To burkini or not burkini, that’s the question.

[Imperializt Russia]

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

Hanging out on media comments sections is your first problem. You might as well be sourcing Youtube comments. I would take a forum like reddit (where the ban was mostly opposed) as far more sacrosanct.

But then again, it's a moot point. Relying on popularity is generally an admission that your ideas don't have a logical basis.

Reddit's probably home to three times as many alt-right subreddits that would furiously masturbate over the footage of that woman in the burkini being demanded to undress by armed officers.

[Olerand]

The bans are illegal, as proven true, the burkini is a disgusting view of women and women's rights in modern France. We cannot ban it, we will not defend it.

This is built on the fundamental assumption that muslim women uniquely have no agency on account of being muslim women, and are forcibly dressed by patriarchs.

If this were true, do you think they'd bother going to the beach in the first place?

No agency? Have I not made clear that I think they have all the agency in the world? A Muslim woman in Saudi Arabia can go out naked too, and face the consequences. Agency, all of it, her decision.

But do you not believe that women can internalize sexist and misogynist views that dominate their milieu and come to believe them? Would you disagree if I said that most Western women prior to the 1960s and the sexual revolution would probably very clearly fall under that description?

Why can Muslim women not do the same? What makes them so... superhuman that they can resist this? Or alternatively, what makes them so self-loathing, so as to all by their voluntary decision cover up, but not require any man to do so either?

As to the "going to the beach" part, no Wahhabi would allow his wife to go to the beach at all. We are under no assumption otherwise, we know. The burkini is more akin to a Muslim Brother's view on women than a Saudi cleric, we know.
We just reject both, we reject both the plague and cholera. We're more on the Gamal Abd al-Nasser-wavelength.

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

Comment sections are representative of nothing but the most extreme left and right wing views.

Really? Because all the other articles (at least in the NYT) seem quite representative of the American left's views on most things, from the economy, to Republicans, to moderate Israel criticism. There have been no polls on the issue as far as I know, so comments sections is all we have to go by.

[Galloism]

Hanging out on media comments sections is your first problem. You might as well be sourcing Youtube comments. I would take a forum like reddit (where the ban was mostly opposed) as far more sacrosanct.

But then again, it's a moot point. Relying on popularity is generally an admission that your ideas don't have a logical basis.

Reddit's probably home to three times as many alt-right subreddits that would furiously masturbate over the footage of that woman in the burkini being demanded to undress by armed officers.

Great, now you've invoked it.

[Aggicificicerous]

Hanging out on media comments sections is your first problem. You might as well be sourcing Youtube comments. I would take a forum like reddit (where the ban was mostly opposed) as far more sacrosanct.

But then again, it's a moot point. Relying on popularity is generally an admission that your ideas don't have a logical basis.

Reddit's probably home to three times as many alt-right subreddits that would furiously masturbate over the footage of that woman in the burkini being demanded to undress by armed officers.

Thankfully, when I do go to reddit, I stay on the main pages.

[Olerand]

Have you read the comments on the NYT ('s 10 and counting articles on this, you would think this is the issue of the summer, or that the Times are based in Paris and not NYC) and the Guardian's stupid "the burkini liberates me, I am a feminist who believes in the inherent sinfulness of women's bodies, hear me roar!" articles?

I see the public supporting us, the journalos/editors not. I care for neither, really, but it is good to see that the public in the English speaking world agrees with us, at least. Even the upvoted comments who decry the ban (as many of us do), make clear that the burkini is reprehensible, and not some Orwellian tool for women's liberation (as we do).

Hanging out on media comments sections is your first problem. You might as well be sourcing Youtube comments. I would take a forum like reddit (where the ban was mostly opposed) as far more sacrosanct.

But then again, it's a moot point. Relying on popularity is generally an admission that your ideas don't have a logical basis.

I don't "hang out" there, nor do I believe that the NYT and the Guardian's pre-moderated comments are really that similar to Youtube's.

As for the other one, what logic, what ideas? What am I defending? The bans? No. The burkini, no. I am simply stating that popular opinion sides with us. Not a defense of anything or any ideas or ideologies, but a factual statement.

[Aggicificicerous]

I don't "hang out" there, nor do I believe that the NYT and the Guardian's pre-moderated comments are really that similar to Youtube's.

As for the other one, what logic, what ideas? What am I defending? The bans? No. The burkini, no. I am simply stating that popular opinion sides with us. Not a defense of anything or any ideas or ideologies, but a factual statement.

"With us" implies that you consider yourself in support of the ban, that you stand in solidarity with the government or country for enacting it. For example, when my government does something I don't like, and people bash it, I don't consider them to be attacking me or "us", I consider them to be attacking the government. Maybe you don't see it that way, but it's the impression you give off.

[Olerand]

I don't "hang out" there, nor do I believe that the NYT and the Guardian's pre-moderated comments are really that similar to Youtube's.

As for the other one, what logic, what ideas? What am I defending? The bans? No. The burkini, no. I am simply stating that popular opinion sides with us. Not a defense of anything or any ideas or ideologies, but a factual statement.

"With us" implies that you consider yourself in support of the ban, that you stand in solidarity with the government or country for enacting it. For example, when my government does something I don't like, and people bash it, I don't consider them to be attacking me or "us", I consider them to be attacking the government. Maybe you don't see it that way, but it's the impression you give off.

No government and no country supports it. Nor do I, nor does the Council of State. Individual municipalities do, and the Council of State has nullified their bans. The issue is dead. I argue against the bans and the burkini. We in France don't fall into the trap so prevalent amongst our fellow left-wingers of opposing bans and supporting misogynistic items and views that the bans would have banned too. We oppose both.

I see the Anglo-Saxon public agreeing that the burkini is reprehensible, not defensible, not a tool for women's liberation, and not a feminist statement, despite what the NYT will say. They also disagree that France is like the Taliban now, as the Guardian has tried to say. That is being with us.

The bans are illegal, the burkini is indefensible, that is my and "our" position.

[Aggicificicerous]

No government and no country supports it. Nor do I, nor does the Council of State. Individual municipalities do, and the Council of State has nullified their bans. The issue is dead. I argue against the bans and the burkini. We in France don't fall into the trap so prevalent amongst our fellow left-wingers of opposing bans and supporting misogynistic items and views that the bans would have banned too. We oppose both.

I see the Anglo-Saxon public agreeing that the burkini is reprehensible, not defensible, not a tool for women's liberation, and not a feminist statement, despite what the NYT will say. They also disagree that France is like the Taliban now, as the Guardian has tried to say. That is being with us.

The bans are illegal, the burkini is indefensible, that is my and "our" position.

Anything can be a feminist statement if you try hard enough. But hey, if we just assume that a burkha/burkhini is a sign of oppression every time, since clearly any woman who grows up a Muslim automatically forfeits her agency, then yeah, it's indefensible or something. Anyone woman who wears it to the beach, even if she isn't a Muslim, must be brainwashed. At least that's what I learned reading comment sections.

[Gauthier]

No government and no country supports it. Nor do I, nor does the Council of State. Individual municipalities do, and the Council of State has nullified their bans. The issue is dead. I argue against the bans and the burkini. We in France don't fall into the trap so prevalent amongst our fellow left-wingers of opposing bans and supporting misogynistic items and views that the bans would have banned too. We oppose both.

I see the Anglo-Saxon public agreeing that the burkini is reprehensible, not defensible, not a tool for women's liberation, and not a feminist statement, despite what the NYT will say. They also disagree that France is like the Taliban now, as the Guardian has tried to say. That is being with us.

The bans are illegal, the burkini is indefensible, that is my and "our" position.

Anything can be a feminist statement if you try hard enough. But hey, if we just assume that a burkha/burkhini is a sign of oppression every time, since clearly any woman who grows up a Muslim automatically forfeits her agency, then yeah, it's indefensible or something. Anyone woman who wears it to the beach, even if she isn't a Muslim, must be brainwashed. At least that's what I learned reading comment sections.

Burkinis are really parasitic alien lifeforms and any woman who has one on is obviously under its control.

[Olerand]

No government and no country supports it. Nor do I, nor does the Council of State. Individual municipalities do, and the Council of State has nullified their bans. The issue is dead. I argue against the bans and the burkini. We in France don't fall into the trap so prevalent amongst our fellow left-wingers of opposing bans and supporting misogynistic items and views that the bans would have banned too. We oppose both.

I see the Anglo-Saxon public agreeing that the burkini is reprehensible, not defensible, not a tool for women's liberation, and not a feminist statement, despite what the NYT will say. They also disagree that France is like the Taliban now, as the Guardian has tried to say. That is being with us.

The bans are illegal, the burkini is indefensible, that is my and "our" position.

Anything can be a feminist statement if you try hard enough. But hey, if we just assume that a burkha/burkhini is a sign of oppression every time, since clearly any woman who grows up a Muslim automatically forfeits her agency, then yeah, it's indefensible or something. Anyone woman who wears it to the beach, even if she isn't a Muslim, must be brainwashed. At least that's what I learned reading comment sections.

Well, you would have to deny the very reason for its existence for it to be anything other than sexism personified. I don't see how that can be done, I can't reach such a level of cognitive dissonance.

Like saying that a woman voluntarily giving up her bank account, her passport, and other items that make her an equal and independent individual to her husband (as was the case in the West in the past, and still is in the Muslim world) is a "feminist statement". I don't see it. But sure, if that's your opinion. But I don't see it.

Although if that was the attitude of the women's liberation movement in the 1960s, rather than seeing that for the sexism that it was... I fear much of women's lib would have been born stillborn. But that's fine, if that's what one wants. I, and the rest of the French left, don't want that though.

[Aggicificicerous]

Well, you would have to deny the very reason for its existence for it to be anything other than sexism personified. I don't see how that can be done, I can't reach such a level of cognitive dissonance.

Jet engines were invented to kill people. Am I engaging in cognitive dissonance when I take a plane?

Like saying that a woman voluntarily giving up her bank account, her passport, and other items that make her an equal and independent individual to her husband (as was the case in the West in the past, and still is in the Muslim world) is a "feminist statement". I don't see it. But sure, if that's your opinion. But I don't see it.

Although if that was the attitude of the women's liberation movement in the 1960s, rather than seeing that for the sexism that it was... I fear much of women's lib would have been born stillborn. But that's fine, if that's what one wants. I, and the rest of the French left, don't want that though.

It can be a feminist statement if the woman wants it to be. That's not the same as saying that it always is or has to be.

[Olerand]

Well, you would have to deny the very reason for its existence for it to be anything other than sexism personified. I don't see how that can be done, I can't reach such a level of cognitive dissonance.

Jet engines were invented to kill people. Am I engaging in cognitive dissonance when I take a plane?

Like saying that a woman voluntarily giving up her bank account, her passport, and other items that make her an equal and independent individual to her husband (as was the case in the West in the past, and still is in the Muslim world) is a "feminist statement". I don't see it. But sure, if that's your opinion. But I don't see it.

Although if that was the attitude of the women's liberation movement in the 1960s, rather than seeing that for the sexism that it was... I fear much of women's lib would have been born stillborn. But that's fine, if that's what one wants. I, and the rest of the French left, don't want that though.

It can be a feminist statement if the woman wants it to be. That's not the same as saying that it always is or has to be.

Comparing jet engines, designed for flying in war situations, and then adapted to civilian flight to a theologically mandated clothing item that was designed specifically so as to cover women in public so that they do not incite lust in men who see them, and thus commit a sin themselves, is... not a, good, comparison I would say?

Again, by denying the fundamental purpose of what it is. I've already given an example of the one attempt at making this a "feminist statement" that I've seen, or the woman who "privatizes" her sexuality, or hair really, to make men listen to her. I find that argument, in the age of men should respect women even if they are wearing short skirts and tank tops feminism (the right kind, to us), to be a little... lacking in feminism. To have women take upon themselves and their vestimentary choices the onus of having men respect them as equals is... not feminist, really, or at least not what most would consider feminist. But yet again, "feminism" has gone off the rails often in the Anglo world nowadays, and we would rather stay on the de Beauvoir and previous feminist waves' consistencies, really.

[The Alma Mater]

Anything can be a feminist statement if you try hard enough. But hey, if we just assume that a burkha/burkhini is a sign of oppression every time, since clearly any woman who grows up a Muslim automatically forfeits her agency, then yeah, it's indefensible or something. Anyone woman who wears it to the beach, even if she isn't a Muslim, must be brainwashed. At least that's what I learned reading comment sections.

Burkinis are really parasitic alien lifeforms and any woman who has one on is obviously under its control.

Strictly speaking, they ARE in fact meant to show a woman is subsmissive to a possibly parasitic alien lifeform

[Gauthier]

Burkinis are really parasitic alien lifeforms and any woman who has one on is obviously under its control.

Strictly speaking, they ARE in fact meant to show a woman is subsmissive to a possibly parasitic alien lifeform

While nun's habits are just symbolic displays of faith. *nod*

[Olerand]

Strictly speaking, they ARE in fact meant to show a woman is subsmissive to a possibly parasitic alien lifeform

While nun's habits are just symbolic displays of faith. *nod*

An all but dead clothing item, as per Vatican II's recommendations. From the Holy Father himself:

§25 … The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ.
Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.
Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.
Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.

But, so many liberals insist on beating this dead, tired, decayed, smelly, maggot infested horse.

Where are the nuns in those outfits on French beaches today, I ask? Or in the streets even? Where are the nuns at all? I know the Church has to import priests from Africa now because there aren't enough French men becoming priests. Are nuns an exception? I haven't seen one in ages, let alone one in those outfits.

But regardless, nun's outfits are not sexism-proof either. Their outfits are unacceptable too, although male monks have vestimentary obligations as well. But this is not exactly a pressing issue nowadays much, nuns being a little hard to find.

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

The reasoning behind the burkini ban is racist and the people who support it do so for racist reasons. It has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with humiliating and marginalizing French Muslims.

[Transoxthraxia]

The reasoning behind the burkini ban is racist and the people who support it do so for racist reasons. It has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with humiliating and marginalizing French Muslims.

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

[The Alma Mater]

Strictly speaking, they ARE in fact meant to show a woman is subsmissive to a possibly parasitic alien lifeform

While nun's habits are just symbolic displays of faith. *nod*

Well no, those symbolise that they love a possibly parasitic alien lifeform- which some claim is the same as the burkini one.

All very scifi. L Ron would be proud

[UnjustlyBannedLlamas]

The reasoning behind the burkini ban is racist and the people who support it do so for racist reasons. It has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with humiliating and marginalizing French Muslims.

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

Because it bans a form of dress used by Muslims?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

Yes it is since it is a ban targeted at a MUSLIM head dress that has everything to do with the religion.

[Imperializt Russia]

The reasoning behind the burkini ban is racist and the people who support it do so for racist reasons. It has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with humiliating and marginalizing French Muslims.

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

How do you figure?

[Olerand]

The reasoning behind the burkini ban is racist and the people who support it do so for racist reasons. It has nothing to do with secularism and everything to do with humiliating and marginalizing French Muslims.

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

Maghrebians in France, despite not being not white, and being against being identified as non-white (racism against blacks is quite popular) fall into the identity box that the Anglo-Saxon left has deemed "non-white". Thus, they are "non-white". Muslim has also become a race, recently. So anti-Islamic actions are racist.

One could say it is identity politics run amoke, the death of ideologies. But one would be describing the current Anglo-Saxon political scene anyway.

[Olerand]

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

How do you figure?

The Quran doesn't mandate it. The Ahadith as interpreted by most Ulama does. But some Ulama disagree.

[Transoxthraxia]

Please elaborate as to how it's racist?

I mean, it's certainly not Islamophobic, since the Burqa has nothing to do with the religion itself.

Maghrebians in France, despite not being not white, and being against being identified as non-white (racism against blacks is quite popular) fall into the identity box that the Anglo-Saxon left has deemed "non-white". Thus, they are "non-white". Muslim has also become a race, recently. So anti-Islamic actions are racist.

One could say it is identity politics run amoke, the death of ideologies. But one would be describing the current Anglo-Saxon political scene anyway.

Yeah, I'm gonna go with "identity politics run amok" and not engage in whatever the hell this argument actually is about.

[Aggicificicerous]

Comparing jet engines, designed for flying in war situations, and then adapted to civilian flight to a theologically mandated clothing item that was designed specifically so as to cover women in public so that they do not incite lust in men who see them, and thus commit a sin themselves, is... not a, good, comparison I would say?

Jet engines were originally designed to fire missiles, especially at civilians. But they can be useful in other ways. That's why we use jets on our planes today, because we acknowledge that inventions can serve more than one purpose. Similarly, someone can wear a burkha without being forced to do so (even if we assume the burkha was originally designed solely as a way of keeping women downtrodden, and still is used a great deal for that purpose today).

Again, by denying the fundamental purpose of what it is. I've already given an example of the one attempt at making this a "feminist statement" that I've seen, or the woman who "privatizes" her sexuality, or hair really, to make men listen to her. I find that argument, in the age of men should respect women even if they are wearing short skirts and tank tops feminism (the right kind, to us), to be a little... lacking in feminism. To have women take upon themselves and their vestimentary choices the onus of having men respect them as equals is... not feminist, really, or at least not what most would consider feminist. But yet again, "feminism" has gone off the rails often in the Anglo world nowadays, and we would rather stay on the de Beauvoir and previous feminist waves' consistencies, really.

That's just a non sequitur. There are women who get married and stay at home raising children as a feminist statement too; the point is that if you can do something and choose, of your own volition, to do so, that is your business alone. What's important is that you are able to make the choice. Tadah: feminism.

[Imperializt Russia]

How do you figure?

The Quran doesn't mandate it. The Ahadith as interpreted by most Ulama does. But some Ulama disagree.

This is rather like saying that the bible doesn't say Christians should discriminate against the gays because the old testament doesn't apply, somehow.
Hasn't stopped Christians by the million from believing so.