Hijab

[Peacekeeper]

What is RevLeft's opinion of hijab (women covering their bodies except for face and hands)?

Please read this essay by a Muslim girl before sharing your opinion:



By Sultana Yusufali
Toronto Star Young People's Press
I probably do not fit into the preconceived notion of a ``rebel.'' I have no visible tattoos and minimal piercings. I do not possess a leather jacket. In fact, when most people look at me, their first thought usually is something along the lines of ``oppressed female.''
The brave individuals who have mustered the courage to ask me about the way I dress usually have questions like: ``Do your parents make you wear that?'' or ``Don't you find that really unfair?''
A while back, a couple of girls in Montreal were kicked out of school for dressing like I do. It seems strange that a little piece of cloth would make for such controversy. Perhaps the fear is that I am harbouring an Uzi underneath it. You never can tell with those Muslim fundamentalists.
Of course, the issue at hand is more than a mere piece of cloth. I am a Muslim woman who, like millions of other Muslim women across the globe, chooses to wear the hijab. There are many different ways to wear it, but in essence, what we do is cover our entire bodies except for our hands and faces. If you're the kind of person who has watched a lot of popular movies, you'd probably think of harem girls and belly-dancers, women who are kept in seclusion except for the private pleasure of their male masters. In the true Islamic faith, nothing could be further from the truth. And the concept of the hijab, contrary to popular opinion, is actually one of the most fundamental aspects of female empowerment. When I cover myself, I make it virtually impossible for people to judge me according to the way I look. I cannot be categorized because of my attractiveness or lack thereof. Compare this to life in today's society: We are constantly sizing one another up on the basis of our clothing, jewelry, hair and makeup. What kind of depth can there be in a world like this?
Yes, I have a body, a physical manifestation upon this Earth. But it is the vessel of an intelligent mind and a strong spirit. It is not for the beholder to leer at or to use in advertisements to sell everything from beer to cars. Because of the superficiality of the world in which we live, external appearances are so stressed that the value of the individual counts for almost nothing. It is a myth that women in today's society are liberated. What kind of freedom can there be when a woman cannot walk down the street without every aspect of her physical self being ``checked out''? When I wear the hijab I feel safe from all of this. I can rest assured that no one is looking at me and making assumptions about my character from the length of my skirt. There is a barrier between me and those who would exploit me. I am first and foremost a human being, equal to any man, and not vulnerable because of my sexuality. One of the saddest truths of our time is the question of the beauty myth and female self-image. Reading popular teenage magazines, you can instantly find out what kind of body image is ``in'' or ``out.'' And if you have the ``wrong'' body type, well, then, you're just going to have to change it, aren't you? After all, there is no way that you can be overweight and still be beautiful.
Look at any advertisement. Is a woman being used to sell the product? How old is she? How attractive is she? What is she wearing? More often than not, that woman will be no older than her early 20s, taller, slimmer and more attractive than average, dressed in skimpy clothing. Why do we allow ourselves to be manipulated like this? Whether the '90s woman wishes to believe it or not, she is being forced into a mold. She is being coerced into selling herself, into compromising herself. This is why we have 13-year-old girls sticking their fingers down their throats and overweight adolescents hanging themselves . When people ask me if I feel oppressed, I can honestly say no. I made this decision out of my own free will. I like the fact that I am taking control of the way other people perceive me. I enjoy the fact that I don't give anyone anything to look at and that I have released myself from the bondage of the swinging pendulum of the fashion industry and other institutions that exploit females. My body is my own business. Nobody can tell me how I should look or whether or not I am beautiful. I know that there is more to me than that. I am also able to say no comfortably when people ask me if I feel as though my sexuality is being repressed. I have taken control of my sexuality.
I am thankful I will never have to suffer the fate of trying to lose/gain weight or trying to find the exact lipstick shade that will go with my skin colour. I have made choices about what my priorities are and these are not among them.
So next time you see me, don't look at me sympathetically. I am not under duress or a male-worshiping female captive from those barbarous Arabic deserts. I've been liberated.
__________________________________________________ _______________
Sultana Yusufali, 17, is a Toronto high school student.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You don't have to cover yourself in fucking acres of black cloth if you don't want to be a fashion victim. Good grief. Their isn't a binary choice between "skimpy clothing" and "hijab".

And besides, how many muslim women actually choose the hijab instead of wearing it as an alternative to getting a faceful of acid or killed over some stupid medieval concept of "honour"?

[Kronos]

Appropriate clothing is determined by its comfort, durability, and utility. Clothing has only pragmatic importance, and insofar as there is clothing with aesthetic endowments, it should be only to represent a position among ranks. This is so identification can be more efficient.

Military dress is an example.

However, symbolic clothing that represents class differences is fetishism, and generates false consciousness. An example would be the garments worn by royalty, or priests, or in our day and age..."preps", "goths", "punks", "jocks", "hip-hoppers", "metal-heads", "emos", and any other trend fetishism that has been manufactured through advertisement semiotics. These "fashions" have absolutely no pragmatic value, and create subliminal forms of alienation and estrangement in society.

Clothing should be used which best fits the task one is performing while wearing it, not the "image" one wishes to portray, as these images are forms of fetishism. There is clothing types which are suited for athletics, for work, for leisure time, etc., and each type should be designed to best accommodate the function of the task at hand.

Jewelry is another form of fetishism. It is absolutely useless.

I would suggest to "Muslim" people that they ought to get over their religious crap and wear what is most suitable for their environment. White, thin clothing is excellent for dry desert regions, for instance.

[Raúl Duke]

What is RevLeft's opinion of hijab (women covering their bodies except for face and hands)

I don't think revleft as a whole has one single opinion on this.

However, if the writer's fundamental reason for wearing it is religious in origin than I object. I'm against something when religion forces one to do that something; since I object religion entirely anyway. Mystical reasons to do something are no reasons, at least not logical reasons, at all.

[pusher robot]

She should wear whatever she feels like, and other people should be able to say whatever they want about it.

[BurnTheOliveTree]

Well obviously we shouldn't demand that she take it off - the poor girl can where what she likes! lol.

That said, I think we need to recognise that even voluntary wearing of the burkha or hijab is a hallmark of the oppression of women. I don't believe for a second that this girl, brought up in a secular, unbiased environment, would choose to cover herself completely. It is a reactionary practice, ultimately. It reminds me of Dobby in Harry Potter, voluntarily slamming his head in the oven for his transgressions. :) We don't need to force him to stop, but it's okay for us to discourage and criticise it.

-Alex

[Peacekeeper]

I don't think revleft as a whole has one single opinion on this.

However, if the writer's fundamental reason for wearing it is religious in origin than I object. I'm against something when religion forces one to do that something; since I object religion entirely anyway. Mystical reasons to do something are no reasons, at least not logical reasons, at all.

She says it is to avoid men gazing at her lustfully, and for men to be forced to get to know her personally rather than judging her by how she looks. That doesn't sounds "purely religious" to me.

[The Intransigent Faction]

There was another interesting controversy here in Canada about this that I just thought I'd bring to the board's attention here:
http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/news/story.html?id=0875380c-b5cc-491a-afca-6d4b6229c225

Now I don't advocate religion, but in the context of a hijab as a cultural garment I'd consider it discriminatory..at least to the extent that one religion happens to be singled out as the one whose traditional articles of clothing or things of that nature are legitimately objected to.

[Raúl Duke]

She says it is to avoid men gazing at her lustfully, and for men to be forced to get to know her personally rather than judging her by how she looks. That doesn't sounds "purely religious" to me.

Thus why I used If and However.

[Phalanx]

Honestly, the a woman wearing a Hijab is no different than a Christian or Jewish woman wearing modest clothing out of religious observance.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I can see where Sultana is coming from. Fundamentally, I feel the same way. I hate fashion, I have no piercings, and I usually wear clothing that is very plain-looking and either black, gray or beige because I can't be bothered to spend excessive amounts of time shopping for clothes. I get pissed off by the use of attractive stereotypes in advertising - well, advertising in general annoys me - and so on. That doesn't mean I'd wear hijab if I were a Muslim female, though. I'd probably wear the same kinds of clothes I wear now.

The objection I have to Sultana's argument is that she is looking for an individual solution to a social problem. Yes, of course there is something wrong with the objectivisation of women - but it's not the way women dress that causes such social attitudes towards them. Rather, it's the other way around: Social attitudes dictate fashion. Sultana seems to believe that men look at women lustfully and judge them by their physical appearence because of the way they dress. In reality, women are encouraged to dress that way because we live in a society that considers it acceptable for men to look at them lustfully and judge them by their physical appearence. The solution is to change social attitudes, not to cover yourself up.

Basically, Sultana wears hijab as a form of defence against a patriarchal society. I don't like being on the defensive. We should be on the offensive against patriarchy.

Having said all that, of course everyone should have the right to wear whatever they like. But we can use people's fashion choices as indicators that something is wrong with our society and it needs to be fixed.

[KC]

I was under the opinion that this was a hijab:

http://www.thefashions.org/sitebuilder/images/hijab11-285x291.jpg

It doesn't involve covering their entire bodies.

Anyways, the point of the hijab is to preserve modesty in women. In Islam, there are also different ways for men to preserve their modesty. I don't really see the hijab (depicted above) as sexist or oppressive when a women chooses to wear it (and I know a bunch that do).

[The Intransigent Faction]

I was under the opinion that this was a hijab:

http://www.thefashions.org/sitebuilder/images/hijab11-285x291.jpg

It doesn't involve covering their entire bodies.

Anyways, the point of the hijab is to preserve modesty in women. In Islam, there are also different ways for men to preserve their modesty. I don't really see the hijab (depicted above) as sexist or oppressive when a women chooses to wear it (and I know a bunch that do).

Yes I believe it's the burqa that covers far more of a woman's face:http://www.irfi.org/articles/articles_751_800/what_it_really_feels_like_to_wear_the_burqa_files/image001.jpg
Not to be confused with the hijab which is, of course, in a picture in the reply above.

[Peacekeeper]

I was under the opinion that this was a hijab:



It doesn't involve covering their entire bodies.

Anyways, the point of the hijab is to preserve modesty in women. In Islam, there are also different ways for men to preserve their modesty. I don't really see the hijab (depicted above) as sexist or oppressive when a women chooses to wear it (and I know a bunch that do).

Well, technically, "hijab" is the name of the garment (the headscarf) as well as the idea of "dressing hijab." Dressing hijab is 1) wearing the headscarf 2) not wearing makeup of jewelry 3) not wearing tight-fitting clothing and 4) acting and moving in a modest fashion, such as lowering your gaze from something that might arouse lust or anger or other things Allah (swt) does not approve of. The woman in Zampano's post I would say is not observing proper hijab, as she is wearing makeup, etc. For men, you must cover yourself from the navel to the knees, not wear jewelry, not wear tight-fitting clothing, and act in a modest way, such as lowering your gaze if you see a scantily clad woman, etc. Burqas are generally regarded as a cultural thing, not an Islamic thing, and are condemned by most Muslims. If Allah (swt) gave us mouths for eating, the ability to convey emotions with facial expressions, etc., he would not want those things to be covered up, as they are needed in everyday activities for sustenance and social interaction, etc. Also it would be kind of hot wearing one of those, especially in the places where they are primarily worn, and angry sisters are not a good thing. :cursing:

[freakazoid]

I think that Sultana makes a very good point.

And that burqa is kick-ass.

[pusher robot]

In reality, women are encouraged to dress that way because we live in a society that considers it acceptable for men to look at them lustfully and judge them by their physical appearence. The solution is to change social attitudes, not to cover yourself up.

Curious. Do you really think it's purely "social attitudes" that causes men to gaze on young women lustfully? I happen to think that certain brain regions and hormones play a rather significant role, and I'm pretty sure science backs me up on that.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Curious. Do you really think it's purely "social attitudes" that causes men to gaze on young women lustfully? I happen to think that certain brain regions and hormones play a rather significant role, and I'm pretty sure science backs me up on that.
No, I think it is purely social attitudes that make it socially acceptable for men to gaze on young women lustfully.

Compare the attitude of young men towards young women in Italy with the same attitude in, say, Sweden. And don't tell me the differences are caused by Italians having more hormones.

[Marsella]

No form of society is going to destroy lust. I don't see why that should be aimed at. We aren't moral puritans. People are going to lust after people they want to fuck. Both males and females. Suprise. Of course, we should aim to eliminate sexual double standards...

The hijab relies on the argument that (1) it is morally wrong to be 'unmoderate' in what one wears and (2) that men are uncontrollable beats whom cannot control themselves when it comes to 'uncovered meat' which in itself treats women as a form of property.

And despite the prevalence of the Burqa it has not, as the OP claimed, altered gender relations one bit. Islamic countries where it is worn are just as backwards than the West - even more so. The idea that it can liberate people is no more sensible that it could liberate someone whom wears a track suit and baggy clothes to cover themselves up - they are reacting to hypocritical beauty standards, not disposing of them.

For being a liberating form of clothing, I wonder if the female children, in Western Sumatra and parts of Aceh, and another hundred other places, feel liberated when they are refused an education if they don't cover themselves up.

Burn them.

[pusher robot]

No, I think it is purely social attitudes that make it socially acceptable for men to gaze on young women lustfully.

Compare the attitude of young men towards young women in Italy with the same attitude in, say, Sweden. And don't tell me the differences are caused by Italians having more hormones.

But now you're shifting the goalposts, talking about social behaviors, where before you were simply talking about purely personal behaviors. See? It's like the difference between saying it's immoral to be hungry, and saying it's immoral to eat your neighbor's cat.

Let's be clear, shall we? Do you think there is anything wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves? Does a woman have a "right" not to have such thoughts thought about her?

[Peacekeeper]

And despite the prevalence of the Burqa it has not, as the OP claimed, altered gender relations one bit. Islamic countries where it is worn are just as backwards than the West - even more so.

Fortunately, you are wrong. There are far fewer sexual crimes, such as rape, in nations under Sharia (Islamic law).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

:D

[Marsella]

Fortunately, you are wrong. There are far fewer sexual crimes, such as rape, in nations under Sharia (Islamic law).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

:D

I suppose you have never taken a course in critical thinking?

Rape statisitics are very, very misleading.

Scared women don't report being raped.

And what was that about a woman's testimony being worth less than that of a man's? And the treatement of homosexual men?

Fuck off.

Besides, rape statistics are only one means in which you can measure the standard of equality amongst men and women. For example, wages, employment levels, domestic issues, observance of equal rights...

So try again.


Let's be clear, shall we? Do you think there is anything wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves? Does a woman have a "right" not to have such thoughts thought about her?

Haven't you heard the testimony of the Communist Jesus:

You have heard that it was said, 'You shall not commit adultery;' but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. If your right eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. If your right hand causes you to stumble, cut it off, and throw it away from you. For it is more profitable for you that one of your members should perish, than for your whole body to be cast into Gehenna. Matthew 5:27-30

[Peacekeeper]

I suppose you have never taken a course in critical thinking?

Rape statisitics are very, very misleading.

Scared women don't report being raped.

And what was that about a woman's testimony being worth less than that of a man's? And the treatement of homosexual men?

Fuck off.

Besides, rape statistics are only one means in which you can measure the standard of equality amongst men and women. For example, wages, employment levels, domestic issues, observance of equal rights...

So try again.


I will. ;)

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, over 60% of those attending university are women.

http://www.parstimes.com/women/women_universities.html

I'll have to go back and read the parts about testimony, but if I recall, if a man accuses his wife of adultery, she can deny it, and punishment cannot be brought on her. If the man produces two witnesses, or swears three times to Allah (swt) that she did commit the crime, then the woman must either present two witnesses or swear three times to Allah (swt) that she did not commit the crime. If she does this, then she cannot be punished. I'm pretty sure that's what it says, I'll check. If that is it, then it appears that a woman's testimony is worth the same as a man's. And I said, I will have to reread the parts about testimony to be sure.

And the treatment of homosexual men in Islamic countries is... well, not Islamic. It is culture masquerading as Islam. If you actually read the Holy Koran, it says that if you "lust after men in favor of women," then that is sinful. I, being bisexual, would not be included in that statement, nor would married men, or men with children, be included. The sin is gay men not producing children, basically. Practices such as outlawing homosexuality totally is a reactionary practice, and also not Islamic at all.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

But now you're shifting the goalposts, talking about social behaviors, where before you were simply talking about purely personal behaviors. See? It's like the difference between saying it's immoral to be hungry, and saying it's immoral to eat your neighbor's cat.

Let's be clear, shall we? Do you think there is anything wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves? Does a woman have a "right" not to have such thoughts thought about her?
I'm not really shifting the goalposts - it merely seems I did not make myself understood the first time. I was always thinking about social behaviors.

So no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves. There is, however, something wrong with a society that considers it acceptable for men to make those thoughts known to others.

[Marsella]

In the Islamic Republic of Iran, over 60% of those attending university are women.

http://www.parstimes.com/women/women_universities.html (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.parstimes.com/women/women_universities.html)

Yeah and there are similar statistics for the West.

You think it means shit?

I would suggest you read an article in the discrimination forum by Tragic Clown which gives statistics on the how many women drop out of full time work to become full time housewifes.


I'll have to go back and read the parts about testimony, but if I recall, if a man accuses his wife of adultery, she can deny it, and punishment cannot be brought on her. If the man produces two witnesses, or swears three times to Allah (swt) that she did commit the crime, then the woman must either present two witnesses or swear three times to Allah (swt) that she did not commit the crime. If she does this, then she cannot be punished. I'm pretty sure that's what it says, I'll check. If that is it, then it appears that a woman's testimony is worth the same as a man's. And I said, I will have to reread the parts about testimony to be sure.


I vaguely remember that a woman's testiment is worth less than that of a man's.

As well as a bunch of other crap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_Islam).


And the treatment of homosexual men in Islamic countries is... well, not Islamic. It is culture masquerading as Islam. If you actually read the Holy Koran, it says that if you "lust after men in favor of women," then that is sinful. I, being bisexual, would not be included in that statement, nor would married men, or men with children, be included. The sin is gay men not producing children, basically. Practices such as outlawing homosexuality totally is a reactionary practice, and also not Islamic at all.

Well, I hate to break it to you darling, but discriminating on the grounds that you can't have children (which, you know, homosexuals cannot physically do) is still discrimination.

Dress it up in sophistry as much as you like, its still reactionary shit as is your useless religion.


Main article: Homosexuality and Islam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_and_Islam)


Homosexual activity is illicit under the sharia, however the prescribed penalties differ from one school of jurisprudence to another. For example these countries may allow the death penalty for homosexual activity: Iran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran), UAE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Arab_Emirates), Sudan (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudan), Nigeria (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria), Mauritania (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritania), Saudi Arabia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia), Yemen (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yemen) and Somalia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Somalia). Sharia does not recognize fundamental human rights based on sexual-orientation, however Sharia does not really have a concept of "human rights" comparable to the post-Enlightenment Western idea - only of man's duties to society and to God. The current focus of human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) organizations is on decriminalization (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decriminalization), as well as adding anti-discrimination (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-discrimination) laws, incitement to hatred laws (Hate crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime)), and eventually same-sex unions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_union) or same-sex marriage (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage). In particular human rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_rights) organizations are very concerned about the persecution of gays in Iran and have helped some gay Iranians gain legal asylum in Western countries.


But of course 'Islam encourages learning and science, which is why Muslim countries are among the most successful and technologically advanced in the world, like the Islamic Republic of Iran.' :lol:

I wonder if they 'encourage learning' that being homosexual is nothing to be embarassed (or executed over).

Apparently not.

[pusher robot]

Fortunately, you are wrong. There are far fewer sexual crimes, such as rape, in nations under Sharia (Islamic law).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

:D

From your source:

"Crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime) statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime (http://www.nationmaster.com/cat/Crime), than actual prevalence."

[Marsella]

I'm not really shifting the goalposts - it merely seems I did not make myself understood the first time. I was always thinking about social behaviors.

So no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves. There is, however, something wrong with a society that considers it acceptable for men to make those thoughts known to others.

No there isn't you purtian!

I tell my friends that I think a guy is cute all the time.

And I am sure (or hopeful) that guy's talk about how I look, to their friends also.

It's, like, a part of social interaction. :rolleyes:

Your Christian Socialism won't get rid of it - people talk to their friends about fucking, who they would like to fuck and all other 'sinful' things constantly.

And I hope you know you are going against the word of Jesus here! (I would hate to see you burn in the depths of hell, ya know).

[pusher robot]

So no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with men looking at women and thinking dirty thoughts to themselves. There is, however, something wrong with a society that considers it acceptable for men to make those thoughts known to others.

Ah. So is it men specifically that should keep their feelings secret, or is this an equal-opportunity denial of human sexuality?

[Marsella]

No, its because females don't think dirty thoughts! They are above that! :rolleyes:

Scratch a communist, find a phillistine.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Fortunately, you are wrong. There are far fewer sexual crimes, such as rape, in nations under Sharia (Islamic law).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

:D

Bullshit.

'My daughter deserved to die for falling in love' (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/may/11/iraq.humanrights)

The sort of countries where this patriarchal bullshit exists are unlikely to be the sort of countries that hold accurate rape statistics.

In countries with Sharia law, they do the most despicable thing to rape to victims - they blame and punish them for what happened to them. So you'll have to excuse me if I take any such claims with a suitably large mountain of salt.

Fuck religion, and fuck Islam especially.

[eyedrop]

I'll have to go back and read the parts about testimony, but if I recall, if a man accuses his wife of adultery, she can deny it, and punishment cannot be brought on her. If the man produces two witnesses, or swears three times to Allah (swt) that she did commit the crime, then the woman must either present two witnesses or swear three times to Allah (swt) that she did not commit the crime. If she does this, then she cannot be punished. I'm pretty sure that's what it says, I'll check. If that is it, then it appears that a woman's testimony is worth the same as a man's. And I said, I will have to reread the parts about testimony to be sure.

Why don't we have such laws here? I can easily swear 9 times if neccesary.


You do realise that that is a totally idealistic and unrealistic way to run your judical system and cannot possible be how they run theirs? It's not practical, maybe thats the doctrine but they can't run it like that. Or it's a liars paradise.

[freakazoid]

Yeah, thinking about women, and men, as mere objects, prizes to be had and things to possess and do with as you will, is so progressive.

[RHIZOMES]

Yeah, thinking about women, and men, as mere objects, prizes to be had and things to possess and do with as you will, is so progressive.

So obviously repressing sexuality is the way to go!

[Peacekeeper]

No, its because females don't think dirty thoughts! They are above that! :rolleyes:

Scratch a communist, find a phillistine.

Calling someone uncultured, good call. I'm sure you do that a lot while playing the grand piano and sitting on plush pillows. :rolleyes:

Elitists suck.

[Dean]

What is RevLeft's opinion of hijab (women covering their bodies except for face and hands)?

Please read this essay by a Muslim girl before sharing your opinion:

The Hijab I think is very offensive, because it involves a person hides their entire human form. Clearly, this is very dehumanizing, and can be degrading and sexist depending on the situation.

It's worth noting that other forms of social / legal dress codes are also very bad, even when they apply to men. I understand the arguments made by some progressive muslims, but I don't agree that it is really emancipatory. I think, even when it does free women from the obsession over weight and looks, it is still dehumanizing in a very distinct way.

[Dean]

I'll have to go back and read the parts about testimony, but if I recall, if a man accuses his wife of adultery, she can deny it, and punishment cannot be brought on her. If the man produces two witnesses, or swears three times to Allah (swt) that she did commit the crime, then the woman must either present two witnesses or swear three times to Allah (swt) that she did not commit the crime. If she does this, then she cannot be punished. I'm pretty sure that's what it says, I'll check. If that is it, then it appears that a woman's testimony is worth the same as a man's. And I said, I will have to reread the parts about testimony to be sure.

And the treatment of homosexual men in Islamic countries is... well, not Islamic. It is culture masquerading as Islam. If you actually read the Holy Koran, it says that if you "lust after men in favor of women," then that is sinful. I, being bisexual, would not be included in that statement, nor would married men, or men with children, be included. The sin is gay men not producing children, basically. Practices such as outlawing homosexuality totally is a reactionary practice, and also not Islamic at all.

There are some distinctly sexist and homophobic things abotu Islam. But there are similar traditions to be found in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and really the national cultures of all people around the world, more or less. The onyl difference with religion is that there are distinct texts and traditions people can use to prove that there is bigotry, and it gives people a justification to attack someone.

I wouldn't suggest citing the Quran for proof for or against claims about your religious views on sexuality and sexism, etc.. To prove that your religion is not homophobic, or not sexist, you need only explain cinvincingly that you are neither of these things. It is extremely important to remember that when you are debatign with a lot of people who adamantly oppose your ideas. People will always try to find alternative sources to prove that you believe something weong, but it is nonsense.

I find it very disturbing that people here follow that tendancy. It is very divisive and creates a terrible smokescreen, and stifles debate. There is a legitimate argument about the tradition of Islamic culture when it coems to sexism and homophobia, and that is an important issue to be raised. But it makes me very angry to see people speak about these traditions as if they color your beliefs. I can only speak of your religion from the context of what you have said and done.

So, Islam may have been (I'm sure it has been) sexist in many traditions and circles for hundreds of years. But that means little unless we speak of specific scripture, law, or social tradition. Here, the issue is whether or not Islam is sexist, for one, and specifically about the Hijab. I think that the Hijab tradition is sexist. But the people here who are trying to mar the religion in a broad, sweeping fashion are dead wrong. So, please ignore those who are trying to tell you what your religion is. Only you can decide that :)

[Marsella]

Calling someone uncultured, good call. I'm sure you do that a lot while playing the grand piano and sitting on plush pillows. :rolleyes:

Elitists suck.

Where did I call him uncultured?

I called him a philistine; a reactionary.

The idea that we should 'keep our dirty thoughts in our head' is that of a puritan.

So :rolleyes: yourself dumbass.

[RHIZOMES]

Question Peacekeeper - Are you pro-Sharia law?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

No there isn't you purtian!

I tell my friends that I think a guy is cute all the time.

And I am sure (or hopeful) that guy's talk about how I look, to their friends also.

It's, like, a part of social interaction. :rolleyes:
Is it really? Well, I can honestly say that I never talk to my male friends about women's looks, and it has never occurred to me that I'm missing out on a major form of social interaction. Nor do my male friends talk about women's looks to me - and before you ask, quite a few of them are atheists and I never asked them not to talk about women's looks in my presence. I guess we all just consider it disrespectful.

The problem is that while you may be hopeful that guys talk about how you look, other women are obviously not. In fact, it seems some women resent it so much that they would be willing to go to the length of wearing hijab just to make sure guys don't talk about their looks. There are only two solutions to this problem: Encourage women to be comfortable with men sizing them up and talking about their looks, or encourage men to stop doing so.

I decide between those two choices by thinking about the analogous situation: How do I feel about women talking about my looks? Well, I would prefer that they don't.


Your Christian Socialism won't get rid of it - people talk to their friends about fucking, who they would like to fuck and all other 'sinful' things constantly.
Um, actually, no, not really. At least not in my experience. I mean, I know a couple of people like that, but they're jerks and I don't want to have anything to do with them.


And I hope you know you are going against the word of Jesus here! (I would hate to see you burn in the depths of hell, ya know).
The issue is not sin. Social and legal standards should not be based on religious norms, therefore they cannot be based on notions of sin (though, of course, your own personal standards for interacting with others can be based on religious norms or the notion of sin, since religion is a personal matter).

The issue is that we have some people making other people uncomfortable to the point where some of them feel the need to take extreme measures (such as wearing hijab). I'm not sure how prevalent this feeling is, of course, but I'd love it if people were more respectful to each other.


Ah. So is it men specifically that should keep their feelings secret, or is this an equal-opportunity denial of human sexuality?
It is equal-opportunity; but tell me, are you suggesting that Sweden is less sexually liberated than Italy?


The idea that we should 'keep our dirty thoughts in our head' is that of a puritan.
Really? Does that apply to all things that are socially unacceptable to say? Including feelings of utter loathing and contempt? So I am a puritan because, for example, I keep my opinion of you to myself? Please let me know if that is the case, so I can liberate myself by telling you exactly what I think of you. I may need help from Jazzratt, though.

I consider it an insult if someone talks about me as a sexual object. Are you comfortable with people insulting you - talking about you as a "fucking retard", for example - behind your back? Would you prefer to live in a society where that is encouraged or discouraged?

[Marsella]

Is it really? Well, I can honestly say that I never talk to my male friends about women's looks, and it has never occurred to me that I'm missing out on a major form of social interaction. Nor do my male friends talk about women's looks to me - and before you ask, quite a few of them are atheists and I never asked them not to talk about women's looks in my presence. I guess we all just consider it disrespectful.

You must be a 17 year old virgin living under a rock.


The problem is that while you may be hopeful that guys talk about how you look, other women are obviously not. In fact, it seems some women resent it so much that they would be willing to go to the length of wearing hijab just to make sure guys don't talk about their looks.

I doubt it.

If anything, the westerners who are attracted to the hijab are going through a rebellion phase.

If 9/11 didn't happen then this would be a non-issue.

There are numerous causes for making them turn to such a ****ed excuse of a religion.


There are only two solutions to this problem: Encourage women to be comfortable with men sizing them up and talking about their looks, or encourage men to stop doing so.

Or what about having open sexual discussions?!


The issue is that we have some people making other people uncomfortable to the point where some of them feel the need to take extreme measures (such as wearing hijab). I'm not sure how prevalent this feeling is, of course, but I'd love it if people were more respectful to each other.

Probably very rare.

Being 'respectful' means fuck all.

Often its just a cover for conservative sexual morals. Men were certainly more 'respectful' to women in the 1950s, it means fuck all for women's emancipation.


Really? Does that apply to all things that are socially unacceptable to say? Including feelings of utter loathing and contempt? So I am a puritan because, for example, I keep my opinion of you to myself?

No you're a puritan because you think that men and women should keep their sexual feelings towards one and other in their heads.


Please let me know if that is the case, so I can liberate myself by telling you exactly what I think of you. I may need help from Jazzratt, though.

Grow a spine fuckwit.


I consider it an insult if someone talks about me as a sexual object. Are you comfortable with people insulting you - talking about you as a "fucking retard", for example - behind your back? Would you prefer to live in a society where that is encouraged or discouraged?

Fallacy and you know it.

Expressly stating that you think someone is good looking is not the same as calling them a 'fucking retard.'

And no one was talking about treating a man or a woman as a sexual object - just because you express that you want to have sex with someone does not mean you're treating them as a sexual object, because, *gasp* both males and females enjoy having sex.

What we need is a clear attitude that being sexually open is acceptable.

Now fuck off back to Church.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

You must be a 17 year old virgin living under a rock.
I'll take that as another way of saying "I refuse to believe that everyone is not like me."


I doubt it.

If anything, the westerners who are attracted to the hijab are going through a rebellion phase.

If 9/11 didn't happen then this would be a non-issue.

There are numerous causes for making them turn to such a ****ed excuse of a religion.
I think it's safe to assume that a 17 year old named Sultana Yusufali grew up in a Muslim family in Canada rather than turning to Islam as a result of an event that happened when she was 10.

The issue, however, is not Islam but hijab. Many Muslim women do not wear hijab. Sultana made a decision to wear it, for the reasons given. Non-Muslims would not wear hijab, of course, but they may still share her feelings and react upon them in different ways.


Or what about having open sexual discussions?!
I was talking about sexual objectification, not any and all talk about sex. Being open about sex and what gives you pleasure is particularly important in a relationship.


Probably very rare.
You have no more basis to call it rare than I have to call it prevalent. I know I feel that way and my girlfriend does; I don't know about any other people because it never occurred to me to ask my friends how they feel if someone talks about them sexually behind their back.

I wonder if there have been any scientific studies of sexual attitudes that cover this topic. Hmm. I don't remember the Kinsey Institute covering it, but I'll check.


Being 'respectful' means fuck all.

Often its just a cover for conservative sexual morals. Men were certainly more 'respectful' to women in the 1950s, it means fuck all for women's emancipation.
Being respectful, by itself, does of course mean nothing. For example, I'm acting respectful towards you even though I think you're an attention-seeking rebellious teenager who tries to hide her own intellectual shallowness behind a veil of aggression and profanity. So, obviously, I am condescending towards you and I attach no value to your opinions, thoughts or feelings. My generally respectful tone is, in this case, only a way to assert my intellectual superiority over you. But even in this case respect is better than the alternative, because it enables us to have a conversation rather than a shouting match.

Respect becomes meaningful and useful if it exists between equals, between people who have the same social and economic position rather than being part of a hierarchy. For example, we are equals; respect is useful between us because it enables debate.


No you're a puritan because you think that men and women should keep their sexual feelings towards one and other in their heads.
So you're saying that they should not keep sexual feelings in their heads, but they should keep feelings of hatred in their heads? Why? What feelings are best kept private and what feelings should be made public - and on what basis do you draw the distinction?

For my part, I draw the distinction based on whether the feelings in question are likely to offend the person that is the object of those feelings.


Grow a spine fuckwit.
I'll take that as another way of saying "please sink to my level, it's lonely down here."


Fallacy and you know it.

Expressly stating that you think someone is good looking is not the same as calling them a 'fucking retard.'
Well, that's true if you limit yourself to "good looking" or "cute." It becomes less true if you say a person has a hot ass and you want to fuck them.


And no one was talking about treating a man or a woman as a sexual object - just because you express that you want to have sex with someone does not mean you're treating them as a sexual object, because, *gasp* both males and females enjoy having sex.
Treating someone as a sexual object means judging them solely on their sexual characteristics, and assuming that just because you'd enjoy having sex with them, they would necessarily enjoy having sex with you. That is what I believe should be socially unacceptable.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, thinking about women, and men, as mere objects, prizes to be had and things to possess and do with as you will, is so progressive.

Congratulations on knocking down that straw man! A first class effort!

No one iis suggesting treating women as objects you dense spacker, we're talking about taking a healthy approach to our bodies and sexuality rather than having to hide behind endless layers of clothing. :cursing:

[Dr Mindbender]

Fortunately, you are wrong. There are far fewer sexual crimes, such as rape, in nations under Sharia (Islamic law).

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap-crime-rapes

:D

If i was a rapist that wanted to get away with my 'past time', I would probably immigrate to one of those countries!

I saw on TV a woman who gets raped in Pakistan must be able to summon at least 4 male witnesses to back up her story!

Who knows how bad it is in Saudi or Iran?

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Who knows how bad it is in Saudi or Iran?
I don't know about Iran, but this (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7106234.stm) is how bad it is in Saudi Arabia.

[pusher robot]

The problem is that while you may be hopeful that guys talk about how you look, other women are obviously not. In fact, it seems some women resent it so much that they would be willing to go to the length of wearing hijab just to make sure guys don't talk about their looks. There are only two solutions to this problem: Encourage women to be comfortable with men sizing them up and talking about their looks, or encourage men to stop doing so.

I decide between those two choices by thinking about the analogous situation: How do I feel about women talking about my looks? Well, I would prefer that they don't.

Suppose I said the following:
"The problem is that while you may be hopeful that gays talk about how you look, other men are obviously not. In fact, it seems some men resent it so much that they would be willing to go to the length of physical violence just to make sure gays don't talk about their looks. There are only two solutions to this problem: Encourage men to be comfortable with gays sizing them up and talking about their looks, or encourage gays to stop doing so.

I decide between those two choices by thinking about the analogous situation: How do I feel about gays talking about my looks? Well, I would prefer that they don't."

How is this materially different than what you just said? Is your reasoning not the precise justification for, e.g., the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? I'm surprised you would approve of such an un-progressive policies.

[Demogorgon]

Suppose I said the following:
"The problem is that while you may be hopeful that gays talk about how you look, other men are obviously not. In fact, it seems some men resent it so much that they would be willing to go to the length of physical violence just to make sure gays don't talk about their looks. There are only two solutions to this problem: Encourage men to be comfortable with gays sizing them up and talking about their looks, or encourage gays to stop doing so.

I decide between those two choices by thinking about the analogous situation: How do I feel about gays talking about my looks? Well, I would prefer that they don't."

How is this materially different than what you just said? Is your reasoning not the precise justification for, e.g., the "don't ask, don't tell" policy? I'm surprised you would approve of such an un-progressive policies.
The difference is that in one case the reaction is to wear very Conservative clothing, the other is to use violence. The two cannot legitmately be compared.

[pusher robot]

The difference is that in one case the reaction is to wear very Conservative clothing, the other is to use violence. The two cannot legitmately be compared.

Irrelevant to the analogy. The activity described is only presented to illustrate that the targets of "sexual chatter" are made uncomfortable enough to manifest their discomfort through physical acts. Feel free to rewrite "physical violence" to "becoming a baptist" or "avoiding gay friends" or any other activity that hetero men do to avoid the gaze of other gay men. It doesn't change the validity of the analogy.

[Demogorgon]

Irrelevant to the analogy. The activity described is only presented to illustrate that the targets of "sexual chatter" are made uncomfortable enough to manifest their discomfort through physical acts. Feel free to rewrite "physical violence" to "becoming a baptist" or "avoiding gay friends" or any other activity that hetero men do to avoid the gaze of other gay men. It doesn't change the validity of the analogy.

Well to make the analogy work, you could change it to suggesting that men who do not want to be checked out by other men don't wear certain clothes. Then it matches up.

Your answer to what the solution to that is is obviously going to depend upon your attitude to public sexual expression in general, rather than your attitude to homosexuality in particular.

[pusher robot]

Well to make the analogy work, you could change it to suggesting that men who do not want to be checked out by other men don't wear certain clothes. Then it matches up.

Your answer to what the solution to that is is obviously going to depend upon your attitude to public sexual expression in general, rather than your attitude to homosexuality in particular.

I can accept the reasoning for either position, but intellectual honesty demands consistency.

[Demogorgon]

I can accept the reasoning for either position, but intellectual honesty demands consistency.

Sure, and I never said the two should be treated differently. I think attitudes to sexual expression are quite cultural. The important thing is that certain groups are not discriminated against in terms of one rule for them a different one for others.

[freakazoid]

you dense spacker,lol, do you just make up these words or are they actually used over there?


So obviously repressing sexuality is the way to go!
The idea that we should 'keep our dirty thoughts in our head' is that of a puritan.It's not about repressing sexuality. What do you think of stalkers? Or voyeurs? You obviously shouldn't tell them to stop because you don't want to repress there sexuality. Any "dirty thoughts" should be allowed. Can't you see how sexually free thinking I am, :rolleyes:


You must be a 17 year old virgin living under a rock.

Is it somehow wrong if he was 17, or a virgin?


No you're a puritan because you think that men and women should keep their sexual feelings towards one and other in their heads.

So you think that it is quite all right for a man to whistle at a woman as she walks by? Or how about saying "dirty" things, like how she has a nice ass, how you would like to pound that shit? How about doing those things and then following her? How about constantly sending her flowers and letters about how you should be together, or are together, and stalking around her property and taking pictures of her?


And no one was talking about treating a man or a woman as a sexual object - just because you express that you want to have sex with someone does not mean you're treating them as a sexual object,

That is treating them as a sexual object. Why is rape wrong?


both males and females enjoy having sex.

While this is true it doesn't all of a sudden make it not treating them as sexual objects.

[pusher robot]

Sure, and I never said the two should be treated differently. I think attitudes to sexual expression are quite cultural. The important thing is that certain groups are not discriminated against in terms of one rule for them a different one for others.

Hopefully, though, I am putting Edric in an uncomfortable spot. I don't think he can really agree with don't ask don't tell without being restricted, so he has to either rethink his opinion about stigmatizing sexual expression or dispute my analogy.

[Demogorgon]

Hopefully, though, I am putting Edric in an uncomfortable spot. I don't think he can really agree with don't ask don't tell without being restricted, so he has to either rethink his opinion about stigmatizing sexual expression or dispute my analogy.
But Don't ask, don't tell is not the same thing. Edric O has objected to men acting in a certain manner towards women. He has not objected to them being heterosexual. Don't ask, don't tell does not merely bar soldiers from behaving in a certain manner towards other soldiers but also means their employment in the army will be terminated if they simply reveal their orientation.

[pusher robot]

Edric O has objected to men acting in a certain manner towards women.No he hasn't, you're not reading carefully. He objected to male A talking about his attraction to female C to person B. He actually has objected to expression of heterosexuality, if A shouldn't talk about his attraction to C to other people. You're claiming this is somehow completely different than the military objecting to male A talking about his attraction to male C to person B, when it's clearly the exact same scenario but with C being a male instead of a female.

[Demogorgon]

No he hasn't, you're not reading carefully. He objected to male A talking about his attraction to female C to person B. He actually has objected to expression of heterosexuality, if A shouldn't talk about his attraction to C to other people. You're claiming this is somehow completely different than the military objecting to male A talking about his attraction to male C to person B, when it's clearly the exact same scenario but with C being a male instead of a female.
No, you aren't reading me carefully. I pointed out that Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't merely forbid talking about attracting any given member of the opposite sex, but even from talking about their orientation. If a soldier so much says they are gay in America, they are dismissed, they do not have to talk about any given attraction. For Edric O's argument to be comparable, he would have to be saying that people should face sanction simply for saying they are heterosexual. Now if he was saying that, I would hardly defend it, because it would be ridiculous, however that is not what he is saying.

[pusher robot]

No, you aren't reading me carefully. I pointed out that Don't Ask, Don't Tell doesn't merely forbid talking about attracting any given member of the opposite sex, but even from talking about their orientation. If a soldier so much says they are gay in America, they are dismissed, they do not have to talk about any given attraction. For Edric O's argument to be comparable, he would have to be saying that people should face sanction simply for saying they are heterosexual. Now if he was saying that, I would hardly defend it, because it would be ridiculous, however that is not what he is saying.

I was making an analogy, so of course they are not exactly the same situation. My point is that the rationale is the same. DADT exists to protect easily-offended men from being subject to the sexual desires of men, and Edric O. proposes social opprobrium for the exact same reason, except it's to protect easily-offended women instead. I'm not trying to argue that Edric's social opprobrium and DADT military employment policy are the same thing, I'm arguing that his rationale fundamentally supports both or none.

[Peacekeeper]

Aaaand, getting back on topic:


There are some distinctly sexist and homophobic things abotu Islam. But there are similar traditions to be found in Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, and really the national cultures of all people around the world, more or less. The onyl difference with religion is that there are distinct texts and traditions people can use to prove that there is bigotry, and it gives people a justification to attack someone.

I wouldn't suggest citing the Quran for proof for or against claims about your religious views on sexuality and sexism, etc.. To prove that your religion is not homophobic, or not sexist, you need only explain cinvincingly that you are neither of these things. It is extremely important to remember that when you are debatign with a lot of people who adamantly oppose your ideas. People will always try to find alternative sources to prove that you believe something weong, but it is nonsense.

I find it very disturbing that people here follow that tendancy. It is very divisive and creates a terrible smokescreen, and stifles debate. There is a legitimate argument about the tradition of Islamic culture when it coems to sexism and homophobia, and that is an important issue to be raised. But it makes me very angry to see people speak about these traditions as if they color your beliefs. I can only speak of your religion from the context of what you have said and done.

So, Islam may have been (I'm sure it has been) sexist in many traditions and circles for hundreds of years. But that means little unless we speak of specific scripture, law, or social tradition. Here, the issue is whether or not Islam is sexist, for one, and specifically about the Hijab. I think that the Hijab tradition is sexist. But the people here who are trying to mar the religion in a broad, sweeping fashion are dead wrong. So, please ignore those who are trying to tell you what your religion is. Only you can decide that :)

I'd like to reiterate that Islam is not homophobic, but a lot of Muslims are. I am not, and I cannot be, because I am queer.
Me? Sexist? No. I respect women who wear hijab because they want me to see them for their personality and Iman rather than how they look. That's a pretty feminist thing to do, and I genuinely cannot understand why other Leftists do not see it this way as well. Perhaps you are just too influenced by liberalism and MTV culture that you think the best way to be sexually liberated is to undress and let men leer at you. :laugh:

[Demogorgon]

I was making an analogy, so of course they are not exactly the same situation. My point is that the rationale is the same. DADT exists to protect easily-offended men from being subject to the sexual desires of men, and Edric O. proposes social opprobrium for the exact same reason, except it's to protect easily-offended women instead. I'm not trying to argue that Edric's social opprobrium and DADT military employment policy are the same thing, I'm arguing that his rationale fundamentally supports both or none.

That is not the reason for Don't Ask, Don't Tell at all. The reason for its existence was simply the political impossibility of proper gay rights at the time. Everybody knows that in the ultra-macho atmosphere of the army, gay men are not likely to make passes at fellow soldiers, not unless they are inordinantly brave anyway.

Rather the policy is there due to some people just not being comfortable with gay people. Full stop. No man can seriously feel sexually harassed simply due to the existence of gay people. Similarly no woman can feel sexually harassed by the mere existence of heterosexual men. Hence the difference between the two cases.

[Awful Reality]

I personally don't like that a religion forces its followers to wear certain clothing. Frankly, I don't really like religion as a whole. But nontheless, I respect religious (within reason) people, and do not think that if someone believes in a specific tradition or law of a specific religion I should be able to tell them that it is wrong, etc.

On both sides of the argument it is obviously a matter of personal choice. I object of course if people are being seriously forced and pressured into wearing a Hijab without knowledge of the alternative (or with, even more so). But as long as people are educated about religions and their traditions as a whole, and make a personal choice to follow one, I completely respect their wearing a Hijab.

[pusher robot]

That is not the reason for Don't Ask, Don't Tell at all. The reason for its existence was simply the political impossibility of proper gay rights at the time. Everybody knows that in the ultra-macho atmosphere of the army, gay men are not likely to make passes at fellow soldiers, not unless they are inordinantly brave anyway.

Rather the policy is there due to some people just not being comfortable with gay people. Full stop. No man can seriously feel sexually harassed simply due to the existence of gay people. Similarly no woman can feel sexually harassed by the mere existence of heterosexual men. Hence the difference between the two cases.

I'm not convinced we're saying anything different. You're saying that DAT is because people aren't comfortable with gays, and I'm saying that men aren't comfortable being the target of sexual desire by other men. What's the distinction?

[Awful Reality]

You don't have to cover yourself in fucking acres of black cloth if you don't want to be a fashion victim. Good grief. Their isn't a binary choice between "skimpy clothing" and "hijab".

And besides, how many muslim women actually choose the hijab instead of wearing it as an alternative to getting a faceful of acid or killed over some stupid medieval concept of "honour"?

A lot.

[Peacekeeper]

I'm not convinced we're saying anything different. You're saying that DAT is because people aren't comfortable with gays, and I'm saying that men aren't comfortable being the target of sexual desire by other men. What's the distinction?

Are you attracted to every single woman you see? Because I know that I'm not attracted to every man I see. I think these straight boys in the army are just insecure.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Is your reasoning not the precise justification for, e.g., the "don't ask, don't tell" policy?
No, for several reasons:

1. "Don't ask, don't tell" is an employment policy. I'm not suggesting that heterosexual men be denied employment for talking about women, so obviously the same rationale can't be used to suggest that homosexual men be denied employment for talking about other men.
2. "Don't ask, don't tell" bars homosexual men from making their sexual orientation known. I did not suggest that it should be socially unacceptable for heterosexual men to say that they are heterosexual. I suggested that it should be socially unacceptable for heterosexual men (or gays, or women for that matter) to make explicit sexual comments about specific individuals. Now, my rationale could be employed to suggest a military policy whereby soldiers of any gender would be faced with disciplinary action for making inappropriate sexual comments about other soldiers of any gender. But that's a far cry from DADT.


Me? Sexist? No. I respect women who wear hijab because they want me to see them for their personality and Iman rather than how they look. That's a pretty feminist thing to do, and I genuinely cannot understand why other Leftists do not see it this way as well. Perhaps you are just too influenced by liberalism and MTV culture that you think the best way to be sexually liberated is to undress and let men leer at you. :laugh:
Well, women may wear hijab for a variety of reasons, and a wish to be judged by their personality rather than how they look is only one of them. It cannot be denied that many women, particularly in majority-Muslim countries but also sometimes in the West, wear hijab mainly because their fathers, husbands or the government told them to. This is wrong. It's not wrong that they wear hijab - it is wrong that they are not given the choice. The problem is not hijab, but patriarchy.

[Demogorgon]

I'm not convinced we're saying anything different. You're saying that DAT is because people aren't comfortable with gays, and I'm saying that men aren't comfortable being the target of sexual desire by other men. What's the distinction?
Well if you can't tell the difference, then you must be one hell of a good looking guy, because every gay person you have ever met must have been sexually attracted to you!

Seriously, there is a difference between being uncomfortable with the sexual attention of other men and being uncomfortable with gay people in general.

Being gay as I am, I do not like the sexual attention of women. I am not uncomfortable around women in general though, see the difference?

[pusher robot]

Being gay as I am, I do not like the sexual attention of women. I am not uncomfortable around women in general though, see the difference?

The only difference I see is that you are far less paranoid than many heterosexual men, for whom the mere possibility, let alone the actual fact, is practicaly intolerable.

On the other hand, this ought to be somewhat understandable. I would assume that, despite your being openly gay, you would not be permitted to use the women's locker room, right?

Why do you think that is?

[Demogorgon]

The only difference I see is that you are far less paranoid than many heterosexual men, for whom the mere possibility, let alone the actual fact, is practicaly intolerable.

On the other hand, this ought to be somewhat understandable. I would assume that, despite your being openly gay, you would not be permitted to use the women's locker room, right?

Why do you think that is?
Yes but you cannot factor in for people who get worked up over mere possibilities. It is one thing to say that sexual harassment is not allowed, another to say that the mere existence of somebody consists of sexual harassment.

Your question about changing rooms actually allows for me to re-emphasise the point. We usually (but not always) segregate changing rooms on the basis of gender. I think this is fair enough, most women do not like changing in front of men. I am a man and belong in the male changing room. Very few people would say I should be allowed in the women's changing room and even fewer would dare suggest I should not be allowed be allowed in the mens changing room. Sexual proclivities do not seem to apply here.

[pusher robot]

Your question about changing rooms actually allows for me to re-emphasise the point. We usually (but not always) segregate changing rooms on the basis of gender. I think this is fair enough, most women do not like changing in front of men. I am a man and belong in the male changing room. Very few people would say I should be allowed in the women's changing room and even fewer would dare suggest I should not be allowed be allowed in the mens changing room. Sexual proclivities do not seem to apply here.

Sexual proclivities do not apply but do you deny they are the rationale? I mean, why do you think it is that women do not like to undress in front of men? Perhaps some actual women would like to offer the opinion as well.

[Demogorgon]

Sexual proclivities do not apply but do you deny they are the rationale? I mean, why do you think it is that women do not like to undress in front of men? Perhaps some actual women would like to offer the opinion as well.

Well yes it is the original rationale, or at least partly. There is also attitudes about what is "appropriate". The fact is however that people of the same gender, regardless of sexual orientation, are thrown in together when it comes to changing rooms, toilets and whatever else.

Is that wrong? If you use changing rooms or public toilets at all you will have been sharing them with gay people many times. Has that caused trouble? Has it caused trouble for anyone else?

Don't ask, don't tell is not really based on sexual harassment at all. It is simply a political compromise between Clinton who wanted to remove the ban altogether and more reactionary elements who could not tolerate it. it isn't anything other than a political mess, so comparing it to anything else doesn't seem to work.

[Peacekeeper]

Well, women may wear hijab for a variety of reasons, and a wish to be judged by their personality rather than how they look is only one of them. It cannot be denied that many women, particularly in majority-Muslim countries but also sometimes in the West, wear hijab mainly because their fathers, husbands or the government told them to. This is wrong. It's not wrong that they wear hijab - it is wrong that they are not given the choice. The problem is not hijab, but patriarchy.

Well said.

[Jazzratt]

Yeah, some women cover themselves because they believe that they will otherwise be immodest whores. Some women voluntarily choose a life of domestic servitude because they believe it's the best way to please god.

These aren't the choices of rational or liberated women rather they an expression of a kind of Stockholm syndrome they've developed with the religion & patriarchy.

[Demogorgon]

Yeah, some women cover themselves because they believe that they will otherwise be immodest whores. Some women voluntarily choose a life of domestic servitude because they believe it's the best way to please god.

These aren't the choices of rational or liberated women rather they an expression of a kind of Stockholm syndrome they've developed with the religion & patriarchy.
Some of the most powerful women in the world wear the Hijab. Plainly it is not just about patriarchy.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Some of the most powerful women in the world wear the Hijab. Plainly it is not just about patriarchy.

Like who?

[Demogorgon]

Like who?

Well the late Benazir Bhutto always wore one.

As for living women off the top of my head there is Begum Khaleda Zia and Sheikh Hasina

[Plagueround]

Some of the most powerful women in the world wear the Hijab. Plainly it is not just about patriarchy.

I see your point, but at the same time I don't think power automatically frees one from patriarchal and religious restrictions/expectations.

[Jazzratt]

Some of the most powerful women in the world wear the Hijab. Plainly it is not just about patriarchy.

Yes it is, these women may have some political power biut they are still slaves to a backward religion. A religion that a lot of "socialists" spend too much time apologising for.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A hijab can be incredibly erotic, but there shouldn't be a social norm which compels women to wear them.

[Wanted Man]

Religious clothing standards are a manifestation of the gender differences that are promoted by that religion. It can be resolved in the long term, by removing the circumstances that allow such a religion to flourish. Not by 'enlightened' christian or atheist men who want to "free women" by "tearing off the oppressive clothing" (burqa bans, hijab bans in universities, etc.).

[YKTMX]

Firstly, I think the user Peacekeeper is brilliant.

Secondly, I think the Hijab is a cultural and religious right that we need to defend against people who would seek to demonize it and the Islamic faith with which it is associated.

I have no personal feelings as to what it "represents" anymore than I have personal feelings about Western women strolling about it mini-skirts.

Most who affect "outrage" at this "oppressive" institution, not least denounce it in the name of "feminism", are concealing racial and cultural prejudice in pseudo-radical language.

Anyone who wishes to ban it is a racist pure and simple.

[Vanguard1917]

I have no personal feelings as to what it "represents" anymore than I have personal feelings about Western women strolling about it mini-skirts.


Head scarves are symbols of female subordination. Give me a society made up of women in mini skirts any day of the week. The freer the society, the less wrapped up in cloth women tend to be.


Anyone who wishes to ban it is a racist pure and simple.

You can oppose a ban and oppose what the hijab represents at the same time.

We're Marxists - not populists.

[YKTMX]

Head scarves are symbols of female subordination.

Wrong. Their "symbolic" content is not decided by you - or me, for that matter. What it "symbolizes" is up to the women who wear it to decide. Those who decide it symbolizes their oppression in a patriarchy should be supported when they act accordingly. For those whom it "symbolizes" resistance to the rampant sexualization of the Western culture should also be supported. For the women in between for whom it's merely a ritual they prefer to engage in or a sign of cultural fidelity the same also applies.


Give me a society made up of women in mini skirts any day of the week.

Women should wear what they are comfortable with, not what gratifies you.


The freer the society, the less wrapped up in cloth women tend to be.


I think this is an incredibly Eurocentric and silly statement. Are we suggesting that deeply partiarchal African small-scale societies were "free" because they sometimes were naked or semi-naked?

[Vanguard1917]

Wrong. Their "symbolic" content is not decided by you - or me, for that matter. What it "symbolizes" is up to the women who wear it to decide. Those who decide it symbolizes their oppression in a patriarchy should be supported when they act accordingly. For those whom it "symbolizes" resistance to the rampant sexualization of the Western culture should also be supported. For the women in between for whom it's merely a ritual they prefer to engage in or a sign of cultural fidelity the same also applies.

It's not about opposing what individual women wear. This is more about analysing, from an objective perspective, what the hijab has symbolised throughout history: the subordination of women.


I think this is an incredibly Eurocentric and silly statement. Are we suggesting that deeply partiarchal African small-scale societies were "free" because they sometimes were naked or semi-naked?

No. But in modern societies, there has been a definite tendency for women fighting for freedom to abandon conservative codes of dress - e.g. head scarves.

I am fully aware that today, especially in the West, some women from Muslim backgrounds are adopting the head scarf almost as a symbol of resistance - to what they see as a messed up, decadent society made up of sluts and other infidels. Girls from muslim backgrounds, whose mothers may have given up the hijab long ago, are choosing to cover themselves up, as some kind of radical statement. Such is the sad state of affairs which pass for radicalism today, in the absence of any progressive movement for change to win over young people.

I think that this is something which we have to understand and analyse, rather than tail-end and glorify.

[YKTMX]

This is more about analysing, from an objective perspective, what the hijab has symbolised throughout history: the subordination of women.


No, this is what it symbolizes to you. I don't want to have to do PoMo 101 but is it still really contested that the symbolic is constituted discursively and intersubjectively? What you may say is that the "subordination of women" is a social fact, as it is (in the West and in Islamic societies). You may also say that you think that the Hijab is a symbol (more accurately a symptom) of this social fact.

But to assert it is an "objective" fact that the Hijab symbolizes patriarchy is a non-starter from an intellectual point-of-view.


No. But in modern societies, there has been a definite tendency for women fighting for freedom to abandon conservative codes of dress - e.g. head scarves.

It has been, a tendency not all feminists and people in favour of sexual liberation support. I mean, whilst they support the choice, they might reject the mini-skirt=sexual equality formula.


to what they see as a messed up, decadent society made up of sluts and other infidels.

I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard it expressed like this.


I think that this is something which we have to understand and analyse, rather than tail-end and glorify.

We'll never successfully analyse it or understand it by adopting your premise of "objective symbolic language", I'm afraid.

[Vanguard1917]

No, this is what it symbolizes to you. I don't want to have to do PoMo 101 but is it still really contested that the symbolic is constituted discursively and intersubjectively? What you may say is that the "subordination of women" is a social fact, as it is (in the West and in Islamic societies). You may also say that you think that the Hijab is a symbol (more accurately a symptom) of this social fact.

But to assert it is an "objective" fact that the Hijab symbolizes patriarchy is a non-starter from an intellectual point-of-view.


So you reject that, historically, societies made up of women who cover their heads have also tended to be societies where women were least free - and that, by the same token, women abandoning conservative dress codes has historically gone hand in hand with societies where women have played more prominent social roles?

This is about objective reality.

[Peacekeeper]

So you reject that, historically, societies made up of women who cover their heads have also tended to be societies where women were least free - and that, by the same token, women abandoning conservative dress codes has historically gone hand in hand with societies where women have played more prominent social roles?

This is about objective reality.

Again, you are coming from a Western perspective. That statement may be true where you come from, but elsewhere it is not the case. The hijab is not inherently patriarchal or liberating. However, to the women wearing it, esp. in societies where there is a choice and not many women wear one, like in the US or Western Europe, it is a statement against the culture of hedonism.
If you are a woman and see it as oppressive - don't wear one. Go around buck-naked for all I care. But don't come crying to us when you can't seem to find a lasting relationship, or can't get men to stop wanting to fuck you instead of getting to know you.
A man preoccupied by tanned bosoms and booty shorts isn't going to take the time to get to know a girl. I speak from personal experience, from before I became Muslim.
@YKTMX: Nice to see another outspoken brother in Islam on these boards :D

[Vanguard1917]

I'm not sure I've ever seen or heard it expressed like this.


Read the last post by 'Peacekeeper'.

Wearing a hijab is an antidote to decadent Western female sluttiness!!

[YKTMX]

So you reject that, historically, societies made up of women who cover their heads have also tended to be societies where women were least free

No, I reject your confusion of causation and correlation. Furthermore, we were previously discussing the contemporary symbolic status of the Hijab, something you seem to have unilaterally moved away from. So, let's get back. Do you think Islamic women in Western Europe have a right to attach their own symbolic meanings?


and that, by the same token, women abandoning conservative dress codes has historically gone hand in hand with societies where women have played more prominent social roles?



The last I checked Hillary Clinton wears fairly conservative pantsuits, not a black cocktail dress. I think your reasoning is flawed.


Wearing a hijab is an antidote to decadent Western female sluttiness!!

You invented this from your own imagination. See a psychoanalyst.

[Peacekeeper]

Read the last post by 'Peacekeeper'.

Wearing a hijab is an antidote to decadent Western female sluttiness!!


The hijab is not inherently patriarchal or liberating.

:confused:

Now you're just making shit up.

That's the most rickety straw-man I've ever seen.

[Vanguard1917]

No, I reject your confusion of causation and correlation. Furthermore, we were previously discussing the contemporary symbolic status of the Hijab, something you seem to have unilaterally moved away from. So, let's get back. Do you think Islamic women in Western Europe have a right to attach their own symbolic meanings?


Yes, they do. And i have a right to inform them that historically the hijab has been a symbol of female subordination.

Subjective interpretation does not equal objective historical reality. Marxists engage in speaking the latter.



The last I checked Hillary Clinton wears fairly conservative pantsuits, not a black cocktail dress. I think your reasoning is flawed.


She does not cover her head, either. (Not that that pathetic, highly conservative, gutless individual is an example of a liberated female.)



You invented this from your own imagination.


Not at all. See below.

'Peacekeeper':

If you are a woman and see it [the hijab] as oppressive - don't wear one. Go around buck-naked for all I care. But don't come crying to us when you can't seem to find a lasting relationship, or can't get men to stop wanting to fuck you instead of getting to know you.

Isn't that basically saying that women should wear a hijab to stop them from being treated like sluts?

[YKTMX]

Yes, they do. And i have a right to inform them that historically the hijab has been a symbol of female subordination.


Of course you do, comrade. But do you now see the difference between this, a discourse engaged over symbols, and your earlier argument that your point of view represented "objectivity"?


Isn't that basically saying that women should wear a hijab to stop them from being treated like sluts?

No, I think you've totally misunderstood and misrepresented what the comrade was trying to say, which is unfair.

[Vanguard1917]

Of course you do, comrade. But do you now see the difference between this, a discourse engaged over symbols, and your earlier argument that your point of view represented "objectivity"?


My argument was, and still is, that the hijab has throughout modern history tended to represent the subordinate social role played by women.

From a Marxist perspective, this is objective fact - regardless of individual people's subjective interpretations of what the hijab means.



No, I think you've totally misunderstood and misrepresented what the comrade was trying to say, which is unfair.


What was this 'comrade' saying then when he said the following?


If you are a woman and see it [the hijab] as oppressive - don't wear one. Go around buck-naked for all I care. But don't come crying to us when you can't seem to find a lasting relationship, or can't get men to stop wanting to fuck you instead of getting to know you.

Is there really anthing to defen in those two sentences? I think it's time to stop the tail-ending and start producing some Marxist criticism.

[YKTMX]

Is there really anthing to defen in those two sentences? I think it's time to stop the tail-ending and start producing some Marxist criticism.

I think it's rather abrupt and coarse but I think there's plenty to defend. He's defending the "choice" of not wearing it, for one. He's also pointing out, correctly I think, that the direct assumption that liberation comes through shedding conventional "conservative" morality and subsuming oneself in a utopian hedonistic bourgeois ideal is problematic, to say the least.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

So you reject that, historically, societies made up of women who cover their heads have also tended to be societies where women were least free - and that, by the same token, women abandoning conservative dress codes has historically gone hand in hand with societies where women have played more prominent social roles?
I see very little historical evidence for either of those statements. The first statement is certainly true at present, but was it true historically? 500 years ago, women in Muslim countries covered their heads, but women in Europe, China or Japan did not. Were Muslim women more oppressed in the 16th century than European, Chinese or Japanese women at the same time? Doubtful.

It is really only in the past 100-200 years that women in Western societies have begun to push back the boundaries of patriarchy. I don't see any connection between this and the fact that they don't cover their heads. Also, since non-Muslim women never wore hijab in the first place, they never had to "liberate" themselves from it, and the fact that they don't wear it today is no indication of anything.


If you are a woman and see it as oppressive - don't wear one. Go around buck-naked for all I care. But don't come crying to us when you can't seem to find a lasting relationship, or can't get men to stop wanting to fuck you instead of getting to know you.
A man preoccupied by tanned bosoms and booty shorts isn't going to take the time to get to know a girl. I speak from personal experience, from before I became Muslim.
Now you're being just as unreasonable, absurd and over-generalising as the "religion is teh evil" crowd. To suggest that women who don't wear hijab won't be able to find a lasting relationship is ludicrous. First of all, plenty of such women do in fact find lasting relationships. Second of all, not all women want lasting relationships, just like not all men do. Third, and most important to the point at hand, your style of dress won't magically change the people you come across. If a man is an asshole, he will continue to be an asshole regardless of what women wear. The only advantage of wearing hijab is that assholes are presumably less likely to bother you, so you'll waste less time with them. Hijab - or any other style of dress - won't act like a magical magnet to draw to you the kind of partner you want. At most, it might keep away some of the ones you don't want.

[Jazzratt]

Firstly, I think the user Peacekeeper is brilliant.

Would that be thanks to the disgusting, sexist & patronising view of women he's putting forward in this thread or would it be the racism in the one in learning (http://www.revleft.com/vb/crazy-girl-atlanta-t78931/index.html)? Maybe both?


Secondly, I think the Hijab is a cultural and religious right that we need to defend against people who would seek to demonize it and the Islamic faith with which it is associated.No. It may well be a right for someone to dress however they wish but we should still be demonising the backward faith attached to it.


I have no personal feelings as to what it "represents" anymore than I have personal feelings about Western women strolling about it mini-skirts. Then you're a fucking idiot. Who was the last woman disfigured for refusing to wear a mini-skirt?


Most who affect "outrage" at this "oppressive" institution, not least denounce it in the name of "feminism", are concealing racial and cultural prejudice in pseudo-radical language.Cultural prejudice? But of course, if the culture is violently misogynist then I'm sure as fuck not going to be neutral toward it, but I don't see why it would be "racist" as you so often enjoy slandering people. A white muslim is following exactly the same religion as a black muslim.


Anyone who wishes to ban it is a racist pure and simple.Anyone who wishes to ban it is authoritarian & stupid anyone who opposes the idea on the iother hand is simply helping to defend their sisters from an insidious religion that calls on them to cover up and be ashamed of their bodies.

[Vanguard1917]

I see very little historical evidence for either of those statements. The first statement is certainly true at present, but was it true historically? 500 years ago, women in Muslim countries covered their heads, but women in Europe, China or Japan did not. Were Muslim women more oppressed in the 16th century than European, Chinese or Japanese women at the same time? Doubtful.

It is really only in the past 100-200 years that women in Western societies have begun to push back the boundaries of patriarchy. I don't see any connection between this and the fact that they don't cover their heads. Also, since non-Muslim women never wore hijab in the first place, they never had to "liberate" themselves from it, and the fact that they don't wear it today is no indication of anything.



I'm refering to conservative and traditional codes of dress in general, which are there to emphasise the subjugation of women. In Muslim societies such codes usually include the hijab.

[eyedrop]

I see very little historical evidence for either of those statements. The first statement is certainly true at present, but was it true historically? 500 years ago, women in Muslim countries covered their heads, but women in Europe, China or Japan did not. Were Muslim women more oppressed in the 16th century than European, Chinese or Japanese women at the same time? Doubtful.

It is really only in the past 100-200 years that women in Western societies have begun to push back the boundaries of patriarchy. I don't see any connection between this and the fact that they don't cover their heads. Also, since non-Muslim women never wore hijab in the first place, they never had to "liberate" themselves from it, and the fact that they don't wear it today is no indication of anything.


If you aren't aware of it at least Scandinavia had their own version of the hijab in the middleage. Women could go without covering their hair until they got married, after that they had to cover their hair with a "wife-hat". Signalising that the womens sexuality were now the property of their husband. So yeah they have had their own fight to liberate themself from the "hijab"

[Kwisatz Haderach]

I'm refering to conservative and traditional codes of dress in general, which are there to emphasise the subjugation of women. In Muslim societies such codes usually include the hijab.
True enough, but what is conservative and traditional in one society is not necessarily so in another. Hijab is certainly not traditional in Western societies, which is why it can actually be used to express rebellious attitudes, as in the example of Sultana Yusufali. I doubt that a person with similar rebellious feelings in a Muslim society would want to wear hijab.

The significance of a certain style of dress is never inherent in the clothing itself. It depends on the people looking at it, and their cultural background. If aliens came to Earth they would have no idea which kinds of clothing are oppressive and which are liberating.

[YKTMX]

Then you're a fucking idiot. Who was the last woman disfigured for refusing to wear a mini-skirt?

Well, I don't know of any instances relating to this but attacks on people in the West for refusing to conform in terms of dress are common.

For instane this (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3834981.ece) case of a girl being murdered for being a "goth". The point being that people don't need "religious" motivations for attacking and even killing people failing to conform to societal norms.


But of course, if the culture is violently misogynist then I'm sure as fuck not going to be neutral toward it, but I don't see why it would be "racist" as you so often enjoy slandering people.

I don't "enjoy" racism. You and your racist anarchist comrades are not enjoyable. But I'm not going to stop pointing out the truth about your opinions just because you find it uncomfortable. If you want me to stop calling you a racist (which you clearly are) then you know what, stop being a racist. That would solve your problems quickly.


A white muslim is following exactly the same religion as a black muslim.

This is true in the abstract but it's practically worthless. The fact is that the minority you demonize and insult are associated not only with religion but with a "race" of people.


Anyone who wishes to ban it is authoritarian & stupid anyone who opposes the idea on the iother hand is simply helping to defend their sisters from an insidious religion that calls on them to cover up and be ashamed of their bodies.

If Muslim women want to cover up, they should. If they don't, they shouldn't and they shouldn't be forced to. But the idea that the issue of the Hijab is related in any serious way to the problem of patriarchy is silly. Partiarchy exists in cultures with and without headscarves and it will continue until the cause of patriarchy is attacked. Futile attacks on religious rituals only serve to consolidate religious feeling and aide racism and imperialism.

[bcbm]

f you are a woman and see it as oppressive - don't wear one. Go around buck-naked for all I care. But don't come crying to us when you can't seem to find a lasting relationship, or can't get men to stop wanting to fuck you instead of getting to know you.How progressive of you. Oh, no wait, I meant paternalistic, sorry.


A man preoccupied by tanned bosoms and booty shorts isn't going to take the time to get to know a girl. I speak from personal experience, from before I became Muslim.Just because you're an emotional fuck-up doesn't mean everyone who enjoys tanned bosoms and booty shorts is. I happen to enjoy looking at those things and getting to know women (in all sorts of ways). It generally isn't very accurate to take your limited personal experience and extrapolate that everyone has the same experience. Some of us are capable of looking at the human form and being able to appreciate people for who they are too.

----


I don't "enjoy" racism. You and your racist anarchist comrades are not enjoyable. But I'm not going to stop pointing out the truth about your opinions just because you find it uncomfortable. If you want me to stop calling you a racist (which you clearly are) then you know what, stop being a racist. That would solve your problems quickly.

I don't think "You are, you are, you are, cuz I say so and its sooo clear!" is a very helpful response to the question of how opposing misogyny is racist. Should we just ignore sexism when non-white people do it?


The fact is that the minority you demonize and insult are associated not only with religion but with a "race" of people.

True, and many apologists for Islam will argue that the fucked-up shit is the result of local/regional cultures, not Islam itself. So, which is okay to criticize and which is racist to criticize?

[freakazoid]

You and your racist anarchist comrades are not enjoyable.

Did you just call all anarchist racists?

[eyedrop]

Did you just call all anarchist racists?

Seems like he at least implied it. Everyone ignored my point that the "west" have had "hijabs" too. So it's not really a "race" question either.

[YKTMX]

The above poster should know that I don't imply things. If I had wanted to say "all anarchists are racist" I would have said it. In this case I was referring to Jazzrat and a few of the anarchist members on here who are racist (at least on this matter).

I know plenty of anarchists who are not racist and implore the recent wave of Islamophobia.

[careyprice31]

She says it is to avoid men gazing at her lustfully, and for men to be forced to get to know her personally rather than judging her by how she looks. That doesn't sounds "purely religious" to me.

oh yea cause in her religion they believe that men cant control themselves and if women dont cover up then men will react like my grandmother's he - goat.

damn, I hate religion. It stereotypes and oppresses men and women so much

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Then perhaps you should avoid stereotyping people based on their religion.

The OP makes it rather clear that she has built her impression of men based on what she sees in society around her rather than anything written in the Quran.

[eyedrop]

The above poster should know that I don't imply things. If I had wanted to say "all anarchists are racist" I would have said it. In this case I was referring to Jazzrat and a few of the anarchist members on here who are racist (at least on this matter).

I know plenty of anarchists who are not racist and implore the recent wave of Islamophobia.
Fair enough. Apologizing. But opposing a hijab is poor grounds for rasism claims, as scandinavia had the equivalent.

[Kami]

http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.revleft.com/vb/../showthread.php?p=1150262#post1150262) The above poster should know that I don't imply things. If I had wanted to say "all anarchists are racist" I would have said it. In this case I was referring to Jazzrat and a few of the anarchist members on here who are racist (at least on this matter).

I know plenty of anarchists who are not racist and implore the recent wave of Islamophobia.

We really need to get this odd definition of "Racism" you're using out of peoples heads.
opposing a misogynistic religion is not racism
assuming, that is, you do not oppose it because of the people who worship it.

[Jazzratt]

Well, I don't know of any instances relating to this but attacks on people in the West for refusing to conform in terms of dress are common.

For instane this (http://http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article3834981.ece) case of a girl being murdered for being a "goth". The point being that people don't need "religious" motivations for attacking and even killing people failing to conform to societal norms.

You can't seriously be comparing the various inter-subculture fights that occur with shit like honour killings, right? You're not that fucking obtuse, right?



I don't "enjoy" racism.

I didn't say you did, I said you enjoyed smearing people with whom you disagree as racist. Because you're a smarmy trotskyite dickwound.


You and your racist anarchist comrades are not enjoyable.

Prove we're racist or fuck off. And no, simply refusing to toe the Scab Wahhabist Party [SWP] line on this issue is not evidence enough.


But I'm not going to stop pointing out the truth about your opinions just because you find it uncomfortable.

No, you're chucking muck about in the hope that some of it sticks. It's what you lot do.


If you want me to stop calling you a racist (which you clearly are) then you know what, stop being a racist. That would solve your problems quickly.

The problem is that you're pretty much the only person (in Rosa's absense) that has the pathetic delusion that I'm racist. When someone with some idea of what they're talking about starts agreeing with you, then I'll pay attention to your baseless accusations.


This is true in the abstract but it's practically worthless. The fact is that the minority you demonize and insult are associated not only with religion but with a "race" of people.

Fundamentalism spreads across races. Hell it spreads across religions - the people I "demonise" are the nutters that want women to act in a certain way (wearing hijabs, for example) or proselytise against people exercising freedoms. Guess what, every religion has these nutters.


If Muslim women want to cover up, they should. If they don't, they shouldn't and they shouldn't be forced to.

So this (http://www.createdtobehishelpmeet.org/excerpts)isn't an example of FUBAR thinking? It's a Christian woman talking about how she and all other women should make themselves, practically, slaves to men. But hey it's her "choice" right? Thousands upon thousands of years of patriarchal and religious oppression wouldn't have any kind of effect on that would they? I mean hey, material conditions don't mean shit do they comrade?
:rolleyes:
Fuckwit.


But the idea that the issue of the Hijab is related in any serious way to the problem of patriarchy is silly.

Yeah, all those men telling all those women to cover themselves or be punished aren't at all patriarchal, they're the very beacon of feminism :rolleyes:. Seriously, do you think before pulling this stuff out of your arse?


Partiarchy exists in cultures with and without headscarves and it will continue until the cause of patriarchy is attacked. Futile attacks on religious rituals only serve to consolidate religious feeling and aide racism and imperialism.

Imperialism has fuck all to do with religion you berk, it's about pure economic dominance. Just as religion is about dominance of the mind. No one can be expected to fight for freedom whilst they believe some higher power will either a) punish them for doing so or b) reward them in the next life for putting up with shit in this one. After all; if we work, pray and live on hay we're all going to eat pie in the sky.

[YKTMX]

You can't seriously be comparing the various inter-subculture fights that occur with shit like honour killings, right? You're not that fucking obtuse, right?


You suggested that killing people because of what they choose or choose not to wear was somehow something "exclusive" to the issue of the Hijab. The intention here was to show that this, like most things you say, is demonstrably false and full of ignorance.


didn't say you did, I said you enjoyed smearing people with whom you disagree as racist.

But this is also untrue. Unlike you, I'm careful with my words. I've called you a racist because lots of evidence points in that direction.


the people I "demonise" are the nutters that want women to act in a certain way (wearing hijabs, for example)

Or wearing mini-skirts? Or selling their labour power? Or to avoid having abortions? Or fight wars.

Your focus on the "compulsion" aspect of the Hijab (which I've said I oppose) suggests that not only have you not listened to most of the debate but that you're fixated on the Orientalist myth that people from the East are constantly subject to autocracy and have no agency.

Let me posit a hypothesis: most Muslim women wear the Hijab because they choose to.


But hey it's her "choice" right?

Well, yes. I'd argue strongly with someone in that situation to pursure a different course.


Thousands upon thousands of years of patriarchal and religious oppression wouldn't have any kind of effect on that would they?

Of course they do, but the way to combat this is not by attacking "conceptions" or "ideas". The only way to combat religious and patriarchal oppression is by building movements against capitalism and war. For instance, being involved in the anti-war movement here in Glasgow, it was clear that many of the "new" people brought into the movement here Muslim women. Most of these women wore the headscarf. Most of them had conservative beliefs about male/female relations (seperate buses for men and women going to protests, for instance). But these people still played a big part in the movement and many were introduced and welcomed socialist and radical ideas, which are, of course, hostile to sexism.

The anarchist policy of sniping from the sidelines and engaging in pseudo-radical attacks on religion and its "symbols" is stupid at best. At worst, it lines itself up with forces who seek to demonize Muslim minorities as part of a wider program to justify imperialist intervention in the Middle East.


Just as religion is about dominance of the mind.

*snigger*

You're a complete joke J.Rat.

[Jazzratt]

You suggested that killing people because of what they choose or choose not to wear was somehow something "exclusive" to the issue of the Hijab.

No I didn't. I pointed out that it was more systematic and in some cultures (though not all) even considered the right thing to do.


But this is also untrue. Unlike you, I'm careful with my words. I've called you a racist because lots of evidence points in that direction.

What evidence? There is evidence I don't share your patronising cultural-relativist position but that doesn't make anyone a racist. There is more evidence that you're soft on misogyny and it would be certainly be easier to prove that you consider women a secondary concern, because you're a chauvinist, than to prove I'm racist.


Or wearing mini-skirts? Or selling their labour power? Or to avoid having abortions? Or fight wars.

Or to serve as man's "helpmeet". Or to put up with domestic violence. Or to accept that rape is "her fault". Yes there are plenty of examples of these kind of behaviours and I oppose them all I don't pick and choose like you do.


Your focus on the "compulsion" aspect of the Hijab (which I've said I oppose) suggests that not only have you not listened to most of the debate but that you're fixated on the Orientalist myth that people from the East are constantly subject to autocracy and have no agency.

The compulsion doesn't have to come from an autocratic society, simply having this insidious message drilled into their heads from the moment their born that they are less than their brothers. That message isn't exclusive to one geographical region as you're trying to paint it - that message is in their holy book and that fucker is available worldwide. To those that are brainwashed into religion the threat of hell or the displeasure of their god is every bit as real as the threat of acid or of guns.


Let me posit a hypothesis: most Muslim women wear the Hijab because they choose to.

Talking purely existentially everyone does everything they do because they choose to. However, no one makes a choice in a vacuum. Workers "choose" to work because they need money for things like food, for example.


Well, yes. I'd argue strongly with someone in that situation to pursure a different course.

And this particular person would scream, call you "ungodly" and then stop talking to you. Not everyone is reasonable, but most can be.


For instance, being involved in the anti-war movement here in Glasgow, it was clear that many of the "new" people brought into the movement here Muslim women. Most of these women wore the headscarf. Most of them had conservative beliefs about male/female relations (seperate buses for men and women going to protests, for instance). But these people still played a big part in the movement and many were introduced and welcomed socialist and radical ideas, which are, of course, hostile to sexism.

The KK had rallies against the war in America, is White Pride now an acceptable ideology? So why is sexism? I mean for fuck's sake - seperate buses! Even in the Jim Crow fucking South black people could use the same damn bus (albeit if they sat at the back). What the hell kind of socialist apologises for something that backward? Openly accepts people that fucked up into their movement? :cursing:


The anarchist policy of sniping from the sidelines and engaging in pseudo-radical attacks on religion and its "symbols" is stupid at best.

Yes, we all know all anarchist action is against religion :rolleyes:


At worst, it lines itself up with forces who seek to demonize Muslim minorities as part of a wider program to justify imperialist intervention in the Middle East.

The wars in the Middle East have fuck all to do with religion. It is racism and capitalism.