+- Tendo City (https://www.tendocity.net)
+-- Forum: Tendo City: Metropolitan District (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Forum: Ramble City (https://www.tendocity.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=44)
+--- Thread: Preachy France Gets Hypocritical (/showthread.php?tid=5849)
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 13th July 2010
France votes to ban burqa; niqab.
Ban on Muslim Coverings
If I were a left-ist nutbag, I could say that this is blatantly racist, discriminatory, etc. etc.
But I'm not.
I see a declining, frail, decadent, and aging West trying to resist being outbred and replaced on its native soil. I see it as a defensive measure against cultural replacement.
NOT AT ALL UNLIKE AMERICANS AGAINST ILLEGALS WHO ARE DOING THE SAME THING IN THE STATES: REPLACING THE ESTABLISHED CULTURE AND SOCIETY WITH THEIR OWN.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Dark Jaguar - 13th July 2010
Yeah, and it's stupid. Let me make one thing clear. The burqa is a tool of female oppression. That's what it's for, by intent.
However a law against them is downright stupid. Rather, laws that (less effective though they may be) simply specifically outlaws forcing women to wear them or punishing those who enact violence specifically for women failing to wear them would be more just.
The burqa, after all, was worn IN A DEMONSTRATION AGAINST THEM. The point of this is how hypocritical it is to wear a symbol to outlaw it. It can serve a lot of purposes. The thing that amuses me is that these laws lately are being passed under the argument that "in public you shouldn't be allowed to hide your face". Well, in a store's property sure, but if it's winter and I wear a ski mask because it works better than a hat, I shouldn't be arrested just for walking down a sidewalk with one on. Told in a store to take it off? Sure, they've got that right, but outside? It's all just a silly distraction anyway.
All these laws really aren't going to help, and it's idiotic to think they will.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Weltall - 13th July 2010
I think the difference is the perception (correct or otherwise) that Islam is dedicated to invading and supplanting the West, whereas hispanic immigrants have the slightly less nefarious goal of living in a country that isn't in a state of perpetual poverty and discord.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Dark Jaguar - 13th July 2010
Weltall Wrote:I think the difference is the perception (correct or otherwise) that Islam is dedicated to invading and supplanting the West, whereas hispanic immigrants have the slightly less nefarious goal of living in a country that isn't in a state of perpetual poverty and discord.
Well put. I don't doubt there are Muslims who do have the goal of "replacing culture", but many don't. Do I agree with them? No, but the proper way to deal with it is open criticism and debate, not blanket ineffectual laws.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - A Black Falcon - 13th July 2010
The supposed concept of the burqua is that if a man sees a woman he will not be able to control himself and will assault her or something, so women must be hidden away when in public for their protection. People in countries where they are common (Saudi Arabia, for instance) really seem to believe this... but I think the deep-rooted sexism behind it should be clear.
Oh -- Islam didn't invent women wearing veils. The idea goes back a long way in the Middle East, actually. The story I have heard is that Muhammed said that the women in his family should wear veils, because they were part of the Prophet's family and above the others presumably, I guess (it had generally been noble women in the Byzantine Empire, etc. who sometimes wore veils), but then other women began wearing them too to be like the Prophet's family... or men began to put their women in veils too to be like the Prophet, who knows. Nothing in the Koran actually says that women have to wear anything like that. That's one similarity between conservative Islam and conservative Christianity, in both cases it's not the actual religious text that explains the worst of what they do, but "interpretations" and religious laws put on top of that text later on that do that. In neither case, obviously, do things HAVE to be that way...
Anyway, overall I am in favor of this ban. As long as these things are applied equally, that is not just focusing on one religion -- and France has been good with that -- I have no problem with things like this that try to stop some of the more onerous elements of backwards sexism that appear.
France already banned religious symbols in schools; headscarves were the main target, sure, but crosses, yarmulkes, etc. were banned as well as a result of it. I supported that (headscarves have similar symbolism to burquas, they just don't cover the face -- but that does not make such sexism okay!), and I support this too. Islam is backwards in its sexism, and if things can be done to reduce it, they should be.
In America laws like these would probably be impossible because our First Amendment rights would make it unconstitutional, I think, but France, like most European countries, doesn't have that. Normally that is a negative, but with all of the problems Europe has been having with conservative Muslims coming in and trying to force their women to stay in very inferior positions in their society, it's understandable why they'd do this. I mean, in America we just don't really understand what it's like in Europe with this stuff, the proportion of Muslim immigrants in France for instance is much, much higher than here, by a wide margin.
Now, of course, most Muslim women probably don't want to be freed from oppression, because people are somewhat easily brainwashed into believing things that oppose their rights if they are trained from birth that that is how things are, but that doesn't mean the French shouldn't try...
I'm not 100% comfortable with these bans, because I believe strongly in equality and the freedom of speech, but sometimes you need to do something that isn't entirely equal, like affirmative action, free health care and education for Native Americans (not that anything we could do could ever make up for what our ancestors did to them...), etc.
Quote:I see a declining, frail, decadent, and aging West trying to resist being outbred and replaced on its native soil. I see it as a defensive measure against cultural replacement.
NOT AT ALL UNLIKE AMERICANS AGAINST ILLEGALS WHO ARE DOING THE SAME THING IN THE STATES: REPLACING THE ESTABLISHED CULTURE AND SOCIETY WITH THEIR OWN.
I do think you're right in one thing here -- the anti-Islamic wave in Europe probably is comparable to the anti-Hispanic one in the US. The difference is, all indications are that Hispanic people do Americanize over time. Within three generations Hispanics are not very different from anyone else in this country -- it's just a "problem" because of how many first generation immigrants there are.
In comparison, that just isn't really happening with the Islamic immigration to Europe... their cultures are radically sexist and anti-female and anti-human rights, and don't change enough just because they're living in free countries now. Think of that Dutch movie maker murdered because he made a film exposing some things about Islam in the Netherlands... I think there is some justification for Europe's reaction. I do NOT support all of it, though -- you may not realize it, but you are absolutely right about one thing -- some of the anti-Islamic reaction is caused by that same kind of nativist thing that is pushing our anti-Hispanic reaction. It is definitely not all justified. The European countries are far too focused on the "purity" of their peoples; France is just about the only country in Europe that actually believes that people can BECOME one of them. If you accept French culture, you are considered French, no matter where you came from, similar to how if you accept American culture, you are considered American, no matter your place of origin (the two are not the same, but it's close enough that I won't focus on differences here). In most of the rest of Europe, in contrast, no matter how hard immigrants try, they will never be accepted as equal to everyone else; you're either born part of the group or you never will be part of it (This, of course, is also exactly how Japan and South Korea see the world). I obviously much prefer the American and French systems -- it's absolutely ridiculous how the Turks in Germany are still not Germans, even though they have been there for decades, simply because they aren't German so they never can be. Same goes for the Koreans in Japan. Their limited views of who can be part of their culture are, I would say, not good. There are limits even in the American or French models, though -- they do require that people are willing to join your culture. The question France is asking right now is, are Burquas compatible with French concepts of equality? They're saying no, and because of how sexist and oppressive they are, I think I probably would agree...
The question is, really, how much leeway should you give people who do not believe in the fundamental rights and freedoms your country is founded on? "It is our culture to force women to wear burquas, it is our culture to murder women who have sex before marriage, it is our culture to not allow a free press or freedom of expression, it is our culture to not allow religious conversion, etc, etc..."
Of course I am only talking about extremist Islam here, not moderate Islam, but hopefully that is obvious (moderate Muslims living in the West would not believe all of those things I just listed above, I would expect...). All Muslims in Europe are certainly not a problem... only some are. The problem is, there are quite a few of that "some".
European anti-Islamic sentiment definitely can go too far, though. An example of European reaction against Muslims that obviously goes way too far would be, for instance, that law that passed in Switzerland banning any new mosques from being constructed in the country, out of reaction against Islamic people. There's no justification for that kind of thing. And the way that Europe is isolating and pushing away Turkey, despite how much Turkey clearly wants to get closer to Europe, is counter-productive and may be driving Turkey away, which would be very much a bad thing for all of us. America keeps pressing Europe to get closer to Turkey, but because they are Muslim Europe doesn't want to... even though Turkey is one of the most moderate of the Muslim nations. Yes, they have their conservatives, but they are also somewhat Western. Opposing extremist Islam is a good thing, obviously, and I would include things like burqua bans in that, but holding Turkey away? All that does is encourage more conservative Turks to try to get more power and reverse all the good that has been done in that country over the years, maybe overturn its headscarf ban in all government buildings, etc. America supports Turkey for a reason -- it has been a good model for something closer to what we like from Islamic countries. Hopefully it will stay that way... but with how Europe is treating them, who knows.
Anyway though, the whole Europe and Islam thing is complex and very difficult. It's hard to know what should or could be done, or what would make things better or worse... the current path is just so mixed. Somewhat positive, somewhat destructive. I really don't know where things are going. Islam and the West kind of seem like they will always be at odds, though... though given that the Middle East and Europe have been somewhat antagonistic ever since the development of civilizations in both areas, that shouldn't be too surprising. We'll see whether anything will change in that regard in the future. Perhaps, perhaps not, who knows.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Dark Jaguar - 13th July 2010
ABF I see your point but don't think this was the answer. It's going to be totally ineffectual, and it tramples on certain rights. It's an oppressive symbol and a system needs to be made to reach out to the women who actually are forced to wear it, but outlawing symbols is dumb.
There is a marked difference between banning a religious symbol from a government building and banning it from public life completely. The former has merit, the latter does not. I know France doesn't have that precious First Amendment, but saying "eh in this case that's probably fine" is kinda dumb. What's the point of having a first amendment if you're going to make exceptions? I think more of Europe COULD benefit from adding something like our first amendment.
Find another way to handle this. Banishing clothing is worthless.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Weltall - 13th July 2010
America has an amendment protecting the practice of religion, yet the government has, on several occasions, targeted religious groups when their practices fall far outside the concept of generally-accepted behavior, such as the splinter Mormons in Texas and Arizona (or the original LDS church, for that matter) and the Branch Davidians while granting legal recognition to obvious moneymaking scams such as Scientology and ignoring dangerous groups such as the Westboro Baptists, because both of them are very skilled at playing the legal system.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 13th July 2010
The solution? Abolish religious and worship science and reason. And have crystal implanted in everyone's hands, so that when they turn thirty, they have to go to Carousel are be reborn.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Dark Jaguar - 13th July 2010
Weltall Wrote:America has an amendment protecting the practice of religion, yet the government has, on several occasions, targeted religious groups when their practices fall far outside the concept of generally-accepted behavior, such as the splinter Mormons in Texas and Arizona (or the original LDS church, for that matter) and the Branch Davidians while granting legal recognition to obvious moneymaking scams such as Scientology and ignoring dangerous groups such as the Westboro Baptists, because both of them are very skilled at playing the legal system.
The thing about that is it wasn't targeting religion, it was targeting people breaking the law. If someone's religion requires them to kill people, you need not worry about trampling on "religious rights" at all, because religion has nothing to do with arresting someone for murder. Their motives are irrelevant, and NOT arresting them for murder would be getting religion involved in the government, not the other way around.
This is a bit different. Again I do see the burqa as a symbol of oppression, but in the end outlawing a hat doesn't help anyone. You don't bring down mormons doing illegal things by outlawing mormons, you do so by arresting people who break the law and ignore their motives.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - A Black Falcon - 13th July 2010
DJ, how is banning it not going to help anyone? Very few people will be wearing them. I'd call that helping people, whether they wanted it or not. What, exactly, is ineffectual about it?
As for trampling on rights, France has a tradition dating back to the French Revolution of having strictly secular governments, beyond anything even our Founders would have imagined. I don't think things like banning religious symbols (headscarves, prominent crosses, yarmukles, etc.) in school or banning burquas are all that out of line with that.
What's different about America is that though the Constitution is a very un-religious document, America in general is more religious than France today... but still, Weltall is right -- there are things that go too far for us. If we had the same proportions of women in burquas here that France did, I would be surprised if there weren't some kind of measures taken against them, as the government indeed does try to do against polygamist Mormons, etc.
Of course, considering how ridiculously weak and ineffectual their actions against those Mormons (for instance) are perhaps we wouldn't do as good a job of legally banning them, but who knows. Perhaps we would, because Mormons are sort of Christian, while Muslims are already unpopular here... though of course, really, we need to crack down hard on those Mormon splinter groups. It's absolutely insane that we allow them to have their own towns, exploit the American government for money (only one woman is legally married to each man, all of the others collect "single mother" benefits...), and more...
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 13th July 2010
Interesting points on French government history and policy, ASM. I support the burqa ban.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - alien space marine - 14th July 2010
Darunia Wrote:Interesting points on French government history and policy, ASM. I support the burqa ban.
It was ABF that said it but I will gladly take the credit...
--------------------------------------------------------
The veil ban controversy is just ploy by french politicians to distract media attention from the fact they raised the retirement age and made some unpopular cuts to their social security.
France is among the 12 nations in Europe that has made "denying the historicity or even questioning the scale of the holocaust a felony", That will land you 10-20 years behind bars.
banning clothing is not really far off the wall for them
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 14th July 2010
ABF, ASM... your acronyms are too similar. Roll a new account right now so that it won't happen again.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - alien space marine - 14th July 2010
Am the one with the monkey , ABF has a lego man
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 14th July 2010
The fact that you have different avatars doesn't matter when I'm referring to you in the middle of a reply. I don't have time to scroll up and see whao said what---who do you take me for, the Pope?
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Fittisize - 14th July 2010
Headscarves were banned in Iran before the Iranian Revolution, and that sparked widespread revolt - taking away something that many people feel is essential to their religion isn't doing anybody any favours. People should be able to wear whatever they want. The burqua and any other form of veiling isn't a sign that the wearer is "brainwashed" - the 2008 book "The Veil" contains many accounts of various women of different cultures who wear some form of veil, and the act of wearing one is motivated by a wide variety of factors, be it religous, ideological, or personal. Often, veiling of any kind is described as a liberating experience. In a sexist society where women are constantly evaluated based on their appearance, covering yourself offers a sense of freedom against prying, judgemental eyes. Sometimes it's worn for practical personal gain - often, sex workers in Muslim countries wear the burqua to prevent themselves from being detected. That being said, people who cover themselves are inevitably going to be judged for stereotypical, sometimes ignorant and racist reasons, but at least the sexualized element is gone.
But there is a definite connection between the burqua and and the wearer being somebody's personal property. Sometimes, but not always (veiling is cumpolsory only in Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Afghanistan, and the burqua only mandatory in Afghanistan), it's absolutely a sign of patriarchal oppression. But banning it outright doesn't do much to solve the problem. It's not as if women who were forbidden to appear in public without the burqa will all of a sudden be fully liberated an allowed to walk down the street in regular clothes. In these cases, women will only be further oppressed by their extremist families and culture. Likely, they won't even be allowed to leave the house. Wearing the burqa or not wearing the burqua shouldn't matter - being forced one way or the other is where the problem lies. Banning the burqua, which is such an overt religous symbol and in particular intrinsically linked to Muslim women is incredibly Islamophobic and sexist. It's a pro-Western attack on Islam where women are being used for political purposes. The focus should be on promoting anti-sexism and a society tolerant of different cultures which isn't happening in France.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Sacred Jellybean - 14th July 2010
Thank you, Fitts. You pretty much explained perfectly how I feel on the situation.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - alien space marine - 14th July 2010
Fittisize Wrote:But there is a definite connection between the burqua and and the wearer being somebody's personal property. Sometimes, but not always (veiling is cumpolsory only in Iran, Saudia Arabia, and Afghanistan, and the burqua only mandatory in Afghanistan), it's absolutely a sign of patriarchal oppression. But banning it outright doesn't do much to solve the problem. It's not as if women who were forbidden to appear in public without the burqa will all of a sudden be fully liberated an allowed to walk down the street in regular clothes. In these cases, women will only be further oppressed by their extremist families and culture. Likely, they won't even be allowed to leave the house. Wearing the burqa or not wearing the burqua shouldn't matter - being forced one way or the other is where the problem lies. Banning the burqua, which is such an overt religous symbol and in particular intrinsically linked to Muslim women is incredibly Islamophobic and sexist. It's a pro-Western attack on Islam where women are being used for political purposes. The focus should be on promoting anti-sexism and a society tolerant of different cultures which isn't happening in France.
I was once for "banning it", Its when i saw a documentary about gay Muslims that I've had a change of heart ,The doc recorded openly lesbian Muslim women or even tolerant liberal minded Muslim women marching on gay pride day, Those women wore veils and even burqas to conceal their identity out of concern for their own safety, That was the one instance were covering the face actually served to protect them rather then oppress them.
The veil or burqa , Shouldn't be banned, All they needed was laws to punish men who force women into waring them.
They should be allowed to ware it outdoors, I'd only require them to uncover their face when entering a public building or when asked for ID.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - A Black Falcon - 14th July 2010
Yes, Fittisize, and I'm sure Chinese women who had had their feet crushed in childhood to fit into those miniscule shoes had all kinds of excuses for why it was okay, that's the best way for them to be, etc... it's all lies that have been programmed into them in order to keep them obedient. Don't fall for it!
Quote:Banning the burqua, which is such an overt religous symbol and in particular intrinsically linked to Muslim women is incredibly Islamophobic and sexist. It's a pro-Western attack on Islam where women are being used for political purposes. The focus should be on promoting anti-sexism and a society tolerant of different cultures which isn't happening in France.
Absolutely, utterly ridiculous, I completely disagree in every possible way with this quote. Religious symbol? As I explained above, Islam didn't invent veiled women... Christianity and Judaism both used to do similar things, to some degree or another. Islam is just the one that still does it. What do you think, that we should be absolutely culturally relative? If the Aztecs were still around, would you be defending their right to conduct mass human sacrifices or something? Some things are wrong, and sexism is one of those things!
I've heard it said before that it's appropriate that the Islamic calendar says it's the Middle Ages (it's like the 1400s or something by their calendar), because so much of their society is still Medieval... and really, it's true. I don't think we should just accept that and say "That's fine". We should, instead, do what we can to give their women opportunities, give them educations, let (or make) them actually see where they are going...
Overall, I think that things right now are moving in positive directions. In much of the Middle East the status of women is slowly improving. Western pressure, I think, helps that along.
I mean, if they were banning them just because they're an Islamic symbol and for no other reason, I'd agree with you that it's wrong. But that is NOT what is happening here. Again, look at their school religious items ban -- yes, headscarves and burquas probably set it off (because of their sexist meanings primarily), but once implemented they made it consistent, and banned crosses, yarmulkes, etc. as well.
Quote:It's not as if women who were forbidden to appear in public without the burqa will all of a sudden be fully liberated an allowed to walk down the street in regular clothes.
Yeah, so why should we try to do anything? Just give up, improving conditions is hopeless... except it isn't, and that doesn't actually reflect today's world. Europe seems conflicted about whether to resist or give in to this stuff, but some, at least, resist it...
I mean, my point is, Islam is more sexist than Christianity. That is a fact. Their women are oppressed. That they don't know it doesn't matter, you'd expect that because people only know what they have learned. That doesn't make it right... Islam is also much more conservative in other extremely important ways too, like how it it resists accepting the concept of freedom of speech (see things like the death threats to the Danish cartoonist, or the murder of the Dutch filmmaker).
I know that every culture is different, and definitely don't think that we are perfect or that they should be just like us; that isn't my goal at all. As I've said, there actually has been progress in women's and human rights in parts of the Islamic world in recent years. Many Arab countries have elected parliaments now. Many have women elected to those parliaments. Business options, educational options, and more are more than they have ever been for a great number of people. There are now schools for girls in places like Afghanistan where there have never been before, more job options for women in Algeria and many other places, elected parliaments in Kuwait and more, etc. These are all great developments. There are two stories, one of the progress being made and the other of the conservative reaction against it... we must support the side of progress in rights. Islam doesn't have to forever be the extremely reactionary religion that so much of it is today...
I mean, after all, back in the Middle Ages, Christianity was incredibly awful, rightswise. It has come a long way since then. Islam hasn't come as far, but I certainly don't think that that means it can't.
Oh, and yes, this is a slow process. I expect problems between Islam and the West to continue for a long time to come. For as long as a significant force in Islam believes that women should continue to be enslaved and dominated, and that human rights shouldn't really exist, we must oppose elements of Islamic social policy. Remember though -- this isn't stuff from the Koran or something, just like how opposing fundamentalist Mormons isn't saying anything about the contents of the Bible. It's about the rules that have grown up over time... changing such things is certainly difficult, but also certainly not impossible. There is a more liberal wing of Islam, after all.
Oh, the case of Iran... it is an interesting one. Iran today, I believe, is a case of a reactionary government holding back a much more moderate populace. The Iranian people supported conservative revolution in 1979, certainly, but that is not today's Iran. Urban Iranians chafe under the religious laws... it has been obvious for years that the Iranian government rigs elections in their favor on a wide scale and uses their domination of the military and court systems to keep the people under control. As we saw last year, though, that doesn't always work, and there are sometimes protests... unfortunately last year that didn't lead to much change, but it shows the real beliefs of the people, and shows hope for the future. Iran is not naturally America's enemy -- its people are not Arab and are not as conservative as the Arabs naturally. Before the Revolution, Iran was America's ally. That could happen again, sometime, if the mullahs ever lose power...
Now of course this could never be done by invasion, that would unite the Iranian people against us, but if ever there is a peaceful revolution like the ones we have seen in many countries in the past few decades, perhaps there could be real change... Iran today just isn't as conservative as its government is.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Fittisize - 14th July 2010
Quote:Yes, Fittisize, and I'm sure Chinese women who had had their feet crushed in childhood to fit into those miniscule shoes had all kinds of excuses for why it was okay, that's the best way for them to be, etc... it's all lies that have been programmed into them in order to keep them obedient. Don't fall for it!
I've never talked to any Chinese women on the topic before, but I do know it's wrong to conflate the two issues, just as is the implication from that quote that veiled Muslim women are "programmed" and harbour zero free will of their own.
Quote:What do you think, that we should be absolutely culturally relative? If the Aztecs were still around, would you be defending their right to conduct mass human sacrifices or something? Some things are wrong, and sexism is one of those things!
Again with the hyperbole! Obviously that's something I wouldn't be defending, but chances are, if the Aztecs were still around, they wouldn't still be conducting mass human sacrifices. I guess we'll never know though, because the entire civilization was wiped off the face of the Earth. Oh well! Clearly the Conquistadors were more socially progressive.
Quote:I don't think we should just accept that and say "That's fine". We should, instead, do what we can to give their women opportunities, give them educations, let (or make) them actually see where they are going...
Overall, I think that things right now are moving in positive directions. In much of the Middle East the status of women is slowly improving. Western pressure, I think, helps that along.
Never did I say that we should sit back and say "That's fine," I just don't advocate Western superiority over other cultures. I especially don't subscribe to the imperialistic notion of "making" anybody do anything. To "make" Muslim women see where "they" are going is more like making them see where YOU want them to go. There's a powerful, growing branch of Muslim feminisim that's separate from the Western ideology. Believe it or not, it's quite possible that universally advocating Western values in places that are clearly non-Western does a lot of harm. It's also possible that women in the Middle East have brains and the capacity to fight within their own system on their own terms.
Quote:Yeah, so why should we try to do anything? Just give up, improving conditions is hopeless... except it isn't, and that doesn't actually reflect today's world. Europe seems conflicted about whether to resist or give in to this stuff, but some, at least, resist it...
Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm advocating for action against sexist societies, I just don't think that the actions taken in France are the right way to go about it.
Quote:Islam is also much more conservative in other extremely important ways too, like how it it resists accepting the concept of freedom of speech (see things like the death threats to the Danish cartoonist, or the murder of the Dutch filmmaker).
You know that's not Islam, just like extremists murdering abortion doctors in America isn't Christianity.
Quote:There is a more liberal wing of Islam, after all.
Yes indeed. Some of its participants are even veiled.
I don't really know what else to say. I wish you would have read my above post a bit more closely before acusing me of being a sympathizer of sexist, extremist cultures who thinks oppression of women is okay. I made it clear that I believe in the exact opposite. The situation is far more complicated than simply believing that everything about Islam is ass-backward and oppressive and that The West has all the answers to everybody's problems.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - A Black Falcon - 14th July 2010
Fittisize Wrote:I've never talked to any Chinese women on the topic before, but I do know it's wrong to conflate the two issues, just as is the implication from that quote that veiled Muslim women are "programmed" and harbour zero free will of their own.
Foot-binding was extremely common in China for many centuries until finally in the early 20th century the practice was cracked down on and stopped. Women's feet were made "beautiful" and miniscule, at the cost of leaving them barely able to walk thanks to their destroyed, broken feet... but how many would have complained about it, or said that anything was wrong with the practice? Very few, because it's not human nature to question things like that about your own society, even when you are the one suffering the most from it. That's my point, and it's one that you and others like you continually fail to understand.
Anyway, despite the indoctrination from birth (would you prefer "learning"? Humans learn how their cultures are from birth from observing around them. This happens in all human cultures. People then accept what they see as normal. Once they reach this point, few will question their society. This is just the way people are.), certainly some Islamic women do challenge the way their societies are. The ones that try to break free from the mold often get murdered by their male family members, or perhaps by the state. When the indoctrination doesn't work, physical violence keeps people in line.
Recent example -- Two Afghan girls are married off at the age of 12 or 13. They are treated badly, raped by their husbands, and more, and run away. They get home, but once there their fathers take them out into the hills and murder them for the "shame" they brought on the family.
There is another, happier recent example where in a very similar situation the girls were allowed to stay home and freed from the marriage, but the first case shows why few would try...
Example - Girls' schools in Afghanistan are a top target of the Taliban -- many have been destroyed, there have been attacks on schoolgirls (throwing acid at their faces, for example, in some cases blinding them). An educated population will not simply follow mindlessly -- and this is why womens' education is one of the most centrally important factors in the fight for the rights of Islamic women -- as long as their men keep them ignorant, they will never realize that they could potentially have any other options. Education also reduces birthrates, which are far too high in places like Afghanistan, so there are multiple benefits. The Taliban and others like them, of course, want women stupid and ignorant and men only knowledgeable of the Koran as they teach it and absolutely nothing else, so education is something they try hard to stop... which is of course part of why it's so important why we support it.
I could continue, with other issues such as how it's a death penalty offense to be gay in most of the Middle East (Iran has regularly hanged gay men, along with women who have sex before marriage; they hang teenagers for these "offenses" too, and do not limit themselves to just adults), but I think that's enough for now. We should not just accept these things.
Quote:Again with the hyperbole! Obviously that's something I wouldn't be defending, but chances are, if the Aztecs were still around, they wouldn't still be conducting mass human sacrifices. I guess we'll never know though, because the entire civilization was wiped off the face of the Earth. Oh well! Clearly the Conquistadors were more socially progressive.
I'm sure you're joking on that last point, but of course, the Spanish had disease on their side. It's hard to win a war when most of your people are dropping dead...
Well, disease and technology, but those were the two keys.
Anyway, yes, of course I was talking about a hypothetical scenario where they hadn't changed their religion. Unlikely, yes, but it was an example, and a decent one I think.
Quote:Never did I say that we should sit back and say "That's fine," I just don't advocate Western superiority over other cultures. I especially don't subscribe to the imperialistic notion of "making" anybody do anything. To "make" Muslim women see where "they" are going is more like making them see where YOU want them to go. There's a powerful, growing branch of Muslim feminisim that's separate from the Western ideology. Believe it or not, it's quite possible that universally advocating Western values in places that are clearly non-Western does a lot of harm. It's also possible that women in the Middle East have brains and the capacity to fight within their own system on their own terms.
I think that what I say above about how people come to believe in the culture they grew up with, even if it is extremely biased against them, covers all the "points" in this post. I guess you still don't understand that fact. Also though, you misunderstand me. We in the West certainly don't have all the answers and I didn't say we did. The goal is not to "make" them do anything, but to improve status and grow equality. You are right that there is a conservative Islamic backlash against it, and against ideas like civic culture, humanism, liberalism, feminism that really advocates for greater equality (both in the West and anywhere else, sometimes the term "feminist" is misused by people whose goals are not equality, or in favor of inequality... I can think of examples of such things pretty much anywhere. That is not real feminism.), and more. This is quite understandable, but a lot of it is based on fear and a lack of understanding, I think... I mean, I would never advocate for their cultures to become just like ours or something! They aren't us. But could they have a society that is distinctly their own, but isn't horribly biased and unfree? Yes, I am sure they could. The great variance between Muslim countries, the ones that are much more like this, shows that it is possible... it will just take time, with how unbelievably sexist and dominating their culture currently is.
My mom (a strong liberal and feminist, like everyone in our family) has said many times that with how the Islamic world oppresses the female half of its population so much, it's no surprise that Islam stagnated... and she's certainly not the only one. In business, education, and more, the fact that women in the Middle East are so oppressed is a big problem -- half of their talent pool is going almost entirely unused. Bill Gates mentioned that problem, at some point. He was asked when he thought the Middle East would get closer to the West in business or education... and he responded, when the Middle East stops ignoring half of their populations, or something along those lines. And he is absolutely right.
I guess you would respond that things like what France is doing don't help that cause... and I'm not sure whether they do or don't. Really, the issue of Muslims in France and that of reform in the Islamic world, though thoroughly mixed in this discussion, are separate ones. In Europe or America there are different expectations for people, and we should expect people to follow our rules and understand our cultures if they are going to stay here, yes? That's different from theoretical or ongoing reforms in the Middle East or the Islamic world in general. Does France doing this hurt that cause, by angering the Islamic world? That would be your main point, I think. Hmm... I don't know. I just think that either way on that, we must stand up for our rights and our Constitutions... because rights that you don't defend you lose.
Oh yeah, and on a related note, for some reason what you said there reminded me of Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations -- that the world's cultures should stay apart and separate. We should stay out, civilizations cannot get along, all we can do is stand back and let them do their thing...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Clash_of_Civilizations
I have always disliked that theory greatly. While cultures are different, and that can be a barrier and can sometimes make complete understanding very difficult, it doesn't mean that we cannot get along, or that we cannot work together. Difficult at times, yes. Impossible, no. That is not the way America operates, and it's not the way we SHOULD operate. Of course we go too far sometimes, but trying to improve things in the world is good, and while we have done bad things we have also done good... and I think we can do more good than bad in the future. Europe seems to have sort of given up on improving the world, but America hasn't, and that's one way Europe and America are different I think...
Quote:Again, that's not what I'm saying. I'm advocating for action against sexist societies, I just don't think that the actions taken in France are the right way to go about it.
Your idea of "action" sure does seem to involve a lot of doing nothing, and allowing violently sexist societies to enforce their own laws even in Western countries. That is absurd and horrible, and that is the point here -- when a person moves to France, or America, they should expect to have to learn to believe in and follow the laws and governmental philosophies of that country. The problem Europe is having is that too many people are coming into Europe, but expect to keep their own, anti-free cultures even in Europe. Keep their own culture? Certainly, fine with me, diversity is good. Keep their own violent, sexist ways? NO! You keep trying to equate the two, as if opposing sexism is opposing cultures, but that is simply not the case. The two are different!
So, to be clear -- what kinds of actual actions are you supporting?
I believe that we should not condone their anti-free violence, their murders of people who do not share their religious views (see Theo Van Gogh, once again), their murders (IN THE WEST TOO, not just in their home countries!) of women and girls who try to become "Too Western" and want insane things like control over their own lives and bodies, boyfriends, Western clothing, etc, and so much more. Banning burquas does not do away with all of this, certainly. In this we agree. But is it a step? Yes, yes it is.
Quote:You know that's not Islam, just like extremists murdering abortion doctors in America isn't Christianity.
In terms of extremism, sure those are comparable, probably... except that the number of fundamentalis Christians who actually kill people over abortion is extremely small, while the number of Muslims who kill over these things is huge. Even many Christians understand that things like Virgin Mary statues made of dung or what have you are things that deserve freedom of speech. They disagree with it, but many will admit that it shouldn't be banned, and even the ones who don't almost never use violence, but just political and social pressure -- being a part of America's civic culture. If only Islam had advanced to that point. Hopefully, someday they will develop a version of civic culture too. As I said in my last post some signs of it are definitely developing today, and there is hope for its further development I would say. Hopefully it continues to spread.
Quote:Yes indeed. Some of its participants are even veiled.
I don't really know what else to say. I wish you would have read my above post a bit more closely before acusing me of being a sympathizer of sexist, extremist cultures who thinks oppression of women is okay. I made it clear that I believe in the exact opposite. The situation is far more complicated than simply believing that everything about Islam is ass-backward and oppressive and that The West has all the answers to everybody's problems.
Since when did I say that the West has all the answers? We don't, and I never said that. But on gender issues, we are more progressive than they are, and that's what my focus is on here.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Darunia - 15th July 2010
West > East.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Fittisize - 15th July 2010
I don't really wish to continue this but I'll just quickly respond to a few points.
Quote:Your idea of "action" sure does seem to involve a lot of doing nothing, and allowing violently sexist societies to enforce their own laws even in Western countries. That is absurd and horrible, and that is the point here -- when a person moves to France, or America, they should expect to have to learn to believe in and follow the laws and governmental philosophies of that country. The problem Europe is having is that too many people are coming into Europe, but expect to keep their own, anti-free cultures even in Europe. Keep their own culture? Certainly, fine with me, diversity is good. Keep their own violent, sexist ways? NO! You keep trying to equate the two, as if opposing sexism is opposing cultures, but that is simply not the case. The two are different!
So, to be clear -- what kinds of actual actions are you supporting?
I don't really know, but it doesn't involve banning the burqa. I've heard other people say that if France really cared about Muslim women's rights and liberation, they would have done more along the lines of creating things like support shelters and an environment where women from oppressed and abused homes can seek help and protection, allowing them to express themselves freely without blantantly infringing on their religion. Something along those lines, I guess, but really all I know is what I don't support.
Quote:In Europe or America there are different expectations for people, and we should expect people to follow our rules and understand our cultures if they are going to stay here, yes?
Fine, but the problem comes when people move into new cultures and act within the rules, but then new ones are added or changed in direct response to their presence in an attempt to control them.
Quote:Oh yeah, and on a related note, for some reason what you said there reminded me of Huntington's theory of the clash of civilizations -- that the world's cultures should stay apart and separate. We should stay out, civilizations cannot get along, all we can do is stand back and let them do their thing...
It's because you're reading Huntington wrong, just like you were the last time you alluded to him. Huntington's main point is that what matters most is culture, and that the main source of conflict and violence will come when one culture feels threatened or dominated by another. It's one of the most popular explanations of contemporary international relations because it appears to spookily predict 9/11 (it was first published in the early '90s and refined since then) and often comes off as an easy way to describe Al Qaeda and Islam/Western relatons and the like. It states that because of the new globalized world where the Western presence is so pervasive, a clash is inevitable. I also dislike the theory for a variety of reasons, primarily the author's belief in universalism and its fearmongering ways, but one thing it's not about is willful ignorance. The fact that it contains the word "Clash" in its very title should be enough to indicate that it's not about one culture pretending another doesn't exist.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - alien space marine - 15th July 2010
In my own opinion, The French system may be imperfect but its better then total indifference , This "burqa" ban has yet to be given the rubber stamp by the French supreme court, So it may be overturned for being unconstitutional.
Women shelters already exist in France, In all likeliness are already ready to assist the special needs of minority frenchwomen.
In my opinion, Women should be free to ware veils outdoors and in mosques along-with private homes, Should be required to uncover their faces when entering a public building or a private business that chooses not to permit it,Which is pretty close to how things are in Turkey.
Preachy France Gets Hypocritical - Dark Lord Neo - 17th July 2010
Quebec is considering requiring women to remove them when receiving public services.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/03/03/montreal-woman-with-niqab-feels-treated-unfairly.html
In addition to this Quebec's largest school board does not allow students to wear them.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/27/board-accommodation.html
There has also been controversy in both Quebec and Canada as a whole over whether women wearing burka's should be required to remove them in order to vote
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/09/06/qc-niqab0906.html
Elections Canada decided it was okay for women to vote while wearing a burka, but Quebec's Elections Commission decided that women had to show their face to a poll clerk in order to vote. That decision followed threats from groups to show up on mass to vote wearing masks.
Personally I think it's entirely reasonable for someone to be expected to show their face when they are receiving government services - or when voting.