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

[Chessprill]

For Chessprill I am considering banning all the following from the public areas;

Minarets
Burqas
Hijabs
Burkinis
Religious Education
Turban
Fez
Yamaka
Religious Advertisment and Promotion
The Term "Sin"
and finally the Bible, Torah, and Quran, shall not be available in libraries
and in book stores they shall be in the fiction section and all copies of them in Chessprill must have a disclaimer about how they can damage mental health... that will be all

[Imperializt Russia]

For Chessprill I am considering banning all the following from the public areas;

Minarets
Burqas
Hijabs
Burkinis
Religious Education
Turban
Fez
Yamaka
Religious Advertisment and Promotion
The Term "Sin"
and finally the Bible, Torah, and Quran, shall not be available in libraries
and in book stores they shall be in the fiction section and all copies of them in Chessprill must have a disclaimer about how they can damage mental health... that will be all

You are in General. General is a forum for discussing real-world events. It is not an in-character forum.

[Olerand]

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.

But the burqa, which is not the topic of discussion here's original raison d'être and its continued raison d'être is to cover women. For they are sinful. But not men, they're a-ok. The question is, is this sexist? Is this comparable to jet engine? Can this raison d'être, women and only women, must cover up no matter the weather ever be feminist? By what understanding of feminism?

Which presumes that a woman, not raised with the mentality that women's bodies are inherently sinful, or indoctrinated into it by religion, would make this choice.

A serious question, do you believe, had some Ulama never interpreted the coverings from the Ahadith, that a woman would have come up with these women only outfits in the heat of Arabia? Do you believe there is a woman so self-loathing?

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.

Well... Not really... The Old Testament is still in the Bible. All these coverings are not in the Quran. There is no Christian equivalent to the Ahadith.

[Imperializt Russia]

A feminist is a woman who holds herself to be the equal of a man in all aspects of society, and has the freedom to do whatever she so chooses.

Feminists can wear the burqa, the hijab and the niqab (are those last two the same thing?), and some choose to. Much as feminists can spend large amounts of money on beauty products and fashion accessories.

A feminist can choose to get married.
A feminist can choose to be a homemaker.
Because they choose to because they want to.

[Olerand]

A feminist is a woman who holds herself to be the equal of a man in all aspects of society, and has the freedom to do whatever she so chooses.

Feminists can wear the burqa, the hijab and the niqab (are those last two the same thing?), and some do. Much as feminists can spend large amounts of money on beauty products and fashion accessories.
Because they choose to because they want to.

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

[Conserative Morality]

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

Only women's chests are sinful enough to bear covering in the West, and not men's.

Clearly any woman wearing a shirt on a hot summer day is oppressing herself.

[Galloism]

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.

In france, in 2006, there were 40,577 nuns. Now, the number of nuns is shrinking, and is probably less than 40,000 nuns in France now, but it is relatively certain that there are far more nuns wearing nun habits than muslim women wearing burqas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... _in_France

In essence, since nuns are so rare that the sexism of nun outfits doesn't matter, and muslim women who wear the burqa are even rarer than that, then muslim women who wear the burqa are so rare as to be not a pressing issue.

[Galloism]

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

Only women's chests are sinful enough to bear covering in the West, and not men's.

Clearly any woman wearing a shirt on a hot summer day is oppressing herself.

I say we ban women from wearing shirts.

For freedom.

[Imperializt Russia]

A feminist is a woman who holds herself to be the equal of a man in all aspects of society, and has the freedom to do whatever she so chooses.

Feminists can wear the burqa, the hijab and the niqab (are those last two the same thing?), and some do. Much as feminists can spend large amounts of money on beauty products and fashion accessories.
Because they choose to because they want to.

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

Way to ignore the latter half of that.

Feminists also shouldn't be telling others how they should dress, because that again rather defeats the point.

[Ifreann]

Only women's chests are sinful enough to bear covering in the West, and not men's.

Clearly any woman wearing a shirt on a hot summer day is oppressing herself.

I say we ban women from wearing shirts.

For freedom.

Get yer tits out, get yer tits out, get yer tits out for freedom, for freedom!

[Conserative Morality]

Only women's bodies are beautiful enough to wear elegant dresses in public without getting odd looks.

Clearly, this means we should ban elegant dresses.

[Olerand]

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

Only women's chests are sinful enough to bear covering in the West, and not men's.

Clearly any woman wearing a shirt on a hot summer day is oppressing herself.

What "West"? Come to France/Italy/Spain/Germany etc. and see topless women aplenty. The West is not America and dreary Britain, fortunately.

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.

In france, in 2006, there were 40,577 nuns. Now, the number of nuns is shrinking, and is probably less than 40,000 nuns in France now, but it is relatively certain that there are far more nuns wearing nun habits than muslim women wearing burqas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... _in_France

In essence, since nuns are so rare that the sexism of nun outfits doesn't matter, and muslim women who wear the burqa are even rarer than that, then muslim women who wear the burqa are so rare as to be not a pressing issue.

40,000 nuns... For 65 million people. A minuscule number in 2006, and one that is decreasing.

No, I didn't say the sexism doesn't matter, I said having to legislate about the issue doesn't matter. Because the outfit, already worn by few nuns as recommended by the Holy See itself in Vatican II, is dying. The burqa and other Islamic "female modesty" coverings are increasing. If only they could meet the same fate as nun's outfits.

Wearing these items inherently means that you do not think men and women are equal. Only women's bodies are sinful enough, to God, to wear these items. How is this belief consistent with believing in the equality of men and women?

Way to ignore the latter half of that.

Feminists also shouldn't be telling others how they should dress, because that again rather defeats the point.

Because it is irrelevant. The foundational belief is misogynist. Why anyone wears it still is. To please God, to "privatize your sexuality", all still misogynist.

Then feminists shouldn't care about latent misogynistic and sexist attitudes in (Western) societies either. Not a problem.

Only women's bodies are beautiful enough to wear elegant dresses in public without getting odd looks.

Clearly, this means we should ban elegant dresses.

Again with the illegal bans. The bans are illegal, as I've said they are before, arguing about this is mute.

[Imperializt Russia]

Way to ignore the latter half of that.

Feminists also shouldn't be telling others how they should dress, because that again rather defeats the point.

Because it is irrelevant. The foundational belief is misogynist. Why anyone wears it still is. To please God, to "privatize your sexuality", all still misogynist.

Then feminists shouldn't care about latent misogynistic and sexist attitudes in (Western) societies either. Not a problem.

I fucking addressed this.

It is not "sexist" or "misogynist" that a woman be a homemaker, or take an affinity to makeup, or bake fucking cookies.
It is sexist, and it is misogynist to say that a woman should do those things or be expected to, or because she is or should be subservient to a man.

[Olerand]

Because it is irrelevant. The foundational belief is misogynist. Why anyone wears it still is. To please God, to "privatize your sexuality", all still misogynist.

Then feminists shouldn't care about latent misogynistic and sexist attitudes in (Western) societies either. Not a problem.

I fucking addressed this.

It is not "sexist" or "misogynist" that a woman be a homemaker, or take an affinity to makeup, or bake fucking cookies.
It is sexist, and it is misogynist to say that a woman should do those things or be expected to, or because she is or should be subservient to a man.

If the act of being a homemaker, wearing makeup, or backing "fucking" cookies was born with the explicit intent that only women may ever and should ever do any of these things, lest they sin by men's judgment of them, they would all be inherently misogynistic too.

[Conserative Morality]

Again with the illegal bans. The bans are illegal, as I've said they are before, arguing about this is mute.

Oh, sorry, allow me to rephrase that:

Clearly, this means we should regard women wearing elegant dresses as oppressing themselves.

[Imperializt Russia]

I fucking addressed this.

It is not "sexist" or "misogynist" that a woman be a homemaker, or take an affinity to makeup, or bake fucking cookies.
It is sexist, and it is misogynist to say that a woman should do those things or be expected to, or because she is or should be subservient to a man.

If the act of being a homemaker, wearing makeup, or backing "fucking" cookies was born with the explicit intent that only women may ever and should ever do any of these things, lest they sin by men's judgment of them, they would all be inherently misogynistic too.

Do you really believe this?

Because it's absurd.

[Olerand]

Again with the illegal bans. The bans are illegal, as I've said they are before, arguing about this is mute.

Oh, sorry, allow me to rephrase that:

Clearly, this means we should regard women wearing elegant dresses as oppressing themselves.

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

[Olerand]

If the act of being a homemaker, wearing makeup, or backing "fucking" cookies was born with the explicit intent that only women may ever and should ever do any of these things, lest they sin by men's judgment of them, they would all be inherently misogynistic too.

Do you really believe this?

Because it's absurd.

Absolutely. I, and most of my countrymen, do believe that something's given reason to exist is... a valid understanding of its reason to exist. Yes.

[Imperializt Russia]

Do you really believe this?

Because it's absurd.

Absolutely. I, and most of my countrymen, do believe that something's given reason to exist is... a valid understanding of its reason to exist. Yes.

Well, now we're back to "rocketry and jet engines were invented to kill, so therefore NASA and jet aircraft are inherently evil".

[Conserative Morality]

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

Yeah, pretty sure that's the origin of double standards for female clothing.

[Galloism]

In france, in 2006, there were 40,577 nuns. Now, the number of nuns is shrinking, and is probably less than 40,000 nuns in France now, but it is relatively certain that there are far more nuns wearing nun habits than muslim women wearing burqas.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Cat ... _in_France

In essence, since nuns are so rare that the sexism of nun outfits doesn't matter, and muslim women who wear the burqa are even rarer than that, then muslim women who wear the burqa are so rare as to be not a pressing issue.

40,000 nuns... For 65 million people. A minuscule number in 2006, and one that is decreasing.

No, I didn't say the sexism doesn't matter, I said having to legislate about the issue doesn't matter. Because the outfit, already worn by few nuns as recommended by the Holy See itself in Vatican II, is dying. The burqa and other Islamic "female modesty" coverings are increasing. If only they could meet the same fate as nun's outfits.

I question whether it's increasing, but even if it were, 2,000 compared with 30,000-40,000 is a minscule number.

You are claiming that nun habits is so small and inconsequential that it doesn't matter, while arguing in favor of banning something even smaller and more inconsequential.

[Olerand]

Absolutely. I, and most of my countrymen, do believe that something's given reason to exist is... a valid understanding of its reason to exist. Yes.

Well, now we're back to "rocketry and jet engines were invented to kill, so therefore NASA and jet aircraft are inherently evil".

Comparing these two, who have found uses in other fields, to a clothing item still to this day recommended for the same reason by the men who invented it. I don't see the comparison. I don't see the comparison at all, between a tool, and an understanding of women's place in society.

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

Yeah, pretty sure that's the origin of double standards for female clothing.

Really, that's why elegant dresses became a thing in the decadent European courts of the 18th century? Marie Antoinette and CO. popularized these clothing items because "omen would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies"?

[Galloism]

Oh, sorry, allow me to rephrase that:

Clearly, this means we should regard women wearing elegant dresses as oppressing themselves.

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

Probably, yeah.

[Olerand]

40,000 nuns... For 65 million people. A minuscule number in 2006, and one that is decreasing.

No, I didn't say the sexism doesn't matter, I said having to legislate about the issue doesn't matter. Because the outfit, already worn by few nuns as recommended by the Holy See itself in Vatican II, is dying. The burqa and other Islamic "female modesty" coverings are increasing. If only they could meet the same fate as nun's outfits.

I question whether it's increasing, but even if it were, 2,000 compared with 30,000-40,000 is a minscule number.

You are claiming that nun habits is so small and inconsequential that it doesn't matter, while arguing in favor of banning something even smaller and more inconsequential.

You question if what is increasing? Islamic coverings? Yes. They were almost non-existent in immigrant communities in France before the 1980s, and the 1960s Mid-East had many less of them than it does today. That is a sign of an "increase".

And Islamic coverings (again, this is about the burkini here, and co. not the illegal burqa alone) are not "smaller and more inconsequential" than the dead and decaying pre-Vatican II nun's outfit.

[Olerand]

Elegant dresses... Where they made so that women would use them to cover themselves lest men see them and they sin by inciting lust in men with their sinful bodies?

Probably, yeah.

But their original styles, with the breasts clearly pushed up and present and all, didn't lend much modesty or covering. I don't think of the European women of the courts of the 18th century as being "modest".