Perfect!
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.
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! :dubious:
Not in Austria it isn’t. The government banned niqabs but made the wearing of face coverings in stores mandatory.
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.
The OP said, “You racist fucks…blah, blah…blah.”
This post sums up how I feel.
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.
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.
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?
Does anyone know the English translation of niqab?
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).
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.
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.)
A niqab and a chador are very different things.
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.
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?
I’m uncircumcised. What do you think?
That depends entirely whether you breastfeed your declawed cat.
I prefer them clawed. I like a little pain with my pleasure.
This thread turned weird fast.
Aw, breastfeeding uncircumcised, niqab wearing cats with razor-sharp claws…that’s just business as usual on the SDMB.