Italy follows France with a bid to ban the burqa

[dipsydoodle]

Source: Daily Mail

Burqas will be banned in Italy under laws proposed by the government yesterday.

Legislation to stop Muslim women wearing the hood and other full-face veils such as the niqab will be introduced, equal opportunities minister Mara Carfagna said.

>

She said: 'This is about a sacrosanct battle to defend the dignity and rights of immigrant women.

'A law is being studied that would ban the use of a burqa and niqab, which are not religious symbols - that's not us saying it, but the top religious authorities of the Islamic world, like the imams of Cairo and Paris.





Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1247224/Italy-follows-France-bid-ban-burqa.html

[Suji to Seoul]

1. So, the prisons and fine coffers will fill with women were burqas

What's next? Banning Nikes?

Unenforcable racism. But Europe did it to Jews for centuries. . .I guess it's muslim's turn on the fire.

[dipsydoodle]

3. Nikes should be banned anyway

Anything other than classic Converses really are in bad taste.

Yup - must be the muslim's turn not that I accept your comparison. It will be interesting to see if it acts as a deterrent to muslims emigrating to Europe given they'll know what to expect.

[Confusious]

15. And how does banning the burqa equal racism?

I'm pretty sure neither white, brown or black people will be able to wear one.

Or is it just something about religion? Maybe you think that they should be listening to the Islamic fundies over there, and we should all be listening to our christian fundies here, like Pat Robertson?


Or is just that some white people made the law, and all white people are evil, and don't have the natural morality of Asian, brown or black people?

[Suji to Seoul]

30. You're defending this act of racism? Tread carefully.

[Confusious]

32. You didn't answer my question

How is this racism?

Do you get to define racism on this board? Anything you don't agree with is classified as "racism"? So if I even question you about how it's racism, I'm told to "tread carefully", because you define even asking the question as racism?

[Suji to Seoul]

96. this is targetting one group of people. Laws that target one group of people are inherently racist

Jim Crow??? Poll tax???? Segregation???? Loving V. Virginia????

Tell me you defend this crap. Next, I'm forbidden to wear my yarmulkah? How about Koreans forbidden from wearing Hanboks? How about Japanese people forbidden from wearing kimonos?

I know. . .we'll forbid the wearing of any t-shirt deemed offensive next!

Slippery slope of racism masked in equality.

[Zavulon]

50. It isn't racism, and if you're going to tell people to tread carefully, become a mod or admin.

Crying "racism" when there is none is amazingly prevalent, and is also why so many people roll their eyes and ignore legitimate racism beefs.

I know, I know, I'm a racist for pointing it out, right?

I keep expecting DU to be a haven from bogus claims of racism. I guess it's my fault for having a positive attitude.

[Suji to Seoul]

31. You're defending this act of racism? Tread carefully.

[Frosty cupcake]

2. We shouldn't tolerate intolerance

Why would any woman freely choose to wear such a wardrobe? Obviously they do because of male pressure--pressure used to control who she is and what she does. If laws free these women up from such anti-woman intolerance, then I say good luck to the authorities.

[Raschel]

5. I agree. Let's see the men walk around with a little hole cut out for their eyes.

[EFerrari]

8. Right on. n/t

[wordpix]

89. interesting proposition---I like it

[defendandprotect]

37. Agree . . . using male-supremacist religion to oppress women is as old as the OT...

[Flaneur]

4. European rightists on the move!

If Sarkozy and Berlusconi are for it, you have to wonder.

[Confusious]

16. How is fighting the making of women second class citizens

A rightist principle?

[boppers]

22. Humiliating women with a dress code is right wing.

Note that this swings both ways, requiring women to wear, or not wear, specific clothing is basically an exercise in patriarchal dominance over women.

[Confusious]

47. The burqa is the "patriarchal dominance over women"

If you have read anything about it.

Most women are forced to wear it. A small minority might like to wear it.

How would feel about chinese foot binding? That was banned in china. Maybe the women there liked doing it.

You seem to be locked in this all/ nothing choice. There is never such a choice. 80% of the women probably don't like the burqa and wouldn't wear it if the had any sort of choice ( Which is to say not be killed for not wearing it). Should we let 80% suffer for the 20% minority?

[boppers]

53. Dress codes are patriarchal dominance over women....

Perhaps my point wasn't obvious. Using your numbers, you are arguing that it's fair to make 20% of the women suffer, that punishing a minority is fair.

[Confusious]

58. I guess you're against health care for all

A minority of people don't want national health care, and think they would suffer with it. They would not, and we do what is best for the majority, as long as it does not hurt the minority.

I hardly think NOT wearing a burqa makes people suffer more then wearing it, everyone included.

As for dress codes, as a male, I still have to wear clothes, and would probably be arrested for wearing a bikini.

This person has a nice post on dress codes:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4250113&mesg_id=4250552

[boppers]

60. You're talking about national health care... with jail for private doctors.

It's not just liberty, it's "punishment of individual liberties to enforce liberty" (an oxymoron), it's the sacrifice of freedom in the name of freedom.

As far as being required to wear, or not wear, clothes, I'm in Portland. We don't roll (giggle) that way here...

Here's the latest schedule on WNBR events:
http://wiki.worldnakedbikeride.org/index.php?title=Portland

You may think it's okay to be forced to wear, or not wear, specific clothes in your pocket of the world, but our local laws have pretty much guaranteed our rights to wear, or not wear, whatever we want. Public nudity even stood up in court on the individual (non-event) level, as a form of protected speech.

We certainly don't enforce dress codes targeted towards women... would the French and Italian laws also target men who wore scarves on their faces during winter? I'm guessing not, and that this is a punitive measure targeting women, by men (and women, sadly) who "know what's better for them".

[Confusious]

73. This will probably be my final post on the subject

Since you are dipping into the well of the absurd.

You seem to about "freedom", but you have no idea what it really means. We have societies, and in order to function and maintain any sort of "freedom" we have rules about what people can and cannot do.

So if you think about it ( which it seems you haven't ) there are laws which restrict what we can and cannot do. We can't rob a bank, we can't take a naked bike ride through the middle of town ( I checked, it's off-road ), you can't run your car through a shopping mall as a shortcut. So, in order to live in society you are already giving up some of your "freedom." Everyone being "free" to do whatever they want is not always a good thing.

You still cannot go running around nude anytime you feel like it. If you did it at work, you would be fired, if you did it at a school, you would either be suspended if a college, or tried as a sex offender if it was a middle or grade school. Giving up more "freedom"

"We certainly don't enforce dress codes targeted towards women... would the French and Italian laws also target men who wore scarves on their faces during winter?

We do enforce dress codes against women. I just heard of a woman who stripped nude in a park in front of a couple of 18-year olds and was arrested.

another one from New York:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2009/08/art-or-obscenity-a-nude-model-is-arrested-at-metropolitan-museum-of-art.html

"I'm guessing not, and that this is a punitive measure targeting women, by men (and women, sadly) who "know what's better for them".""

You don't read much history do you? That's what the civil war was all about. Some white people thought it would be good for the slaves to be free, so they fought a war over it. Nobody asked the slaves. Some might have even liked being slaves. But people thought it would be better for them to be free.

As for the punitive against women, You still haven't responded to the fact that a burqa is already a punitive measure against women.

And what if those women want to be free of the burqa, and they see this as the only way out? Aren't you denying them their "freedom" then?

"You're talking about national health care... with jail for private doctors."

Never said that, and I don't know where you get your info from, but it is flat-out WRONG i.e. jail private doctors. You must have been on a freeper board.

Another thing: Chinese foot binding. Maybe you think that should have continued because maybe some of them "liked" it, or though it was the way things should be.

[Confusious]

78. You have no idea what you are talking about

Conversation done.



"Islamic men are not *required* to cover their faces."

Neither are Islamic women.


try reading, it helps.

[JCMach1]

59. If I were a naturist, wouldn't you require me to wear clothes...

If I wanted to participate in civic society...

Naturists are obviously a minority... would it be oppressing me then to ask me to cover up?


Obviously I could do what I want, however it doesn't give me the right to do it in public.


However, having said it is legally okay for the government to do this does mean that it's the RIGHT thing to do.

Muslim women wear cover for many reasons.

I have met conservative women dressed like Brittney Spears and young radical feminists wearing full niqab.

Of course if you really pushed me, I would outlaw all religious practice in the public sphere... Hey, but that's just me!!!

[boppers]

61. See post above... no, I wouldn't require you to wear clothes.

Yes, it *is* oppressing you to legally punish you for your clothing choices, which is why several parts of the US permit public nudity.

As far as outlawing all religious practice in the public sphere, France is slowly getting there, as display of religious symbols (scarves, yarmulkes, crosses, etc.) in schools, government offices, (etc.) is outlawed.

[JCMach1]

62. Please note, I do question the RIGHTness of doing this

regardless of the legalities as it gets to the heart of diversity and just plain getting along.

I will point out that governments here in the Middle East have no trouble at all telling me what I can and can't wear in public.

[boppers]

63. Hadn't checked your profile for location..UAE, is it?

Yes, there are parts of the world that enforce dress codes. I question the rightness of such decisions, regardless of location.

[JCMach1]

72. American working in UAE

the last 7 years...


And yes, regardless of the cultural context, I hate bans on what I can/cannot wear.

[Confusious]

74. So I guess you want us to have religious practices in the town square

Otherwise, it imposes on someone's "freedom"

[boppers]

81. Dictating behavhior in a commons space makes it a non-"commons" space.

Dictating being the critical word.

[samsingh]

93. 80% of the women are suffering. the other 20% can wear it in their homes

[Tumbulu]

6. Good start, let's see the rest of the civilized world follow suit. (nt)

[sasquatch]

23. Same here

[CLANG]

24. Right! There are many Halloween costumes that need to be banned too!

Batman being the most troublesome! How do I know the person under that cowl is not an islamic terrorist.:sarcasm:

[Chef Eric]

27. Yes. When women are pressured to wear certain costumes everyday, the costumes should be banned too.

And by the way, the ban on burqas is not intended to unmask "terrorists." It is intended to put a stop to a certain kind of subjugation of women.

[CLANG]

41. In France, panel recommends a burka ban in public institutions

Andre Gerin, a member of the Communist Party and president of the committee, cautioned that the report should not "lead to a debate about religion" but instead should focus discussion on the "scandalous practices" of terrorism and extremism that "hide behind the full veil."
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation-and-world/la-fg-france-veil27-2010jan27,0,6495055.story

[Flaneur]

7. I'm pro-choice. Not my business what other people want to wear.

[dipsydoodle]

9. Are you ok

with honour killings too ? It's all part of the package.

[Violet_Crumble]

12. I'm pretty sure people can't choose to wear an honour killing...

To poster you were replying to said that it's none of their business what other people choose to wear. As for honour killings, they're not specific to Islam or even women who wear burqas...

[dipsydoodle]

13. By coincidence

I had just watched a news feature which refered to the association which is what had brought that subject to mind.
That is not to say the the news item was associated with the news regarding Italy or evne France come to that. I do appreciate that honour killings sre not specific to Islam - form memory most here in the UK are infact with other religions.

[defendandprotect]

39. Honor Killings and making women subservient and destroying their identity ...

making them invisible and powerless is the intent of male-supremacist religions.

[Confusious]

18. Your topic line has the problem right in it

"Not my business what other people WANT to wear"

Some places, some neighborhoods, you either wear it or you get beaten, or worse, wind up dead. Thats not really a choice is it?

[defendandprotect]

38. It is male-supremacist religions which will denying you that right to CHOICE . .

And it is male-supremacist religion which forces women into becoming invisible --

faceless --

[mitchtv]

10. there's still quite a few nuns around Italy

in the old fashioned habits. Will they be included or just face covering?

[Frosty cupcake]

11. It's just the face covering

Also, if you read the article, it clearly states that the burqa is not a requirement of Islam, so the proposed legislation is not treading on anyone's religion. It's treading on the custom. I would also like to see some serious treading on the custom of honor killings, female circumcision, arranged marriages for girls, among other things. Some things are too egregious not to try to tackle.

[dipsydoodle]

14. That's a plain stupid analogy.

.

[midnight]

51. Now you bring up a point that is very sensitive... I wonder how that will go..

[zalinda]

17. This makes perfect sense

How in the hell can you tell who is under that burka? A person commits a crime and it's caught on video, but they are wearing a burka........is it a man or a woman? Are you going to pull over every woman who is wearing a burka? It's a custom, that is all. If they need to cover themselves they can dress like nuns. But the face should be visible, for proof on identity.

zalinda

[conservdem]

19. I do not see a problem with this.

[JoeyT]

20. Just what we needed.

More old white guys "liberating" minority women by telling them exactly what they can or can't do.

Try to fix the underlying social problems that lead to the abuse? Hah! That's far too much work. We'll just ban the thing that we think represents it so it doesn't bother us anymore. After all, abuse that we don't see is abuse that doesn't happen. And even if it does, at least we don't have to be reminded of it. Plus we can pat ourselves on the back for freeing minority women from the shackles we imagined them to have and talk about how awesome we are for striking a blow against intolerance without ever a flicker of introspection. Rock on.

[boppers]

21. Tefellin, Habits, robes, jewelry, why not just ban it all?

While we're at it, we should make masks illegal too, and any form of "dress up" that offends others.

[Chef Eric]

25. What do you mean "we"? The article is about a ban in Italy. "We" have nothing to do with it. nt

[boppers]

26. We = Western societies. eom

[Chef Eric]

29. All western societies are not the same.

And the Italians are dealing with a particular kind of subjugation against women in their own way. Good for them.

[Confusious]

34. Maybe it's not clear to you

It's about the oppression of women.

[boppers]

64. "It's about the oppression of women."... by societies and cultures who dictate clothing.

I got that part.

The part that doesn't make sense is how additional oppression of women is justified.... in the name of removing oppression...

Should women not be allowed to pierce their genitals, since some people consider that "mutilation"?
How about tattoos, are women allowed to get those, since some people consider it mutilation?
Haircuts? Is it okay to demand specific hair lengths, so women can't be "humiliated" with short hair, or long hair, or whatever?

[Confusious]

76. No relation

Your talking about things people do to themselves, not forced upon them, and have no "freedom" in the matter.

Really have you ever read about the culture at all? Women are killed for not wearing it.

[Confusious]

79. You have no idea, yadda, yadda, yadda

Conversation done.



"Islamic men are not *required* to cover their faces."

Neither are Islamic women.


try reading, it helps.

[Chicago dyke]

28. so i take it they are also going to ban

islamic men from wearing beards, right? sikh males from growing their hair hair out?

oh, wait. they're not? well, i'm sure this isn't sexist or anything like that.

[Confusious]

33. Nice

I like how you consider freeing women from an oppressive garment meant to keep them second as second class citizens as "sexist"

[Chicago dyke]

35. so do you think bikinis are "oppressive?"

take the example of beach volleyball at the olympics. women are *required* to wear tiny, tiny bikinis. guys? big baggy shorts. are you ready to advocate banning that distinction? no?

but muslim women are somehow needing outside law to tell them what they can and cannot wear. /eyeroll/

believe it or not, some muslim women *choose* to dress this way. i'm sorry DU is not more understanding and appreciative of muslim culture. choice is always right. let women make up their own minds. the government should tell *women* (and not men) what they can wear, regardless of justification. my point is that the governments of europe banning the burqua aren't banning any islamic mens' dress. that's sexism.

[Confusious]

40. Most women work really hard to get into a bikini

From above:

Some places, some neighborhoods, you either wear it or you get beaten, or worse, wind up dead. That's not really a choice is it?

I don't think I've ever seen a woman "forced" into a bikini.

They can wear the bikini and not play. They have a choice. Bad analogy. Your not going to find a good one.

"I'm sorry DU is not more understanding and appreciative of Muslim culture."

Maybe you should spend more time reading about "Muslim" culture. It's not really as rosy as looks. Neither is "Christian culture"

The fact is they are both stupid ass religions, concerned more with propagating the religion then the people who make it up.

Besides that, being a "chicago dyke", you'd have a nice stoning to attend in most "muslim culture" countries.

[dustbunnie]

43. Islamic men don't cover their faces in public so there's nothing to ban.

No man would be stupid enough to wear a ridiculous garb that would basically turn them into faceless domestic slaves. If some religious sect of women did enslave men in the same way, you can bet that there would have been legislation passed against it eons ago. At the very least, other men would laugh at and shame them on the street. In extreme cases, male slaves would be beaten and killed for wearing such costumes. But of course, it's a hypothetical that would never happen. Only women would *choose* to be slaves and to wear shrouds that effectively erase them from participating equally in the public sphere.

[boppers]

65. "Islamic men don't cover their faces in public"

Yeah, the Bedouin just let the sand into their faces!

er....

Oh, and assuming that faceless = domestic slave is a bit of a cultural bias.

[dustbunnie]

68. Spin it any way you want, but you can't seriously think people are so dumb, do you?

The shroud is meant to render women faceless. That's the point of it. To keep women from participating in society. That essentially makes them slaves.

And there are no sand storms in Paris or Florence, but keep trying.

[boppers]

70. Did you mean "Islamic men in cooler, non-sandy, climates", then?

Broad brushes often paint poorly.

Your interpretations of the shroud (as you put it) are interesting, as you seem to be presenting a perspective that a woman's value to society isn't found in her words, or her intellect, or her education, or her experience, or her compassion, or her thoughts, or her social network.... but in her face.

Which, by the way, is one of the arguments *for* shrouding faces, as a means to inhibit judgments of beauty to determine a person's worth.

How many faces are on DU? We're *all* shrouded here.

[dustbunnie]

71. The usual spin, and that's all it is.

Islamic men are not *required* to cover their faces. Once the sand storm blows over, they can look each other in the eye and behave as equals. That's very different from being forced to wear something that separates you from the rest of your society, even if the forcing is a cultural decree.

I have nothing to say for your bird in a gilded cage argument. It's nonsensical. A woman's value to society is the same as a man's. If men are allowed to face each other as equals then so should women.

Again, the idea behind the shroud is not so that people will be reminded to appreciate her for her brains :eyes: but to ensure that her sexuality belongs to her family and her husband. That's slavery, pure and simple. it insults and demeans those who would have to face the cypher since it insinuates that every encounter is sexual. And finally, what of the women who lose their husbands and family. This might not be an issue in an Islamic country, but it happens in France and Belgium where these hapless widowed slaves end up having to be taken care of by the state for the rest of their lives since they can't work. It isn't our business to judge how other countries govern themselves.

[boppers]

75. Point by point:

"Islamic men are not *required* to cover their faces."

Neither are Islamic women.

"Once the sand storm blows over, they can look each other in the eye..."

That's a cultural bias. Look me "in the eye", right now.

You can't.

Does that make either of us inferior, or superior?

"That's very different from being forced to wear something that separates you from the rest of your society, even if the forcing is a cultural decree."

I agree that forcing clothing is wrong. Forcing men and women to wear, or not wear, clothing articles is wrong.

"I have nothing to say for your bird in a gilded cage argument. It's nonsensical. A woman's value to society is the same as a man's. If men are allowed to face each other as equals then so should women."

If men are allowed to wear whatever clothing they want, so should women.

"Again, the idea behind the shroud is not so that people will be reminded to appreciate her for her brains :eyes: but to ensure that her sexuality belongs to her family and her husband."

No, that's your idea. Some people interpret it that way, some think in terms of gilded cage, some in terms of anonymity, modesty, convenience, (etc.). To simplify all perspectives into one idea is wrong.

"That's slavery, pure and simple. it insults and demeans those who would have to face the cypher since it insinuates that every encounter is sexual."

Only if you think a face is only a sexual thing, or that society requires faces.

"And finally, what of the women who lose their husbands and family. This might not be an issue in an Islamic country, but it happens in France and Belgium where these hapless widowed slaves end up having to be taken care of by the state for the rest of their lives since they can't work. It isn't our business to judge how other countries govern themselves."

I don't understand your point here.

[Confusious]

77. OK, you have no idea what your talking about

Conversation done.



"Islamic men are not *required* to cover their faces."

Neither are Islamic women.


try reading, it helps.

[boppers]

80. *you're

This has nothing to do with *all of Islam*, any more than men in dresses, pointy hats, and jeweled slippers, are part of *all of Christianity*.

It's part of some sub-sects and cultural groups of followers, but not all of them.

[dustbunnie]

83. You're right. I don't see you and have no idea who you are. Therefore, we have no relationship.

I don't trust you, care about you, feel anything from or about you. Talking to you isn't even remotely as satisfying as relating with someone in my real life.

In our culture we don't do business with cyphers. We don't hire them to work in banks or to sell insurance because you can't have a relationship with a ghost. So, already the women who are required to wear the black shroud are at a disadvantage. Ask any blind person what they would give to see the expression on a loved one's face. Our faces, what we convey with our eyes, our brows, lips, etc... is an important part of our relationships, personal and commercial. Otherwise, there would be no reason to cover the face, now would there? To cut someone off from having that rich experience of being known by others, makes them inferior and a slave.

And of course women are required to wear the shroud. Otherwise the face portion could be removed at will, and that isn't the case at all. Go walk around the muslim slums of Paris, then come back to me and talk about what's *required and what isn't.

No man would choose to be a slave, so obviously no man would choose to wear slave garb. If it weren't required by some dysfunctional, patriarchal culture, no woman would choose to wear an inherently unhealthy, hot, black shroud either. Regardless, the rest of society doesn't want to deal with ghosts and cyphers and if only for safety as well as security reasons, her wish to be a slave is over ridden by the common good. We already diminish the rights of the religious... as I've said before, the Amish can't just ride their horse 'n buggies into town wherever they wish either. And BDSM slaves can't walk around naked in leather mask and ball gag.

You can keep spinning that women need to wear the burqa so that they'll be appreciated for their brains, but that's complete bullshit and you know it. If it were the case, men would be driven to wear them as well, and we know that would never happen. No self respecting man would ever hide his face. No, it's exactly what it's meant to be... a sexual slave costume, designed to remove women from any possibility of an indiscreet relationship. Since most of our emotions are conveyed by the face, erasing it from view takes care of that.

[boppers]

84. Our culture?

"We don't hire them to work in banks or to sell insurance because you can't have a relationship with a ghost."

If you're in the US, good luck with the ADA lawsuits.

"Ask any blind person what they would give to see the expression on a loved one's face."

Having asked the deaf what it would be like to hear, and the blind what it would be like to see, this is like somebody asking if you would glurfnozzle if you could. Because glurfnozzle is important to the person asking.

"Our faces, what we convey with our eyes, our brows, lips, etc... is an important part of our relationships, personal and commercial."

That depends on a few factors. There's an international diagnosis upswing in people who avoid, and ignore, such simplistic and trivial acting cues, so much so that it's been called a disease. It has especially high rates in educated and high-tech areas.

"Otherwise, there would be no reason to cover the face, now would there? To cut someone off from having that rich experience of being known by others, makes them inferior and a slave."

I hope to god you never have autistic children, ASD friends, clients, or any contact with people who have MS, facial paralysis, or other muscular dysfunction. You seem to have pretty harsh feelings about it, to the point of considering such people "inferior".

I'd keep dissecting your post, but really, it's not worth it.

I'll just point at one piece of bizarre, masculine, machismo driven, piece of self important, glamor driven, 20th century bravado:
"No self respecting man would ever hide his face."

I'll counter with this:
"No self respecting person thinks that their value has anything to do with their face."

[dustbunnie]

85. Yep, more complete and utter nonsense.

You ignore the fundamental fact. It is the culture that requires a woman to completely cover her face above all else, often under punishment of death should it be unmasked that you're arguing for, by telling me that no self-respecting person thinks their value has anything to do with their face. :crazy: Since you've been arguing nothing but absurdities, as others have already informed you, I'm sure this irony completely zings right over your head. Before you think of dissecting the posts of others, you might want to cultivate some semblance of logic in your own first. The rest of what you posted about how little our expressions or how we emote matters is absolute garbage nonsense. Start to finish.

And I'll just finish by saying that when I'm alone on a subway platform, the face underneath the black shroud of the only other person sharing it with me is of the utmost importance. Is it the face of a nice old muslim slave woman, or is it a male rapist/murderer? Or the woman who walks out in front of my car because she can't see anything since she's half blinded by her black shroud. She's important to me. Your sensibilities don't mean shit to me.

[boppers]

90. Facial profiling.... hm. eom

[dustbunnie]

92. Haha... you say facial expression is unimportant while you defend a culture that kills over it.

Like I said, logic eludes you completely. Everything you've said is nonsense.

Facial expressions are absolutely important, and while an autistic child may have trouble discerning speech, most people who are challenged in some way can recognize a smile or an angry expression. Go to a foreign country and even if you can't understand a word, facial expressions are virtually universal.

You say no worthwhile person would judge another by his facial expression while at the same time you defend the fundie muslim culture which holds that the facial expressions of women are of such great importance that these must NEVER be seen by others, sometimes under punishment of beatings and murder. What a genius you are!

You say women, unlike men, need to hide their faces so that they will be appreciated for their brains, and that, together with your ridiculous argument that facial expressions in women are also of no worth, is basically another way of saying that women's faces convey nothing but their sexuality. Yes, you are quite the genius. And a sexist pig on top of it.

Good for you!

You fundie apologists should really start defending the idea that women should be allowed to be slaves, as at least it's honest, rather than keep on with this stupid propaganda proposing that women subjugating themselves and encouraging others to look at them as nothing but sexual beings is some sort of majestic undertaking. It don't work on anyone with brains. :eyes:

[defendandprotect]

36. Good for them -- more male-supremacist religious nonsense inflicted upon women!!

[Chicago dyke]

42. the ignorance of muslim culture here is

astounding. where are the calls to ban orthodox jewish dress? should christian women be polled, to find out if they really "want" to wear necklaces with crosses? after all, those are equally patriarchal, oppressive religions.

i am a militant atheist. let me make that perfectly clear. i'm also a feminist, equally seriously. which is why i'm saying: women should be *free* to make up their own minds about what they wear. fine, some people hate islam, its values, what it says (or not) about women. that's a separate discussion. but the idea that a government can tell *women* what they can and cannot wear, singling out a specific religion, which just happens to be a religion of many people of color... this is something that people at DU are getting behind? i'm so confused. i thought we were liberals and progressives. i guess i was wrong.

why don't you all put me in charge, so i can start telling str8 people what they can wear? seriously, a lot of y'all need some help. that's "fair and progressive," right?

[dustbunnie]

44. Nobody gives a flying f*ck what anyone wears as long as they don't cover their faces.

And there are very good reasons for that.

[Confusious]

45. Nope. You need the help

And you need to do some studying about "muslim culture"

Just read a headline about a woman who was raped and got pregnant in a "muslim culture" country. 100 lashes.

They are just the bomb, aren't they!

P.s. The rapist probably was not charged, because you know those muslim men, they can't control themselves.

[Chicago dyke]

48. i have a PhD in middle eastern religions.

you?

[Confusious]

49. I was wondering when you were going to say that

I was guessing the second post, since that's when it usually comes out, but the third post will do.

Considering it took you so long to say that, I don't really believe it.

Also considering your name "Chicago dyke" and the fact that most gays are either put to death, stoned or beaten in these countries, either you have some sort of dissociative disorder, or you just don't care, since you're defending them.

You know, I'm really surprised at the number of PHD's and grad students here, it's like every other one that I talk to. who would figure out of 100,000 people, there would be so many? They all seem to get stuff messed up too.

Really doesn't impress me. I worked with a couple of PHD's, had a boss who was one. Even kind of famous in his field too. He was an idiot and an ass, and the rest of the field thought so too.

Studying old time religion doesn't really cover the vileness that today's religions have morphed into.

[Scout]

95. you know what they say....

Bull Shit, More Shit and Piled hip Deep

:rofl:
appeal to authority is not an argument.

oh, and before you ask, i stopped after the Bull Shit myself.

[defendandprotect]

46. And maybe we should have rethtought Chinese foot binding ... ??

Or the Nazi flag --

This is oppression of women by male-supremacist relgiion --

Whether the Yamulka or the Christian cross -- it's all about male-supremacist religious

advertising --

It's gang wear --

[boppers]

67. Gang wear, indeed.

"Nobody in the French gang will be allowed to wear a face scarf".

From one gang, to another..?

[defendandprotect]

86. Our Constitution only separates us from the religous "gang" . . .

and I think we should heed that warning!

They lived thru it in Europe!

The religious male-supremacist gangs are those we should and must separate

ourselves from.

[riderinthestorm]

52. In Chicago, a topless Aboriginal woman dressing per her culture and religion

would be forcibly covered, and arrested if she resisted.

We have cultural norms, and laws, that dictate how women dress in our country. Unless you tell me (and provide proof) that you are working to eliminate ALL dress codes for women then I call bullshit.

We abide by the laws governing dress in the US quite untroubled and without calling ourselves bigots. Why is it that France or Italy cannot also determine their own public dress codes without facing the same?

If you really are a mid Eastern religious studies PhD then you KNOW that the niqab, burka and full face veil are cultural affectations, not religious. And as such when those primitive cultural aspects run full smack into Western expectations, the immigrants are going to have to assimilate or leave. FGM isn't allowed. Beating your wife isn't allowed. Dressing her in a fucking shroud isn't allowed.

Are you working hard in Chicago to enable topless Aboriginal women to freely practice their culturally and religiously appropriate toplessness in Chicago? Then I'd advise that you don't go talking smack about other cultures trying to figure out what's appropriate in their public square until you deal with the issues in your own back yard.

[winyanstaz]

54. good points....thanks for speaking out :)

[MicaelS]

57. Damn, good post, I wish I had said that! n/t

[boppers]

69. So, Chicago is hopelessly screwed up and oppressive to human rights....

Is this supposed to be a good example, or a bad one?

If you're serious about removing dress code bigotry (posted elsewhere in this thread, sorry for double-linking) in the US, you could start here:
http://www.worldnakedbikeride.org/

Speaking from my chunk of the globe, we've dealt with it in our own back yard (Portland,OR,US), and are more than happy to dictate our solutions to the rest of the world. ;)

[defendandprotect]

97. Exactly . . . and if we wanted to argue for male-dominated religious culture, we'd

be arguing that indeed women have performed Female Genital Mutilation -- !!!

Women move other women -- their own children -- into position to have this

atrocity performed on them!!

As Mary Wollstonecraft said in reaction to brainwashing of women --

that you feel you'd like to shake them.

Unfortunately, brainwashing works!!

[unabelladonna]

55. it's about covering their faces

they have no peripheral vision! it's about subjugation! and it's wrong! no one is forcing women to be immodest! and yes, i think all masks should be banned and some are (ski masks). stop being an apologist for this nonsense.

[boppers]

66. Why do you hate ninjas? eom

[MicaelS]

56. Any of those others calling for women to cover their faces?

No, I don't think so. You wear whatever you want in public as long as you, woman or man, do not cover your face. What you do in private is up to you. If I owned a business, I'm not letting anyone into my business with their face covered. And IMO, any woman, in any culture that feels a need to cover her face in public has a problem. If you are not willing to expose your face to the gaze of men (how horrible :sarcasm: ) then do not go out in public.

What is really astounding are the Liberal / Progressive apologists for Islam under the guise of "tolerance". That old saw that Lenin stated about capitalists and selling the rope comes to mind. As a friend of mine is fond of saying,

"If the Islamic fanatics took over in the West, militant atheists, feminists, and progressives would be the first ones to get executed."

[boppers]

82. Jews wear three kinds of facial adornments.

Beards, side locks, and (sometimes) tefellin.

"I'm not letting anyone into my business with their face covered."

Do you let people in with their head un-covered?

How about their ankles?

How about nudists/naturalists, is being totally naked acceptable to you?

[Codeine]

87. "Muslim culture"?

There is no Muslim culture -- there are cultural practices of societies which are dominately Islamic, but they are many and varied. How could anyone compare Saudi Arabia and Indonesia, for example? Both are societies that are dominated by Muslims, yet culturally there are few similarities.

[defendandprotect]

94. ...and I guess Germany should have been "free to make up their own minds"

about resuming Nazidom post--WWII -- hang those Nazi flags up again?

Brainwashing of women and a culture by male-supremacist religions doesn't create

"free women" nor free thought!

As for "singling out religion" keep in mind that we all recognize - and our Founders

made clear -- that organized patriarchal religion is a CLEAR THREAT to democracy --

that's why we have Separation of Church & State ... not separation of state and Hershey

Bars!

[MilitarismFTL]

88. I can't believe

This hasn't been discussed more! The EU needs to step up as the bastion of liberalism that it is made out to be!

[next left2]

91. This invades individual freedom

It would be better to outlaw acts that more directly conflict with State law, such as arresting the husband who kills his wife because she drinks alcohol, or some such alleged infringement of Islamic law.

.
.

[Courtesy Flush]

98. The only time I saw a woman in a burqa was in Italy.

She was in the Milan airport, waiting for a flight to Casablanca (I really wanted to be on that flight!). I'm not sure what she had to go through to get through security.