I’m not sure what point you are trying to make here. If you think that it is discriminatory that men are allowed to go topless on a beach and women are not, then I agree with you, it is discriminatory.
Do you seriously think that a living statue (and his face is clearly visible, by the way) standing on his pedestal, going nowhere, should fall under the same rule as a person walking around Amsterdam, only eyes visible (or even wearing sunglasses!), in a niquaab?
I see your point there. But I don’t see how it can be any other way, when we want the law to lay down some kind of line. Such a line will always be kind of arbitrary, and the rationale, like the danger argument here, may be a bit far-fetched, but it isn’t complete nonsense either.
Note that niquaabs, in the Netherlands, are not the tradional garment of tradional immigrant women anymore. Immigrants wear the loose fitting clothes and a headscarf covering hair and neck, and that is perfectly okay by anyone these days. The niquaab, the head-to-too black clthsack with a narrow split for the eyes, is the rebellious garb of young militant girls and women. It is really the Muslim puberty equivalent of the eighties mohawk and a studded leather miniskirt. Dress to shock.
Not to mention it allows them to blend into American society and ‘pass’ when convenient (e.g. in a racist suburb), especially in the corporate world, whereas the women carry a constant symbol of being the ‘other.’
Oh–so the niquaab isn’t really dangerous. It’s just shocking! Did you want the mohawk & studded leather miniskirt outlawed, too? Probably not.
Your “line” isn’t arbitrary at all. The intent is crystal clear.
Could you please stop the “I’m talking to nazi’s here” tone, read my post, and respond in a more reasonable manner?
I’m sorry, it’s not crystal clear to me at all. Where did **Maastricht **say that niquaab isn’t dangerous? I think it’s crystal clear that they can be dangerous, both to the women wearing them (restricted vision and restricted movement) and to security efforts. A whole lot of the “intuition” of police officers and security teams is based on body language and facial expression. I’d rather keep it on that level than be stopped for identification papers or searched every three blocks. But a niquaab makes that impossible.
I intensely dislike all forms of female clothing purdah. As a feminist Western woman, I have a great deal of trouble viewing burqas, abayas, or similar dress as anything other than symbols of inequality and subjugation. I have more understanding for women for whom it is a cultural imperative, but I have very little for women who undertake to put themselves in purdah when in a Western society that does not require it. I am unpersuaded by hearing among the positives cited that it makes the wearer effectively invisible. I consider it a minor hostile act when assumed as a protest against secular society, because I am a great big fan of secular society and will fight to maintain the secularity of the society I live in.
I realize that some women choose to do it, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect them for that choice. I would not dream of accosting any other woman for her clothing choices, but I very strongly feel that a Western woman who puts herself in purdah does a disservice to other women by doing so.
Good point.
Do you respect women who choose to segregate themselves in say, exercise classes at the Y? Are they doing a disservice to other women?
Give me the justification for a women’s only exercise class and I’ll let you know. The classes at my “Y” are open to all.
Jodi, do you expect other people to respect your choice of clothing? If so, then a little reciprocity may not go astray - if a Muslim woman living in a Western secular society chooses to cover up as an indication of her belief in Islam and her following the tenets of her religion, then Western secular beliefs (as I understand them) would dictate that you respect that choice. You don’t have to like it, but it seems strange to claim that someone else’s religiosity undermines your freedoms, when that person’s choices are not impinging on your right to wear whatever you like.
Some women prefer it. Is that good enough?
Let me be perfectly clear: I respect her right to choose to wear whatever she wants. I don’t have to respect her for having made the choice she did. She can wear a big old clown suit if she wants and I will be the first in line to say she is fully within her rights to do so, but that doesn’t mean I have to respect her choice.
I never said her choices undermine my freedoms. I said I don’t respect her for the choice she makes and I believe she does a disservice to women as a class through that choice. She chooses to strip herself of personal identity and present herself as anonymous Woman – an object, not a person. She chooses to accede in a mindset that posits that men are unable to control themselves, that they automatically sexualize, minimize, or disrespect women, and that it is her responsibility, as a woman, to remove herself as tempation, rather than their responsibility to master their own base impulses, as the vast majority of decent respectful Western men are able to do. She chooses to inhibit her stride, muffle her voice, literally hide herself under a blanket. I respect none of those choices.
I’m not sure what you mean by “good enough.” As I said, they can wear what they like, but I don’t have to respect them for it. I accept cultural conditioning as a rationale, since that is a very strong factor in personal preferences and standards. But for those who cannot claim cultural conditioning, I have exactly zero respect for those who embrace head-to-toe purdah.
I understand your reaction, I used to have a similar one, but I think that until you’ve had a chance to talk to the women about what personally motivates them, your lack of respect is a product of ignorance.
In my opinion, any woman who wears the niqaab, burqa, or anything else that is fully concealing, sticks out like a sore thumb in Western society. If she would wear modest clothing, she’d be unremarkable and probably wouldn’t draw attention. Ironically, these covered woman attract scads of attention where I live.
She’d probably attract just as little attention even if she was dressed revealingly. Less than if she was wearing a burqua, for sure.
But is it really their will or have they been brainwashed into it? Or “forced” by cultural and societal pressure? If they were all that traditional, why weren’t the “men” wearing traditional garb also? :dubious: That’s what would set me off- if everyone- men and women were fully decked out in tradional garb, well then, maybe they are all just tradionalists. But to see the *men *fat cool and happy and the women baking- that is just wrong.
Now, I have no problem at all with Muslim women wearing garb which is traditional, but also comfortable. That could well be their real informed choice.
Well, I think the problem here is not knowing exactly what these women were wearing. A lot of posters seem to assume it was a burqa or chador, which completely cover the entire body with just a slit or mesh veil to see through. I doubt that, I am picturing dark robes with a scarf covering the hair, wrapped around the neck.
I have seen Muslim women in Westernized dress that is still modest- jeans, long-sleeved shirts, and a hijab. But I don’t see it as often as the traditional dress, probably because, based on links upthread, the traditional dress is cooler. Hell, I bet a loose-fitting robe would be much more comfortable than jeans anyway, even in cooler weather.
Allow me to clarify. They were black burqas, covering head to wrist to toe and everything of the face except for an eye slit.
What part of “bundled up in black cloth, hidden from view” was ambiguous?
For the record, though - I have no problems with hijab (a scarf draped around the head and under the neck, leaving the woman’s face visible). All of these very modest variations pictured here are just fine with me and acceptable in our culture, including the chaadar pictured on the far right. It’s the face covering, or total body covering with eye slits, whatever you choose to call them - burqa, niqaab, etc - I’m not Muslim, and I apologize if I’m not familiar with the finer variations of the dress - but those things which obscure vision and movement and obscure my seeing you - those are the ones I take issue with.
But mostly what I take issue with is statements like this, found on the page where I found the picture linked above:
This. Is. Complete. And. Utter. Bullshit. It’s evil and it’s reprehensible and it’s just…wrong. I can’t express how very terrible I find that sentiment. It’s “blaming the victim” taken to the next level of hate. It’s absolutely antithetical to everything I believe and my culture believes about personal responsibility. It’s the logic of a kindergartener trying to blame someone else because he punched a kid in the nose. It’s - checks forum
breathes deeply
Yes, I know not all Muslims believe that. But I bet a whole lot of the Muslims who don’t believe that are wearing hijab, not burqa, and a whole lot of the Muslims who DO believe that are the ones who are fully covered. Or worse, the wives and daughters of the men who believe that are the ones who are fully covered, whether they themselves believe it or not.