Burkini

This forum is the place to have more serious discussions about politics and religion, and your opinions thereof. Be courteous!

Moderators: Global Moderators, Forum Administrators

Forum rules
When a registered user insults another person (user or not), nation, political group or religious group, s/he will be deprived of her/his permission to post in the forum. That user has the right to re-register one week after s/he has lost the permission. Further violations will result in longer prohibitions.

By default, you are automatically registered to post in this forum. However, users cannot post in the politics forum during the first week after registration. Users can also not make their very first post in the politics forum.

What are your views on wearing burkinis?

I wear them myself
1
6%
I like them
0
No votes
I don't care
12
67%
I don't like them
4
22%
I hate them
1
6%
 
Total votes: 18

User avatar
Aurinĭa
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3389
Joined: 2008-05-14, 21:18
Gender: female
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Burkini

Postby Aurinĭa » 2017-07-22, 18:36

vijayjohn wrote:
Aurinĭa wrote:And in another way, it's completely different. Roma is what the Roma themselves prefer

That's actually not necessarily true. People from Romani communities have a variety of different views on what they should be called and how offensive exactly "gypsy" is (or for that matter, how appropriate "Roma" is).

Isn't that what you so often say? To use Roma instead of gypsy?
In this case, I specifically used Roma because that's what you used. You didn't mention any Romani people who might not mind being called gypsies, or might prefer to be called that isn't gypsy or Roma—so neither did I.

Besides, that doesn't invalidate the rest of my post. A further point: it's not a Muslim fashion designer's job to educate Westerners about Islamic clothing.

vijayjohn
Language Forum Moderator
Posts: 17642
Joined: 2013-01-10, 8:49
Real Name: Vijay John
Gender: male
Location: Austin
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Burkini

Postby vijayjohn » 2017-07-22, 19:23

Aurinĭa wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:
Aurinĭa wrote:And in another way, it's completely different. Roma is what the Roma themselves prefer

That's actually not necessarily true. People from Romani communities have a variety of different views on what they should be called and how offensive exactly "gypsy" is (or for that matter, how appropriate "Roma" is).

Isn't that what you so often say? To use Roma instead of gypsy?

I don't know about "so often" (if anything, my perception is that you admins say this on this forum much more often than I ever have), but sure, I advocate using Rom and Roma over gypsy and gypsies, respectively. That doesn't mean it's no more complicated than that.

I think that may also be true of this issue surrounding the name "burkini." Yes, the creator is Muslim and created the name because she had to come up with one in a hurry (she writes, "I had to call it something quickly"). But that doesn't automatically mean all Muslims accept it, and given that Saim is from a (partially?) Muslim family and has been personally targeted by Islamophobia before, I'm not inclined to take it lightly if he objects to the term for reasons that have to do with Islamophobia.

User avatar
Aurinĭa
Forum Administrator
Posts: 3389
Joined: 2008-05-14, 21:18
Gender: female
Country: BE Belgium (België / Belgique)

Re: Burkini

Postby Aurinĭa » 2017-07-22, 22:16

vijayjohn wrote:
Aurinĭa wrote:
vijayjohn wrote:
Aurinĭa wrote:And in another way, it's completely different. Roma is what the Roma themselves prefer

That's actually not necessarily true. People from Romani communities have a variety of different views on what they should be called and how offensive exactly "gypsy" is (or for that matter, how appropriate "Roma" is).

Isn't that what you so often say? To use Roma instead of gypsy?

I don't know about "so often," but sure, I advocate using Rom and Roma over gypsy. That doesn't mean it's no more complicated than that.

I know it is more complicated than that, but that was not the point of the discussion. You asked a question, I answered it.

vijayjohn wrote:But that doesn't automatically mean all Muslims accept it, and given that Saim is from a (partially?) Muslim family and has been personally targeted by Islamophobia before, I'm not inclined to take it lightly if he objects to the term for reasons that have to do with Islamophobia.

The creator herself and the women wearing one have probably experienced islamophobia too. Quite possibly while wearing one—and I doubt a different name would change that.
It's sad though that something banal like the name of a piece of clothing could spark such reactions from people who don't even wear said piece of clothing.

I think we prioritise different aspects here. You seem to prioritise possible reactions of others to the garment and/or its name (a reason for islamophobes to attack Muslims, promoting ignorance in the West about Islamic women's clothing), whereas I prioritise respecting the (Muslim, female) inventor's choice to name it what she named it. How much time she spent thinking about a possible name is irrelevant, burkini is what she called it and continues to call it.

User avatar
Meera
Posts: 8740
Joined: 2008-05-27, 22:01
Real Name: Meera
Gender: female
Location: Philadelphia
Country: US United States (United States)

Re: Burkini

Postby Meera » 2017-07-22, 23:52

As long as it is the woman's choice to wear it, I really don't care.
अहिंसा/เจ
True Love: (hi)
TAC 2017: (hi) (ja) (ko)

User avatar
Saim
Posts: 4457
Joined: 2011-01-22, 5:44
Location: Poznań
Country: PL Poland (Polska)

Re: Burkini

Postby Saim » 2017-07-24, 1:25

mōdgethanc wrote:While she has legitimate reasons for associating the hijab with oppression, her argument is that hijab is bad because shitlords who oppress women also force them to wear hijab but in a liberal society where women can wear basically whatever they want that doesn't make a ton of sense. Symbols don't have the same meaning in every context; that's why Westerners are shocked when they see swastikas in Japan. It sounds like her problem is with Islamism , not a garment.


For me this is the key part of her argument:

Again, if women must wear the hijab on all of these occasions (which are importantly male-centric) in order to wear it at all, then wearing the hijab is not a choice. If women cannot set their own conditions for how, when, and why they choose to cover then you admit that the hijab is not a complete choice but a set of social requirements that must be specifically followed. If the hijab is a choice, then there can be not set of requirements to make that choice legitimate.


This is still relevant in Muslim communities in the West where women do not face legal pressure (or widespread social pressure outside of their own families/immigrant communities). Now, as she herself says, that doesn't mean we should be against women's right to wear it, women should of course be able to dress however they want, but that doesn't mean we can't deconstruct the nature of these choices within the context of patriarchy. The point is that we can't say that it's empowering and feministic when the main point of it (at least from a religious perspective) is modesty in the presence of men who are not family members. This use of the hijab as a symbol of "modesty" in the presence of men is not limited to Islamist circles, it's essentially the whole point of it from any Islamic perspective that says its good for women to wear it for religious reasons. This isn't unique to Islamic issues - feminists can analyse the gendered nature of makeup or earrings or high heels without publicly shaming all women who wear them, or indeed rather often wear them themselves (here's a feminist perspective on makeup: "being a feminist means that you never get to enjoy a damn thing unconditionally, because there. are. always. conditions. And makeup is no exception. Fun as it is, and innocent as it can seem, we definitely need to analyze that choice before we make it.").

I do know Muslim women who alternate between leaving their head uncovered and wearing lighter headscarves (dupatta and equivalents). In that case I'd argue it has less to do with modesty and the (non-liberal) feminist appraisal of it is going to be more positive/neutral.

Of course I'm not saying that all feminists have to be critical of the hijab or prioritise it as an issue (that's why I said liberal feminism or Muslim feminism are not going to be as critical of it). I'm just saying that if as a feminist you believe in deconstructing and analysing the choices of women (including one's own choices), without denying women's right to bodily autonomy, as potentially reinforcing patriarchy, I see no reason to make an exception for Islamic traditions of modest dress.

Aurinĭa wrote:The creator herself and the women wearing one have probably experienced islamophobia too. Quite possibly while wearing one—and I doubt a different name would change that.
It's sad though that something banal like the name of a piece of clothing could spark such reactions from people who don't even wear said piece of clothing.

I think we prioritise different aspects here. You seem to prioritise possible reactions of others to the garment and/or its name (a reason for islamophobes to attack Muslims, promoting ignorance in the West about Islamic women's clothing), whereas I prioritise respecting the (Muslim, female) inventor's choice to name it what she named it. How much time she spent thinking about a possible name is irrelevant, burkini is what she called it and continues to call it.


Given that Aheda Zanetti is Australian and originally released her product for an Australian market, I'd think attitudes in the West would be at least relevant, if not a determining factor in how we appraise the social impact of the name burkini. Apparently she started her business by developing the hijood (hijab + hood), so it wouldn't be surprising if the (possibly non-Muslim?) investors pressured her into finding a similarly catchy portmanteau. In any case, that's speculation on my part.

It's surprising to me personally that someone would want to associate "modest" full body swimsuits with something as (rightfully) reviled as the burqa -- in my experience most Muslims hate the burqa, and many despectively refer to women who wear them as ninjas, but I'm totally ready to admit that that might not be representative (though then we'd have to ask why the burqa is still so marginal in the vast majority of Muslim communities throughout the world). So yes, people can do whatever they want, and I'm not trying to hate on Zanetti here, but I don't think we can just ignore the cultural context, especially when talking about for-profit initiatives in a capitalist market still dominated by white men. The burqa does prevent women from participating in public life in any meaningful way, so it's not exactly a pleasant association even if any reasonable person can immediately see that it's not the same thing if they bother to check.

Of course Luis was absolutely right to point out that burkini was coined by a Muslim woman, which is an (extremely important) fact that I was unfortunately ignorant of until now.

User avatar
Babbsagg
Posts: 225
Joined: 2017-02-26, 8:54
Gender: male
Country: DE Germany (Deutschland)

Re: Burkini

Postby Babbsagg » 2017-08-06, 10:53

I don't like or dislike them themselves, so I've chosen "I don't care". But if it allows women to go to "regular" beaches/swimming pools without violating their religious feelings/convictions, then I'm all for it. That way they can join the majority society instead of isolating themselves, and to me that's always one of the most crucial elements of coexistence and integration. If it was an expression of religious extremism/oppression, I doubt they'd be allowed to be around lots of semi-naked men anyway.
Thank you for correcting mistakes!


Return to “Politics and Religion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 1 guest