|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What the actual fuck, France?
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
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 ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
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 ]
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
On grounds of freedom of conscience and individual freedom; no potential public order threat.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Conformity. Fitting in. Not standing out. How much should someone be forced to conform to a country's culture.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Caissa
Shipmate
# 16710
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 972 | From: Saint John, N.B. | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Helen-Eva
Shipmate
# 15025
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
I thought the radio 3 announcer said "Weber" but it turned out to be Webern. Story of my life.
Posts: 637 | From: London, hopefully in a theatre or concert hall, more likely at work | Registered: Aug 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mr cheesy
Shipmate
# 3330
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
arse
Posts: 10697 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
fausto
Shipmate
# 13737
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Truth did not come into the world naked, but it came in types and images. The world will not receive truth in any other way." Gospel of Philip, Logion 72
Posts: 407 | From: Boston, Mass. | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cornflower
Shipmate
# 13349
|
Posted
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. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
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
Posts: 111 | From: uk | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Uncle Pete
Loyaute me lie
# 10422
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Even more so than I was before
Posts: 20466 | From: No longer where I was | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Actually, Pete, we agree about a whole lot of things, if you would pay attention.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Evangeline
Shipmate
# 7002
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 2871 | From: "A capsule of modernity afloat in a wild sea" | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
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 ]
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marama
Shipmate
# 330
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 910 | From: Canberra | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
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 ...
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Twilight
Puddleglum's sister
# 2832
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6817 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anselmina
Ship's barmaid
# 3032
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
Irish dogs needing homes! http://www.dogactionwelfaregroup.ie/ Greyhounds and Lurchers are shipped over to England for rehoming too!
Posts: 10002 | From: Scotland the Brave | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
