr_3?pf_rd_p=486539851&pf_rd_s=lpo-top-stripe-1&pf_rd_t=201&pf_rd_i=0966207815&pf_rd_m=ATVPDKIKX0DER&pf_rd_r=0Z0X7WB6A21YYSKJ4ZK4

The third factor towards a “rape prone” society which they felt worthy of mention was a high general level of interpersonal violence, a correlation consistent the statistic that police officers have among the highest domestic violence rates of any profession.

With regards to Islam being a culture that emphasizes gender roles, even the most generous readings don't deny this. The standard defense of conservative Islam seems to be “separate but equal.”


^^To those who suggest that a change role in models will simply lead to unhealthy overeating, I can, having personally struggled with anorexic-bulimic eating patterns since childhood, promise you this; over-eating will make your life a hell, but not eating kills you much faster.


^^^Harrison, 1994, Journal of Communication; 1997, Journal of Broadcasting and Electronic media; Bergstrom and Neighvors, 1996, Journal of social and clinical psychology, Hepworth 1999, the social construction of anorexia nevorsa

This has been perhaps the most interesting part of my research. While there is wide dispute over the degree and way in which media exposure impacts eating disorders, there is no dispute that a) the existence of a widely promoted “thin-ideal” is problematic, b) media exposure is at least a contributing (and possibly a causative) factor. Perhaps under normal circumstances this couldn't be taken to have indications specifically about modesty, but we're comparing it to Islam.

[eyedrop]

Very good post Rasc especially this part "Confirming earlier research, they also found that while social status and prestige for men were centered around achievement, social status and prestige for women were centered around relationships with men." Which I very much agree with.



I'd like to see the equivalent statistics about males, or estimates, for this; "For example**, in 1990, Holland and Eisenheart found that among their sample of high achieving female college students with serious intentions towards having a career, “less than 25% of their activities were directed towards schoolwork or career. . . the dominant topic of conversations between participants and their peers was relationships with men. Even talk about other women centered around those women's ties to men.”"


Or is the males any better than 25% of their activities directed towards schoolwork or career, and aren't the dominant topic of conversations relationships between males as well?

Haven't females overtaken males on academic achievements anyway? (60% of todays students are female (http://www.ssb.no/english/subjects/04/utdanning_tema_en/)) Utah may be different though.

[RGacky3]

Symbolic violence is the limitation inherent in language;

I'm calling bullshit here, Symbolic violence is'nt violence by definition, its symbolic.


Anorexia is a serious pathology, not just to the individuals who battle it, but for society at large. Anorexia is the compulsion—there comes a point when even those who want very badly to eat and be healty have great difficulty doing so, even with extensive treatment resources available to them—to starve one's self to death. It is not elective; to treat it as a petty vanity is disgusting, misogynist tripe.

I agree its not just vanity, most people that suffer from anorexia also have suffered some sort of truama, but that type of psychological response is'nt only in women, that manifestation of it is particularly dangerous though.


Women choose to be invested in their appearance in the same way workers choose to be invested in their jobs, and have about as many options.

That has more do to with Capitalism I think more than sexism, since money = power and security, and for some women investing in teir appearence may be investing financially. Thats a sad truth, but its not sexism perse, just a side effect of Capitalism.

[Bud Struggle]

I'd like to see the equivalent statistics, or estimates, about this; "For example**, in 1990, Holland and Eisenheart found that among their sample of high achieving female college students with serious intentions towards having a career, “less than 25% of their activities were directed towards schoolwork or career. . . the dominant topic of conversations between participants and their peers was relationships with men. Even talk about other women centered around those women's ties to men.”"

It's been a while since I was in college--but if I could have used 25% of my brain NOT thinking about women and about my schoolwork--I would have been smarter than Einstein. :D

Anyway the point is misleading--OK--25% thinking about schoolwork and then the "the dominant topic of conversations between participants and their peers was..." It could mean there were a thousand other things in there, too before you get to "boys."

But it should be any suprise to anyone that girls think about about boys and boys think about girls.

But Rasco does raise a serious topic--who's responsibility is it that women literally kill themselves over style? Should society limit sexy ads? Should society abolish liquor because people get drunk? Should society change it's norms about this that or the other thing because some people are not able to control themselves?

Rape is violence, I think everyone could agree--sexy ads? while some people see it as such most people don't--and the majority rules in this case.

Put it in another perspective--I am DEFINITELY against pornography--yet most RevLefters are all for it--if you want to start with the abuse of women, maybe that's the better place to start.


I think most males actually prefer voluptuous to skinny anyway. That's the skinny, anyway.

That's the truth. Nothing better than a Hooter's girl. I was talking to a bar tendress in one of their fine eating and drinking establishments and the she told me she makes about 60gs a year. Not too shabby!

www.hooters.com (http://www.revleft.com/vb/www.hooters.com)

[Robert]

But Rasco does raise a serious topic--who's responsibility is it that women literally kill themselves over style?I don't think this has been mentioned yet, but overweight women are the object of derision today. No one wants to be ridiculed or to lose in love. There are all kinds of jokes out there about fat women, but none about skinny, e.g.,

Q. "What did one woman terrorist say to the other?"

A. "Do these bombs make my butt look big?"

There is no analogous joke for the anorexic female terrorist.

So ... I think that with some skinny girls it's more a horror of looking fat than it is a desire to be skinny.

[Bud Struggle]

Well, all kidding aside Rasco is dead on her assessment. We treat women in society in the same way we treat sweat shop workers who make our clothes--we pretend the violence we do to them doesn't exist. As long as we don't see the damage being done--it's all fine. As long as the clothes come cheep and are modeled by some skinny women that may or may not be that way because of some genetic abnormality and as long as we don't see all of the hurt and the pain and the suffering--it's all somehow alright.

You can see that no matter Communism or Capitalism or what falls in between we all have to be more conscious of what we do to each other. Our society lets us sluff off what we do to each other--because it's on such a massive scale, but we really have to internalize our decisions and personalize them--because that people are being hurt, personally.

Take it from a Communist perspective or a Capitalist one or from a Christian one--human life is a precious and valuable thing and it should be respected and cherished.

I give Rasco a lot of credit for really caring about people. She doesn't always have my perspective--but she tries and that's a lot better than I do sometimes.

[Ahmed]

I agree with the pool officials tbh, and I'm Muslim. Our religion says nothing of Burkahs and no God would require women to be ashamed of their bodies and hide them, why would said God create the women that way in the first place?

[Skooma Addict]

In Western Society at least, I think Women have it pretty good. Although it is funny watching middle/upper class ladies complain about how totally oppressed they are.

[RGacky3]

Although it is funny watching middle/upper class ladies complain about how totally oppressed they are.

The same, really with lower class women, (as in being opressed BECAUSE they are women).