If that choice is a similar result of pressure due to cultural and normative influences, where it is not uncommon to be cemented in policies like workplace standards, no.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The Burqa debate - has the west got it wrong?
- Thread starter Machina
- Start date
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
If that choice is a similar result of pressure due to cultural and normative influences, where it is not uncommon to be cemented in policies like workplace standards, no.
Vince_Russo
Banned
I know that liberals trip over themselves trying to defend the right to a Burqa, while also being Feminists (and aethiests), but you can't have it every way. What's OK about a ban on Burqas in public are that when women leave their households , they don't have to face the oppression of , for example, a very conservative Muslim house hold. The public Burqa law gives women a chance to be free from the clutches of their husband or father and I think in the end, this is much more good than bad, although perhaps a bit insensitive, but hopefully the men will get over it. Although the West is "free", not every part of the Bible or The Qran can be enforced in society and this benefits everybody
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Seeing someone's face when you talk to them is not a human right -_-
NoblesseOblige
Banned
France has banned these things in public places. I'm sure they have some programs running to help Muslim women at the same time.
The (possible) existence of such state-sponsored programs does not nullify the oppressive nature of banning a person's right to choose an article of clothing. So long as a person's choice does not negatively impact another person's freedoms then the state banning something such as this is done so in an oppressive manner. You can't empower someone while simultaneously oppressing them. It's like saying you're empowering <minority> by erecting ghettos for them to live in.
Because straightened hair doesn't stop black woman from functioning like equal in modern american society. In fact it makes it easier. Meanwhile burquas forever doom them into the role of outcasts.
So let me get this straight, you are now making the case that black woman should be happy they are put in a position through cultural pressures to feel obligated to alter the natural state of their hair to acquiesce to the dominate white cultural power structures in order to have a happier, more fruitful existence while living in white dominated America.
..I think I rest my case.
ClosingADoor
Member
The burqa excludes people from wider society and makes it so the woman need to rely on the man for pretty much everything. That is not a good thing to allow if you are in favor of women's rights. It's backwards and should not be seen as a good thing.If that choice is a similar result of pressure due to cultural and normative influences, where it is not uncommon to be cemented in policies like workplace standards, no.
Black women not straightening their hair is not the same. It will not exclude them from wider society if they chose not too and will not get them in trouble with their families or local communities.
I don't see how you can see the two as the same thing.
You asked if you can do both at the same time. And yes, you can.The (possible) existence of such state-sponsored programs does not nullify the oppressive nature of banning a person's right to choose an article of clothing. So long as a person's choice does not negatively impact another person's freedoms then the state banning something such as this is done so in an oppressive manner. You can't empower someone while simultaneously oppressing them. It's like saying you're empowering <minority> by erecting ghettos for them to live in.
Normalizing these things can impact other peoples freedom, since then it can become a thing that a local community or family can start to expect and even demand of people.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
People should be able to dress however they want.
I feel like the French ban is a complete act of irony.
I feel like the French ban is a complete act of irony.
Randomizer123454444
Member
Wearing burqa is as much of a choice as is arranged marriage. Sure, a woman can "choose" not to but results will often be severe.
Seriously guys. Just because people make choices that you don't agree with or understand doesn't mean they weren't made of their own free will.Wearing burqa is as much of a choice as is arranged marriage. Sure, a woman can "choose" not to but results will often be severe.
I don't like the things myself. But what I like or don't is completely irrelevant
NoblesseOblige
Banned
You asked if you can do both at the same time. And yes, you can.
No, you cannot. Oppression and empowerment are opposites. One acts to decrease autonomy, the other increase.
There's a lot of good arguments against the ban but people don't seriously think most of the wearers are doing it to expresstheir religious freedom right?
Are people not aware that the situations in some of these getthos aren't much different than what msulim women experience back home? Especially since many are not taught the local language?
Are people not aware that the situations in some of these getthos aren't much different than what msulim women experience back home? Especially since many are not taught the local language?
Diprosalic
Banned
..I think I rest my case.
Not a very good case.
"The West" doesn't exist.
American and European cultures/mindsets/whatever are radically different.
Especially in relation to human rights issues (e.g. right to health , right to education , right to equality , etc) and religion (i don't mean just christianity, but also "rituals" able to sublimate the collective consciousness).
American and European cultures/mindsets/whatever are radically different.
Especially in relation to human rights issues (e.g. right to health , right to education , right to equality , etc) and religion (i don't mean just christianity, but also "rituals" able to sublimate the collective consciousness).
T
thepotatoman
Unconfirmed Member
The hijab isn't even mandated either. Women are just supposed to dress "modestly". Never read the Bible or Torah but I wouldn't be surprised if they included a part about something similar.
The bible seems to focus on being anti-jewlery and looking flashy than looking modest in the traditional sense. Basically it's teaching against vanity, and I don't think even something like a bikini is necessarily vane, depending on the context.
Inside of worship, apparently it does teach women to cover their head when praying, with what seems to be really sexist reasoning streched out into an argument that makes no sense in a modern context, so maybe there is a comparison to be made there.
A number of the women wearing the niqab or burqa in the West are white converts. Women born and raised in Christian or Atheist households with literally zero pressure to cover their face. Are their choices invalid? And if we can say their decision to wear such things are legitimate why should we immediately assume Arab/African/Indian women were forced into it. Isis forces women to wear these clothes so of course they were happy to be free again. But in a free society we shouldn't decide what women can or cannot wear unless we have actual evidence that decision was coerced. Our own personal feelings about such clothes shouldn't matter in terms of legislation.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I say: Legally free. People are free to make their own choices to wear what they like.
But spread the idea in public discourse that they might be de-personifying, far and wide.
But spread the idea in public discourse that they might be de-personifying, far and wide.
ClosingADoor
Member
You can ban certain things to prevent worse oppression. Like I said, it's not perfect, but I don't disagree with doing it. And at the same time you can certainly help with empowerment.No, you cannot. Oppression and empowerment are opposites. One acts to decrease autonomy, the other increase.
What if you're at a costume party or halloween where you want to cover your face with a mask?
You would probably have no issue removing this mask in public when a police officer asks you.
Isn't banning clothing a sign of oppression? How about we stop telling women what they can and can't wear, and focus on supporting them in their decisions and not those who try imposing otherwise.
Or countries with laws on mandatory IDs and being able to show that ID at any point should just make sure everyone can follow those laws. That is why these laws are also for instance used to target football hooligans.
A Fish Aficionado
I am going to make it through this year if it kills me
"The West" doesn't exist.
American and European cultures/mindsets/whatever are radically different.
Especially in relation to human rights issues (e.g. right to health , right to education , right to equality , etc) and religion (i don't mean just christianity, but also "rituals" able to sublimate the collective consciousness).
In terms of the law, yes. The French act would be ruled unconstitutional by state and federal courts. The sentiment? Not so much.
Thank God they ditched that stuff when ISIS got kicked out; burkas and niqabs are an ultra-orthodox Arab cultural phenomena that is being exported throughout the Muslim world recently.
An overwhelming majority of Muslim women forgo donning them. Hijabs are pretty popular though, so those are kosher, whereas the chador is stuff I've seen elderly women wear.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be forced to cover yourself in something like the niqab/burka. Also, I have no idea what to say to women who wear it willingly, because I have no right to tell them to disrobe, but in their pursuit of piousness it just seems so needlessly extreme.
An overwhelming majority of Muslim women forgo donning them. Hijabs are pretty popular though, so those are kosher, whereas the chador is stuff I've seen elderly women wear.
I can't imagine what it must be like to be forced to cover yourself in something like the niqab/burka. Also, I have no idea what to say to women who wear it willingly, because I have no right to tell them to disrobe, but in their pursuit of piousness it just seems so needlessly extreme.
A number of the women wearing the niqab or burqa in the West are white converts. Women born and raised in Christian or Atheist households with literally zero pressure to cover their face. Are their choices invalid? And if we can say their decision to wear such things are legitimate why should we immediately assume Arab/African/Indian women were forced into it. Isis forces women to wear these clothes so of course they were happy to be free again. But in a free society we shouldn't decide what women can or cannot wear unless we have actual evidence that decision was coerced. Our own personal feelings about such clothes shouldn't matter in terms of legislation.
We decide they cannot walk around naked on the streets. We decide they cannot walk around with their right arm extended brandished in swastikas. This human right to wear whatever you want does not exist. Clothes are necessarily an extension of morals, and morals are a domain of the social contract. The question is more how far do you think we should go in allowing/banning attires. I'm not opposed to allowing everything, but be cognizant of what this entails.
Personally I see a niqab as similar to a black guy wanting to be a slave and walking around with a noose around his neck outside. I do not think in our current society of clothing restrictions that we should allow this. Not out of a lack of respect for this individual's free choice, please do at home whatever you please, but out of a lack of respect for the message this person wants to impart on others in society.
This policy is excluding people from wider society. If that is your argument, your solution is no better.The burqa excludes people from wider society and makes it so the woman need to rely on the man for pretty much everything. That is not a good thing to allow if you are in favor of women's rights. It's backwards and should not be seen as a good thing.
Black women not straightening their hair is not the same. It will not exclude them from wider society if they chose not too and will not get them in trouble with their families or local communities.
I don't see how you can see the two as the same thing.
As to the bold, right now, in many places, natural black hairstyle and other aspects of black culture such as names and clothing can be a very real exclusionary factors for black Americans in many parts of the white dominated social structure that is America. Your rationalization continues to be a poor one.
Not a very good case.
..As you layed out so eloquently in your response.
ClosingADoor
Member
And your comparison continues to be an even poorer one. You compare a natural thing (hair) to a religious thing (niqab and burqa). Those things are unrelated and can be treated differently.This policy is excluding people from wider society. If that is your argument, your solution is no better.
As to the bold, right now, in many places, natural black hairstyle and other aspects of black culture such as names and clothing can be a very real exclusionary factors for black Americans in many parts of the white dominated social structure that is America. Your rationalization continues to be a poor one.
BocoDragon
or, How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Realize This Assgrab is Delicious
I'll just say that I do think the title is a bit of a fail. I don't know what any uniform response of "the west" is.
Is it that Burqa is a symbol of evil Mooslim barbarism, or patriarchal oppression, and it must be forced out?
Or is it that they are the woman's choice, the hallmark of a unique culture who should be honoured, and any attempt to make light of the issue is bigoted racism?
I've heard both views voiced almost equally in the west. Hell, I've heard both views voiced in feminism.
Is it that Burqa is a symbol of evil Mooslim barbarism, or patriarchal oppression, and it must be forced out?
Or is it that they are the woman's choice, the hallmark of a unique culture who should be honoured, and any attempt to make light of the issue is bigoted racism?
I've heard both views voiced almost equally in the west. Hell, I've heard both views voiced in feminism.
There's a lot of good arguments against the ban but people don't seriously think most of the wearers are doing it to expresstheir religious freedom right?
Again. Look up Zunera Ishaq.
In terms of the law, yes. The French act would be ruled unconstitutional by state and federal courts. The sentiment? Not so much.
I'm referring to the sentiment. You think that act impedes one's freedom of choice , i think the burqa infringes a fundamental human right.
And since they are rights , they are also inalienable: in europe you aren't allowed to "choose" to become a slave , in america you practically are.
And your comparison continues to be an even poorer one. You compare a natural thing (hair) to a religious thing (niqab and burqa). Those things are unrelated and can be treated differently.
You are making the case that oppression needs to be combated with oppression.
That because of the oppressive cycle created by the allowance of burqas in western society it is propping up a continual injustice and the cycle needs to be broken and forced to change through a measure of oppression of the action in question.
I am saying to you that in America, we currently have black people dealing with cultural pressure to adhere to the white dominate power structure through oppressive policies like hair style requirements, municipal dress codes and even name bias in hiring.
So I am posing to you, why it is that in order to right one wrong by banning burqas, we should not do likewise here in America when it comes to something like black woman hair straightening? In order to break the cycle and help black people no longer feel that pressure to conform to an oppressive system?
I'm no fan of the burqa, but I don't see the how the state [in a free country] can legitimately claim the right to legislate on what you can wear in public either. In a courtroom or a school, fine, but not in the public sphere.
Again, it's not so hard.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/01/france-burqa-ban-upheld-human-rights-court
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France
I'm no fan of the burqa, but I don't see the how the state [in a free country] can legitimately claim the right to legislate on what you can wear in public either. In a courtroom or a school, fine, but not in the public sphere.
You realise that's already the case pretty much everywhere? Burqas or not, in most places there are laws on things you can wear or not in public space.
We decide they cannot walk around naked on the streets. We decide they cannot walk around with their right arm extended brandished in swastikas. This human right to wear whatever you want does not exist. Clothes are necessarily an extension of morals, and morals are a domain of the social contract. The question is more how far do you think we should go in allowing/banning attires. I'm not opposed to allowing everything, but be cognizant of what this entails.
Personally I see a niqab as similar to a black guy wanting to be a slave and walking around with a noose around his neck outside. I do not think in our current society of clothing restrictions that we should allow this. Not out of a lack of respect for this individual's free choice, please do at home whatever you please, but out of a lack of respect for the message this person wants to impart on others in society.
You are right that there is no human right to wear what you want but I think such limitations should be sufficiently justified and I don't see what justifies a ban on a niqab or a burqa. I can understand if it were to banned in a handful of specific situations but an outright ban? Why? I also question how many muslims you know, especially conservative ones, because comparing muslim women in face-covering garb to slaves is absolutely crazy. These women are not cowering, scared, submissive slaves to men. Like I said, some of the most vocal and outspoken women in niqab and burqa are white converts. These women have a minority interpretation of their new religion but that doesn't make their choices invalid. I also don't think we would ban a black man from wearing a 'slave' outfit. Besides, we do allow men and women to live in voluntary sexual slavery to others and to occasionslly wear signifiers of their slavery outside. Some d/s relationships go incredibly far and force people to be always naked inside and to wear a collar outside, or to have a name or the word slave tattooed on their body. Now, It might seem silly to compare people with an extreme sexual fetish to people with an extreme interpretation of Islam but I think it's a far more fair comparison than the one you made.
When you choose to live in organized societies you need to follow the rules. Governing inherently means limiting your freedom in exchange for safety of yourself and your private property.
Those restrictions also need to be thoroughly justified.
That is the sticking point right now with this issue.
Most of the cases made are flimsy at best. Making appeals to righting oppression through different oppression without any basis in efficacy or larger context or consequences being taken into account. Or the more laughable the right to look a person in the face.
Frankly the best i heard is security reasons. Allowing a person to be completely covered in public can create issues of safety in an organized society. Issues almost self evident. If I were arguing the case against burqas in public spaces, that would be my hill.
ClosingADoor
Member
One is a hairstyle choice, the other an extreme religious mandate being largely forced by family and community with repercussions if they don't comply. They are unrelated things.You are making the case that oppression needs to be combated with oppression.
That because of the oppressive cycle created by the allowance of burqas in western society it is propping up a continual injustice and the cycle needs to be broken and forced to change through a measure of oppression of the action in question.
I am saying to you that in America, we currently have black people dealing with cultural pressure to adhere to the white dominate power structure through oppressive policies like hair style requirements, municipal dress codes and even name bias in hiring.
So I am posing to you, why it is that in order to right one wrong by banning burqas, we should not do likewise here in America when it comes to something like black woman hair straightening? In order to break the cycle and help black people no longer feel that pressure to conform to an oppressive system?
Again. Look up Zunera Ishaq.
I'm not saying no woman wears it of her own free will, that would be silly. But read up on some of the getthos in European cities. Many women there won't even be able to answer you well in the local language. That's how "free" they are.
I don't think a ban is the solutions, since you don't solve any problems that way, but to me the idea that this is a consious political descision for most is a bit strange. and i don't understand why that narrative is pushed. It whitewashes the issues in that exist in these communities.
One is a hairstyle choice, the other an extreme religious mandate being largely forced by family and community with repercussions if they don't comply. They are unrelated things.
So you didn't read a word I said?
Both can be argued to be the result of cultural pressures brought on by issues of oppression(assuming I take your assertions at face value and assume they are always that 100% of the time). So yes, they do have similarities, very real ones.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
When you choose to live in organized societies you need to follow the rules. Governing inherently means limiting your freedom in exchange for safety of yourself and your private property.
What does this have to do with seeing someone's face when you talk to them being a human right
ClosingADoor
Member
I read what you said, but I don't agree with the comparison. I don't think it can be compared like that. The burqa excludes someone from basic functions in Western society. People wearing it can not hold down a job like that, they can not identify themselves on the street, they are depended on their husband because of it, which is not a good thing, and face serious problems with their family if it has been forced on them.So you didn't read a word I said?
Both are the result of cultural pressures brought on by issues of oppression(assuming I take your assertions at face value and assume they are always that 100% of the time). So yes, they do have similarities, very real ones.
A hairstyle does not do those things.
You realise that's already the case pretty much everywhere? Burqas or not, in most places there are laws on things you can wear or not in public space.
Maybe in some countries, but not really in the UK. Wearing what you want to is essentially freedom of expression. As much as I detest what these forms of clothing represent, people should be free to wear them if they want (and people who don't like it should be free to detest it). I understand that the situation is different in mainland Europe where the wearing of swastikas is already banned (something that I also disagree with, but should have the right to detest).
I read what you said, but I don't agree with the comparison. I don't think it can be compared like that. The burqa excludes someone from basic functions in Western society. People wearing it can not hold down a job like that, they can not identify themselves on the street, they are depended on their husband because of it, which is not a good thing, and face serious problems with their family if it has been forced on them.
A hairstyle does not do those things.
Sure it can, I just showed you how they are similar. Playing a game of parsing out differences in smaller details doesn't change the larger similarities they both share.
Or the more laughable the right to look a person in the face.
Again: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S.A.S._v._France
The European Court of Human Rights literally decided a state has the right to ban face covering. But thank god Jonm1010 on the internet knows better.
ClosingADoor
Member
And I showed you how they are not similar. You can chose to ignore that of course, but I still think the two can not be compared like that.Sure it can, I just showed you how they are similar. Playing a game of parsing out differences in smaller details doesn't change the larger similarities they both share.
I think that they're ultimately a symbol of patriarchal oppression but I don't think it's my place to force them to cast it off.I'll just say that I do think the title is a bit of a fail. I don't know what any uniform response of "the west" is.
Is it that Burqa is a symbol of evil Mooslim barbarism, or patriarchal oppression, and it must be forced out?
Or is it that they are the woman's choice, the hallmark of a unique culture who should be honoured, and any attempt to make light of the issue is bigoted racism?
I've heard both views voiced almost equally in the west. Hell, I've heard both views voiced in feminism.
Are you serious? Glad you are not in charge of shaping a society and/or a ECHR judge.
A person's right to look a person in the face does not supersede that person's right to wear the clothing of their choice or freedom of movement.
That's laughable.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.