Bavaria plans burqa ban

522 posts in this topic

12 minutes ago, Keleth said:

Do Muslims want a mingled society or do they want a parallel society anyhow ?

Genuine question.

 

I don't know if we can generalize like Muslims. Different generations, political inclinations, genders will want different things. 

 

There was research in the UK about how Muslim women wish to exist in the society. The result was that women exist in the society on a fluid basis. They wish to live with some values of theirs but also enter and exit other spaces fluidly. One example I remember was wanting to celebrate Valentine's Day, receive a red rose on that day but also observe their rules. Surely this cannot be generalized but we need to access voices. I didn't read this in any source defending Muslim communities or anything. To the contrary, it was about a critique of New Left solutions that didn't leave one non-faith based womens rights organization in the UK - or England, I don't remember exactly. The article was about the cutting of funds for the last laicist, neutral organization as such.  

 

Shopping habits also show that women are not very orthodox. That's why the photo of that woman holding a bra over her burkha or nikab or whatever caused a lot of reaction - to oppress choice of underwear. It is interesting that underwear brands like Intissimi, La Senza and even Agent Provocateur sell a lot, a lot in some Muslim countries. 

 

We may criticize these in terms of how much progressive moves can turn into fortification of oppression or vice versa (if we are of the oppression line) but I don't know how realistic it is to imagine a monolithic Muslim community that wants to interact in one way only. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we both talking about women's victimhood on this thread and at the same time making fun of victims? Not very hard to see why people prefer their known structures - husband, community whatever- at a heartbeat to this. We would do the same. 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, zeino said:

Are we both talking about women's victimhood on this thread and at the same time making fun of victims? Not very hard to see why people prefer their known structures - husband, community whatever- at a heartbeat to this. We would do the same. 

 

Oh, we are.  Talking about women's victimhood at the same time as making fun of the women in question. The women in question are simultaneously conceived of as victims of their own communities while at the same time willful, dangerous invaders of public space. 

 

Someone asked me a year ago why no hijabis came on forums like these to explain their experiences in their own words.  I told them, look in a mirror: who would want to subject themselves to this kind of angry interrogation of their life conditions? 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, zeino said:

 

There was research in the UK about how Muslim women wish to exist in the society. The result was that women exist in the society on a fluid basis. They wish to live with some values of theirs but also enter and exit other spaces fluidly.

 

Yep, and the whole controversy here is essentially based around the desire to foist upon them an all-or-nothing choice.  It seems partly rooted (partly!) in an anti-Extrawurst mentality: "How dare you have your cultural/religious/ethical/sartorial particularities and yet want to have an economic life among us?"  The answer to the question of why someone shouldn't have that is, well, never given, left unspoken, as though the all-or-nothing choice were necessary and obvious.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

 

 

Parallel societies already exist. So where's your argument?

 

Parallel societies are not an all-or-nothing proposition.  Even the most parallelest of the parallel societies engages to some extent in the practices of the majority community.  If you have an all-or-nothing mindset, you wouldn't be able to perceive that, and then there's no way to explain the argument to you.  So the question is: do you have an all-or-nothing mindset?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, zeino said:

Are we both talking about women's victimhood on this thread and at the same time making fun of victims? Not very hard to see why people prefer their known structures - husband, community whatever- at a heartbeat to this. We would do the same. 

Besorgte do not give a shit about women and the least thing they support is women liberation. They view a woman more or less like a car, so discussion about hijab or burqa is equal to discussion if we should ban red and yellow cars because this is against our tradition.

 

Any suggestion that a woman can have her own personality and wishes is here dismissed, those who carefully suggest that a woman can actually choose to wear anything, are labeled as fanatics.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, yourkeau said:

Besorgte do not give a shit about women and the least thing they support is women liberation. They view a woman more or less like a car, so discussion about hijab or burqa is equal to discussion if we should ban red and yellow cars because this is against our tradition.

 

Any suggestion that a woman can have her own personality and wishes is here dismissed, those who carefully suggest that a woman can actually choose to wear anything, are labeled as fanatics.

 

Yep.  It's basically about Extrawurst on the one hand, and on the other hand, obsession with what they don't want to see: ie, visible signs of Islamic religion/culture.  Women's rights? Since all approaches to cultural integration and women's rights involve increasing women's economic participation under any circumstances, we'd expect to see some support for that.  But no, it's just "don't wear what we don't want you to wear -- or stay home."  Bonus points for explicit appeal to majority cultural sensitivites and their primacy over individual choice.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I bet if all Muslim women wore a beanie instead of a hijab we wouldn't be discussing this.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fuck me this goes round and round in circles. I can only attach myself to whoever it is that's saying that prohibiting some garment is equally as bad as forcing its use. 

 

And one more thing, since people want to ban this in public:

Plain-Hijabs.jpg

 

 

Does that mean I won't be subjected to any more of this as well?

 

329B2BA800000578-3511984-image-a-1_14591

 

Cause nuns give me the heebie jeebies. I say good riddance.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, let's save this discussion from a heterosexist basis, husband wife husband wife. That's oppression itself. Some women do wear this stuff and hello hello they DON'T SHAG MEN.  If anyone has a problem with patriarchy, let's hear better arguments against it than husband-wife-sex. That's patriarchy's fetish, women's liberation has eyes on men's money, too :) 

 

And I guess when these subjects (not victims, subjects) want more gay women's rights, it will be some (not all of course) liberators this time oppressing these VERY women from another perspective. Is there an inability to speak about two things at once? 

 

These women are much more liberated in many senses than many people who wish to liberate them. They may simply not care how others wish to liberate them. Maybe liberators are seen as ones to be liberated as well. From shackles of their homophobia. Iran is not everything you know. 

 

So, if women want to do something, they do it. One can only support it. Like, these things are done in Turkey, in Turkey! :) What is it that makes the liberatory Western mind think it cannot happen in most advanced democracies? The conservative fantasy. And everything that actually works to imprison women into this fantasy. 

 

Choose one general mainstream image, define it as the ultimate fixed reality and then criticize people for that. What sort of liberation project is this? It doesn't even perceive someone as a "subject". It is problematic itself. (And we know the categorical tricks of reclassification each time someone defies these fantasies.) 

 

2011: 

Image result for istanbul LGBT pride headscarf

 

2013:

 

 

IstanbulPride2013.3.jpg

 

 

Image result for istanbul LGBT pride headscarf

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Krieg said:

I bet if all Muslim women wore a beanie instead of a hijab we wouldn't be discussing this.

Still a lot more if they didn't have to wear anything, which but still be more if the men had to wear it as well.

But the thought of all Muslims wearing a beanie, great  - can we get the Catholics etc to do it as well?

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Krieg said:

I bet if all Muslim women wore a beanie instead of a hijab we wouldn't be discussing this.

Well, nobody discusses high heels. If you are a man who doesn't understand why heels are oppression, try walking in ski shoes at your work place for 1 full day*. Headscarf at least doesn't limit the freedom of movement that much.

 

*Dismiss this suggestion if you are a ski school instructor.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, punkinside said:

Fuck me this goes round and round in circles. I can only attach myself to whoever it is that's saying that prohibiting some garment is equally as bad as forcing its use. 

 

And one more thing, since people want to ban this in public:

Plain-Hijabs.jpg

 

 

Does that mean I won't be subjected to any more of this as well?

 

329B2BA800000578-3511984-image-a-1_14591

 

Cause nuns give me the heebie jeebies. I say good riddance.

I have seen this posted quite a bit over the last years.

The difference is a Nun works in/for the church. She is a representative, it is a uniform. No one else walks around like that, you have to be a Nun to wear one (well, I guess you don't but outside sexy Halloween parties I am not sure people do).
I don't like it, it is still gender specific clothing/job etc. Should also be dragged in to the 21st century.

 

 A Nun's habbit of walking around like that is no different to what a priest wears. 

Maybe we could Get Imam's to wear headscarves as well? No one has posted anything about cross dressing being forbidden in the Koran.
 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Eupathic Impulse said:

 

Parallel societies are not an all-or-nothing proposition.  Even the most parallelest of the parallel societies engages to some extent in the practices of the majority community.  If you have an all-or-nothing mindset, you wouldn't be able to perceive that, and then there's no way to explain the argument to you.  So the question is: do you have an all-or-nothing mindset?

 

What's your argument? You told Klubbnika to be ready for parallel societies if hijabs were banned. Parallel societies already exist. So it has nothing to do with hijabs. Parallel societies exist as a "f*ck you" to the west, them being given full religious freedom in the first place.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, punkinside said:

 

And one more thing, since people want to ban this in public:

 

Does that mean I won't be subjected to any more of this as well?

 

329B2BA800000578-3511984-image-a-1_14591

 

Cause nuns give me the heebie jeebies. I say good riddance.

 

 

Oh look, a fresh graduate from Social Justice Warrior college, using the same old false parallels. :D

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But Islam does not have this discrimination between profane and sacred. Likewise, a woman does not have to be recognized by some religious authority (in this comparison, the Church) to choose to do whatever (serve God, practice her beliefs?). If we want to separate the sacred and profane (the ultimate form being a laicist constitution I suppose) fair enough. However, the way we compare who wears what where in religions often privileges one faith over another. Normatively normal yes. On top of it, many constitutions (Germany, too) unite around the existence of God (not Christian God, this one God) in their social contract - which to me is super religious. 

 

So, norms, yes. Security reasons, yes. Many things yes. But yes, this is this religion. These are Abrahamic religions that actually agree on so many things we would be surprised. And these are how some people are practising their faith.  

 

Women's oppression. That's a much wider topic. Focusing only on this headscarf is patriarchal complicity that distracts us from other issues usually. 

 

I love SPD for making equal pay a part of their campaign this year,. Apparently, many women in thee advanced democracies have something cultural ingrained in them which makes them ask for lesser pay. The presence of this issue in many advanced countries across the world makes me think that not many people have a genuine concern about women's welfare in general actually.  

 

Again, I am in no way against discussing the oppressive aspect of any garment. Muslim women do this, too. 

 

But I believe we should do it from a liberatory perspective, otherwise it just serves something else. That's not about women. Our "victims" and "hate objects" simultaneously. 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

The difference is a Nun works in/for the church. She is a representative, it is a uniform.

False! Neither this is a uniform nor she works for the church.

 

18 minutes ago, cb6dba said:

I don't like it, it is still gender specific clothing/job etc.

No, it's not. Monks have the same „dress code“.

 

Priests/pastors have a uniform, which they often choose not to wear outside the church. Totally different situation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

 

Oh look, a fresh graduate from Social Justice Warrior college, using the same old false parallels. :D

Those idiotic stupid SJWs!

Which part of „to my friends, everything; to my enemies, the law“ don't you losers understand?!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

What's your argument? You told Klubbnika to be ready for parallel societies if hijabs were banned. Parallel societies already exist. So it has nothing to do with hijabs. \

 

I didn't say that Klubbnika should be "ready for parallel societies".  I said:

 

Quote

 

Then be accused of creating a parallel society and attacked from the other side. 

 

ie that Muslim women who withdraw as a consequence of being forced to choose between ritual clothing and economic participation would be accused of creating a parallel society.

 

3 minutes ago, Erdmann said:

 

Parallel societies exist as a "f*ck you" to the west, them being given full religious freedom in the first place.

 

Parallel societies don't exist as a "f*ck you" to anything. Since you seem to see it that way, it's clear that you're really self-centered, as though someone were choosing a lifestyle purely out of spite, in order to tell you something.  That they're living their whole lives out to annoy you.  Parallel societies are social phenomena that are caused by many different things at once.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now