No.
We are not discussing who has the right to answer the authors opinion piece. We are discussing who has the right to criticize the clothing choices of women from different cultures.
Surely the answer to that question is ‘Everyone’.
The high school girls were (presumably) at least in part American – they were certainly in an American school.
Does this mean that the authors, women from Egypt and India, had no right to criticize the clothing choices those girls made?
Obviously not, as evidenced by this very thread.
In all cases, the people attempting to force others to conform to their own prejudices are in the wrong. There is no moral difference between forcing a woman into a veil, and tearing one off. No difference between despising and denigrating her for either choice.
Because the alleged “message” from the hijab is cherry-picked by the message interpreter and the message of the T-shirt is explicitly stated in plain English.
Next stupid quibble…? (or do I have to insert a coin or pull a lever or something?*)
*To place the parenthetical comment into the latter rather than the former category, let it me noted that I am now expressly stating rather than vaguely implying that your “argument” is on the level of the mechaincal generation of inanities by a device such as a Magic 8-Ball or a Chinese fortune-cookie print run.
My takeaway from the article was that the authors were more concerned that the girls were perpetuating stereotypes when they (the girls) thought they were showing solidarity. Reasons behind clothing choices are fair game, especially if the wearers are just putting on a costume for attention.
Oh, certainly. People should be free, in the legal sense, to wear clothing (or carry signs, etc.) with any sort of political or quasi-political message. Just another form of public speech, properly protected from state oversight.
But not immune to criticism. If you’re going to overtly address the public, you have no right to expect that they not answer.
The wearing of hijab or niqab, by contrast (or yarmulke, or turban, or bonnet), is not addressed to anyone. Even if it’s seen as a statement about the wearer, there is no inherent and explicit message about anyone else there.
In this case, though, I am offering up the article authors, who claim that the veil represents an ideology that most silences women by equating their bodies with honor.
They say, if I dare paraphrase them, it’s not ‘tearing off,’ the veil that they seek – it’s criticizing the message the veil sends.
Do you feel the same way if the person wants to peacefully open-carry a handgun holstered on their hip while minding their own business? Live and let live? Civil rights for all? Or is that considered “flaunting an offensive political proclamation in [your] face”? Would you feel justified in trying to ban this peaceful expression, or at least state angrily at the person doing it?
“Fair game” for who?
Are you also allowed to offer an opinion on reasons behind women’s clothing, as a white man?
How about me, a Hispanic man?
There’s no such thing as peacefully being armed. A person with a gun is expecting it to be needed. But I certainly wouldn’t say anything angrily to a person with a gun, because you know, gun.
“Peaceful” in this post refers to “people who don’t harm others”. There are millions of Americans who go out every day wearing or carrying a gun and “don’t harm others”: cops, CCW holders, hunters, target shooters, etc.
Doesn’t bother me at all. Everyone I know who carries has never needed to draw, and always takes the greatest caution with their firearms. But please, lock it in your car before you go to a bar; there are a lot of people who become assholes when they’ve been drinking and you don’t want one of them trying to grab your pistol.
That’s not true: I wear a gun to shoot at paper targets. Are you suggesting that this activity is not peaceful, as you used the phrase in post #112?
Why do you shoot at paper targets?
Yes, I read the thread. Which part of the post did you not understand?
wolfpup denied that there was any equivalency between a niqab and a T-shirt. He was clearly mistaken - they are quite equivalent. The difference is that he does not object to Islam, but he does object to opposition to gay marriage. IOW it is simply the opinion that controls whether or not someone should be exposed to public scorn.
If the idea is “people should be able to express their opinions without being glared at”, then it would logically consistent to glare neither at a niqab nor at a T-shirt with an anti-gay marriage slogan. If the idea is “speech has consequences, and no one except the government is bound by the First Amendment”, then it would be equally appropriate to glare at either.
Consistency would requre either both are OK to glare at, or neither. As I said, the equivalence is quite close.
Regards,
Shodan
Gasp…Progressive Juan Williams said this BEFORE Trump ran for office:
“…when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.”
Oof, right at the start and you’ve already whiffed it.
Would you like to quote the context of that statement?