Thread: What the actual fuck, France? Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005608
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
This is a news item about men with guns forcing a woman to undress in public.
Men with guns.
Forcing a woman.
To undress in public.
To cap it off: they are policemen, and the law supports them.
What the actual fuck, France? Quite aside from the mindfuckingly misogynist concept of literally policing what women wear, in what twisted mockery of logic does this kind of overt persecution of members of a religion make it less likely that other members of that religion will attack you? Christ, I thought Britain was getting bad in terms of intolerance, but this takes the entire bakery aisle at Sainsbury's.
Everyone connected with or supportive of these new laws or their enforcement is an utter wankstained shitbadger who should be banned from going within 500 yards of any civilised society, and ideally left in a small box with an angry and diseased bobcat with sharpened claws. Naked. While being lovingly basted in a mixture of lemon juice, salt and deep heat.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
The speedo regulation is another French practice.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Outrageous, maddening and counter-productive. Stupidity and bigotry.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
I wondered elsewhere if those cops were particularly proud of their jobs lately. They certainly seemed less than enthusiastic in the pics.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Oh dear, I was hoping y'all would fail to notice this.
Firstly, just to be clear, this is (for the moment) not a national law but a bylaw that has been introduced by city councils, mostly on the French Riviera, which is notorious for right and far-right councils.
The law was challenged before the local administrative tribunal, which upheld it, and is currently before the Council of State, the final domestic court of appeal for this type of law. Their verdict is due tomorrow.
If the Council of State upholds the present ruling, I fully expect it to be challenged before the European Court of Human Rights.
However, that's about as mitigating as I can be.
The really dumb things about this to my mind are:
- it's shameless electioneering pandering to racist prejudice and far-right voters. Nicolas Sarkozy has just announced his candidacy for the 2017 presidential elections, and weighed in on the debate saying the burkini is a symbol of radicalisation. He clearly hasn't read the Council of Europe's guidelines that urge a distinction to be made between religious practices and violent extremist behaviour
- it utterly utterly conflates being a Muslim with being a potential terrorist. I can't think of a better way to turn more Muslims into potential terrorists.
More broadly, it shows the extent to which France (or at least a certain segment of it) is living in complete denial of the actual multiculturalism that exists on its territory. The contrast with neighbouring UK could not be sharper.
What really pisses me off in this is that it is politicising my faith at high speed, leftwards.
On the other hand, I have no problem with what you call "speedo" regulations, which apply at pools not on beaches, for precisely the reasons outlined in the linked article. The argument is on grounds of hygiene.
Finally, to provide a sense of balance, last week at my local pool, which is open-air in the summer and adjoins a park, six police descended to admonish a girl sunbathing on her front with her bikini top undone, forcing her and her friends to clear up the litter in the surrounding area before leaving.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I'm used to seeing Catholic nuns at the beach in full habit. Are they not allowed either?
The poor Muslim women! I imagine the main reason they're at the beach at all is to supervise children, because swimming and sunning in the burkini does not look fun to me. I would think a better idea would be a "women and children only," section where all the women could wear standard swimming suits if they wished to.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
That photo, of the cops surrounding the woman on the beach, is utterly nauseating. Apologies for the godwin, but I was reminded immediately of wartime photos of Nazis surrounding Jews.
What the fuck are French politicians playing at? This isn't a game. They are throwing petrol on the fire, they are inciting the radicals, and could help produce a race/religious war.
Well, IS leaders will be chuckling over this, and that photo will go around the Muslim world and the Arab world. Fuck, oh, fuck.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm used to seeing Catholic nuns at the beach in full habit. Are they not allowed either?
They are not associated with radicalisation, goes the argument (this catholic-versus muslims conflict has already come up in terms of what acceptable wear for prison chaplains is, by the way).
quote:
I would think a better idea would be a "women and children only," section where all the women could wear standard swimming suits if they wished to.
Think again.
[ 25. August 2016, 19:48: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
The irony is that the French politicians are using the same logic as IS. IS say that Westerners are guilty of crimes perpetrated by some Westerners, (e.g. Blair and Bush), but here is the argument that Muslims in Muslim dress are somehow associated with terror.
Oh, logic fail, morality fail, humanity fail, peace fail.
I suppose the French right want war, or at any rate, more conflict.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I suppose the French right want war, or at any rate, more conflict.
There are some on the left making the case too, including the current prime minister.
I think the mainstream right, and some on the left, are calculating that only a semblance of "act tough on terrorism" will prevent Marine Le Pen winning in 2017, even if the actions are actually counterproductive.
I also think the word "radicalisation" has been extremely abused (as explained above) and so there is genuine confusion in many people's minds.
I would think few Paris politicians have actually sat down and talked to street-level Muslims; they don't have any opportunities to meet them.
The fact is that the current state of affairs is pushing France's particular model of secularism and the "Republican Ideal" to its limits.
[ 25. August 2016, 19:57: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
At the risk of being purgatorial, who do French Muslims vote for? There must be enough of them to form a sizeable voting bloc.
[ 25. August 2016, 20:14: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
On the other hand, I have no problem with what you call "speedo" regulations, which apply at pools not on beaches, for precisely the reasons outlined in the linked article. The argument is on grounds of hygiene.
I'm not sure how the cut of your swimming costume is related to the hygiene issue.
I agree that you don't want people carrying dirt into the pool on street clothes, but that's not related to the cut of one's swimsuit.
I've never seen anyone wandering around town wearing a pair of swimming shorts (which are worn by very nearly all male swimmers in the US) and I've never seen anyone swimming in our public pool in a par of non-swimming shorts. I have seen plenty of people arriving at an outdoor public pool wearing bikinis and carrying a towel.
I've also seen plenty of people swimming in an outdoor pool wearing UV-blocking swim shirts. Are they banned in France? I can't believe it's better for the pool for someone to slather themselves in sunscreen than to wear a swim shirt.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
If anything at all, mostly socialist. But a lot of young people are too disillusioned and abstain.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I imagine the main reason they're at the beach at all is to supervise children, because swimming and sunning in the burkini does not look fun to me.
I have had a few holidays in Muslim-majority countries, and have seen plenty of women in burkinis. They all seemed to be having just as much fun as their far-more-naked compatriots.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Among the articles among the many I stopped reading referred to 2 things I'd not read before about this sort of thing. First that the burka isn't really Islamic, it's really Arab and/or Wahabi. Along with stuff about the Arabization of Islam and decrying it. Second, that religion freedom is not absolute and must be subordinated to others sometimes. Like I say I stopped reading.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Second, that religion freedom is not absolute and must be subordinated to others sometimes. Like I say I stopped reading.
Maybe you should start reading again. At least then you might understand the historic and cultural roots of the opposition to visible expressions of religious affiliation in France, particularly non-Catholic ones.
I'm not saying this history justifies anything, but it helps to understand why things have played out so differently here to in, say, Canada.
(The cheap hotel deal we got in Toronto once turned out to be a) partly because it was not far from Jane and Finch b) because it was being used mostly for a Muslim conference. We had the pool virtually to ourselves).
[ 25. August 2016, 20:55: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
I agree that you don't want people carrying dirt into the pool on street clothes, but that's not related to the cut of one's swimsuit. (...) I have seen plenty of people arriving at an outdoor public pool wearing bikinis and carrying a towel (...) I've also seen plenty of people swimming in an outdoor pool wearing UV-blocking swim shirts. Are they banned in France?
The fact is that the French have some quite fixed ideas about what you can and can't wear to swim. You won't see people in France arriving at a public pool in a bikini; they will at least be wearing something on top of it, top and bottom. And however much people strip off at the beach, they can be fined for not wearing a T-shirt off the beach, including in places like Nice. I've never seen a UV-blocking swim shirt at a pool and I would think it quite likely you'd be at least challenged if seen wearing one. The "speedo" practice varies depending on the pool, I'd say.
The fact is that there is a cultural aspect to all this. The article no prophet linked to goes on to mention the Blue Lagoon in Iceland, where you can wear whatever costume you like but you will indeed be required to shower in the nude before going in. As a frequent first destination after the airport, it's definitely cultural immersion at the deep end.
[ 25. August 2016, 21:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
I wondered elsewhere if those cops were particularly proud of their jobs lately. They certainly seemed less than enthusiastic in the pics.
Great legs, though. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I'm used to seeing Catholic nuns at the beach in full habit. Are they not allowed either?
The poor Muslim women! I imagine the main reason they're at the beach at all is to supervise children, because swimming and sunning in the burkini does not look fun to me. I would think a better idea would be a "women and children only," section where all the women could wear standard swimming suits if they wished to.
Well, I read that at that particular beach, nuns aren't allowed to wear their habit. So I'm not sure if the bylaw is because of France being a secularist country or whether they ban the nun's habits so as not to be unfair to the Muslims, or quite what. It all seems crazy to me.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
I can't bring myself to look at the article, especially because of the picture. Did they make her get naked? (Don't know if anything is worn under a burkini.)
I confess that, when I first heard France didn't like burkinis on the beach, my knee-jerk "Americans don't usually allow legal nude beaches" reaction was "Great--you can be naked on the beach, but not covered up".
I presume the basis is burkini = Muslim = terrorist, plus secularization. I don't know what it's like to be steeped in France's style of secularization. (The US has a weird mix of religious trappings; secularization; unholy mixing of religious and political power; attempts at mutual respect; individuals trying hard to live good, compassionate lives, religious or not; and "live and let live *over THERE*--but you may be going to hell".)
As someone said upthread, there's probably distrust of multi-culturalism in the mix. If you're going to freak out about wearing a hijab scarf, then a burkini would probably have you apoplectic or cowering under your bed. (There've been all sorts of US incidents of trouble over hijab, etc. And our police and various levels of gov't do bad and stupid things.)
But...you'd think France was trying to recruit volunteers for ISIS.
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I imagine the main reason they're at the beach at all is to supervise children, because swimming and sunning in the burkini does not look fun to me.
I have had a few holidays in Muslim-majority countries, and have seen plenty of women in burkinis. They all seemed to be having just as much fun as their far-more-naked compatriots.
Yes, I can perhaps imagine that...look at the all-covering swimming costumes the late Victorians, or was it Edwardian, women, wore for swimming at the beach.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Yes, I thought of the old bathing costumes, too. Maybe we need to bring back bathing machines? (Little huts on carts. Person would be towed to the water's edge, then come out the front door of the hut into the water, so they wouldn't be seen.)
I'm thinking that a lot of non-Muslim girls/women might like burkinis, too--once the stigma has faded a bit. Could help cover up aging, body changes, scars, stretch marks...over/underweight, with the right cut of burkini...and a lot of women just preferred to be more covered.
Wouldn't it be cool to have a beach where there was a spectrum of dress and coveredness, nobody fussed, and it was all ok?
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, I thought of the old bathing costumes, too. Maybe we need to bring back bathing machines? (Little huts on carts. Person would be towed to the water's edge, then come out the front door of the hut into the water, so they wouldn't be seen.)
I'm thinking that a lot of non-Muslim girls/women might like burkinis, too--once the stigma has faded a bit. Could help cover up aging, body changes, scars, stretch marks...over/underweight, with the right cut of burkini...and a lot of women just preferred to be more covered.
Wouldn't it be cool to have a beach where there was a spectrum of dress and coveredness, nobody fussed, and it was all ok?
Yes, it certainly would. And because of those reasons you mentioned above, when I go swimming, whether on a beach or in a swimming pool, I wear a swimsuit, plus a pair of shorts (lightweight, not too short, not too long,) but it would be a clean pair of shorts at a swimming pool, not something I'd worn on the street.
Perhaps one shouldn't be bothered at the thought of people noticing all one's ghastly imperfections (plus I have psoriasis which looks bad enough)but ah well.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
If you're going to freak out about wearing a hijab scarf, then a burkini would probably have you apoplectic or cowering under your bed. (There've been all sorts of US incidents of trouble over hijab, etc. And our police and various levels of gov't do bad and stupid things.)
I was at a waterpark at the weekend, and saw a few (presumably) Muslim ladies wearing covering garments and headscarves. The only issue I had with it was that their headscarves were, well, scarves rather than the burkini hood things, and having several feet of strangulation hazard flapping around on a waterslide didn't seem like the brightest of ideas.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I think the scarves look dangerous on bikes and amusement park rides, too. I keep thinking of Isadora Duncan. I guess I'm the only one, but I think one of the great things about swimming is feeling the water against your skin and the freedom of bare limbs in the buoyancy of the water.
Muslim women are allowed to wear anything they want to when they are at home with other women, so I think they would appreciate a man-free place where they could swim and sun in small clothing.
I really hope people don't start suggesting that I wear a Victorian swimsuit because they don't want to look at my ageing skin.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
(Cough.)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes indeed, Kelly.
In the 70s-80s there was tremendous social pressure on women to be topless on a French beach, to assert their "liberation". The trend over the past 30 years for women has been towards far more diversity of uncoveredness, which is surely symptomatic of more actual liberation.
I think we have terrible trouble getting over our own subcultural blind spots; people within groups that argue in favour of freedom and diversity often end up wearing the same "uniform".
I recall the open mockery of a group of male church leaders supposedly devoted to grace and freedom when one of their number dared to turn up to a meeting in a jacket and tie.
But the people most likely to be stigmatised if they don't conform are undoubtedly women. You just can't win, can you? ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on
:
Aah les brave francais!. 4 Policemen vs one woman on a beach.
No wonder the French caved in so quickly in two World Wars. Germans have much more frightening weapons than Burkinis and the odds weren't quite as good then as now.
The level of casual racism in France always appals me when travelling with friends whose skin colour is rather different from mine
[ 26. August 2016, 06:31: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
Some policemen on the Riviera were interviewed on the radio yesterday; they are doing what they have been told to do because that’s their job, but are far from convinced that it’s right.
I live in a very stupid country. The woman who was asked to undress wasn’t even wearing a burkini. She was wearing leggings, a tunic and a scarf. (Goldenkey: they didn’t make her take all her clothes off. I think she uncovered her arms.)
I kind of want to organise a protest where a whole load of non-Muslim women, preferably with very fragile skin, turn up on the beach wearing burkinis and then claim that it’s not religious attire. Personally as a non-Muslim but very pale-skinned woman who goes scarlet after about thirty seconds sun exposure, I would totally wear one (probably minus the hood). Apparently the inventor of the burkini, an Australian lady, has recently seen a massive upspike in orders, mostly from women who aren’t Muslims but just want to protect their skin.
And now for a feminist rant: you know why women were asked to change their dress? Because of MEN behaving badly. It all kicked off when some men started taking pictures, without permission, of burkini-clad women who were minding their own business on the beach. The men who were with them picked a fight of the “why are you taking pictures of my sister” variety, and there was an altercation between all the aforementioned people of the male gender. The burkini-clad women had little or nothing to do with it. The solution to this argument between men? Policing women’s bodies. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I kind of want to organise a protest where a whole load of non-Muslim women, preferably with very fragile skin, turn up on the beach wearing burkinis and then claim that it’s not religious attire.
I had had this very same idea, but you just know it's not going to get the sympathy it deserves in the prevailing climate
Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Yes, I thought of the old bathing costumes, too. Maybe we need to bring back bathing machines? (Little huts on carts. Person would be towed to the water's edge, then come out the front door of the hut into the water, so they wouldn't be seen.)
You need to read "Sheds on the Seashore". I've just finished it and it's much more interesting than you might think!
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
In relation to fragile skin, my sister-in-law has had skin cancer, and she has been ranting and raving about this story. If she goes anywhere in the sun, let alone a beach, she wears leggings, a big shirt with long sleeves, and a very big hat.
On the other hand, she's white, and she's not a murdering Muslima!
I can't believe that some politicians are saying that the burkini is a symbol of Islamist radicalism. The only people this pleases are presumably white racists, and IS.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Just noticed the point by la vie en rouge. Yes, women's bodies are so often the site of ideological conflict, forgive the jargon. It's not that long ago, of course, that bikinis were banned in some countries, and I vaguely remember the Pope fulminating against them.
Too much flesh, sisters, but hello, today, Muslim women are not showing enough flesh! Please, undress madam, while these armed policemen watch. The gas ovens are over there.
[ 26. August 2016, 08:54: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The only people this pleases are presumably white racists, and IS.
There are plenty of people it will please who would not consider themselves to be racists at all, but who feel the national identity they are used to is under threat.
This is because the concept of national identity in France, and particularly the "Republican Ideal", is not a good one when it comes to racial integration.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
The only people this pleases are presumably white racists, and IS.
There are plenty of people it will please who would not consider themselves to be racists at all, but who feel the national identity they are used to is under threat.
This is because the concept of national identity in France, and particularly the "Republican Ideal", is not a good one when it comes to racial integration.
OK, they are white racists with a good cover story.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That's more like it. And it's a lot easier than many white people would like to think to be in that category.
Unawares.
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
That's more like it. And it's a lot easier than many white people would like to think to be in that category.
Unawares.
There is always a balance to be struck. I see nothing wrong with a culture having values, and defending them, thought this necessarily means having boundaries and creating some kind of exclusion for those who will not live within them. The problem comes with a lazy set of assumptions as to what those boundaries are and who is outside them.
This is something which, in my opinion, the UK spent a very long time getting wilfully wrong the other way: we have been too lazy to imagine, as a culture, what borders we might have and how we might want to defend them, so we have polarised the situation disastrously, with one faction decrying the concept of borders, blind to the cultural vacuum they were creating, which had the effect of creating the space for the opposite faction to foment various forms of paranoid exclusory fantasy.
The biological and social meanings of culture are, in my opinion, intimately linked. No cell can survive without a membrane around it which performs some kind of filtering function. The same is true of societies: they become by rapid turns empty and non-existent if they are too complacent to imagine their own boundaries.
[ 26. August 2016, 09:30: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I'm not sure I understand all that, but I was waiting for a UK resident to observe that the situation is indeed the exact opposite in the UK. Instead of a Republican Ideal you have a plethora of competing, overlapping, non-explicit identities.
It's just that our model of "integration" looks closer to catastrophic failure than yours - for the minute.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Oh good grief, what is wrong with this man?
An excellent protest, making exactly the point. Islamophobia is not freedom. Women's bodies are their own and it's entirely up to them what they wear, covered or uncovered.
Would this kind of protest were happening in France.
[ 26. August 2016, 10:12: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Oh good grief, what is wrong with this man?
You're late. It's electioneering. He thinks it's the only way to beat Marine Le Pen and is trying to capture some of her potential voters.
quote:
An excellent protest, making exactly the point. Islamophobia is not freedom. Women's bodies are their own and it's entirely up to them what they wear, covered or uncovered.
Would this kind of protest were happening in France.
You're late again.
I fear it would not attract the same degree of sympathy, not least because we've had more terrorist attacks lately and because people confuse religious practice with violent extremism more readily than in the UK, all the more so in an atmosphere of tension.
[ 26. August 2016, 10:22: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
That's ok, France, we'll make allowances. We know that the moral code for clothing on a french beach is that which allows oggling. No oggling = not moral beachwear.
As many men have also recently found, refusing to show off your man-boobs and speedos instantly leads to fully dressed and fully armed police surrounding you and insisting that you strip until you've met the beach moral code. So this is clearly a non-sexist rule! That thought has definitively been disproven.
Over in racist post-Brexit Britain, where we rarely are affected by Islamic fundamentalist terrorists, where we've had to close all those pesky segregation units due to the lack of fundamentalist preachers and where integration and immigration is not an issue - you remember us, right? waving - I have to report that I was recently on a beach and witnessed several women paddling in the sea who had their heads covered, some who might even have been Muslim.
The other day I was walking along a street and saw someone walking the other way in a full Burka.
We fully agree with France's secular clothing code, because it is clearly much more effective than Britain's live-and-let-live approach. British society would clearly be a whole lot less racist if we were more like you!
Oh. Just a second.
[ 26. August 2016, 10:42: Message edited by: mr cheesy ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
From Boogie's article, quote:
The Nice mayor’s office denied that the woman had been forced to remove clothing, telling Agence France-Presse that she was showing police the swimsuit she was wearing under her tunic.
In the picture I saw she was seated and taking off her flowing top leaving leggings and a short sleeved top underneath. I assume she had the option to leave the beach if she hadn't wanted to remove anything. I think the "Police force woman to strip," headlines were exaggerated toward our lurid imaginations.
Here in the U.S., at pools, lakes and my local YMCA, I'm used to always seeing "Swimsuits only," signs. I usually don't have one, and consequently, haven't been swimming for about 40 years. Also, "No dogs." snif.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
In the picture I saw she was seated and taking off her flowing top leaving leggings and a short sleeved top underneath. I assume she had the option to leave the beach if she hadn't wanted to remove anything.
Correct, you are assuming.
quote:
I think the "Police force woman to strip," headlines were exaggerated toward our lurid imaginations.
Right, because armed police going along the beach, finding a woman wearing the wrong clothing and then escorting her off the beach would obviously be far less embarrassing and less of an issue.
Don't tell me, this woman should be glad she didn't get arrested and held in solitary confinement as a potential terrorist.
Glad we got that sorted out.
quote:
Here in the U.S., at pools, lakes and my local YMCA, I'm used to always seeing "Swimsuits only," signs. I usually don't have one, and consequently, haven't been swimming for about 40 years. Also, "No dogs." snif.
Then your local pools, lakes and my YMCA are fucking stupid, possibly dangerous. Have they never heard of skin cancer? Durr.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
I think the "Police force woman to strip," headlines were exaggerated toward our lurid imaginations.
Right, because armed police going along the beach, finding a woman wearing the wrong clothing and then escorting her off the beach would obviously be far less embarrassing and less of an issue.
That's correct. I think she would have found being escorted off the beach less embarrassing, and less against her religious principles, than being forced to strip naked as some people were reading those headlines. YMMV
quote:
Don't tell me, this woman should be glad she didn't get arrested and held in solitary confinement as a potential terrorist.
No I wont tell you that. Sorry, Cheeseman.
I'm sure that wont stop you from pretending I did though, so you can continue your favorite hobby of being Most Outraged Person About Everything!
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Notre nouvelle devise: Pas de fraternité, pas d'égalité, pas de liberté.
_______________________________________
*our new motto: no brotherhood, no equality, no freedom
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
That's correct. I think she would have found being escorted off the beach less embarrassing, and less against her religious principles, than being forced to strip naked as some people were reading those headlines. YMMV
Oh yes, I forgot you're a fucking imbecile.
Slip slap slop.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Well I didn't forget how full of hatred you are, always looking for a way to release it that will appear to be in defense of the downtrodden.
I don't like this rule any better than anyone else here, but it is a beach rule on a luxurious resort beach, it's not children starving to death in Syrian refugee camps.
I was just pointing out that it's not a case of police forcing women to strip naked as Golden Key had feared, and it's definitely not a reason to bring out nasty, stereotypical remarks about the French people being cowards.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I don't like this rule any better than anyone else here, but it is a beach rule on a luxurious resort beach, it's not children starving to death in Syrian refugee camps.
Stupid rules should be disobeyed. People of goodwill should stand up for people who are getting abused for their clothing choices, particularly when they're good sense choices such as covering up on a beach.
But your fucking-stupid mileage may vary.
quote:
I was just pointing out that it's not a case of police forcing women to strip naked as Golden Key had feared, and it's definitely not a reason to bring out nasty, stereotypical remarks about the French people being cowards.
The police stood there with guns on the beach until the woman removed clothing. Endof.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I also note that this is not simply a rule on a particular beach (which would be stupid enough), it is a rule set up by particular mayors in particular towns solely to embarrass and harass women from a particular faith. As noted above, men and other women are unaffected by this rule.
And, to top it all, Sarkozy is today reportedly calling for a nationwide rule of this kind.
If that isn't a betrayal of the French ideal of liberty, then I'm not entirely sure what would be. It appears that woman are free to expose their flesh on a beach but are not free not to.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that isn't a betrayal of the French ideal of liberty, then I'm not entirely sure what would be.
The argument put forward is that allowing burkinis and veils and the like will create pressure on other Muslim women to adopt similar dress, which would be an infringement of their liberty.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
I kind of want to organise a protest where a whole load of non-Muslim women, preferably with very fragile skin, turn up on the beach wearing burkinis and then claim that it’s not religious attire.
I had had this very same idea, but you just know it's not going to get the sympathy it deserves in the prevailing climate
I mooted the idea over lunch and my colleagues were quite keen on it. I reckon the peau de porcelaine* protest has potential.
*"Porcelain skin" - the kind that is pale and prone to burning. This expression is usually used in a complementary way.
[ 26. August 2016, 12:24: Message edited by: la vie en rouge ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes, but I think the sane people in France are prisoners of their social circle. Somewhere I read that 64% of survey respondents favour the ban.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
If that isn't a betrayal of the French ideal of liberty, then I'm not entirely sure what would be.
The argument put forward is that allowing burkinis and veils and the like will create pressure on other Muslim women to adopt similar dress, which would be an infringement of their liberty.
I'm not sure the concept of France being different will cut much ice with M. le Fromage.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Here in the U.S., at pools, lakes and my local YMCA, I'm used to always seeing "Swimsuits only," signs.
Which is something that makes sense. Street clothes are not designed to get drenched, and may well shed fibres (which clog filtration systems in pools) or pollutants they accumulated during the day (plus all the deodorants etc people insist on spraying on themselves), and will also tend to get very heavy and restrictive that will endanger the wearer. Skinny-dipping may be fun, but it's not something everyone wants to see. So, a rule that anyone in the water should be wearing a swim suit is sensible.
BUT, a burkini is a swim suit.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The argument put forward is that allowing burkinis and veils and the like will create pressure on other Muslim women to adopt similar dress, which would be an infringement of their liberty.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the understanding of liberty in the secular state did not include the idea of depriving others from doing something because that might encourage others to do it?
Even if it did, surely it is one thing to ban Nazi uniforms (or even fake suicide belts) and quite another to attack a form of clothing which is only superficially related to the terrorists one is fighting. That seems to be like saying "M is a terrorist and likes crepes, so all those who like crepes must (i) be a terrorist or (ii) be someone who might encourage others to become terrorists with their state-destroying act of eating crepes.
In fact it is even worse than that because these local laws, (bylaws or whatever) don't even mention the birkini and leave enforcement open to considerable interpretation. It appears that a whole range of people could actually be affected by them including Jews, various Asian cultural groups, some Protestants, nuns etc etc.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Which is something that makes sense. Street clothes are not designed to get drenched, and may well shed fibres (which clog filtration systems in pools) or pollutants they accumulated during the day (plus all the deodorants etc people insist on spraying on themselves), and will also tend to get very heavy and restrictive that will endanger the wearer. Skinny-dipping may be fun, but it's not something everyone wants to see. So, a rule that anyone in the water should be wearing a swim suit is sensible.
BUT, a burkini is a swim suit.
I'd be very surprised if any of those locations have rules about what people have to wear whilst sunbathing. Swimming - ok well you might have a point.
As I suggested above, the Australian government had a very high profile campaign to encourage people to cover up on the beach to prevent skin cancer. Long flowing clothing is entirely consistent and appropriate wear on a beach. In fact only a complete idiot would think anything else.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The argument put forward is that allowing burkinis and veils and the like will create pressure on other Muslim women to adopt similar dress, which would be an infringement of their liberty.
Please correct me if I am mistaken, but the understanding of liberty in the secular state did not include the idea of depriving others from doing something because that might encourage others to do it?
I very carefully didn't say I defended that line of argument. I said that it existed. I think the bylaw is beyond stupid, but I think simply dismissing everybody who supports it as not having any other grounds than covert racism is equally stupid.
In other news, the French Council of State has just this minute ruled in the test case that the burkini ban was not lawful: hooray.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
On grounds of freedom of conscience and individual freedom; no potential public order threat.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Conformity. Fitting in. Not standing out. How much should someone be forced to conform to a country's culture.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
It is kind of ironic that normally we'd be lamenting the plight of fundamentalist Islamic women being forced by their oppressive husbands and brothers, to go everywhere in that hot, cumbersome Burka. Now, all of a sudden, it's protecting these (usually-olive-complected-not-at- high-risk) women from skin cancer and not limiting their pleasure in the ocean at all, no sir, not even one tiny bit.
Different day, different outrage.
At least it's provided Cheesy with the titillating picture of naked women surrounded by men with guns and him being their mighty protector.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
The outrage seems to be forcing women to either wear, or not wear, something. It's about the liberty of women to wear what they want.
Is it fundamentally that different for a woman to be forced to wear a burka against her will from being denied the right to wear it if she wants? Both deny her freedom to wear what she wants.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Conformity. Fitting in. Not standing out. How much should someone be forced to conform to a country's culture.
Like I say, from where I'm sitting the immediate problem, apart from the more philosophical problem of what cultural integration means, is the huge disconnect between the actual religious and ethnic makeup of France and its own self-image. Just look at the racial lineup in any French advertising. You'll be lucky to see a token black, let alone anyone vaguely North African-looking.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Like I say, from where I'm sitting the immediate problem, apart from the more philosophical problem of what cultural integration means, is the huge disconnect between the actual religious and ethnic makeup of France and its own self-image.
By which I assume you mean the image of France held by its white majority. ISTM that referring to that as France's self-image rather denies the multiculturalism you seem to want to acknowledge.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
No, I was going to put exactly that and then changed my mind. I think the ethnic minorities share this view to quite an extent - that they are more of a minority than they actually are - and that this further feeds into a sense of persecution and victimisation.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479
The ban has been suspended by one court.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Caissa:
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37198479
The ban has been suspended by one court.
No, as reported above, it has been suspended by the Council of State, which is the final domestic court of appeal for administrative law, the type of law in question.
Strictly speaking the ruling applies only for the test case brought before the court, but it establishes an important precedent.
The fact that this was about a local bylaw has been largely overlooked in international media coverage.
Posted by Caissa (# 16710) on
:
I said it was "suspended by one court",. Nothing you wrote above negates that statement. I may have left out the details but the article link was for the details. You made a "hellish presumption. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
Posted by Helen-Eva (# 15025) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
In relation to fragile skin, my sister-in-law has had skin cancer, and she has been ranting and raving about this story. If she goes anywhere in the sun, let alone a beach, she wears leggings, a big shirt with long sleeves, and a very big hat.
Me too. I'd totally wear a burkini (or a wetsuit). Where do you get them and are they expensive?
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It is kind of ironic that normally we'd be lamenting the plight of fundamentalist Islamic women being forced by their oppressive husbands and brothers, to go everywhere in that hot, cumbersome Burka. Now, all of a sudden, it's protecting these (usually-olive-complected-not-at- high-risk) women from skin cancer and not limiting their pleasure in the ocean at all, no sir, not even one tiny bit.
Different day, different outrage.
Actually, same outrage. It is about telling women what they must do. I am not a fan of the burka because it is used to control women. It serves the interests of a misogynistic, dangerous to women mindset even when freely chosen. That said, I do not think it should be banned. Banning serves the purposes of both the far-right and of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
It is kind of ironic that normally we'd be lamenting the plight of fundamentalist Islamic women being forced by their oppressive husbands and brothers, to go everywhere in that hot, cumbersome Burka. Now, all of a sudden, it's protecting these (usually-olive-complected-not-at- high-risk) women from skin cancer and not limiting their pleasure in the ocean at all, no sir, not even one tiny bit.
Different day, different outrage.
At least it's provided Cheesy with the titillating picture of naked women surrounded by men with guns and him being their mighty protector.
Wow. Your ignorance knows no bounds.
It is perfectly possible to stand against Muslim women being forced to wear clothing by overbearing men and also to stand up for women making a religious clothing choice that we might find stupid/ridiculous. The latter is the essence of liberalism - we allow space for people to do things we wouldn't choose to do.
The thing is that most non-Muslims are totally unable to distinguish between women who are forced into wearing the burka and women who choose to wear it.
The solution, I'd venture to suggest, is to encourage the kind of society which encourages and supports women to leave oppressive men (in the main) of all kinds and colours and creeds whilst at the same time allowing those same women the freedom to make choices we wouldn't. Banning the burka only makes sense if you believe that no-right-thinking-person would ever freely choose to wear one. Which, I'm afraid, is bollocks.
And that's more-than-slightly besides the point given that the woman seen in the photo sitting on the beach and being forced to remove clothing by police wasn't even wearing a burka.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, same outrage. It is about telling women what they must do. I am not a fan of the burka because it is used to control women. It serves the interests of a misogynistic, dangerous to women mindset even when freely chosen. That said, I do not think it should be banned. Banning serves the purposes of both the far-right and of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
I'm not a fan of the burka or other religious clothing which makes women absent. But, on the other hand, I can also see that there are at least some women who have a heightened sense of modesty which leads them to make this religious choice - and as long as it is freely made, I don't really see it is any of my business as a white anglo-saxon Christian to tell them what to wear.
Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Among the articles among the many I stopped reading referred to 2 things I'd not read before about this sort of thing. First that the burka isn't really Islamic, it's really Arab and/or Wahabi. Along with stuff about the Arabization of Islam and decrying it. Second, that religion freedom is not absolute and must be subordinated to others sometimes. Like I say I stopped reading.
Umm... the burka is Afghan, specifically Pashtun, not Arab. The author of the article was probably thinking of the niqab, the black face veil worn by Saudi women.
Posted by fausto (# 13737) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, same outrage. It is about telling women what they must do. I am not a fan of the burka because it is used to control women. It serves the interests of a misogynistic, dangerous to women mindset even when freely chosen. That said, I do not think it should be banned. Banning serves the purposes of both the far-right and of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
I'm not a fan of the burka or other religious clothing which makes women absent. But, on the other hand, I can also see that there are at least some women who have a heightened sense of modesty which leads them to make this religious choice - and as long as it is freely made, I don't really see it is any of my business as a white anglo-saxon Christian to tell them what to wear.
Nor any business of a white Gallic one, for that matter.
Apparently a French court agrees.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In other news, the French Council of State has just this minute ruled in the test case that the burkini ban was not lawful: hooray.
Sanity and human decency prevail. Shame there was even a fight in the first place, but I guess you take the positives where you can find them.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Yes. Some part of me keeps hoping that the manifest ludicrousness of this type of behaviour may call more of my fellow-countrymen to their senses, but I have to admit to not being optimistic.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Yes. Some part of me keeps hoping that the manifest ludicrousness of this type of behaviour may call more of my fellow-countrymen to their senses, but I have to admit to not being optimistic.
On this side of La Manche*, things look the same
*The English Channel.
Posted by cornflower (# 13349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
I really hope people don't start suggesting that I wear a Victorian swimsuit because they don't want to look at my ageing skin.
Of course not...It would probably be a lot easier if we could all go naked...naturists don't seem to worry about all this sort of thing
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
Is it fundamentally that different for a woman to be forced to wear a burka against her will from being denied the right to wear it if she wants? Both deny her freedom to wear what she wants.
Of course the two things are the same in that respect.
The irony I was seeing was in the depiction of the Burka itself -- sometimes as cumbersome and oppressive and other times as comfy and fun -- all depending on the outrage of the day.
Naturally, It's always outrageous to tell other people what to wear unless it becomes a matter of health or safety.
This whole thing has reminded me of security guards (men with guns, Cheesy!) making me, a woman, take off my coat and shoes and stand for close observation before going on a plane.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Actually, same outrage. It is about telling women what they must do. I am not a fan of the burka because it is used to control women. It serves the interests of a misogynistic, dangerous to women mindset even when freely chosen. That said, I do not think it should be banned. Banning serves the purposes of both the far-right and of ISIS and other terrorist groups.
I'm not a fan of the burka or other religious clothing which makes women absent. But, on the other hand, I can also see that there are at least some women who have a heightened sense of modesty which leads them to make this religious choice - and as long as it is freely made, I don't really see it is any of my business as a white anglo-saxon Christian to tell them what to wear.
And some Middle Eastern women wear covering for the same reason native women in Cuzco wear fedoras and sarapes-- to openly identify with the women in their culture. Shari might use the chador to oppress, but outside Sharia countries Middle Eastern girls often wear it as a nonverbal shout out to their sisters.
It seems really obvious to me. Bottom line, you really don't know why a woman is wearing covering unless you have enough respect to ask her.
Posted by Uncle Pete (# 10422) on
:
I seldom agree with you, Kelly, but that is right on.
Up here, it is quite common to see a burka clad mother and children enjoying a coffee in the food court and chasing after their toddlers (or being pulled along with them. In India, it is equally common to see women walking along sedately in a burka, but tossing it off the instant they enter a house they are visiting. Schoolgirls might wear the outfit to school, and during school, but they remove them as soon as they get home. You can also run in a burka if you are late for school (and I don't mean a sedate glide, but a kicking up of heels)
Why do others condemn different garb? It was less than 100 years ago when women wore swimming costumes which concealed rather than revealed in the West.
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
Actually, Pete, we agree about a whole lot of things, if you would pay attention.
Posted by Evangeline (# 7002) on
:
It is pathetic isn't it that with the motorways of Calias being unprotected from pirates, with real terrorism threats a bunch or armed men are surrounding a women on the beach and making her take off her clothes-what has France come to?
One of the minorly crazy things about this is the burkini is an Australian invention that aimed to promote mutual understanding and give Muslim women more opportunities to participate in mainstream Aussie society. The first burkini was designed to allow a Muslim girl to participate in Surf Lifesaving (a thing promoted by some Muslim and non-Muslim Aussies following the Cronulla riots)-hardly a mark of radicalism, quite the opposite.
The obsession with what women wear is quite frightening. I was particularly concerned with the forced removal of items of clothing as portrayed in the pictures. Not saying that making her leave the beach is any better (although as a woman I'd personally prefer to leave an area than be forced to disrobe) but I wonder if that was an option?
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
Sex on the beach in Morocco, Islamic politica leaders were found in a "sexual position" by the beach. What were[n't] they wearing at the time? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Simple answer: guys who are adamant about controlling what girls/women do/don't wear should wear blindfolds--and let the rest of us relax.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Uncle Pete:
You can also run in a burka if you are late for school (and I don't mean a sedate glide, but a kicking up of heels)
You can do that naked as well. Or a dress, jeans, shorts, etc.
quote:
It was less than 100 years ago when women wore swimming costumes which concealed rather than revealed in the West.
Another so the fuck what comment.
quote:
Why do others condemn different garb?
This one, however, isn't stupid. I condemn the burqa for what it represents: the control of women. When that control is absent, then I do not care.
However, I do not think people should dictate what another person can wear even if they disagree with the reason for wearing it.
As Kelly says, dialogue is important. Understanding other cultures and accepting differences and not letting disagreement too much affect relationships and interactions.
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
There are non-stupid and non-racist reasons to feel uncomfortable about burqas, but a burkini isn't a burqa. A burkini conceals a woman to the same degree as a headscarf, i.e. about as much as this ...
Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on
:
And the sort of men who insist on women covering up are against the burkini because it shows the shape of women.
I think they (the men) should wear something like blinkers - or a virtual reality headset that shows the surrounding but with the women edited out - sort of reverse Pokemon-Go. (With a proximity alarm to avoid them - shock, horror, bumping into the women.)
[ 27. August 2016, 08:07: Message edited by: Penny S ]
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
Secularism has granted most of us the freedom to cast of the restraints of religious doctrine where clothing and general attire is concerned.
We are still though bound by law, it is for example against the law to be in public without any clothes. Then there is the matter of peer pressure/fashion which is gender based and, as is patently obvious, falls heavily onto the female of our species.
As for our struggling compatriots on the Continent, they are still trying to draw the sting on Islam. Tricky and dangerous, but in the light of what France has already endured from associated extremists they clearly think it is the way to go.
Posted by Marama (# 330) on
:
Australians are a bit bemused by this debate, as the burkini was designed to enable Muslim girls and women to get involved in Aussie culture at the beach (and on the soccer field in some similar garb). In other words, a tool for integration.
I also note that responsible Aussie parents clothe their young children in similar clothing (rash tops and longish shorts) for a day at the beach because of skin cancer risks.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
We are still though bound by law, it is for example against the law to be in public without any clothes. Then there is the matter of peer pressure/fashion which is gender based and, as is patently obvious, falls heavily onto the female of our species.
So very right. It's easy to keep repeating, "No one has the right to tell anyone else how to dress." As though the whole Burka debate is unique on the planet when we have a military with page after page of uniform regulations, Walmart employees in navy and khaki, kids in school uniforms, medicals in scrubs, those hated police having to wear the gun whether they want to or not, brides wearing ridiculously expensive white gowns (about which I was informed four different times was started by Queen Victoria in the so what? category) and more oppressive than any uniform on the face of the earth is the all powerful fashion industry with it's dedicated TV shows, magazines, iconic models and department stores telling us all what to wear and what not to wear every season of the year in no uncertain, judgmental, classist, sexist, body-shaming terms. And women voluntarily follow it like sheep.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
School and the workplace are different from everyday clothes 'tho.
No one has the right to tell me what to wear - yes, I have to be clothed in public, fair enough. But otherwise it should be entirely my choice.
Peer pressure is not coercion. We choose to give in to it or not. Every one of my friends has short hair, they think it's 'wrong' for women over a certain age to have long hair. I ignore them - mine is long and will stay that way until I turn my toes up!
Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
And the sort of men who insist on women covering up are against the burkini because it shows the shape of women.
I think they (the men) should wear something like blinkers - or a virtual reality headset that shows the surrounding but with the women edited out - sort of reverse Pokemon-Go. (With a proximity alarm to avoid them - shock, horror, bumping into the women.)
Believe it or not ...
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Peer pressure is not coercion. We choose to give in to it or not.
Coercion is defined as "the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats."
You're a grown up and maybe have forgotten what adolescence was like. But the threat of social ostracization on a 14 year old is like a gun to the head. Nothing short of eating and sleeping has a higher value for many or most teens at certain points in their lives than fitting in, being accepted by their peer group.
Not because they're bad kids or had bad parenting. It's a normal part of growing up. What we call "age-appropriate behavior." As parents we try to prepare them for this onslaught, to stand fast in the principles that our family believes in, but we do that in part just because we know they are going to face this titanic rush of "I need to fit in" feelings.
Not all teens feel this as strongly. There are certainly loners, and kids who take control of the social group and set the expectations, instead of go along with them. But there's no guarantee your kid will be one of those. [generic "you"]
quote:
Every one of my friends has short hair, they think it's 'wrong' for women over a certain age to have long hair. I ignore them - mine is long and will stay that way until I turn my toes up!
I believe you, and applaud your attitude. However, you don't need to have your hairstyle accepted by your friends with anything like the ferocity that a 14 year old needs to be accepted by his or her friends. Indeed you feel no ferocity at all, so the decision to ignore their feelings about your hair, while correct, isn't in the least bit meritorious. Really, as far as "peer pressure" goes, comparing this with a teen's need to fit in is an apples and oranges comparison.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I agree about the teens and, as parents, we help them through this time as best we can.
But I was responding to Twilight, who wasn't talking about teens - she was talking about 'us'.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
It is probably within the point you were making, mt, but I would like to emphasise that peer pressure does not end at 20. It is present in every society and becomes exceedingly so in restrictive cultures.
We are more susceptible than we like to pretend, but when what you are conforming to is a soft, broad set of standards in societies such as ours, it is easy to miss those.
Boogie's hair rebellion is nice, but she lives in a relatively tolerant culture.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Does "us" not include teens?
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is probably within the point you were making, mt, but I would like to emphasise that peer pressure does not end at 20. It is present in every society and becomes exceedingly so in restrictive cultures.
We are more susceptible than we like to pretend, but when what you are conforming to is a soft, broad set of standards in societies such as ours, it is easy to miss those.
Boogie's hair rebellion is nice, but she lives in a relatively tolerant culture.
Well said all of it. I think about teen pressure because as a school teacher I work with it -- or rather around it -- every day.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The burkini was designed to encourage greater integration by enabling muslim women to join everyone else at the beach. And the women able to do that are not likely to be in the category of those being oppressed to the point of being closeted at home by their husbands.
The attempted bylaws have been criticised, and rightly so, as the worst form of communautarianism: an attempt to shut muslims back out of sight.
Secularity as a referee ensuring a level playing field for all faiths I wholeheartedly endorse and actively support. "Offensive secularism" as the French prime minister (who is taking a hard line despite the high court ruling) is engaging in I reject utterly. State pressure to stamp out religious expression is in my judgement a worse evil than peer pressure.
[ 27. August 2016, 17:45: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
Eutychus, just out of curiosity, is this the sort of beach resort where almost everyone is rich? Would people have paid an entrance price to go on the beach?
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The burkini was designed to encourage greater integration by enabling muslim women to join everyone else at the beach. And the women able to do that are not likely to be in the category of those being oppressed to the point of being closeted at home by their husbands.
In addition, muslim women who want to integrate and join everyone else at the beach are also very unlikely to be radical, or radicalisable. So, if measures targeting them intend to reduce the incidence of terrorist acts then they're targeting the wrong community.
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on
:
Must re-think my holiday ideas? As a pale-skinned, prone-to-burn psoriatic methotrexate user I'm advised to cover as much as possible when out in the sun, including swimming. Looks like La Belle France (a place I am genuinelly fond of) is not for me!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
Must re-think my holiday ideas? As a pale-skinned, prone-to-burn psoriatic methotrexate user I'm advised to cover as much as possible when out in the sun, including swimming. Looks like La Belle France (a place I am genuinelly fond of) is not for me!
If you can survive Devon and Cornwall then Normandy and the north of Brittany aren't so different.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Eutychus, just out of curiosity, is this the sort of beach resort where almost everyone is rich? Would people have paid an entrance price to go on the beach?
Public beaches in France (i.e. almost all of them) are free.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
And, Anselmina, I'm guessing you're white, not brown. In which case your chances of being harrassed by police under this law would be approaching zero in my view.
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
Hmm Headscarf, leggings, long sleeved, high necked tunic top - good thing I was going to church on a frosty Christchurch morning, rather than a beach in sunny France.
Huia
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
If you can survive Devon and Cornwall then Normandy and the north of Brittany aren't so different.
There was some talk of a hole in the ozone layer over Dartmoor.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Now a restaurant head chef (link in French) has thrown out two veiled women, asserting "all terrorists are muslims and all muslims are terrorists".
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the recent burkini policies have legitimised this sort of action. Who knows how the reactions on both sides will play out.
[ 28. August 2016, 16:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Now a restaurant head chef (link in French) has thrown out two veiled women, asserting "all terrorists are muslims and all muslims are terrorists".
There is absolutely no doubt in my mind that the recent burkini policies have legitimised this sort of action. Who knows how the reactions on both sides will play out.
Can secularism a la francaise resist its co-option into outright racism? How do you think the Philosophes would react - would they see the same power in play as inspired their anti-clericalism?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
I believe it can if it reverts to its original, largely Protestant-inspired idea, which was a level playing field for all faiths ("secularity") rather than the promotion of an atheistic ideology ("secularism").
I live in one of the few remaining socialist-controlled regions in France, where the leading politicians have come out more strongly in favour of secularity in recent years. The mayor of my city has repeatedly asserted that religion is not a solely private matter and that it needs to find its place in the public sphere.
However, the only national politician anywhere near this position that I can see right now is François Hollande. The far left is anti-clerical; virtually the entire right hides a nationalistic strain of catholicism beneath a veneer of secularism.
The odds of a candidate from the left winning the presidential election next year are, I would guess, close to zero.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
The restaurant issue has hit the BBC news.
(I'd say the circumstances in which the altercation came about are not clear; the restaurateur may have been provoked, but his response is nonetheless unexcusable).
Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
The mayor of my city has repeatedly asserted that religion is not a solely private matter and that it needs to find its place in the public sphere.
But what does this mean in relation to private individuals, as opposed to religious institutions?
Regarding the OP, I'm just surprised that the French police have the time to harass women on beaches. It's hard to believe that this activity is going to help them catch more (would-be) terrorists, but I suppose you never can tell.
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
On the other side of the issue, these women really know how to punish those male chauvinists!
Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on
:
It's actually the same side of the issue.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
On the other side of the issue, these women really know how to punish those male chauvinists!
What makes you think they're trying to punish male chauvinists?
Posted by Huia (# 3473) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
On the other side of the issue, these women really know how to punish those male chauvinists!
Ouch! Sunburnt nipples. ![[Waterworks]](graemlins/bawling.gif)
Huia
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What makes you think they're trying to punish male chauvinists?
Quite.
Besides which I'm struggling to envisage the average male, chauvinist or otherwise, regarding the sight of women going around topless as some form of dastardly punishment.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What makes you think they're trying to punish male chauvinists?
Besides which I'm struggling to envisage the average male, chauvinist or otherwise, regarding the sight of women going around topless as some form of dastardly punishment.
Might I gently introduce to you gentlemen the concept of "sarcasm"?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
What makes you think they're trying to punish male chauvinists?
Besides which I'm struggling to envisage the average male, chauvinist or otherwise, regarding the sight of women going around topless as some form of dastardly punishment.
Might I gently introduce to you gentlemen the concept of "sarcasm"?
Sure. Then explain how it applies in this case. As near as I can tell, "Boy you really know how to X!" used sarcastically implies (a) you're trying to do X, and (b) failing.
Nobody would say, "Boy you really know how to paint a porch!" if I were doing a bad job sawing down a tree. Unless for some reason they thought I thought I was painting a porch.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
I'm not sure it is sarcasm exactly, but..
The women are (presumably) feminists who feel that they ought to have the same social rights as men to walk around topless.
These are the same (presumably) feminists who complain about men being chauvinists and want to push their case that if men are allowed to go about without a shirt on, then women should also be able to.
But the irony is that the men who are behaving most like unbearable chauvinists are stereotypically the same men who enjoy looking at women's breasts whenever possible.
Therefore there is something of a quandary in that the above feminists are trying to force an issue that the ogling stereotypical chauvinists would also support - i.e. women's breasts being seen more in public.
Make any more sense?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mr cheesy:
Make any more sense?
Indeed, it is even more clear that "punishing" men is the wrong word. It totally misrepresents what feminism is all about. People who think feminists want to "punish" men simply do not get it. Whether through stupidity or ignorance or assholity, probably depends on the person. But you can't excuse being wrong by calling it sarcasm. That's what Donald Trump tries to do. He's wrong, too.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed, it is even more clear that "punishing" men is the wrong word. It totally misrepresents what feminism is all about. People who think feminists want to "punish" men simply do not get it. Whether through stupidity or ignorance or assholity, probably depends on the person. But you can't excuse being wrong by calling it sarcasm. That's what Donald Trump tries to do. He's wrong, too.
Yeah that's part of the sarcasm - feminists stereotypically hate men and want to punish them. Chauvinists stereotypically like looking at breasts.
Of course, this is all a very low form of "wit" and one can very easily push holes in something this weak.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
As near as I can tell, "Boy you really know how to X!" used sarcastically implies (a) you're trying to do X, and (b) failing.
In Twilight's case, I think there's an extra layer of indirection. She is referencing the "commonly held" (among certain segments of the population) belief that feminists are all man-haters who are out to punish men.
By their lights, all actions of feminists are to punish men, and there's Twilight on the sidelines cheering "Way to go ladies! Get those tits out! That'll punish those MCPs".
The sarcasm is aimed at the idiots who think that feminism is about man-hating (or man-punishing).
Because of course a load of women going topless and encouraging other women to get their kit off is going to be widely encouraged by the stereotypical sexist neanderthal (as long as they're reasonably attractive women.)
At least, that's my reading of Twilight.
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
I've never completely understood feminist theology.
Does it go something like wanting to promote the positives in femaleness as opposed to we wanna get even with men?
I rather hope that getting even is not the case as I do not believe that human civilisation has, to date, necessarily expressed the positives of maleness in anything like a balanced way. Doesn't look to me something worth mimicking anyway.
< by 'even' I don't mean equal pay or suchlike >
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
At least, that's my reading of Twilight.
Given other things she's said on the subject, I can't give her that benefit of the doubt.
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I've never completely understood feminist theology.
Does it go something like wanting to promote the positives in femaleness as opposed to we wanna get even with men?
Neither. It goes something like wanting women to be treated with respect, and to have equal rights and opportunities with men.
[ 29. August 2016, 22:05: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
At least, that's my reading of Twilight.
The problem with twilight is that it's too dark to read anything properly.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
I've never completely understood feminist theology.
Does it go something like wanting to promote the positives in femaleness as opposed to we wanna get even with men?
There is more than one school of thought under the giant umbrella of feminism. One of the most basic divides is between, on the one hand, feminists who emphasize the differences between men and women and who want to promote the unique contributions women can make, and those on the other hand who emphasize the basic humanity of all people and wish to promote equality of the sexes.
quote:
I rather hope that getting even is not the case as I do not believe that human civilisation has, to date, necessarily expressed the positives of maleness in anything like a balanced way. Doesn't look to me something worth mimicking anyway.
< by 'even' I don't mean equal pay or suchlike >
My grandmother said, in the 70s, that she didn't understand women's libbers: "Why do they want to be equal with men? Women are better than men!"
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on
:
The problem with that view is that if we are so much better, why are we screwed over? The stop-getting-screwed-over part is where feminists unite.
Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on
:
German mayor fires Palestinian intern for wearing headscarf.
Does this perspective have any merit? And does integration as a value have merit?
quote:
[Although] German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week spoke out against a burqa ban...
"In my view," she said, "A fully-covered woman has little chance of integrating in Germany."
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
Does this perspective have any merit?
And does it reflect badly on headscarf-wearers or on Germans?
[ 31. August 2016, 07:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
The problem with that view is that if we are so much better, why are we screwed over? The stop-getting-screwed-over part is where feminists unite.
We're better ; we just don't have the temporal power, nor the financial and political backing.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
German mayor fires Palestinian intern for wearing headscarf.
Does this perspective have any merit? And does integration as a value have merit?
quote:
[Although] German Chancellor Angela Merkel last week spoke out against a burqa ban...
"In my view," she said, "A fully-covered woman has little chance of integrating in Germany."
This has enormous electoral merit. As for integration one needs to accept that it takes time: typically decades, and all legislation can do is prevent the worst of discrimination and disadvantage.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Does "integration" mean "conformity"?
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does "integration" mean "conformity"?
Assuming we're talking about cultural integration...
I'm having a hard time thinking of a form of cultural integration that does not involve at least a degree of conformity. If someone is going to move into the mainstream, culturally speaking, almost by definition they are going to have to start doing things the same way as most other people do.
Now, if you just mean physical integration, like, say, allowing people of different races to eat in previously segragated restaurants, no, I don't think that neccessarily means conformity. Except in the narrow sense that members of the previously exlcuded group will now be going to the same restaurant as the others.
Posted by Carex (# 9643) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Does "integration" mean "conformity"?
It could mean that others become more willing to accept the differences rather than forcing the newcomers to conform. With a large south-Asian community, headscarves and even turbans are not uncommon here. I don't see it any differently than if you or I were to decide to wear a kilt.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
That is a great watershed.
In France integration largely means conformity to a theoretical ideal and communautarisme is very definitely a bad word that connotes pretty much to "ghetto".
Whereas in Anglo-Saxon cultures integration is almost terminally pragmatic (to Latin eyes) and seems to mean "salad bowl" with lots of cultures existing more or less peaceably side by side, and communitarianism is often seen as a good thing. Whether this can last is a moot point.
On the burkini and the French concept of secularity (laicité), here film director Yann Moix leaves anti-muslim French minister Nathalie Koscisusko-Morizet (aka NKM) speechless with a knocks-it-out-of-the-park and resoundingly protestant take on the original thinking behind the 1905 church/state law (link in French, sorry; more people should watch this).
Posted by Stetson (# 9597) on
:
quote:
In France integration largely means conformity to a theoretical ideal and communautarisme is very definitely a bad word that connotes pretty much to "ghetto".
Whereas in Anglo-Saxon cultures integration is almost terminally pragmatic (to Latin eyes) and seems to mean "salad bowl" with lots of cultures existing more or less peaceably side by side, and communitarianism is often seen as a good thing. Whether this can last is a moot point.
I think you might be using the word "communitarianism" with a slightly different meaning than is usual in the Anglo-Saxon countries, where it means an emphasis on community, as opposed to the individual person. Rather than supporting minority cultures at the expense of the larger one, which seems to be what you're talking about.
Basically, for the anglos, communitarianism is an antidote to rampant indididualism, ie. each one person doing his own thing, regardless of community welfare. Which isn't really the issue in what the French see as the ghetto, where the perceived problem is not that people aren't submitting to community, but that they are submitting to the WRONG sort of community.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
I suppose that boils down to the fraternité aspect of France's motto.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
There are some norms that it is necessary to conform to in order to have a functional society. We all have to agree to drive on the same side of the road, for example. It doesn't much matter which one we choose, but we all need to make the same choice.
We all need to agree on what are socially acceptable hours for doing noisy activities (mowing lawns, building work, and so on.) We need to agree on what an acceptable level of noise to make inside your own home is.
But those things are necessary for a society to operate sensibly. Your choice of beachwear doesn't have any effect on me, so there's no reason for you to conform to my expectations.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I suppose that boils down to the fraternité aspect of France's motto.
Yes indeed, and it has been hotly debated since the recent terrorist attacks. It's much less quantifiable than either freedom or equality, and viewed in a certain light, has a nice spiritual ring to it, too...
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Your choice of beachwear doesn't have any effect on me, so there's no reason for you to conform to my expectations.
No, but in France your choice of headgear may compromise your job opportunities.
Passing through Schiphol airport not long ago, I was served coffee by a lady in some generic café uniform - and a hijab. It's a short hop from there to France and Charles de Gaulle airport, where you are just never going to see that.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
The usual American version is "melting pot"; but I prefer stew or salad, because they allow for items to retain their own flavor.
Posted by anoesis (# 14189) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
Your 'integration as conformity' would, I think, be called 'assimilation' here. The way I understand integration, it is signalled by participation, shared vision, etc., - it doesn't require a denial of identity, whereas assimilation is blending in, becoming part of an amorphous whole.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Eutychus--
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
No, but in France your choice of headgear may compromise your job opportunities.
Passing through Schiphol airport not long ago, I was served coffee by a lady in some generic café uniform - and a hijab. It's a short hop from there to France and Charles de Gaulle airport, where you are just never going to see that.
Are there family-run Middle Eastern restaurants in France? If so, would any Muslim women working there be permitted to wear the hijab?
IME and observation, it seems that (in the US) minorities (of whatever kind) are gradually accepted more if they provide something that other people need/value/enjoy. Restaurants often do that. Sports. Art. Design. Service businesses. Even the old Chinese laundries, as stereotyped and derided as they often were, probably helped a bit, because customers at least got experience interacting with Chinese people.
I think doing charitable work and stepping up during disasters helps, too.
FWIW, YMMV.
Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
You may be right about the terms being not exactly equivalent, but the fact remains that integration in Anglo Saxon countries seems to be more along the lines of salad bowl, or at least more tolerant of the salad bowl, than conformity.
The usual American version is "melting pot"; but I prefer stew or salad, because they allow for items to retain their own flavor.
"Melting pot" does, to me at least, have the connotation of things blending together. Taking individual cultures and merging them into a single culture that includes elements from each ingredient but as a whole is different from what was there before.
Which would result in members of each community on the defensive as they see the loss of their cultural identity.
The "salad bowl" involves mixing, with the different ingredients living side by side, still creating an overall national culture that changes as new ingredients are added, but with each ingredient maintaining it's particular characteristic.
I know I prefer to eat food that has a mix of ingredients, but not where they're all blended into some puree. I want to eat things where I can have a crunch of carrot, definite pieces of chicken etc.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Melting pot versus salad bowl (and assimilation, too).
[ 01. September 2016, 08:31: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger (# 8891) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The usual American version is "melting pot"; but I prefer stew or salad, because they allow for items to retain their own flavor.
Yes, but in a salad, you can just pick out the bits you don't like.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Phantom Flan Flinger:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
The usual American version is "melting pot"; but I prefer stew or salad, because they allow for items to retain their own flavor.
Yes, but in a salad, you can just pick out the bits you don't like.
Then "melting pot" is REALLY not the right term, because there are still "bits" that can be differentiated. No matter how integrated socially, a dark-complected black person will still stand out in a room of light-skinned white people, and vice versa. Some things, for good or ill, just don't melt.
I think this may be why gingers or black people are so commonly discriminated against compared to nationalities or religions: it's easier to tell. You might hate the Irish in general, but an Irish person with black hair who has lost their accent (if they ever had one) and has a common English surname is undetectable to most observers. But ginger hair is right there for everyone to see.
And middle-eastern looks are a (false) marker for Islam -- witness the Palestinian Christian who was assassinated recently in the United States. He "looked like a Muslim." It's the looks that led to this particular person being killed. His actual religion was invisible.
[ 01. September 2016, 17:14: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are there family-run Middle Eastern restaurants in France? If so, would any Muslim women working there be permitted to wear the hijab?
Now I think about it, in all the best couscous places I know, the waiters are all men. FWIW. (The best couscous restaurant in the whole wide world being Chez Omar on the rue de Bretagne. Omar is a Kabyle gentleman of a certain age who surveys his domain from behind the bar.)
Posted by Ariel (# 58) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by la vie en rouge:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Are there family-run Middle Eastern restaurants in France? If so, would any Muslim women working there be permitted to wear the hijab?
Now I think about it, in all the best couscous places I know, the waiters are all men. FWIW. (The best couscous restaurant in the whole wide world being Chez Omar on the rue de Bretagne. Omar is a Kabyle gentleman of a certain age who surveys his domain from behind the bar.)
Couscous is North African, and so are the Kabyles, who come from Algeria. I'm guessing that most of the Arabic-speaking food retail outlets in France are North African rather than actual Middle Eastern. In Tunisia women didn't always cover their hair, and there was a case in the news a while ago about an Islamic school in Britain that penalized or dismissed (I forget which) a female teacher from Tunisia who didn't want to wear a headscarf as it wasn't the custom where she came from. Things may have tightened up a bit in that respect in North Africa since then, of course.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Most times that someone starts getting worked up about headscarves, pictures of Queen Elizabeth II wearing one of her headscarves start circulating on the internet.
Half the time people just freak out over terms that are from Arabic or some other language. There's a kind of intellectual fog that descends once some funny foreign term is used, which makes people unable to rationally think about whether an equivalent thing exists in their own culture.
Frankly, the notion that a headscarf is "Muslim" and thus violates some rule about secularity makes no more sense than the proposition that a wedding cake is "gay" and is therefore not the kind of cake that a God-fearing Christian baker is capable of producing. The headscarf isn't Muslim, the person wearing it is. A non-Muslim could quite easily wear the same piece of clothing. It wouldn't give them an electric shock or strangle them.
Non-Muslim women with skin issues have been known to wear a "burkini". Heck, white men can wear very similar things only they call them "wetsuits" and everybody's fine. People are looking at the skin tone and appearance of the person first and then translating that into a reaction to the garment in a vain attempt to appear slightly less racist.
Posted by dolores (# 18650) on
:
This is my first post, so I am feeling my way. I was moved to post after watching the link to the short YouTube video of Yann Moix posted earlier.
Quite apart from his hectoring and bullying demeanour which seems to have become a hallmark of this debate, I was appalled by his disingenuous comparison of the religious cassock with the burqa.
It seems that people have become completely unable to see beyond the outward sign of any given symbol to look at the meaning contained therein. This does not mean that people are not aware at some level that a burqa and cassock both mean something, but we have become confused as to what these meanings might be.
The cassock is symbolic of the natural separation that God has made ( Book of Numbers) between the religious and the secular life. The priestly, class which God Himself established in the wilderness, bore the fruit of both John the Baptist and Christ. Christ thus became the eternal High Priest and the Church has continued the practice of setting aside priests to serve in this new living temple for hundreds of years. This separateness and office of divine service was signified by the wearing of sacred vestments. The meaning of these vestments was understood by all. They provided a clear demarcation between different aspects of life. The Church, for instance, whilst demanding that women cover their heads before God when in the sacred space, made no such encroachments into everyday life.
The burkini signals something quite different. First of all it is not at all clear that it is a religious symbol at all – based on the burqa and other female “coverings”, it is a cultural practice that originated in certain Muslim countries, and is by no means a religious practice as required by the Qur’an. It is a frightening symbol to many women. Young women in London and elsewhere have been harassed by Muslim men because of their “immodest” dress. Now, as a flabby prude, I often wince when I see what passes for being “clothed” these days, but I seethe when I see to what extent the female body and sexuality is becoming the ideological smokescreen for a much deeper ideological battle.
Behind every burqa on the beach you may see 10 honour killings, ten teenage girls conned into going on “holiday” to Pakistan only to be married to a man that they have never met, ten genital mutilations and ten housewives who are not allowed to learn the language of their adopted country. I have seen people defend the burqa because it protects women from being sexually assaulted and even gang raped in Muslim areas and countries. In short, to be uncovered means to invite assault. I am a woman and I can tell you that this mentality, that signals a rapid descent back to the spirit of the Middle Ages, makes my blood run cold.
But behind this lurks an even bigger elephant in the room. This cultural religio-fascism has at its heart the conviction that Islamic theocracy must be spread throughout the entire world. Non-believers must be forcibly converted and Sharia Law must be the supreme law where Islam reigns. This does not mean that millions of decent Muslims want this, but this is the force of idea that is pushing at the door of the West where many Muslims have sought sanctuary from the day to day reality of the societies that Islam has spawned. So whilst the cassock symbolizes a dignified separation between the sacred and the secular, the burkini symbolizes the ascent of a system of theocratic ideas which seek to control every aspect of our lives. The word Islam comes from a root which is often translated as peace – in fact it is a root which carries the idea of submission and obedience and these ideas are quite conveniently projected primarily onto women.
When a French woman sees a burkini on the beach at Nice, she is not allowed to say this. If Islam becomes a major force in Europe – which it will inevitably become – then women have a lot to fear. Bridget Bardot was fined five thousand euros for expressing her fears in writing. So, in a world where people are stopped from expressing their legitimate fears as they stare dumbfounded at the abandoned push chairs of dead children littering the seafront of Nice, do not be surprised when they are reduced to the support of the futile banning of pointless pieces of clothing. What the fuck France? What the fuck the liberal media that promotes this as the only allowable arena for debate?
And in the meantime the Western psyche continues to crumble under the weight of a cognitive dissonance of our own making.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
Billy goat Gruff, your turn?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
The cassock is symbolic of the natural separation that God has made ( Book of Numbers) between the religious and the secular life.
Says who? That is certainly not an argument recognised by a secular state. quote:
The burkini signals something quite different. First of all it is not at all clear that it is a religious symbol at all – based on the burqa and other female “coverings”, it is a cultural practice that originated in certain Muslim countries
What, Australia?
quote:
This cultural religio-fascism has at its heart the conviction that Islamic theocracy must be spread throughout the entire world. Non-believers must be forcibly converted and Sharia Law must be the supreme law where Islam reigns. This does not mean that millions of decent Muslims want this, but this is the force of idea that is pushing at the door of the West
Let’s just assume, for the sake of the argument, that all this is true. What is the best way of Western societies combating this?
To my mind it is to grant freedom of choice – including the freedom to practise the religion of one’s choice, provided it does not threaten public order. The answer to theocracy is pluralism, not militant secularism or half-concealed Catholic nationalism.
The burkini offers an opportunity for Muslims to mix with other members of society in a way they otherwise wouldn’t.
For those who accept it, it is a perfect compromise and poses no conceivable public order threat, as the French Council of State has ruled.
Banning even a compromise solution under the pretext that it represents militant Islam is not only misguided, it provides perfect fodder for radicalisation.
The fact is that Islam is here to stay in the West for the forseeable future. To my mind the best strategy for dispelling the more radical forms of Islam is to create an environment in which there is the opportunity for these to be diluted and to modernise.
In any case, trying to combat ideas and attitudes by attacking petty outward signs is doomed to failure, as anyone who has ever worn school uniform knows.
Posted by RuthW (# 13) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
This is my first post, so I am feeling my way.
Welcome to Hell. And buckle up!
quote:
What the fuck the liberal media that promotes this as the only allowable arena for debate?
The media -- the media owned by gigantic corporations dedicated to nothing other than making huge sums of money -- are liberal. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Bridget Bardot was fined five thousand euros for expressing her fears in writing.
This truly is shocking. It is news to me. I hate laws against any kind of speech other than slander and straight forward incitement to violence and crime. I hate all sorts of things from the book I just read for my book club to pizza, and yes certain religions that encourage sexism and racism. I think we should all be free to say these things and let others say they hate us for it.
I'm frightened at the idea of people not being free to express their views, however unpopular, unfriendly, xenophobic, racist or bigoted they may be. I haven't read Bardot's writings so they may not even be any of those things, but perhaps just fearful of too much change in her country.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Bardot has been convicted multiple times for incitement to racial hatred and fined much more than €5000. Shipmates may also be interested to read her views on gays. Scroll down to Politics and legal issues.
Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on
:
Well, she can't be all bad if she did indeed (quoting from the Wikipedia entry linked to above):
quote:
During the 2008 United States presidential election, she branded the Republican Party vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin as "stupid" and a "disgrace to women".
Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on
:
I don't have to agree with a word she says to believe she should be allowed to say it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nobody is all bad. Hitler was kind to rats.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
And dogs, IIRC.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Young women in London and elsewhere have been harassed by Muslim men because of their “immodest” dress. Now, as a flabby prude, I often wince when I see what passes for being “clothed” these days, but I seethe when I see to what extent the female body and sexuality is becoming the ideological smokescreen for a much deeper ideological battle.
I have no problem agreeing with you that young women being harassed on the street is wrong. Where I differ from you is that I don't think young women should be harassed on the beach either.
Posted by dolores (# 18650) on
:
I will try to respond where I can, but I’ve not had time yet to work out how to use the quote function. I’ll do the best that I can and hope that I don’t end up posting gobbledygook.
To Eutychus. Regarding the establishment of a priesthood instigating a separation of religious and secular functions, I was really talking at a broad philosophical level. Once a recognised priesthood exists, it could be argued that it is easier to distinguish the religious from the secular sphere and to separate out the various roles and responsibilities. At a legalistic level, and especially with regard to the history of clericalism, I could certainly pick holes in my own argument.
I forgive your deliberate misunderstanding of my badly worded point about the origins of the burqa which I believe to be Afghanistan. Kudos to your ducking and diving ability: you are obviously an old hand at this.
To your more serious point about the burkini, I think you miss my point. If we go back to the YouTube video that you posted, Yann Moix was obviously very proud of himself for having unearthed a law (dating back to 1905) which he used to “shut up” the woman to whom he is talking. This obscure clause asserts that the State has deliberately blinded itself to all religions and their outward manifestations: it refused to recognise any vestment as “religious.” In other words, the French state at the time felt that it could obliterate the religious sentiment, and its impact on all aspects of secular life, simply by robbing outward manifestations of religion of all meaning. Moix is so triumphant because this undermines all other attempts to recognise religious symbolism so that it may be banned from the public sphere in the policy of laïcité.
This is such a profound point that it is way beyond a humble post on a forum, but I would make the point that a policy of deliberate blindness is a very dangerous one. This clause is quite clearly aimed at undermining the Catholic Church in France, but will the same results arise from a policy of state-sanctioned blindness work as well in other contexts?
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There are of course radical and moderate Muslims, but that is an entirely different thing. If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try. I will watch with interest.
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values. It is a religion that will not and cannot confine itself to the spiritual sphere. It is a symbol of confusion and deliberate blindness. In a survey 69% of those polled felt that the burkini should be banned. This is crazy. You know it’s crazy. I know it’s crazy. I don’t personally support laicité. The majority of the 69% know it’s crazy. They just don’t know how to respond to what is happening. All I am saying is let them express their fears and don’t crow when they are “shut up.”
Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Nobody is all bad. Hitler was kind to rats.
Loved his Alsatian aswell. Mind you, did test out the cyanide capsule on it.
Posted by mr cheesy (# 3330) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There are of course radical and moderate Muslims, but that is an entirely different thing. If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try. I will watch with interest.
Bullshit.
quote:
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values. It is a religion that will not and cannot confine itself to the spiritual sphere. It is a symbol of confusion and deliberate blindness. In a survey 69% of those polled felt that the burkini should be banned. This is crazy. You know it’s crazy. I know it’s crazy. I don’t personally support laicité. The majority of the 69% know it’s crazy. They just don’t know how to respond to what is happening. All I am saying is let them express their fears and don’t crow when they are “shut up.”
Utter crap.
Posted by dolores (# 18650) on
:
To RuthW – Thanks for the welcome. I did wonder about making a first post in hell!
As regards the corporate owners of the media, I think we can safely say that they push a liberal agenda because it suits them. They do not necessarily share the ideology that they wish to push on the masses. It is hard to know what their ideology is beyond self-perpetuation and an antipathy to all things Christian. The whole globe is in the midst of a huge corporate reorganization – what the world will look like when it is done is anybody’s guess.
To Twilight. I agree with you entirely. I didn’t choose Briggite Bardot for any reason – she was the first name that came to mind. Hence I spelt her name wrong! She is well known for being eccentric and I don’t know anything beyond the fact that she could have been imprisoned for a year for expressing her dismay at the “Islamification” of France. She may be right, she may be wrong, but she should be free to say it.
Even worse, since the 1990s, publishers in Britain have been increasingly afraid to publish anything that may offend the Saudi elite (who push a particularly hard line version of Islam) because our libel laws favour the wealthy. For instance, at least two books on the possible involvement of Saudis in the funding of terrorism are available in the States but not in Britain because of Saudi intimidation. In fact one American woman was ordered to pay one wealthy banker $225,000 by the British courts and her book was ordered to be withdrawn in Britain. This led to the American govt. passing a law that would prevent foreigners pursuing libel actions against American writers.
To Orfeo – You do not differ from me because I never said that that young women should be harassed on beaches, but I would say that the media worked very hard to push that image into the minds of people. There are so many things to be debated but they succeeded in plunging the general debate into the absurd realms of the burkini. France remains one of the most peaceable, beautiful and tolerant places to live in the world – which is why so many Muslim women wish to live here.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
I never really understand these vague warnings and admonitions about Islam. What the fuck is meant? Are the right wing saying that Muslims are dangerous, therefore keep them out, or intern them, or make them wear yellow stars?
Or what?
Posted by Wesley J (# 6075) on
:
Yellow crescents, more likely.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
I forgive your deliberate misunderstanding of my badly worded point about the origins of the burqa which I believe to be Afghanistan. Kudos to your ducking and diving ability: you are obviously an old hand at this.
If you word things badly, or don't write what you mean, don't expect indulgence in Hell.
It wasn’t a deliberate misunderstanding. The discussion was about the burkini and not about the burka, and it is well-attested that the purpose of the former is to allow observant muslims to engage in a social activity from which they would otherwise be excluded, basically on grounds of conscience.
quote:
To your more serious point about the burkini, I think you miss my point. If we go back to the YouTube video that you posted, Yann Moix was obviously very proud of himself for having unearthed a law (dating back to 1905) which he used to “shut up” the woman to whom he is talking.
It's not some random obscure law. As I pointed out, the 1905 law is foundational to the principle of separation of Church and state in France.
(NKM is pathetic when she says "there were lots of laws in 1905". "1905 law" means this law in common parlance in modern France and she either knows this perfectly well or is even more ignorant than I thought).
While the original law was clearly designed to limit the power of the Catholic church above all (because that’s pretty much all there was at the time) the thinking behind it was very definitely one of a level playing field for all religious expression - and not one of militant secularism (the latter position is currently espoused by Manuel Valls - although Jews get something of a free pass, largely for uncomfortable historic reasons).
The struggle between these two contemporary interpretations of the 1905 law is a crucial debate today.
quote:
Moix is so triumphant because this undermines all other attempts to recognise religious symbolism so that it may be banned from the public sphere in the policy of laïcité.
He quotes the purpose of the law as providing liberty of worship, and the point he is making is that it is stupid to establish public order on the basis of clothing. In today’s context, I’m more worried about whether someoone is a violent extremist likely to shoot people or blow themselves up than about what colour they are or what they are wearing.
quote:
This is such a profound point that it is way beyond a humble post on a forum, but I would make the point that a policy of deliberate blindness is a very dangerous one.
Deliberate blindness, if that is what it is, is no worse and, depending on how you interpret it, a whole lot better than a wrong focus, which is what anti-burkini laws are.
quote:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam.
Why not ? For much of its history Christianity in the form of the Holy Roman Empire demanded as much. There are different forms of Christianity. Why abitrarily accuse all islam of being radical ? quote:
If you think that you can dilute Islam then go ahead and try.
I don’t know if I can, but to stem radical Islam in the West my money is certainly on facilitating modernisation, dilution and diversity rather than repression based on religious symbolism as opposed to targeting violent extremism.
Yes this is a gamble, no the outcome isn't certain, but I've thought about it and that's where I stand and that's how I act, including putting my head above the parapet as and when I feel the need to, even if I think the odds are that makes me personally more of a target for radicalised terrorists than less of one.
quote:
The burkini is a symbol neither of radical or moderate Islam – it is a symbol of a religion that brings with it political, social and legal ramifications that are entirely at odds with our much-vaunted Western values.
It’s a symbol of accommodation. quote:
I don’t personally support laicité.
You’re going to have to explain what you understand by laicité, and what you do support instead.
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
... Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam. The oppression of women for instance is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. ...
Bullshit. Well, no, actually not bullshit, because I can say the same about Christianity. The oppression of women is ingrained in all the basic texts of the faith. There's no need to make a distinction between radical and moderate Christians because they all read the same Bible. Christians are polygamist, snake-handling, demon-exorcising sexist homophobes that require women to wear hats and don't allow them to wear pants.
Gosh, that was fun. Let's do it again sometime.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
I do honestly admire the patience of those posters who can calmly respond to the voices emitted from under the bridge, hungering for birria.
I do not have the patience, but it is interesting, and occasionally edifying, to listen to those who do.
Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
I never said that that young women should be harassed on beaches, but I would say that the media worked very hard to push that image into the minds of people.
There was a young woman on a beach in France. Three or four armed policemen showed up and ordered her to disrobe. This is factual. It happened - it wasn't an episode of a soap opera. The policemen were real policemen, not hired actors.
Did the media "work hard" to push that image into people's minds? Sure - that's what the media does - it pushes hard at things it thinks are major stories. Over the years it has pushed pretty hard at images of Rodney King being beaten up; Diana, Princess of Wales dying in a car crash; the terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center; Alan Kurdi lying dead on a beach; and many more.
You would have us believe that this is the "liberal media" pushing a "liberal agenda". Well, if not wanting women to be undressed at gunpoint is "a liberal agenda" then sure - some of the media is doing that, although I'll note that the fascists are using the same imagery to applaud the anti-burkini law and suggest that we should have more of that sort of thing.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Islam.
Christianity doesn't demand that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere? I think not. If that were the case then homosexuality would be perfectly ordinary and men marrying men would be commonplace. Remind me again who the primary opponents of such a situation are?
Christians are violently against gays and lesbians. They demand that such people either deny their fundamental selves or be shunned and/or incarcerated. I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
You're either a hypocrite or a bigot. Your reply to this post will tell me which it is.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
It's entirely possible I was riffing off dolores' post to make my point.
More than possible, in fact.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I do not make a distinction between radical and moderate Christianity.
Then you generalize in vain.
It's entirely possible I was riffing off dolores' post to make my point.
More than possible, in fact.
It's entirely possible I realized that.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
My essential point is that Islam is not a religion like Christianity. It is a religion that demands that secular life be subservient to the religious sphere.
To make this point, you have to ignore a very large chunk of the history of Christianity, as well as the attitude of a great many Christians currently alive who talk all the time about God's law being higher than man's law.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Well, Christians burned people for about 1000 years. OK, they have improved on this, but am I supposed to say, never mind?
I still don't get where Dolores' points are heading. I assume she is an anti-Islam bigot.
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I still don't get where Dolores' points are heading.
Dolores is new here. This is Hell. I reckon she is taking advantage of the opportunity while people are cutting her some slack.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
people are cutting her some slack.
Seriously? Open the gunports and deliver a devastating broadside that'll rip out her rigging and hole her below the waterline.
Ain't no slack in Hell.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
If she were a typical newbie, I would say some courtesy would be in order. However, dolores' post shows enough awareness of where she is posting and hits every bigot target cleanly. I do not believe it is a genuine attempt to engage.
Double load the port side cannon, aim for the waterline and launch flaming pitch into 'er sails.
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
Some bigots use flowery language, with long paragraphs, and long sentences, and I start to want them to just say it - whatever it is. Deport Muslims, Muslims are shit, intern Muslims, whatever, instead of these interminable paragraphs. It's very like the Gish gallop.
Posted by dolores (# 18650) on
:
OK, so I guess I asked for that. I was interested to see what reaction I would get and I have seen. I will have another try to explain my point.
Yesterday there was an article in the Guardian about a group of Muslim women who want an end to the sharia councils in Britain. A Muslim woman called Elham Manea has spent four years researching these councils, so I guess she knows more about them than any of us. They are used mainly by women seeking an Islamic divorce. Under sharia law, men can divorce their wives unilaterally by pronouncing talaq (divorce) three times, but women must get a judicial decree on specific grounds or give up financial rights to obtain a divorce from a religious judge, a process that costs up to £400. Manea says the vast majority of women attending sharia councils have not formalised their religious marriage under British law and are often forced into conceding their civil rights in order to secure an Islamic divorce. The sharia councils have become necessary because without them muslim women would be very vulnerable as they would not have access to civil courts. But Manea and a number of women’s rights groups want them to be abolished as she sees them as an obstacle to Muslim women obtaining any level of equality. She points out that the councils amount to a parallel legal system. She has mounted a campaign to have all Muslim marriages registered and believes that it will show that polygamy is becoming normalized in Britain. I quote:
“Evidence to the inquiry claims the ideology behind many of Britain’s sharia councils condones wife beating, marital rape and child marriage. Nus Ghani, who sits on the home affairs select committee and initially pushed for the inquiry, said: “Under sharia, men are in charge and women are treated as their property. That does not sit well under British law and cannot go unchallenged.”
What is most interesting in the article is the point that a number of women’s groups boycotted a separate enquiry set up by Theresa May quite clearly because she proposed to make an Islamic scholar chair of the enquiry.
The last point is crucial. These women know that their status as possessions in enshrined in Islam and they want to be pulled out from under the weight of Sharia law and put under the full jurisdiction of the British legal system. It is not so long ago that British women were also treated as second class citizens under the law, so it is hard to take when the Archbishop of Canterbury argues that sharia law should run parallel to the mainstream system. He is arguing that shadowy courts, run by men, working to a system of ideology that very few in the West understand should be allowed to govern the lives of women.
This is why I find the concentration on the burkini irritating. There is one photograph of one woman being harassed by four policemen which has obvious immediate impact. You would have to have the brain of a flea to think that I am arguing that this is right. But do you know how many Muslim women I see walking around France in complete security because they have faith in those same gendarmes to protect them? But how many photographs of women forced into polygamous marriages or being raped in the home where they should feel safe do we have? And how many of you sanctimonious gobshites even care? Because you can sit on your moral high grounds, drawing up your lists of who can say what and where without so much as the obvious engagement of one functioning brain cell. If you think that I hate Muslims because I can see what the consequences of an encroaching and increasingly aggressive ideology, promoted by a cruel and fabulously wealthy Saudi elite may be then you must be blind or mad or both. They are not just threatening havoc here – look what they are doing in Yemen and investigate their collaboration with the Americans in their attempts to destabilize the Middle East. They have cracked open Iraq, Syria, Libya. Do you ever wonder why they are doing this or are you too busy getting your internet dopamine hits from calling people bigots? You obviously are quite unable to make the distinction between Islam – body of idea and a Muslim – a person of flesh and blood. How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
Boy dolores, you posted in the right place.
If you'd stop bunching people into homogenous sets you may get somewhere in your argument.
Even bunching the posters on this thread into one 'you' shows how little you listen.
Spouting forth convinces no-one. Our Muslim next door neighbours bear no resemblance whatsoever to your caricature.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I obviously have no right to comment, as I'm a self-righteous gobshite. So roast in your own self-righteousness, O mistress of projection and queen of venomous spittle. Better yet, fuck off.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
Yesterday there was an article in the Guardian about a group of Muslim women who want an end to the sharia councils in Britain.
Please explain what this, or anything that follows in your diatribe, has to do with burkinis and French law, in France.
And while you're at it, please clarify what you mean by "not supporting laïcité". What do you support instead?
quote:
But do you know how many Muslim women I see walking around France in complete security because they have faith in those same gendarmes to protect them?
Do tell. Please tell us not only how many you see, but how come you are so you are they are confident in the protection, as opposed to the harrassment, of those gendarmes. quote:
But how many photographs of women forced into polygamous marriages or being raped in the home where they should feel safe do we have?
What has that got to do with whether banning burkinis is a good idea? The immediate result that I can see of that is further arguments by hardline muslims in favour of cloistering muslim women at home and out of the public eye.
What suggestions to you have to combat domestic abuse, irrespective of race or religion? quote:
And how many of you sanctimonious gobshites even care? Because you can sit on your moral high grounds, drawing up your lists of who can say what and where without so much as the obvious engagement of one functioning brain cell.
I don't have to justify anything to you, and am not about to go into specifics, but I can confidently assert that I'm engaged on this issue, am in print with my views, and in my roles as both pastor and prison chaplain, am in my own small way putting my life in the balance as I live my views out in the current context in these real-life roles.
You don't walk into prisons and sit in solitary with allegedly radicalised muslims and other (in my view) far more dangerous individuals who can easily find out where you live from a nice cosy moral high ground. quote:
If you think that I hate Muslims because I can see what the consequences of an encroaching and increasingly aggressive ideology, promoted by a cruel and fabulously wealthy Saudi elite may be then you must be blind or mad or both.
So why do you hate Muslims? And what, precisely, are your strategies for countering this ideology, and what, precisely, are your real-world practical engagements in this direction? quote:
You obviously are quite unable to make the distinction between Islam – body of idea and a Muslim – a person of flesh and blood.
Are you trying to suggest that burkini-banning is an effective blow against nasty Islam and not against the person of flesh and blood wearing it?
[ 05. September 2016, 18:43: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on
:
It's quite interesting actually, that the more that dolores posts, the less clear I am about what she is trying to say. That's why I call it the Gish gallop, as supposedly used by some Christians, in order to obfuscate.
[ 05. September 2016, 20:25: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Aaand there we have it. The cry of the internet conspiracy theorist.
WAKE UP, SHEEPLE!
Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
You could demonstrate your willingness to engage by commenting on other posts. A one-trick pony is most unattractive.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
There are people on the SOF whom I suspect of being unable to think. Few of them are on this thread, save perhaps me.
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Try posting the truth and we'll give it a go.
But I doubt you will, Grendelores.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
lB--
If she's Grend(e)l, does that mean you're Beowulf? ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
What do you all think of this?
"High school blames girls' clothing for boys' bad grades — we are scratching our heads" (HelloGiggles).
Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on
:
Just the usual bullshit from sexist idiots.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Meanwhile in the UK...
Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
...How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
Learn how to use the quote function to have a conversation?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by dolores:
...How can I engage with people who appear to be unable to think or uninterested in the truth?
You can't. Bye.
Posted by Martin60 (# 368) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Meanwhile in the UK...
That makes me so proud to be British I can barely breath.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0