Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:32 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285

The threat about niqabs


You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah.

And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection.
  #2  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:47 AM
engineer_comp_geek's Avatar
engineer_comp_geek is online now
Robot Mod in Beta Testing
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 26,637
Moderator Action

Yeah, that's a rant.

Moving thread from MPSIMS to the BBQ Pit.
  #3  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:48 AM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Speaking as somebody who's always supported the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab, I don't see how the emergency practice of universal mask wearing as a public-health measure in response to a dangerous pandemic changes the merits of my position at all.

Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that's hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted.

But if we return to a non-emergency situation where the wearing of face coverings in ordinary social/professional contexts is once again not considered an acceptable societal norm, then I'll resume my position of supporting the right of individuals to wear niqab but also the right of decision makers in certain specific societal contexts to prohibit face-coverings including niqab. I don't see anything bigoted or hypocritical about that.
  #4  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:57 AM
Velocity is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 17,493
OK, what?

One = a religious statement, the other = a practical measure to reduce exposure to a deadly virus.
  #5  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:05 AM
Smapti is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Olympia, WA
Posts: 16,927
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah.

And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection.
I think you'll find that the Venn diagram of "people who are opposed to niqabs" and "people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM" is a circle.
  #6  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:10 AM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Here's what I opined on the subject, minus the pandemic-mask issue, about ten years ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
But if they are wearing veils out of deference to religious prohibitions against women participating in the public sphere, then ISTM they should not be attempting to participate in the public sphere.

This is the "burqa = pardah" argument that I've made before in threads like this one. Namely, the requirement in some Islamic cultures for women to cover their faces in public is part of the general principle of pardah or "purdah", the idea that women should stay "behind the curtain" of private and family life.

Cultures that practice pardah are maintaining the principle that women do not belong in the public sphere, and in particular should not interact with male strangers in any way.

Total veiling of women (wearing combinations of garments variously known as burqa, niqab, chador, abaya, etc.) outside the home is intended as a practical compromise with the pardah principle. It recognizes that the necessities of life compel women to leave the house sometimes to go shopping, go to the doctor, etc., and allows them to symbolically take the privacy of the house with them. The veil for pardah-nishin women isn't just a modest garment, it's a symbolic cloak of invisibility signifying that they're not really "in public" even though they have to be outside their private home environment temporarily.

And I'm totally fine with that practice and think that Western societies that pride themselves on freedom and religious tolerance should accommodate it. Pardah-nishin women should indeed be allowed to wear veils while riding buses, shopping at the supermarket, using gas station restrooms, whatever they have to do while being outside their home environment. Very few people find it practically feasible to stay in their own houses all the time, even if they believe in principle that they ought to do so, and I'm happy to follow the convention of letting veiled women go about their most necessary errands while visually pretending that they're not really there.

HOWEVER. I think that open democratic societies have a right to make their own rules about expectations for people participating in their public spheres. It is not unreasonable to expect that a person who is, say, applying for a job requiring them to deal with strangers, or enrolling in a class with other students, is tacitly consenting to participating in that society's public sphere.

And if that person insists on wearing a veil or following some other practice that is fundamentally based on the principle that they DON'T participate in the public sphere, then I think that's somewhat disrespectful to the society they're living in. If you want to be pardah-nishin, then be pardah-nishin, but if you're going to voluntarily participate in society's public sphere, then you can't be pardah-nishin.
None of the above is changed by the fact that nowadays we're all covering our faces in public in what is hopefully a temporary measure to ameliorate a serious public-health crisis.
  #7  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:17 AM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
Yes, if anybody in the current situation is objecting to niqab but not to other kinds of face-coverings, that's hypocritical and bigoted. If this pandemic ends up fundamentally changing social customs in western societies so that public use of face-coverings becomes an acceptable societal norm, then objecting specifically to niqab will also be hypocritical and bigoted.
Why? The religious justification for niqabs is explicitly patriarchal; it’s a “good” woman’s moral duty, apparently, to go to such lengths to avoid inciting lustful thoughts in men and tempting them to sin. If I wear a face covering to protect myself from germs, and you wear a face covering because you’ve been conditioned by men since childhood to believe that negating your own individuality is an expression of piety and moral virtue, why should we be treated the same? Why can’t I object to this ugly manifestation of medieval sexism, even while wearing a mask to keep from getting sick?
  #8  
Old 05-15-2020, 01:40 AM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
Why? The religious justification for niqabs is explicitly patriarchal; it’s a “good” woman’s moral duty, apparently, to go to such lengths to avoid inciting lustful thoughts in men and tempting them to sin. If I wear a face covering to protect myself from germs, and you wear a face covering because you’ve been conditioned by men since childhood to believe that negating your own individuality is an expression of piety and moral virtue, why should we be treated the same?
Sorry, shoulda been more clear. If in the current circumstances somebody objects to the wearing of niqab specifically on the grounds that it violates our societal norms against covering the face in social/professional situations, while they don't object to anti-virus face masks on the same grounds, then they are being hypocritical and bigoted. If covering the face in public is now socially acceptable, then covering the face for religious as well as medical reasons shouldn't be singled out as unacceptable.

Of course, you are still perfectly free to have a personal preference about the intrinsic merits of those different reasons. But you don't get to apply the "tut-tut, musn't cover your face because it's socially incorrect in our society to do that when interacting with other people" smackdown to one of those reasons but not the other.
  #9  
Old 05-15-2020, 03:22 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by engineer_comp_geek View Post
Moderator Action

Yeah, that's a rant.

Moving thread from MPSIMS to the BBQ Pit.
I requested this move BTW.
I wish ECG could have made that clearer.

Carry on.

Last edited by Leaffan; 05-15-2020 at 03:23 AM.
  #10  
Old 05-15-2020, 03:35 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I think you'll find that the Venn diagram of "people who are opposed to niqabs" and "people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM" is a circle.
As someone who works with the public I have to agree with this statement.
  #11  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:24 AM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 31,199
It's not a contradiction to be morally opposed to religious face coverings as being oppressive* and supporting wearing face coverings out of medical necessity. That's my stance, but it's a small enough issue that it isn't worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it's necessary to be uncovered such as for identification purposes.

* even if some wearers don't consider it to be oppressive. For instance, FGM is largely enforced by women but that doesn't make it non-oppressive.
  #12  
Old 05-15-2020, 10:41 AM
RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 43,053
Quebec Suddenly Fine With People Covering Their Faces

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/05...g-their-faces/
__________________
Providing useless posts since 1999!
  #13  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:24 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,534
The contradiction is with those claiming that there are policy reasons we MUST be able to see people's faces, as we must be able to identify people upon sight to avoid crime and such. This is one of the most common supposedly "religion neutral" and excuses for banning the niqab--even when, say, the president of France explicitly said the goal was to stop Muslims from wearing it.

The same governments saying that allowing wearing a mask is too difficult a burden to allow for freedom of religion are perfectly okay saying it's not burdensome here. That is a contradiction. If it's too much of a burden, then it would be under all circumstances.

The whole niqab ban has always been about religion, despite people claiming otherwise. And the OP, living in Canada, is likely in one of those places that pushes the niqab ban. The US assholes who refuse to wear masks aren't really who he's talking about.

At least, that was my presumption when I read the OP, and why I came in here planning to support him.
  #14  
Old 05-15-2020, 12:28 PM
BigT's Avatar
BigT is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: "Hicksville", Ark.
Posts: 37,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
it isn't worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it's necessary to be uncovered such as for identification purposes.
That's my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they'd still be necessary during the pandemic.

So far, I've seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared.

If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying.
  #15  
Old 05-15-2020, 04:24 PM
gdave is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2018
Posts: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they'd still be necessary during the pandemic.

So far, I've seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared.

If something is a necessity, it remains so at all times, even in emergency situations like a pandemic. So they were lying.
I am generally opposed to bans on on wearing niqabs, and I generally think the reasons typically given are specious.

But.

There is nothing contradictory or hypocritical about banning niqabs on the grounds of public safety when there is no pandemic and then later requiring face coverings on the grounds of public safety when there is a pandemic. It is entirely possible, logically, for there to be simultaneously a public safety threat from people concealing their faces in public and from people not covering their mouths and noses in public.

It is also entirely consistent with a genuine concern for public safety for officials to weigh the threat of each, and decide that in pre-pandemic times, the threat to public safety of individuals concealing their faces outweighs concerns for religious/cultural/personal liberty, while in a time of a global pandemic, the public safety threat of spreading COVID-19 outweighs the public safety threat of individuals concealing their faces.

Again, I personally think the "public safety" rationale for banning niqabs is specious, but if you grant the premises of that rationale, there's no contradiction with requiring face coverings in different circumstances.
  #16  
Old 05-16-2020, 09:17 PM
velomont is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 692
Leaffan, for my own clarification:

・ do you believe that religion = race?
・ have you read the Quran?
・ have you spent any time in an Islamic country?
・ do you believe that religion is a choice?
・ do you know any Muslims?
  #17  
Old 05-17-2020, 06:26 AM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigT View Post
That's my point. If it really was necessary for identification purposes, then they'd still be necessary during the pandemic.

So far, I've seen absolutely no one argue that as a reason people even need to take off their mask temporarily. Suddenly that supposed concern disappeared.
People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all.

Oh, and mugshots of local bad guys in my local paper all show folks with orange jumpsuits and a surgical-type mask hanging around their necks, but bare faces.

But other than that.... apparently it's not necessary to bare your face in public at this time.
  #18  
Old 05-17-2020, 07:19 AM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by gdave View Post
There is nothing contradictory or hypocritical about banning niqabs on the grounds of public safety when there is no pandemic and then later requiring face coverings on the grounds of public safety when there is a pandemic. It is entirely possible, logically, for there to be simultaneously a public safety threat from people concealing their faces in public and from people not covering their mouths and noses in public.

It is also entirely consistent with a genuine concern for public safety for officials to weigh the threat of each, and decide that in pre-pandemic times, the threat to public safety of individuals concealing their faces outweighs concerns for religious/cultural/personal liberty, while in a time of a global pandemic, the public safety threat of spreading COVID-19 outweighs the public safety threat of individuals concealing their faces.

Again, I personally think the "public safety" rationale for banning niqabs is specious, but if you grant the premises of that rationale, there's no contradiction with requiring face coverings in different circumstances.
Yep. A lot of the anti-mask laws in the US are old anti-KKK laws. But the immediate public health threat today vs the KKK is different from what it used to be.

I'm assuming I'll need to drop mask for TSA, but I don't know anyone who has flown recently. And TSA is in flux now anyway. Sounds like the current hubbub is about measuring temperatures.
  #19  
Old 05-17-2020, 09:07 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by velomont View Post
Leaffan, for my own clarification:

・ do you believe that religion = race?
・ have you read the Quran?
・ have you spent any time in an Islamic country?
・ do you believe that religion is a choice?
・ do you know any Muslims?
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
  #20  
Old 05-17-2020, 09:43 AM
Tibby's Avatar
Tibby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,827
Quote:
Originally Posted by Broomstick View Post
People with iPhones set up for face recognition to unlock their phones do, in fact, have to uncover their faces to pay for anything with their phones, or basically use their phones at all.
<snip>
That is a breach of protection at the moment cashiers are most vulnerable. The stores I see have plexiglass directly in front of cashiers, but not in front of the card scanner. If people are removing their masks that close to cashiers for face recognition, they should be told to use a different method to open their phone. Cashiers are at great enough risk as it is, they don’t need additional risk.
__________________
“Do you believe in such nonsense?” "No, but they say it works even if you don't believe in it.”—Niels Bohr
  #21  
Old 05-17-2020, 09:43 AM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by RickJay View Post
Quebec Suddenly Fine With People Covering Their Faces

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2020/05...g-their-faces/
Perfect!
  #22  
Old 05-17-2020, 12:23 PM
Broomstick's Avatar
Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 30,548
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tibby View Post
That is a breach of protection at the moment cashiers are most vulnerable. The stores I see have plexiglass directly in front of cashiers, but not in front of the card scanner. If people are removing their masks that close to cashiers for face recognition, they should be told to use a different method to open their phone. Cashiers are at great enough risk as it is, they don’t need additional risk.
Apparently some iPhone users are unaware of how to use an alternate method to open their phone and/or don't know how to disable facial recognition.

Also, at least at my store, the plexi does extend above the card reader. It won't work for really short customers, but for most customers it still remains a barrier between their face and the cashier.

So... not hopeless even if not great.

None of the civilian protections - masks, distance, shields, etc. - are 100%, or even near it, but they do have an additive effect. Any one of them helps, the more you pile on top the better. It's a fact though that you're not going to get 100% compliance with the general public on anything.
  #23  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:47 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,400
People who were against the Klan or other perpetrators of violence wearing masks in public are now fine with masking during the pandemic?

Those sanctimonious hypocrites!
  #24  
Old 05-17-2020, 04:55 PM
psychonaut is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Europe
Posts: 6,398
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I think you'll find that the Venn diagram of "people who are opposed to niqabs" and "people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM" is a circle.
Not in Austria it isn't. The government banned niqabs but made the wearing of face coverings in stores mandatory.
  #25  
Old 05-17-2020, 05:25 PM
Buck Godot's Avatar
Buck Godot is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: MD outside DC
Posts: 6,506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smapti View Post
I think you'll find that the Venn diagram of "people who are opposed to niqabs" and "people who think having to wear a mask to the store is an attack on their FREEDOM" is a circle.
Although this is still hypocritical. Muslims shouldn't be able to wear niqabs because it is a public safety hazard, but I should be allowed to not wear a mask because in America we have the freedom to wear what we want regardless of the safety consequences. Then to add to the trifecta, I should be allowed to congregate with thousands of others in my mega church because freedom of religion (so long as its not Muslim, or Hindu, or Buddist, or Catholic) trumps any other concern what so ever.
  #26  
Old 05-17-2020, 06:57 PM
saucywench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,042
The OP said, "You racist fucks...blah, blah...blah."

This post sums up how I feel.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
It's not a contradiction to be morally opposed to religious face coverings as being oppressive* and supporting wearing face coverings out of medical necessity. That's my stance, but it's a small enough issue that it isn't worth it to make laws against it except in cases where it's necessary to be uncovered such as for identification purposes.

* even if some wearers don't consider it to be oppressive. For instance, FGM is largely enforced by women but that doesn't make it non-oppressive.

True story here. It was July or August, late afternoon, about 110-115 degrees. I was picking up a pizza. As I was going in, a family of three was coming out. The man was wearing khaki shorts and a light or white polo shirt. He was holding the hand of a little boy (3ish), who was also wearing shorts and a short sleeve shirt.

Bringing up the rear,...the woman. She was covered head to toe, no sandals even. I'm not sure if her garments were black, but they weren't turquoise and hot pink, that's for sure. The man walked proudly enough, the woman was a shrouded, faceless, dark, hunched over, defeated-looking nonentity.

I thought it was an absolutely disgusting, patriarchal display of backwards beliefs, that don't have any place in modern society. I was glad I wasn't born wherever she was born. I feel the same about countries that practice FGM. It's like Bugs Bunny said, "It's a man's world." Apparently, in some countries, nothing has changed in ages.

Women from backwards countries having to cover themselves from head to toe, doesn't compare to wearing masks for medical purposes because of some super virus. In the modern world, there are reasons why, in certain places and situations, people's faces may need to be identifiable, which may require the removal of head and face coverings, including scarves, ski masks, etc.
  #27  
Old 05-17-2020, 08:26 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
True story here. It was July or August, late afternoon, about 110-115 degrees. I was picking up a pizza. As I was going in, a family of three was coming out. The man was wearing khaki shorts and a light or white polo shirt. He was holding the hand of a little boy (3ish), who was also wearing shorts and a short sleeve shirt.

Bringing up the rear,...the woman. She was covered head to toe, no sandals even. I'm not sure if her garments were black, but they weren't turquoise and hot pink, that's for sure. The man walked proudly enough, the woman was a shrouded, faceless, dark, hunched over, defeated-looking nonentity.
I had an almost identical experience on a hot summer day seeing a comfortably clothed man and his son, accompanied by a shrouded figure in black. It was difficult to avoid overtly glaring at Captain Clueless.
  #28  
Old 05-17-2020, 10:48 PM
saucywench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,042
Jack -

I agree! It made me sick, and I felt so sorry for the woman. I can't begin to imagine all the many things women like her are probably forbidden from doing. I bet she doesn't get to go out by herself or with friends, while hubby watches the kids. Make any decisions? Probably not. She probably isn't allowed to drive either. I couldn't wait to turn sixteen, when the family's second car became mine. Glorious freedom!

I'd like to know what the women think about having to wear such hot, cumbersome, ugly garments?
  #29  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:12 PM
saucywench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,042
Does anyone know the English translation of niqab?

Last edited by saucywench; 05-17-2020 at 11:14 PM.
  #30  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:21 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Do you mean niqab? (ETA: Yes; I saw your original spelling niqad before you corrected it.) It's just an Arabic word meaning "veil" (verbal root nqb).

Last edited by Kimstu; 05-17-2020 at 11:22 PM.
  #31  
Old 05-17-2020, 11:46 PM
saucywench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,042
Kim -

Thank you for the definition. Yes, I had trouble spelling the word even though it's in the title. I'm claiming extreme fatigue. I was lucky to squeeze in three edits to get it right. One of my misspellings actually translates to "captain." Kind of funny after the Captain Clueless comment.

Last edited by saucywench; 05-17-2020 at 11:48 PM.
  #32  
Old 05-18-2020, 11:03 AM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
True story here. It was July or August, late afternoon, about 110-115 degrees. I was picking up a pizza. As I was going in, a family of three was coming out. The man was wearing khaki shorts and a light or white polo shirt. He was holding the hand of a little boy (3ish), who was also wearing shorts and a short sleeve shirt.

Bringing up the rear,...the woman. She was covered head to toe, no sandals even. I'm not sure if her garments were black, but they weren't turquoise and hot pink, that's for sure. The man walked proudly enough, the woman was a shrouded, faceless, dark, hunched over, defeated-looking nonentity.

I thought it was an absolutely disgusting, patriarchal display of backwards beliefs, that don't have any place in modern society.
Well, I sure don't have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology.

But I think we tend to forget that a lot of other gender norms are similarly rooted in "patriarchal display of backwards beliefs", but we just don't notice them because they're so familiar.

For example, suppose you saw a similar family walking out of a pizza joint on a hot day. The man and little son are dressed as you describe, in comfortable clothing with comfortable shoes, and utilitarian short haircuts. Hobbling along behind them is the wife, elaborately dressed with tight high-heeled shoes and constricting shapewear. She's clearly had cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation and facelifting. She's very hot in her fancy clothes and elaborate hairstyle and jewelry, but she can't even wipe away the sweat for fear of messing up her carefully applied makeup.

Would you feel angry with that husband? Would you feel like calling him out on his patriarchal backwardness in assuming that he and his son are entitled to live in public in their natural appearance with casual comfortable clothing, while he expects his wife to subject herself to constant discomfort (not to mention painful and risky surgical procedures) to look how she's "supposed" to look?

You'll naturally respond "Oh, that's different! Our society isn't making the wife do that to herself! It's her own choice!" And you'll have a point, to some extent: women in most liberal-democracy societies nowadays have a lot more latitude about what constitutes a socially acceptable way for them to present themselves in public than women in several Islamic theocracies do.

But there's never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation. A lot of veiled Muslim women living in western liberal democracies argue that they're freely choosing to wear the veil and should be allowed to do so. Whose individual choice deserves to be respected?

(And if we're just looking at the sheer physical barbarity of the gender norms in question, I don't think the contrast is necessarily very much in our favor either. Personally, all other things being equal, if I had to choose between being required to (1) always cover up in a big veiled garment in public, or (2) have cosmetic surgery and always wear high heels and makeup and hairspray and uncomfortable "fancy" clothing in public, I'd take that big ol' chador every time.)
  #33  
Old 05-18-2020, 12:13 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 685
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
(And if we're just looking at the sheer physical barbarity of the gender norms in question, I don't think the contrast is necessarily very much in our favor either. Personally, all other things being equal, if I had to choose between being required to (1) always cover up in a big veiled garment in public, or (2) have cosmetic surgery and always wear high heels and makeup and hairspray and uncomfortable "fancy" clothing in public, I'd take that big ol' chador every time.)
A niqab and a chador are very different things.
  #34  
Old 05-18-2020, 12:29 PM
Chronos's Avatar
Chronos is offline
Charter Member
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: The Land of Cleves
Posts: 88,635
There is an argument that women should cover their faces for religious reasons, and correspondingly an argument that even those not members of those religions should allow this, for reasons of religious tolerance. There is an argument that people should have their faces visible, so that they can be recognized for purposes of law enforcement. There is an argument that people should cover their faces, so as to help prevent the spread of disease. There is no inherent reason that all of those arguments should be held to have equal weight, and it is quite possible for a reasonable person to, without hypocrisy, support one sort of face covering but oppose another.
  #35  
Old 05-18-2020, 02:11 PM
octopus's Avatar
octopus is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 9,683
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
You racist fucks. You thought covering a portion of your face was blah, blah, anti, blah blah, in public, blah blah.

And now you have no issue with the general public wearing face masks for viral protection.
Don’t tell me you’re the type of fool who has a stroke over those folk strongly opposed to the abominable practice of female genital mutilation yet indifferent to male circumcision. Or is your post merely the ideological equivalent of a peacock showing its tail?
  #36  
Old 05-18-2020, 03:06 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
I'm uncircumcised. What do you think?
  #37  
Old 05-18-2020, 03:28 PM
Ruken is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: DC
Posts: 8,476
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leaffan View Post
I'm uncircumcised. What do you think?
That depends entirely whether you breastfeed your declawed cat.
  #38  
Old 05-18-2020, 03:39 PM
madsircool is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 8,667
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruken View Post
That depends entirely whether you breastfeed your declawed cat.
I prefer them clawed. I like a little pain with my pleasure.
  #39  
Old 05-18-2020, 05:19 PM
Unreconstructed Man is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 685
This thread turned weird fast.
  #40  
Old 05-18-2020, 05:59 PM
Tibby's Avatar
Tibby is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 2,827
Aw, breastfeeding uncircumcised, niqab wearing cats with razor-sharp claws...that’s just business as usual on the SDMB.
  #41  
Old 05-18-2020, 06:11 PM
Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 3,009
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
This thread turned weird fast.
That's what happens when a resident troll realizes people are talking about women being mistreated, and has to remind everyone that MEN ARE MISTREATED TOO OK?
  #42  
Old 05-18-2020, 06:19 PM
puzzlegal's Avatar
puzzlegal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 5,972
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Well, I sure don't have anything good to say about the innate sexism of mandatory veiling for women, or the abuses and tyranny that many veiled women are subjected to by rabidly patriarchal ideology.

But I think we tend to forget that a lot of other gender norms are similarly rooted in "patriarchal display of backwards beliefs", but we just don't notice them because they're so familiar.

For example, suppose you saw a similar family walking out of a pizza joint on a hot day. The man and little son are dressed as you describe, in comfortable clothing with comfortable shoes, and utilitarian short haircuts. Hobbling along behind them is the wife, elaborately dressed with tight high-heeled shoes and constricting shapewear. She's clearly had cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation and facelifting. She's very hot in her fancy clothes and elaborate hairstyle and jewelry, but she can't even wipe away the sweat for fear of messing up her carefully applied makeup.

Would you feel angry with that husband? Would you feel like calling him out on his patriarchal backwardness in assuming that he and his son are entitled to live in public in their natural appearance with casual comfortable clothing, while he expects his wife to subject herself to constant discomfort (not to mention painful and risky surgical procedures) to look how she's "supposed" to look?

You'll naturally respond "Oh, that's different! Our society isn't making the wife do that to herself! It's her own choice!" And you'll have a point, to some extent: women in most liberal-democracy societies nowadays have a lot more latitude about what constitutes a socially acceptable way for them to present themselves in public than women in several Islamic theocracies do.

But there's never a totally bright line between an individual choice and a socially conditioned gender norm or expectation. A lot of veiled Muslim women living in western liberal democracies argue that they're freely choosing to wear the veil and should be allowed to do so. Whose individual choice deserves to be respected?

(And if we're just looking at the sheer physical barbarity of the gender norms in question, I don't think the contrast is necessarily very much in our favor either. Personally, all other things being equal, if I had to choose between being required to (1) always cover up in a big veiled garment in public, or (2) have cosmetic surgery and always wear high heels and makeup and hairspray and uncomfortable "fancy" clothing in public, I'd take that big ol' chador every time.)
Yup. I, too, would rather wear the lumpy covering clothing than high heels and fake boobs with fancy makeup.

To be clear, I think the niqab is offensively sexist. But that doesn't mean I want to BAN it. And if a woman wants to dress like that in public so as to have a better life when she's with her family and community, I think she should be allowed to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Unreconstructed Man View Post
A niqab and a chador are very different things.
Can I just wear a hijab? Because that always struck me as a happy medium between modesty and freedom. And some of them look attractive and comfortable.
  #43  
Old 05-18-2020, 07:51 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by puzzlegal View Post
Can I just wear a hijab? Because that always struck me as a happy medium between modesty and freedom. And some of them look attractive and comfortable.
I support this position.
  #44  
Old 05-18-2020, 08:02 PM
Jackmannii's Avatar
Jackmannii is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: the extreme center
Posts: 33,400
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
For example, suppose you saw a similar family walking out of a pizza joint on a hot day. The man and little son are dressed as you describe, in comfortable clothing with comfortable shoes, and utilitarian short haircuts. Hobbling along behind them is the wife, elaborately dressed with tight high-heeled shoes and constricting shapewear. She's clearly had cosmetic surgery for breast augmentation and facelifting. She's very hot in her fancy clothes and elaborate hairstyle and jewelry, but she can't even wipe away the sweat for fear of messing up her carefully applied makeup.
The key difference in this scenario (which I've never witnessed) is that the woman in question would not be arrested if she did or didn't wear such an outfit.

The same cannot be said for a niqab.

*even in the American South, very very few men demand that their womenfolk get breast augmentation and facelifts before they're permitted to go out to a Chuck E. Cheese for pizza.
  #45  
Old 05-18-2020, 08:22 PM
Monty's Avatar
Monty is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Beijing, China
Posts: 24,685
But they must to go to Hooters, right?
  #46  
Old 05-18-2020, 08:23 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jackmannii View Post
The key difference in this scenario (which I've never witnessed) is that the woman in question would not be arrested if she did or didn't wear such an outfit.
Yup. If you had read to the end of my post that you were replying to, you'd see that I already acknowledged that:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
You'll naturally respond "Oh, that's different! Our society isn't making the wife do that to herself! It's her own choice!" And you'll have a point, to some extent: women in most liberal-democracy societies nowadays have a lot more latitude about what constitutes a socially acceptable way for them to present themselves in public than women in several Islamic theocracies do.
  #47  
Old 05-18-2020, 08:41 PM
Whack-a-Mole's Avatar
Whack-a-Mole is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Posts: 21,717
OP: I'm curious if, before COVID-19 happened, if you thought hospitals were "racist fucks" for making surgical staff wear masks while in the operating room?
__________________
"I did not mean that Conservatives are generally stupid; I meant, that stupid persons are generally Conservative. I believe that to be so obvious and undeniable a fact that I hardly think any hon. Gentleman will question it." ~John Stuart Mill

Last edited by Whack-a-Mole; 05-18-2020 at 08:41 PM.
  #48  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:14 PM
saucywench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Goat Therapy Institute
Posts: 1,042
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu View Post
Here's what I opined on the subject, minus the pandemic-mask issue, about ten years ago:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimstu
But if they are wearing veils out of deference to religious prohibitions against women participating in the public sphere, then ISTM they should not be attempting to participate in the public sphere.

This is the "burqa = pardah" argument that I've made before in threads like this one. Namely, the requirement in some Islamic cultures for women to cover their faces in public is part of the general principle of pardah or "purdah", the idea that women should stay "behind the curtain" of private and family life.

Cultures that practice pardah are maintaining the principle that women do not belong in the public sphere, and in particular should not interact with male strangers in any way.

Total veiling of women (wearing combinations of garments variously known as burqa, niqab, chador, abaya, etc.) outside the home is intended as a practical compromise with the pardah principle. It recognizes that the necessities of life compel women to leave the house sometimes to go shopping, go to the doctor, etc., and allows them to symbolically take the privacy of the house with them. The veil for pardah-nishin women isn't just a modest garment, it's a symbolic cloak of invisibility signifying that they're not really "in public" even though they have to be outside their private home environment temporarily.

And I'm totally fine with that practice and think that Western societies that pride themselves on freedom and religious tolerance should accommodate it...

What a bunch of hokum! Do the women get a vote on whether or not they have to wear the death shroud?
  #49  
Old 05-22-2020, 01:45 PM
Leaffan's Avatar
Leaffan is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 25,285
Quote:
Originally Posted by Whack-a-Mole View Post
OP: I'm curious if, before COVID-19 happened, if you thought hospitals were "racist fucks" for making surgical staff wear masks while in the operating room?
I don't think you're understanding my point.
  #50  
Old 05-22-2020, 02:39 PM
Kimstu is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 23,429
Quote:
Originally Posted by saucywench View Post
What a bunch of hokum! Do the women get a vote on whether or not they have to wear the death shroud?
In many cases they don't. But whether or not it's legal for adults to wear a certain type of clothing in public is not determined by whether some of those adults are being privately coerced by their families or communities into wearing it against their will.

Yes, we should absolutely take action against illegal coercive measures used in many patriarchal communities to force women into compliance with their sexist norms. And yes, we should absolutely welcome noncompliant women from those communities into a safer and more open larger culture if they choose to leave their oppressive situations.

But we're not going to achieve any of that by imposing unconstitutional absolute bans on any particular style of traditional clothing.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:32 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017