Moderator:Forum Administrators
because it's not "hygienical"
because it looks weird
mōdgethanc wrote:I'm more offended by how stupid a name "burkini"
vijayjohn wrote:I don't mind burkinis themselves, I don't think. I do mind clothing in general being imposed on anyone, though, and the first time I heard of burkinis was when Erdoğan apparently made them mandatory in Turkey never mind, I'm pretty sure I remembered that wrong.
I would assume that liberal feminists would believe that Islam has a culture of modesty and women should be allowed to participate in it if they want and Muslim feminists would believe that modesty is good and not incompatible with being an observant Muslim (so basically, the liberal position). In fact, without knowing a ton about what radfem thinks about this issue (and knowing how fractious radfem can be) I don't see why any kind of feminist these days would have a huge problem with it.Saim wrote:From a feminist[1] perspective the idea of women covering their hair in public is part of a culture of enforced modesty, but that doesn't mean we should actively attack people who are following this modesty culture (especially since in the West we have our own version of it).
I also wonder what the Venn diagram of apologists for rape and sexual assault ("why was she drunk/out at night/on her own/wearing a skirt/hanging out with men/flirting/kissing/at his place") and people who are morally outraged by women wearing togs that cover their hair would like look. I'd imagine the overlap is huge.
[1] Well, that's the mainstream radical feminist perspective at least. Among liberal feminists and Muslim feminists there doesn't seem to be as much consensus as far as I can tell.
Ooh, such a cutting insult, a liberal!I remember in this one forum an almost stereotypical brocialist (apparently active in the CUP but also spreading pick-up artist bullshit and justifying it by complaining about the "moralistic hypocrisy" of liberal feminism, as if he was any sort of feminist or ally to feminism) called me "liberal" for talking about "women's freedom to wear what they want, which is not respected by conservative antifeminists regardless of their religious beliefs". And I'm like, I agree with the radical feminist perspective, but you have to understand the context of xenophobia that this issue is being brought up in.
mōdgethanc wrote:I would assume that liberal feminists would believe that Islam has a culture of modesty and women should be allowed to participate in it if they want and Muslim feminists would believe that modesty is good and not incompatible with being an observant Muslim (so basically, the liberal position). In fact, without knowing a ton about what radfem thinks about this issue (and knowing how fractious radfem can be) I don't see why any kind of feminist these days would have a huge problem with it.
https://gcintheme.tumblr.com/post/16000 ... -choice-or
You also cannot use the phrase “actual hijabis” without admitting that there is some set of rules and requirements for wearing the hijab, and therefore it is not a free choice. I am assuming here an “actual hijabi” is a woman who always covers in public or when there are men around who are not part of her family, which is the commonly-accepted obligation. A free choice cannot include such a limiting and un-free ultimatum.
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.
[...]
I am not a threat to you. Women who criticize sexism within cultures that demand women dress a certain way are not a threat to you. Patriarchy is the threat and by refusing to acknowledge this patriarchy and its effects on how women are forced to behave in society, you are enabling the threat.
I live in Iraq, where women who remove their veils can be beaten to death by their families, and the government allows this. Part of my country is occupied by ISIS, which requires women to cover head-to-toe and rapes, enslaves, and murders women who don’t follow every rule or their specific type of Islam. My country borders Saudi Arabia and Iran, where women are forced to cover and sometimes even stoned to death for “adultery” if they are raped.
To me, the hijab is a symbol of extreme patriarchy, the possession of women, male violence, jealousy and domestic control. I fear every day that as political Islam grows in Iraq, I might be forced to legally cover tomorrow. In some parts of my country I have to cover to blend in or I could be raped or killed.
I don't understand what this guy's point was. Does he think it's bad to think women should be allowed to wear whatever they want? In that case he would find better company with the conservative antifeminists he's pretending not to agree with.
Catalan brocialist wrote:We're not talking about sexual assault in some vacuum, but the relationship between it and bullshit like "I can show my breasts whenever I want". Specifically it belongs to an interpretation that tries to confuse people, denying what is obvious, and basing itself on a perspective that says that sexuality is a tool in the domination of men over women. This is the canonical sex-negative feminist view of rape (which is about power, not pleasure), so don't pretend that the ideological corpus that your comments are based on have nothing to do with you.
[...]
We need to separate [men grabbing women's breasts without consent] from rape and real examples of sexual assault, but hardly anyone talks about the moral degradation that comes along with the obsession many young males have with the female body, those who raise a furtive hand to be able to caress a breast are also victims. An obsession which, although this is denied by most feminists, is taken advantage of by many women - including many who use the hypocritical and stupid slogan "I wear clothes that show cleavage because I want to, not to show it to anyone in particular".
[...]
What a load of liberal-reactionary bullshit [referring to the idea that women should be able to show their breasts in public or wear hair-covering swimsuits depending on what they themselves want]. Don't conflate what you're saying with feminist perspectives, because it only belongs to its most right-wing branch.
Catalan brocialist wrote:[What I find interesting about MRAs, pick-up artists and redpillers is that] they add a sort of ideology of gender that deals with the issue of the crisis of masculinity, or if you prefer, of adapting masculinity to a society with changing gender roles. I think they're wrong, but they're the only ones who deal with this issue. Because what does feminism say about this? "Check your privilege", make an effort to renounce these things: sex (don't hit on anyone), don't talk in meetings, put women and especially your girlfriend on a pedestal, be a chump/stay in the friendzone, etc. And the problem isn't just that you don't end up fucking, but that feminist women, when you do what derives from their ideology, treat you worse than if you don't do it, so the poor heterosexual chump who sympathises with feminism and has decided to act in consequence with his beliefs and "destroy his masculinity", ends up totally confused, living in his own skin the refutation of what he believed to be true.
Of course, all of this would just be excuses if the Gordian Knot of feminism was true. It would be the same pathetic justification that the bourgeoisie give to continue exploiting their workers. But the thing is that it's not: patriarchy doesn't exist. [...] There's no universal conspiracy to fuck with women in the benefit of men. Gender isn't a class: it's an identity. It's not controlled by anyone, we all participate in it.
Saim wrote:mōdgethanc wrote:I'm more offended by how stupid a name "burkini"
Yeah me too.
Saim wrote:The only position the AKP has taken on women's head covering is that headscarves should be allowed in public buildings (universities, government offices, military, etc.). Which... fair enough? Right? I believe in secularism (just look at my avatar), but I dunno if the French/Turkish model of laïcité where any religious symbols are off bounds is really that helpful.
15-18 May 2003... Intent on projecting a more modern public-image at the first-annual AKP political 'working camp' (held at the beach this year in Antalya), Prime Minister (and AKP party leader) Recep Tayyip Erdoğan declared the 'haşema' to be unsuitable attire for attending parliamentarians. Most party-members complied with his edict, but a few of the more religiously-orthodox members defied him -- which fueled rumors of an AKP party rift.
Luís wrote:You guys are aware the name was invented by the woman who designed them, right? It's not as if it's some pejorative word created by detractors.
Saim wrote:Luís wrote:You guys are aware the name was invented by the woman who designed them, right? It's not as if it's some pejorative word created by detractors.
I guess she give it that name because it's catchy even though it's not really accurate. If people know what it means then it's not so much of an issue what the etymology of the word is, but I feel like the word does make it easier for Islamophobes to attack Muslims.
Saim wrote:I feel like the word does make it easier for Islamophobes to attack Muslims.
vijayjohn wrote:it just promotes general ignorance in the West about women's clothing in certain parts of the Islamic world, doesn't it?
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.Saim wrote:Here's an Iraqi radfem's position on it
I'm not sure if any of this incoherent drivel even needs a response by me.He does. He's allegedly a communist but he spends 90% of his activity railing against LIBERALS!!!!! (=veganism, feminism, Green parties and postmodernism) even though the board is full of 4chanesque racist scum, who he mostly leaves alone. He also supported Le Pen and Trump because Macron and Clinton are LIBERALS!!!!!.
Here are his responses to me in a thread opened by conservative antifeminists, where they complained about a woman who talked about sexual assault on television, but was a "hypocrite" in that she had allegedly shown her breasts in public (without criticising the FUCKING JIHADI MOORS!!!!, who are the real sexists).Catalan brocialist wrote:We're not talking about sexual assault in some vacuum, but the relationship between it and bullshit like "I can show my breasts whenever I want". Specifically it belongs to an interpretation that tries to confuse people, denying what is obvious, and basing itself on a perspective that says that sexuality is a tool in the domination of men over women. This is the canonical sex-negative feminist view of rape (which is about power, not pleasure), so don't pretend that the ideological corpus that your comments are based on have nothing to do with you.
[...]
We need to separate [men grabbing women's breasts without consent] from rape and real examples of sexual assault, but hardly anyone talks about the moral degradation that comes along with the obsession many young males have with the female body, those who raise a furtive hand to be able to caress a breast are also victims. An obsession which, although this is denied by most feminists, is taken advantage of by many women - including many who use the hypocritical and stupid slogan "I wear clothes that show cleavage because I want to, not to show it to anyone in particular".
[...]
What a load of liberal-reactionary bullshit [referring to the idea that women should be able to show their breasts in public or wear hair-covering swimsuits depending on what they themselves want]. Don't conflate what you're saying with feminist perspectives, because it only belongs to its most right-wing branch.
This is what he believes about MRAs and feminists:Catalan brocialist wrote:[What I find interesting about MRAs, pick-up artists and redpillers is that] they add a sort of ideology of gender that deals with the issue of the crisis of masculinity, or if you prefer, of adapting masculinity to a society with changing gender roles. I think they're wrong, but they're the only ones who deal with this issue. Because what does feminism say about this? "Check your privilege", make an effort to renounce these things: sex (don't hit on anyone), don't talk in meetings, put women and especially your girlfriend on a pedestal, be a chump/stay in the friendzone, etc. And the problem isn't just that you don't end up fucking, but that feminist women, when you do what derives from their ideology, treat you worse than if you don't do it, so the poor heterosexual chump who sympathises with feminism and has decided to act in consequence with his beliefs and "destroy his masculinity", ends up totally confused, living in his own skin the refutation of what he believed to be true.
Of course, all of this would just be excuses if the Gordian Knot of feminism was true. It would be the same pathetic justification that the bourgeoisie give to continue exploiting their workers. But the thing is that it's not: patriarchy doesn't exist. [...] There's no universal conspiracy to fuck with women in the benefit of men. Gender isn't a class: it's an identity. It's not controlled by anyone, we all participate in it.
Were you aware of that before now?Luis wrote:You guys are aware the name was invented by the woman who designed them, right? It's not as if it's some pejorative word created by detractors.
Scare quotes have got to be my least favourite rhetorical device.Aurinĭa wrote:Not everything has to be about what "the West" would think.
mōdgethanc wrote:Luis wrote:You guys are aware the name was invented by the woman who designed them, right? It's not as if it's some pejorative word created by detractors.
Were you aware of that before now?
Aurinĭa wrote:Not everything has to be about what "the West" would think.
Scare quotes have got to be my least favourite rhetorical device.
Aurinĭa wrote:Aurinĭa wrote:Not everything has to be about what "the West" would think.
Scare quotes have got to be my least favourite rhetorical device.
Referring to a diverse group of people as a monolith isn't one of my favourites either. For example, there are plenty of Muslim women in the West, among whom the creator of the burkini and women who (want to) wear a burkini on beaches and in swimming pools in the West.
vijayjohn wrote:Okay, then where in the West are there no Muslim immigrants at all surrounded by people who have no idea what (some) Muslim women wear?
voron wrote:vijayjohn wrote:Okay, then where in the West are there no Muslim immigrants at all surrounded by people who have no idea what (some) Muslim women wear?
Here.
vijayjohn wrote:Okay, then where in the West are there no Muslim immigrants at all surrounded by people who have no idea what (some) Muslim women wear?
Aurinĭa wrote:And in another way, it's completely different. Roma is what the Roma themselves prefer
Return to “Politics and Religion”
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests