Much like the targets of her ire are guilty of lumping all Muslims as one intolerant entity, Ramira is often guilty of lumping all critics of Islam as bigots.
What does it mean when Catholic women cover their heads in church? Are they subordinating themselves to their husbands? Are they showing they aren’t true Americans?
Why did it bother you, then, that she wore it, or detract from her and her husband’s message? Isn’t “live and let live” a better (and more Western and secular, if you like) philosophy and response?
In the 1970s the Catholic Church determined that head coverings were not religious in nature, and, what do you know, women stopped wearing them.
I don’t mean to distract from the speech, which was both incisive and compelling. I just found the image incongruent.
Isn’t it a possibility that this is due to biases within yourself, rather than some intrinsic problem with a woman wearing a headscarf?
It’s possible I read too much into it. But then, so too are the women who are rejecting the hijab:
But there’s no reason to believe that Mrs. Khan has anything to do with any of that oppression.
I honestly wasn’t sure. That’s why I was hoping** Ramira **would chime in to explain so we wouldn’t be left to continue to speculate. Which she did…
I appreciate you explaining this to us western infidels. FYI, it does not matter to me whether you choose to wear a hijab, or not at all, or even what you choose to call it. All I wanted was to get an informed point of view on the matter. I thank you for that.
However, you’re condescension was completely uncalled for.
Bullshit. I’ve been to a number of Catholic services since that time in Asia & almost all the women wore lace coverings. That’s quite an odd definition you have of stopped.
Questions in Catholicism says it’s optional to wear head covering.
Ramira, I like it here in the Pit. It’s different here. I appreciate your condescencion in response to ignorant intolerance. I encourage you to let it fly!
As I said. I wouldn’t mind it if it was clear exactly what she was talking about.
You feel that asking for clarification on the custom and significance of wearing a headdress in muslim cultures is ignorant intolerance?
No I don’t, and I think she answered the question after being asked if she would. She was then called a bitch because someone didn’t like her tone. In the Pit fer fuck’s sake.
Just because someone is posting in the pit, it doesn’t mean they’re obliged to act like a haughty Prima-Donna with a stick up their ass. Quicksilver asked a perfectly reasonable question and Ramira answered him as though he was little more than a particularly stubborn scrap of toilet paper clinging to the bottom of her shoe. She really is a horrendous bitch, and there are so many examples of this - not just in the Pit but in GD and MPSIMS as well - that it’s a miracle that anyone still bothers to ask her opinion on anything. There are plenty of other posters here who are more knowledgeable than her and, as a bonus, don’t shit all over you just for asking a simple question.
Yes, if you go by Scripture.
1 Corinthians 11:2-5 ESV:
Now I commend you because you remember me in everything and maintain the traditions even as I delivered them to you. But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a wife is her husband, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head, but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, since it is the same as if her head were shaven.
And, in case you think I’m taking that out of context, go ahead and read the rest of the section. (The literalist excuse is that it’s no longer a disgrace for a woman to cut her hair, so the section doesn’t apply.)
That’s where it gets stupid. What the fuck does choosing to wear a symbol that indicates submission to one’s husband have to do with your status as an American?
And why do people assume it was not her choice? If she values the tradition more than making a feminist statement, so be it. You’d think the conservatives would be happy that she doesn’t bow down to the PC police.
This is about being anti-Muslim. That’s why Trump can say something about it, despite the degrading way he treats women.
:dubious: That’s odd, I criticize various aspects of Islam all the time on these boards and Ramira has never called me a bigot. I say all kinds of mean disapproving things about fundamentalist-Islamist violence and oppression, radical Islamic-extremist terrorism, hardline-Salafist homophobia, and so on and so forth, and Ramira doesn’t seem to mind it at all.
Of course, what I don’t do is to sloppily ascribe that violence, oppression, terrorism, homophobia and so forth to “Islam” per se and unqualified. Because that would be, you know, being a bigot.
I never realized that all those nuns who taught me were just a bunch of traitors.
That almost is key; back when it was required, a woman of childbearing age whose head was not covered would have been expelled from the service. Also, did you go to everyday services or special ones? In many locations, lace coverings are considered “fancy wear”. Nowadays those ladies in the pictures wear that kind of clothing as part of Easter Week celebrations, perhaps to a wedding, but not to regular services. Back in the '50s and '60s, they would have worn similar clothing to every single service (white lace for the single women, black for the married ones; the pictures where Doña Sofía wears all white including a white mantilla, it’s a privilege of Spanish Queens when being received by the Pope), but of course making sure that skirts reached well below the knee while seated.