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

[Setgavarius]

A subjective opinion.

Also a correct one, when it comes to this issue.

Now, what nation where the burkini is the dominant wear on the beach has a better record of women's rights than France, for this to be the latest fight for women's rights? For this to be the metric nations are judged by, as some have apparently made it.

We're not saying women should be FORCED to wear a burqa. That would be anti-woman. We're not saying women should be PROHIBITED from wearing a burqa. That would be anti-woman.

We're saying women should have the choice. That's because women should be treated as functional adults who can make their own religious choices.

I would rather smash laicitists and islamonutbags simultaneously. Both are promoting an all or nothing on this to us, each other and to women because they're so speshul. Well, to the ninety-six pits of hell with them both. The only thing that should be banned is forcing people to wear any specific items of clothing.

Of course it is. You're regulating what private individuals may wear in public places, and you're saying that adherents of Islam should be regulated while others shouldn't.

You're infringing on women's rights, but because it's mainly muslims that will be targeted, you're fine with it.

When the burkini is a symbol of women's liberation. Ignoring its context, the reasons for its existence, the profoundly misogynistic theological idea behind it.... Oof, I mean I guess, I'm not of that... Worldview, so I'll say, sure.

It's not. It's a half-attempt by islamonutbags and less nutbaggy islamists to look modern and acceptable when in fact the burkini just looks stupid, and imo even stupider in light of its' name. It's just a less baggy burqa.
That doesn't mean its' wearing should be banned. If I could find a policy that would encourage Muslim women prone to wearing it to wear less if practical and possible, I would choose it. I sure as hell wouldn't lock them completely out of one choice, and I wouldn't leave them vulnerable to the petty dictators of their own houses.

[Gravlen]

Yes, you proudly infringe on the rights of women, and your values are bad. And if you don't like it, get out, right?

Exactly. If you believe women are inherently inferior and sinful, and when you see them and lust after them, they are the ones at fault, please, go. We'll both be better off for it.

And if you believe women are equal and have the capacity to choose what to wear, get the fuck out too, I see.

[Olerand]

Still a subjective opinion. Is religion or women's liberation more important, we fall on different sides of this issue.

It's a false dilemma. You can have both freedom of religion AND women's liberation, but sometimes when women are liberated, they make choices you don't agree with.

That's ok.

You, on the other hand, are attacking both freedom of religion AND women's liberation.

You cropped out the second part of my quote. But it is very important.

These two ideologies are at a conflict. One cannot exist with the other, not until the intolerant one (in our view, of course, you will probably disagree) dominates and erases the other. Egypt under Nasser wouldn't have imagined looking like it is today. Nasser joked about the hijab, said work would liberate women. Egypt today is, unfortunately, not the Egypt of yesteryear, however, because the Islamists won the Gramscian war.

[Olerand]

Also a correct one, when it comes to this issue.


We're not saying women should be FORCED to wear a burqa. That would be anti-woman. We're not saying women should be PROHIBITED from wearing a burqa. That would be anti-woman.

We're saying women should have the choice. That's because women should be treated as functional adults who can make their own religious choices.

I would rather smash laicitists and islamonutbags simultaneously. Both are promoting an all or nothing on this to us, each other and to women because they're so speshul. Well, to the ninety-six pits of hell with them both. The only thing that should be banned is forcing people to wear any specific items of clothing.

When the burkini is a symbol of women's liberation. Ignoring its context, the reasons for its existence, the profoundly misogynistic theological idea behind it.... Oof, I mean I guess, I'm not of that... Worldview, so I'll say, sure.

It's not. It's a half-attempt by islamonutbags and less nutbaggy islamists to look modern and acceptable when in fact the burkini just looks stupid, and imo even stupider in light of its' name. It's just a less baggy burqa.
That doesn't mean its' wearing should be banned. If I could find a policy that would encourage Muslim women prone to wearing it to wear less if practical and possible, I would choose it. I sure as hell wouldn't lock them completely out of one choice, and I wouldn't leave them vulnerable to the petty dictators of their own houses.

But it won't be banned. This is not a national ban, and the PM has ruled out taking legal action against it, while ideologically condemning it as he should. These are municipal bans that will most likely be mostly shot down by the courts.

[Olerand]

Exactly. If you believe women are inherently inferior and sinful, and when you see them and lust after them, they are the ones at fault, please, go. We'll both be better off for it.

And if you believe women are equal and have the capacity to choose what to wear, get the fuck out too, I see.

In the same field as ignoring the influence of societal sexism on women's decisions today, even in the West. But you're right, society, culture, religion, cannot be misogynistic, and thus influence women's decisions, in the West too, I'm sure.

[New haven america]

Also a correct one, when it comes to this issue.


We're not saying women should be FORCED to wear a burqa. That would be anti-woman. We're not saying women should be PROHIBITED from wearing a burqa. That would be anti-woman.

We're saying women should have the choice. That's because women should be treated as functional adults who can make their own religious choices.

Still a subjective opinion. Is religion or women's liberation more important, we fall on different sides of this issue.

No, no, I'm not talking about someplace that forces them, by law. I'm not drawing a comparison to Iran. I'm asking of the countries in the Muslim world where the burkini is ubiquitous at the beach, not by law, but by societal acceptance and cultural mandate. Can any of those countries hold a candle to us? This is the Gramscian battle. What does society accept? We don't want to be like those countries, and we don't want pockets of our country being like them too.

It's not women's liberation if the government chooses what they can and cannot wear, is it?

[Olerand]

Still a subjective opinion. Is religion or women's liberation more important, we fall on different sides of this issue.

No, no, I'm not talking about someplace that forces them, by law. I'm not drawing a comparison to Iran. I'm asking of the countries in the Muslim world where the burkini is ubiquitous at the beach, not by law, but by societal acceptance and cultural mandate. Can any of those countries hold a candle to us? This is the Gramscian battle. What does society accept? We don't want to be like those countries, and we don't want pockets of our country being like them too.

It's not women's liberation if you choose what they can and cannot wear, is it?

The ban is irrelevant.

These are municipal bans that will most likely be rejected by the courts.

The burkini remains a fundamentally misogynistic and sexist item of clothing that does not deserve to be defended, even if liberals think otherwise.

[Setgavarius]

I would rather smash laicitists and islamonutbags simultaneously. Both are promoting an all or nothing on this to us, each other and to women because they're so speshul. Well, to the ninety-six pits of hell with them both. The only thing that should be banned is forcing people to wear any specific items of clothing.
It's not. It's a half-attempt by islamonutbags and less nutbaggy islamists to look modern and acceptable when in fact the burkini just looks stupid, and imo even stupider in light of its' name. It's just a less baggy burqa.
That doesn't mean its' wearing should be banned. If I could find a policy that would encourage Muslim women prone to wearing it to wear less if practical and possible, I would choose it. I sure as hell wouldn't lock them completely out of one choice, and I wouldn't leave them vulnerable to the petty dictators of their own houses.

But it won't be banned. This is not a national ban, and the PM has ruled out taking legal action against it, while ideologically condemning it as he should. These are municipal bans that will most likely be mostly shot down by the courts.

Oh. Well in that case, I do wish France the best of luck in finding a non ban-happy way to bring an end to that horrible article of clothing's usage as a symbol of oppression.

[New haven america]

It's not women's liberation if you choose what they can and cannot wear, is it?

The ban is irrelevant.

These are municipal bans that will most likely be rejected by the courts.

The burkini remains a fundamentally misogynistic and sexist item of clothing that does not deserve to be defended, even if liberals think otherwise.

How can it be sexist and misogynistic if it's their choice to wear them?

Answer: It's not, you're just defending a stupid and irrational decision your country has made, even if it's just on a municipal level. You're defending a misogynistic and sexist decision by claiming to be fighting against sexism and misogyny. Stop contradicting yourself.

[Urran]

Ban them, it's oppression against women. Freedom begins where religious liberty ends.

[Olerand]

The ban is irrelevant.

These are municipal bans that will most likely be rejected by the courts.

The burkini remains a fundamentally misogynistic and sexist item of clothing that does not deserve to be defended, even if liberals think otherwise.

How can it be sexist and misogynistic if it's their choice to wear them?

Answer: It's not, you're just defending a stupid and irrational decision your country has made, even if it's just on a municipal level. You're defending a misogynistic and sexist decision by claiming to be fighting against sexism and misogyny. Stop contradicting yourself.

Because, as I have said throughout this thread, women can make a choice influenced by their families, milieu, culture, religion, and that choice, while made by women, is based on sexist and misogynistic attitudes and ideas.

I will reference my first post again:

Are you strawmanning on purpose because you lack arguments or are you unable to read?
I wrote that both christianity and islam are very patriarchal.
Here we are talking about burkini.
Burkini is enforced by islam, not by christianity.
The patriarchal nature of christianity cannot be used as justification for the patriarchal oppression of women perpetrated by islam.

I did an example comparing the "choice" of burkini to the "choice" of being paid less: NO ONE has even tried to answer.

That prove they lack arguments.

If burkini is "a choice", why we are blabbering about the pay gap? It's a woman's choice not pursuing the career and having children - it isn't due the patriarchal structure and expectations of our society, right? It's a woman's choice not asking for pay rising. It's a woman's choice having babies and by so the employers are right when they stop her career. It has nothing to do with the patriarchal structure and expectations of our society, right?
Same for burkini: it's their choice, is unrelated with the patriarchal structure and expectations of their communities and societies, right?

So we have to accept burkini, and to give up to equal pay.
Good job.

I entirely agree. It is incredible that those who will fight for women's rights when Christian men try to take them away will throw those same women under the bus when Muslim men want to do the same. The idea, the justification behind the burkini is nothing but misogynistic. The same goes for all religious coverings. The hijab/burkini/niqab/burqa etc. are all prescribed to women because an uncovered woman who is seen by a man who lusts after her has herself committed a sin! A sin, for a man being a lech! And as the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt showed, uncovered and covered women will never be safe when that mentality rises to power, as uncovered women who were assaulted on the streets of Egypt in the sexual assault pandemic that followed the revolution were blamed for their immodesty, and covered women were blamed for being outside!

Muhammad never even called for this. In the Quran, the only first-person source of him, he prescribes covering the breasts and genitals, which while also patriarchal is a moderate demand. Only in the Ahadith, written down 200 years after his death, is the veil and all of that even mentioned. And then that idea is interpreted by the all-male Ulama, the closest thing Islam has to a clerical body, as being the hijab/niqab/burqa etc. depending on their branch. Not a single woman had an input in any of this! What kind of woman would prescribe these coverings in the heat of Arabia to women, and not to men too? What un-indoctrinated woman is so misogynistic?

It is pathetic how readily some will throw women's rights under the Islamist train, and it's sad.

I remember watching a clip of that stupid comedy-information show that John whatever used to host with a new host and a veiled woman talking about the hijab. And she describes the hijab as her "privatizing" her sexuality and attractiveness so that men will pay attention to her intellect rather than her looks... And the host and the fools watching him clapped for her as if this was some amazing idea, some good thing!

Why should a woman privatize anything for men to pay attention to what she is saying and not her hairstyle, of all things? Why should women have to cover up for men to take them seriously? And why would an ostensibly, a supposedly, an erroneously self-described liberal man and his audience clap for such an idiotic idea? Would they have clapped if a Christian woman had said the same?

The premise behind the existence of the burkini etc. is sexist and misogynistic. Women making this choice of their "own volition", at best because they don't want to anger God (the violence of such an idea), and at worst because they don't want to anger their family/society/culture, does not make it an actual choice devoid of pressure and internalized sexism.

[Setgavarius]

Ban them, it's oppression against women. Freedom begins where religious liberty ends.

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world, the consequence of that will be the disappearance of one of the three segments of freedom and some of a person's power to determine their own lives.
And I do hope your statement is merely hyperbolic.
Instead of curtailing this liberty, we should curtail that which sought to make the wearing of this an obligation for Muslim women, in favor of making it merely a choice.

[Galloism]

These two ideologies are at a conflict. One cannot exist with the other, not until the intolerant one (in our view, of course, you will probably disagree) dominates and erases the other.

Yes, the French ideology of being anti-non-catholic-religion is at conflict with an ideology where a non-catholic-religion is important.

And there's no non-intolerant ones, FYI.

[Urran]

Ban them, it's oppression against women. Freedom begins where religious liberty ends.

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world, the consequence of that will be the disappearance of one of the three segments of freedom and some of a person's power to determine their own lives.
And I do hope your statement is merely hyperbolic.
Instead of curtailing this liberty, we should curtail that which sought to make the wearing of this an obligation for Muslim women, in favor of making it merely a choice.

Religion is inherently oppressive. People are freer without it. Post Christian countries in Europe are freer and statistically happier than those with religious majority populations. This goes for all religions, not just Christianity and Islam.

[Setgavarius]

These two ideologies are at a conflict. One cannot exist with the other, not until the intolerant one (in our view, of course, you will probably disagree) dominates and erases the other.

Yes, the French ideology of being anti-non-catholic-religion is at conflict with an ideology where a non-catholic-religion is important.

And there's no non-intolerant ones, FYI.

Turkey ain't much different from France in that respect, only thing is Erdo wants to make a glorious Islamist dictatorship and warn people of the evils of GULENISTS and KURDS from America and Syria/SE Turkey. They just have the state control all the majority-religion institutions.
Is that how it works in France? Remember the first thing that pissed off the peasants in the Revolution was exactly that.

[Olerand]

These two ideologies are at a conflict. One cannot exist with the other, not until the intolerant one (in our view, of course, you will probably disagree) dominates and erases the other.

Yes, the French ideology of being anti-non-catholic-religion is at conflict with an ideology where a non-catholic-religion is important.

And there's no non-intolerant ones, FYI.

That's so true, we hate all religions except for Catholicism, which we love. That's why from 1881 to 1940, our schoolteachers were known for the attitude of "bouffer du curé", or detestation of priests. That's why we spent the better part of two centuries in conflict with the Church, expelling its organizations and denigrating its representatives/representations. We love Catholics. Always have, always will. That's why most French are now out of the Catholic religion, we love it so much, we want to love it from the outside too.

Non-intolerant what? Religions?

And you still completely ignored the rest. Who in Nasser's Egypt would have imagined Egypt would look like this in the future? Who in the relatively secular Middle East in the 1960s thought they would "progress" into what they considered to be attitudes of the past?

[Olerand]

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world, the consequence of that will be the disappearance of one of the three segments of freedom and some of a person's power to determine their own lives.
And I do hope your statement is merely hyperbolic.
Instead of curtailing this liberty, we should curtail that which sought to make the wearing of this an obligation for Muslim women, in favor of making it merely a choice.

Religion is inherently oppressive. People are freer without it. Post Christian countries in Europe are freer and statistically happier than those with religious majority populations. This goes for all religions, not just Christianity and Islam.

How dare you. The last word of your last sentence is clearly misplaced, (the rest is correct of course however), repent!

[Liriena]

To specifically ban that sort of clothing is as discriminatory as it is stupid. What damage do burkinis cause to communities, in the greater scheme of things?

[Setgavarius]

I'm pretty sure somewhere in the world, the consequence of that will be the disappearance of one of the three segments of freedom and some of a person's power to determine their own lives.
And I do hope your statement is merely hyperbolic.
Instead of curtailing this liberty, we should curtail that which sought to make the wearing of this an obligation for Muslim women, in favor of making it merely a choice.

Religion is inherently oppressive. People are freer without it. Post Christian countries in Europe are freer and statistically happier than those with religious majority populations. This goes for all religions, not just Christianity and Islam.

I won't challenge that. I challenge the necessity of banning things to achieve this result.

[Olerand]

To specifically ban that sort of clothing is as discriminatory as it is stupid. What damage do burkinis cause to communities, in the greater scheme of things?

The bans are irrelevant, they will most likely be struck down by the courts. These are municipal bans, not national ones. The burkini is indefensible, especially by self-proclaimed liberals. That is all.

[Wallenburg]

To specifically ban that sort of clothing is as discriminatory as it is stupid. What damage do burkinis cause to communities, in the greater scheme of things?

The bans are irrelevant, they will most likely be struck down by the courts. These are municipal bans, not national ones. The burkini is indefensible, especially by self-proclaimed liberals. That is all.

I see. You know, short-shorts, sandals, fedoras, and tank tops are all indefensible. How about we ban those too?

[The Lone Alliance]

So...they attempted to privatize the beach and the locals got mad?

Seems justified to me.

They clearly needed their "Safe space".

[Olerand]

The bans are irrelevant, they will most likely be struck down by the courts. These are municipal bans, not national ones. The burkini is indefensible, especially by self-proclaimed liberals. That is all.

I see. You know, short-shorts, sandals, fedoras, and tank tops are all indefensible. How about we ban those too?

What is the misogynistic ideological perspective behind them? Fashion-wise, I know they are, and I am all for societally discouraging them, they are ugly EDIT: Except for Greek style sandals, and in certain locales, which I will tolerate. What image of women do they negatively promote? Do women sin by inciting lust when not wearing them? Do they elicit sexual harassment? What's going on?

[Liriena]

To specifically ban that sort of clothing is as discriminatory as it is stupid. What damage do burkinis cause to communities, in the greater scheme of things?

The bans are irrelevant, they will most likely be struck down by the courts. These are municipal bans, not national ones. The burkini is indefensible, especially by self-proclaimed liberals. That is all.

Good thing I'm not a liberal. Also, I believe in people's inaliable right to wear whatever the hell they want. So long as the women wearing burkinis are wearing them because they genuinely, personally choose to, I'm okay with it.

[Olerand]

The bans are irrelevant, they will most likely be struck down by the courts. These are municipal bans, not national ones. The burkini is indefensible, especially by self-proclaimed liberals. That is all.

Good thing I'm not a liberal. Also, I believe in people's inaliable right to wear whatever the hell they want. So long as the women wearing burkinis are wearing them because they genuinely, personally choose to, I'm okay with it.

You would describe yourself as? And I do not, I believe there are certain values that a nation holds, and that certain actions and attitudes go against those values, and that one should find their personal comfort in another nation in that case.