I wouldn’t have a problem with a law prohibiting burqas in the same way the laws would prohibit anyone else from obscuring their face and/or their vision in any other way (i.e. no face covering allowed in airports where they are using facial-recognition software or while driving a car, etc.).
I do agree with lindsaybluth that burqas are oppressive of women, even if the women wearing them choose to wear them. Women who aren’t raised with the idea of covering their entire body in public simply don’t cover their entire bodies and face; I don’t think you can convincingly argue that women who “choose” to cover their entire body including their face made that choice separate from their upbringing and cultural pressure.
I voted “over my dead body”, with the caveat that women should be required to remove them for issuance of compulsory photographic ID, like driver’s licenses, and should be required to remove them in the nearest convenient private area for identification by law enforcement officials when being arrested.
I don’t think you can make the argument that anybody chooses to wear anything separate from their upbringing and cultural pressure. The real question, it seems to me, is what the position of the state ought to be in relation to those choices.
There is after all an argument to be made that it is also opressive of women to expect us to wear high heels and stockings and makeup and so on. Many women do completely cover their faces, and also their hair – they do it with cosmetics and chemicals instead of cloth. Not to mention altering their bodies. Are they choosing to do it? Ask them. But I promise you that they are not choosing to do it independently of their upbringing and cultural pressure.
As Marinee points out, none of us are raised in a vacuum. I doubt I’d ever wear make up if I’d never been exposed to women wearing it around me/in the media. And if I grew up in a more repressive culture, I might find the idea of wearing a tight tank top as gross as we find a burqa. So I don’t think you can say “It’s culture” as a reason for banning it–it all is.
If payots are the Jewish hair curls, then I’m all for banning them, on the grounds that I always get the puerile urge to tug on them and make a “ding” sound. One day, I’ll cave in, and get thumped in the nose. Payots represent a threat to my safety.
I was saying that I don’t care if you’re (a girl) or andrygynous or anything. Sarcasm appears to be lost on you, and this bickering isn’t relevant to the thread, either.
Thirded. I still can’t understand why some people disagree that it’s a security issue. How can I tell it’s a woman under there? Of course with a hijab, you can at least tell the sex of the wearer.
DianaG, payots still leave the entire area above the upper lip bare. However, if they were a burden in facial recognition software (in the future) for airport security and the like, of course I’d be all for banning them.
Freudian Slit, makeup and shaving compared to a burqua are apples and oranges. It’s a throwaway statement to say “it’s all culture”. Burquas and hijabs are a tool of the repressors. My under eye concealer is getting rid of my puffiness. this =! that. Why is it that women are fined or jailed in certain Middle Eastern countries for showing a touch of ankle or wearing high heels? Is it religious freedom, or is it abuse and degradation? How do people see burquas and hijabs and not think it’s part of the package deal - stoning, honor killings, hymen reattachment, etc?
I do firmly wish that people had more respect for a secularized society, such as the US. Just as the Ten Commandments have no place in a courthouse, other giant outward displays of religion have no place in general society. However, a headscarf, a tiny cross on a chain, and yarmulke are minor and pose no security threat or cultural/social threat. However, large full body/face coverings do and should be called out accordingly.
I don’t disagree; that’s why I said I would support forbidding them and everything else that has the same effect in limited ways (like air ports and while driving cars; i.e. places where there is a real safety concern, not just a political one).
Congratulations, that’s every bit as profound a misunderstanding of the First Amendment as can generally be found amongst the fundies you claim to loathe.
… being FORCED to wear a burqua is oppressive. Being FORBIDDEN to wear a burqua is oppressive. Women jailed in middle eastern countries for showing ankle are being oppressed, because they have no choice. Women in France do have a choice. Until you take it away, of course.
You’re just no good at sarcasm, sorry. It’s a bit rich of you to accuse me of bickering with you.
See, I’m all for a secular society too. It’s just that banning the veil is worse than allowing it. Telling a woman that she can’t wear a veil is telling her what to do just as much as telling her she should wear a veil. The difference is that, if you ban the veil, then the veil wearers will end up either housebound or getting round the rules by using scarves or something.
The only thing that will have been acheived is to alienate Muslims in general and give Muslim women even less freedom than before.
If there’s a security reason for showing the face - like in an airport - then of course women should show their faces. The women I know who wear a veil (only a couple do - most of the Muslim women I know don’t even wear a hijab except on some special occasions) would have no problem with that.
Easy. It’s only part of the package deal in the places they are selling the package. In some places, clothes mean one thing and in other places they mean another. With all the real problems which really exist, I cannot think that anyone with any sense believes that banning a piece of cloth is a good approach. Seriously, you think that stonings, honor killings, and female circumscision are bad, and I agree with you. Where I disagree is in thinking that the state banning the burqua will do diddly squat to prevent, limit, or otherwise lessen any of those things. Also we apparently diagree in our notions of what is an appropriate role for the state. I do not think giving the finger to a defined segment of the population is a good position for the state to take.
[slight hijak]
FWIW, payot/payess is the plural form already, so no need to append a pluralizing ‘s.’ The rarely used singular form (I had to think about it for a minute) is peyah. They’re not all long and curly, either - that’s the style of particular Orthodox groups, mostly Hasidic. I don’t think you’d notice Mr. GilaB’s, for example. His are cut to the same length as the rest of his hair (generic American businessman length), but without shaving above the bone on the side of the face, next to the ear. A good example is the random guy in this picture.
[/slight hijack]
You do realize that *hijab *is a headscarf, right ? Some cover the face, some don’t, some are just a bandana thrown in the middle of the hair do, and some look like the 1001 Nights cliché (i.e. a transparent piece of gauze across the face, which IMO makes the woman wearing it even more sexy). It’s all hijab, as defined by the local culture.
That was inappropriate and uncalled for. I have spoken to you like an adult; I’d ask that you extend the same courtesy to me.
If you have a disagreement with something I’ve posted then address that specifically. You are arguing with things that have not been said in this thread, attacking posters rather than what they’ve said, and doing a lot of angry swearing. One of us is not behaving like the adult here.
scifisam isn’t the first person to say “I know/have seen Muslims” in this thread."
They can, technically, yes, but typically not a large number of minorities. Groups like the Klan form because of fear of the “other” as some threatening, monolithic evil. Probably the easiest way to stop that is to get people to talk to each other more. “Hey, they’re not so bad”.
Yeah, and the same thing’s been said about bras and high heels.
Which ones? How many? Cite?
Because I don’t like to assume things. I know some women who have lived their entire lives in the US and choose to wear a headscarf --next time I see any of them, should I ask them if their hymen’s been reattached?
I disagree. I think yarmulkes and payos are obnoxious and have no place in a secular society. The Amish have a dress code they force on their women and children, do not pay taxes, forbid them access to modern health care, have a higher rate of blood and genetic diseases, and their outward displays of religion have no place in our secular society.
Maybe it could help. You seem to be assuming that they actually want to wear it. I know some probably do, but some don’t. My Persian girlfriend won’t put anything in her hair because when she was in Iran and her headscarf fell off, she was beaten repetatedly. Its law you know, to have to wear one. At least in those countries.
Too late for ETA. I think I left the point of that rhetorical too vague or open to misunderstandings.
I think you would get a lot more success liberating women if you worked at banning stonings, Hymenorrhaphy, female circumcision, than regulating the way people arranged fabric.
Edited To Add to my Too Late For ETA: Earlier I used “payos” as a plural for payot. Unless English has a Super Plural cases (cowses?), my usage was awkward and incorrect. Thank you GilaB for correcting me (even if I did miss you at first).
