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

[Olerand]

Fighting "misogyny" by defending misogyny.

That's what France, and, to an extent, you are doing, yep - except without the scare quotes.

France is trying to use misogyny to fight misogyny. That won't work. It just won't.

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

[Conserative Morality]

What? I asked what the purpose of elegant dresses was? Was it to do so? It failed if so.

When did I ever claim sexist clothing standards in the West are dead? Certainly not in that quote.

Let me outline how I've interpreted this:

Me: "Clearly this very common manner of Western double standard is oppression too."
You: "Oh really? Is that what they were made for?"
M: "Uh, yeah."
Y: "Then explain these almost entirely covered women who were considered at the height of decadence in their day
M: "Much arousal. Wow."
Y: "Clearly this means the Western double standard existing for women's clothing and men's clothing in terms of what is and isn't considered decent, originating in the past and continuing to this day, doesn't exist."
Alternatively: "Clearly this means that our double standard is far superior to the double-standard of those dirty Muslims."

[Conserative Morality]

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

I love how you treat women like they have no agency. It's very... old world.

[Olerand]

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?

Can something that was designed with one idea in mind be used for another? Yes, that's pretty much my entire point.

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.

Are you saying that's impossible? How very presumptuous of you.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... p-ceremony

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?

You sound like Chessmistress once she gets going on pornography. The idea that some people might do it voluntarily is alien to her; if you do it, it's because you have been forced into it, and if you chose to do it, you've been brainwashed by male-dominated society. There's no room for freedom of expression there, because if you choose the wrong thing, you forfeit your own agency in her eyes. I'm not so arrogant I would presume to know the minds of every person who does things I personally disagree with.

What other? An item is invented by men to cover women, and only women, because their bodies are inherently sinful. What other uses are there? "Privatizing" your sexuality so that men will respect you? That's a laudable position?

Why does she wear the niqab at all? Not in naturalization ceremonies, but in life?

I don't believe in women misogynistic enough to invent putting these outfits on but relieve men of the duty to do the same, no. Shocking, I know.

[Galloism]

That's what France, and, to an extent, you are doing, yep - except without the scare quotes.

France is trying to use misogyny to fight misogyny. That won't work. It just won't.

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

Actually, if a woman wants to wear a floor length dress and a big hat with flowers to be 'modest' because she's a good assembly of god christian and it's what she feels she ought to do, I have no problem with that.

I DO have a problem with her being forced to wear it. I also have a problem with her being denied the right to wear it.

This is because if you truly respect her as a person, you'll also respect her choices as it regards clothing. If you don't respect her as a person, IE, you're a misogynist, you won't.

[Olerand]

What? I asked what the purpose of elegant dresses was? Was it to do so? It failed if so.

When did I ever claim sexist clothing standards in the West are dead? Certainly not in that quote.

Let me outline how I've interpreted this:

Me: "Clearly this very common manner of Western double standard is oppression too."
You: "Oh really? Is that what they were made for?"
M: "Uh, yeah."
Y: "Then explain these almost entirely covered women who were considered at the height of decadence in their day
M: "Much arousal. Wow."
Y: "Clearly this means the Western double standard existing for women's clothing and men's clothing in terms of what is and isn't considered decent, originating in the past and continuing to this day, doesn't exist."
Alternatively: "Clearly this means that our double standard is far superior to the double-standard of those dirty Muslims."

This quote means what your first "argument" is? Clearly I misunderstood it then:

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.

I thought you were comparing elegant dresses with the burkini, which is why my response was directed at that, not at any double standard in Western dress.

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

I love how you treat women like they have no agency. It's very... old world.

I've already discussed agency before. But I also believe in internalizing sexism and misogyny. You retain agency, even if you internalize bad ideas. I fundamentally do not believe a woman would have invented the Islamic coverings had they not been invented by men 200 years after the death of Muhammad. I do not believe a woman can be so self-loathing.

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

Actually, if a woman wants to wear a floor length dress and a big hat with flowers to be 'modest' because she's a good assembly of god christian and it's what she feels she ought to do, I have no problem with that.

I DO have a problem with her being forced to wear it. I also have a problem with her being denied the right to wear it.

This is because if you truly respect her as a person, you'll also respect her choices as it regards clothing. If you don't respect her as a person, IE, you're a misogynist, you won't.

If her religion mandates that she do so so as not to incite lust in men and sin, I do. That's the difference between us. You think the man in the sky and the men speaking for him justify sexism. I don't.

[Imperializt Russia]

That's what France, and, to an extent, you are doing, yep - except without the scare quotes.

France is trying to use misogyny to fight misogyny. That won't work. It just won't.

Defending misogyny by fighting misogyny. Truly Orwellian. I simply regret that you deny Muslim women the freedom from religious dictates that I'm sure you defend Western women against. Moving on.

Armed police demanded a woman strip on the beach.

This is not freedom.
This is what is Orwellian, not the notion that a woman can choose to wear any piece of fabric she so desires.

[Aggicificicerous]

What other? An item is invented by men to cover women, and only women, because their bodies are inherently sinful. What other uses are there? "Privatizing" your sexuality so that men will respect you? That's a laudable position?

Why does she wear the niqab at all? Not in naturalization ceremonies, but in life?

Well, if you'd read the article I gave you, you might know. Believe it or not, some people don't approach life the same way you do.

I don't believe in women misogynistic enough to invent putting these outfits on but relieve men of the duty to do the same, no. Shocking, I know.

You can believe as you wish, but you'd be presumptuous and wrong.

[Galloism]

Actually, if a woman wants to wear a floor length dress and a big hat with flowers to be 'modest' because she's a good assembly of god christian and it's what she feels she ought to do, I have no problem with that.

I DO have a problem with her being forced to wear it. I also have a problem with her being denied the right to wear it.

This is because if you truly respect her as a person, you'll also respect her choices as it regards clothing. If you don't respect her as a person, IE, you're a misogynist, you won't.

If her religion mandates that she do so so as not to incite lust in men and sin, I do.

Why is it if society mandates sexism in dress, it's ok, and not worth any bans, but if 'god' does it, it's not?

That's the difference between us. You think the man in the sky and the men speaking for him justify sexism. I don't.

I think people should have the choice in regards to what they wear. You think women lack proper agency and need protection from themselves. You know - like children.

[Conserative Morality]

I thought you wear comparing elegant dresses with the burkini, which is why my response was directed at that, not at any double standard in Western dress.

That's because I am comparing the double standard of dresses/Western women with the double standard of the burka.

I've already discussed agency before. But I also believe in internalizing sexism and misogyny. You retain agency, even if you internalize bad ideas. I fundamentally do not believe a woman would have invented the Islamic coverings had they not been invented by men 200 years after the death of Muhammad.

... you're kidding, right?

Veils in the manner of burkas date back to Judaic religions and even *gasp* WESTERN Greece, and long predate Muhammad much less Islam.

I do not believe a woman can be so self-loathing.

There's no bigot like a self-hating bigot.

[MERIZoC]

If her religion mandates that she do so so as not to incite lust in men and sin, I do.

Why is it if society mandates sexism in dress, it's ok, and not worth any bans, but if 'god' does it, it's not?

That's the difference between us. You think the man in the sky and the men speaking for him justify sexism. I don't.

I think people should have the choice in regards to what they wear. You think women lack proper agency and need protection from themselves. You know - like children.

Not even children. I think if armed police started demanding kids on the beach strip for them there'd be, um, quite a big outcry.

[Olerand]

What other? An item is invented by men to cover women, and only women, because their bodies are inherently sinful. What other uses are there? "Privatizing" your sexuality so that men will respect you? That's a laudable position?

Why does she wear the niqab at all? Not in naturalization ceremonies, but in life?

Well, if you'd read the article I gave you, you might know. Believe it or not, some people don't approach life the same way you do.

I don't believe in women misogynistic enough to invent putting these outfits on but relieve men of the duty to do the same, no. Shocking, I know.

You can believe as you wish, but you'd be wrong and presumptuous.

I did. Here's why: It is a “personal choice” and a way to assert her identity and show her devotion to her Muslim faith. She wears it to be a good Muslim. Now, why must women cover up to show their devotion to Islam? Why not men?

There are a lot of weird people in the world, perhaps there is a woman so self-loathing. That's sad though, and not a healthy attitude towards being oneself.

If her religion mandates that she do so so as not to incite lust in men and sin, I do.

Why is it if society mandates sexism in dress, it's ok, and not worth any bans, but if 'god' does it, it's not?

That's the difference between us. You think the man in the sky and the men speaking for him justify sexism. I don't.

I think people should have the choice in regards to what they wear. You think women lack proper agency and need protection from themselves. You know - like children.

Neither are OK. Which is why men who want to wear dresses should be able to, which is legally possible and increasingly societally tolerable. And why the bans are illegal. Problem solved.

I think they have all the agency that men do. And that internalize ideas and beliefs, like men do. Equal to men in good, and bad.

[Galloism]

I've already discussed agency before. But I also believe in internalizing sexism and misogyny. You retain agency, even if you internalize bad ideas. I fundamentally do not believe a woman would have invented the Islamic coverings had they not been invented by men 200 years after the death of Muhammad.

... you're kidding, right?

Veils in the manner of burkas date back to Judaic religions and even *gasp* WESTERN Greece, and long predate Muhammad much less Islam.

A quick wikipedia reference seems to indicate the veil was invented in Assyria around 13th century BCE. It was restricted to royalty. Common people were not allowed to wear them because it was considered a high status symbol and should be out of their each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#History

[Olerand]

I thought you wear comparing elegant dresses with the burkini, which is why my response was directed at that, not at any double standard in Western dress.

That's because I am comparing the double standard of dresses/Western women with the double standard of the burka.

I've already discussed agency before. But I also believe in internalizing sexism and misogyny. You retain agency, even if you internalize bad ideas. I fundamentally do not believe a woman would have invented the Islamic coverings had they not been invented by men 200 years after the death of Muhammad.

... you're kidding, right?

Veils in the manner of burkas date back to Judaic religions and even *gasp* WESTERN Greece, and long predate Muhammad much less Islam.

I do not believe a woman can be so self-loathing.

There's no bigot like a self-hating bigot.

Mandated by men in the religion in ancient Israel, and no such thing like the burqa existed in ancient Greece. Veils were common in some ritualistic practices. Not in everyday life.

Perhaps. A sad, and very bad attitude towards healthy living with oneself, however, and certainly not something to be encouraged or defended, but helped to be free from.

[Galloism]

Why is it if society mandates sexism in dress, it's ok, and not worth any bans, but if 'god' does it, it's not?


I think people should have the choice in regards to what they wear. You think women lack proper agency and need protection from themselves. You know - like children.

Neither are OK. Which is why men who want to wear dresses should be able to, which is legally possible and increasingly societally tolerable. And why the bans are illegal. Problem solved.

I think they have all the agency that men do. And that internalize ideas and beliefs, like men do. Equal to men in good, and bad.

So in this case, since society says women can't walk around shirtless but men can, and this is sexist, can we ban women from wearing shirts in public?

[Olerand]

... you're kidding, right?

Veils in the manner of burkas date back to Judaic religions and even *gasp* WESTERN Greece, and long predate Muhammad much less Islam.

A quick wikipedia reference seems to indicate the veil was invented in Assyria around 13th century BCE. It was restricted to royalty. Common people were not allowed to wear them because it was considered a high status symbol and should be out of their each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#History

Assyrian veil coverings are not the point of debate here though, are they? Nor Greek, nor Roman my husband owns me veils.

[Imperializt Russia]

Well, if you'd read the article I gave you, you might know. Believe it or not, some people don't approach life the same way you do.



You can believe as you wish, but you'd be wrong and presumptuous.

I did. Here's why: It is a “personal choice” and a way to assert her identity and show her devotion to her Muslim faith. She wears it to be a good Muslim. Now, why must women cover up to show their devotion to Islam? Why not men?

There are a lot of weird people in the world, perhaps there is a woman so self-loathing. That's sad though, and not a healthy attitude towards being oneself.

Didn't you tell me less than an hour ago that the burka is not mandated by the Quran and that therefore it's not a part of the religious scripture itself?

So which is it?
You're reaching and contradicting yourself.

[Conserative Morality]

Well, if you'd read the article I gave you, you might know. Believe it or not, some people don't approach life the same way you do.I did. Here's why: It is a “personal choice” and a way to assert her identity and show her devotion to her Muslim faith. She wears it to be a good Muslim. Now, why must women cover up to show their devotion to Islam? Why not men?

Some Muslims embrace the burka for the same reason Mennonites in the States dress like something out of the 17th century. Because Abrahamic religions (and most cultures, for that matter) have a standard of modesty that varies in interpretation and is usually more restrictive for women than for men.

[Galloism]

A quick wikipedia reference seems to indicate the veil was invented in Assyria around 13th century BCE. It was restricted to royalty. Common people were not allowed to wear them because it was considered a high status symbol and should be out of their each.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#History

Assyrian veil coverings are not the point of debate here though, are they? Nor Greek, nor Roman my husband owns me veils.

It sort of undercuts the argument that burqas were invented to oppress women though.

At the very most, they were adopted with that purpose after having been invented long before as a symbol of high status.

[MERIZoC]

That's because I am comparing the double standard of dresses/Western women with the double standard of the burka.

... you're kidding, right?

Veils in the manner of burkas date back to Judaic religions and even *gasp* WESTERN Greece, and long predate Muhammad much less Islam.

There's no bigot like a self-hating bigot.

Mandated by men in the religion in ancient Israel, and no such thing like the burqa existed in ancient Greece. Veils were common in some ritualistic practices. Not in everyday life.

Perhaps. A sad, and very bad attitude towards healthy living with oneself, however, and certainly not something to be encouraged or defended, but helped to be free from.

Nice "helping" you're trying to do. Here, let me "help" you with your drug problem too, by locking you in jail for 30 years. That should free you.

[Galloism]

Well, if you'd read the article I gave you, you might know. Believe it or not, some people don't approach life the same way you do.I did. Here's why: It is a “personal choice” and a way to assert her identity and show her devotion to her Muslim faith. She wears it to be a good Muslim. Now, why must women cover up to show their devotion to Islam? Why not men?

Some Muslims embrace the burka for the same reason Mennonites in the States dress like something out of the 17th century. Because Abrahamic religions (and most cultures, for that matter) have a standard of modesty that varies in interpretation and is usually more restrictive for women than for men.

I always liked mennonites. Sweet folks.

They also have the best lettuce ever. They come to our farmer's market and sell vegetables and it's basically the best stuff ever.

[Conserative Morality]

Mandated by men in the religion in ancient Israel, and no such thing like the burqa existed in ancient Greece. Veils were common in some ritualistic practices. Not in everyday life.

Greece was actually horrid on the issue of women's rights.

"When someone inquired why they took their girls into public places unveiled, but their married women veiled, he said, 'Because the girls have to find husbands, and the married women have to keep to those who have them!'"

[Olerand]

Neither are OK. Which is why men who want to wear dresses should be able to, which is legally possible and increasingly societally tolerable. And why the bans are illegal. Problem solved.

I think they have all the agency that men do. And that internalize ideas and beliefs, like men do. Equal to men in good, and bad.

So in this case, since society says women can't walk around shirtless but men can, and this is sexist, can we ban women from wearing shirts in public?

What society? Not all societies are similar. We're not America, nudism is quite tolerated in continental Europe, women being uncovered where men are is also tolerated. Most French beaches will allow women to go topless. Toplessness for both genders in towns and streets is regulated by municipal orders, but feminists in France are fighting for the removal of discriminatory regulations today, as they should.

[Conserative Morality]

I always liked mennonites. Sweet folks.

They also have the best lettuce ever. They come to our farmer's market and sell vegetables and it's basically the best stuff ever.

Mennonites creep me out.

[Imperializt Russia]

Some Muslims embrace the burka for the same reason Mennonites in the States dress like something out of the 17th century. Because Abrahamic religions (and most cultures, for that matter) have a standard of modesty that varies in interpretation and is usually more restrictive for women than for men.

I always liked mennonites. Sweet folks.

They also have the best lettuce ever. They come to our farmer's market and sell vegetables and it's basically the best stuff ever.

It's like organic veg, but a billionth the price!