News Thread 2015: Page 93 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

News Thread 2015

Burnwinter

Biggus wrote:
They're fine when they confront far-right Fascism but not Islam presumably.

For fuck's sake, hombre. Just stick 'Femen criticism' into Google, have a read and then come back instead of slandering me with complaints about not being adequately Islamophobic, or whatever you're doing there.

arsedocmd

Biggus wrote:
They're fine when they confront far-right Fascism but not Islam presumably.

why did you presume this Biggus? the posters above just said that the guys were not preaching the right things in islam.

Biggus

Some did but some felt the need to criticise the women for a a bit of harmless street theatre.
Qs asked a question nobody replied so I offered a presumption, if it's incorrect I'm sure people will answer.

Biggus

Burnwinter wrote:
Biggus wrote:
They're fine when they confront far-right Fascism but not Islam presumably.

For fuck's sake, hombre. Just stick 'Femen criticism' into Google, have a read and then come back instead of slandering me with complaints about not being adequately Islamophobic, or whatever you're doing there.

I don't know why you persist in calling me "an Islamophobe", I bet it was because of that Carlton crack I made a while ago. 😃

I don't fear Islam- I mock it like I do all religions and the religious (you can probably guess that from my username), and I sympathise with Femen and their mission, yes there are feminists who disagree with the nudity but the reason is of course shock value for theatre, theres nothing that will anger all right thinking people more than seeing a fragile female body being brutalised by strong men - You might say I'm a lesbian trapped in a mans body.

Burnwinter

You're full of crap about it in my opinion, and what's more you didn't bother following my advice and reading anything about Femen.

Biggus

Okay then if thats your opinion.
I have read some stuff criticising Femen I wasn't convinced by it just like I'm not convinced by your Socialist warrior pose, I'd bet you've never been on strike in your life and the closest you'd have been to a Class Struggle would have been the effort to make an afternoon lecture at uni after a heavy night.

Burnwinter

I've spent about ten hours doing concrete work for a refugee rights campaign in the last week and I'm damn sure that's a lot more than you've done for any woman—like the ones locked up in Australia's offshore detention camps, supported by both major parties including the one that's got the backing of the unions.

www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-28/two-refugees-allegedly-raped-on-nauru/6809956

I also built the web site that backed the successful industry super fund detention divestment campaign you might've heard about, and got the ASU, HSU, and ANMF to stop buying shares in concentration camps. Moving on to the NTEU next.

You assume that because you don't give two fucks about anything and are happy you've got your world view sorted, no one does. Go and find a real hypocrite to attack, there are plenty around.

Biggus

Okay take it easy comrade-

You ask me for a contribution- Well you know we all doing what we can.

I don't mean to make this a lefty dick measuring competition, we all come from different backgrounds and life experience.
I'm not talking about you specifically my accusation was perhaps a bit unfair as that sort of socialism and progressivism is from another era, its just I'm sick of being accused of being a racist when I have hated bullies racists and thugs all my life.

Burnwinter

Ok.

Could barely go on strike if I wanted to by the way—I'm a contract worker in a completely deunionised industry. They broke unionism in the 80s, it only covers 18% of the Australian workforce as I'm sure you're aware.

No hard feelings then … moving on.

Biggus

Yeah you represent a more modern sophisticated kind of activism.
Still think theres a place for angry workers shaking their fists and angry women shaking their breasts though.

Qwiss

Burnwinter wrote:
Biggus wrote:
They're fine when they confront far-right Fascism but not Islam presumably.

For fuck's sake, hombre. Just stick 'Femen criticism' into Google, have a read and then come back instead of slandering me with complaints about not being adequately Islamophobic, or whatever you're doing there.

I read a little of that and all I found was that they were helped to get started by a man.

Rex

My problem with FEMEN is mainly that I don't think they are very effective. Every time they 'strike' all the focus is on topless women rather than what they are protesting against. I also think they are patronizing in their stance that all Muslim women are oppressed and need rescue from the horrible hijab. Not very feminist in telling other women what they should and should not do IMO.

Rex

Oh, and no one takes them seriously. 🙂

Gurgen

Rex wrote:
My problem with FEMEN is mainly that I don't think they are very effective. Every time they 'strike' all the focus is on topless women rather than what they are protesting against. I also think they are patronizing in their stance that all Muslim women are oppressed and need rescue from the horrible hijab. Not very feminist in telling other women what they should and should not do IMO.

So you believe that a doctrine which states that women have to cover their hair because men will otherwise not be able to control their sexual urges is not oppressive? Have you ever considered that widespread acceptance of such ideas may make it far more difficult for women who disagree with them to "choose" not to cover their hair?

banduan

Qwiss! wrote:
Whats the problem with Femen then?

A bit nutty. Fine if yer havin a laugh, maybe not so fine when you're driving anywhere above 90km/h.

That and of course I sometimes doubt there's any depth to their stance.

goon

Gurgen wrote:
Rex wrote:
My problem with FEMEN is mainly that I don't think they are very effective. Every time they 'strike' all the focus is on topless women rather than what they are protesting against. I also think they are patronizing in their stance that all Muslim women are oppressed and need rescue from the horrible hijab. Not very feminist in telling other women what they should and should not do IMO.

So you believe that a doctrine which states that women have to cover their hair because men will otherwise not be able to control their sexual urges is not oppressive? Have you ever considered that widespread acceptance of such ideas may make it far more difficult for women who disagree with them to "choose" not to cover their hair?

You can't support their right to choose without being neutral though. It's like the whole housewife thing, it's turned 180 degrees now to a point where many women feel under pressure to have a career and be more than 'just' a housewife.

Gurgen

otfgoon wrote:
Gurgen wrote:
So you believe that a doctrine which states that women have to cover their hair because men will otherwise not be able to control their sexual urges is not oppressive? Have you ever considered that widespread acceptance of such ideas may make it far more difficult for women who disagree with them to "choose" not to cover their hair?

You can't support their right to choose without being neutral though. It's like the whole housewife thing, it's turned 180 degrees now to a point where many women feel under pressure to have a career and be more than 'just' a housewife.

Why not? Why be neutral about something fundamental you disagree with?

Burnwinter

Gurgen wrote:
So you believe that a doctrine which states that women have to cover their hair because men will otherwise not be able to control their sexual urges is not oppressive? Have you ever considered that widespread acceptance of such ideas may make it far more difficult for women who disagree with them to "choose" not to cover their hair?

All societies exercise control over what people wear in a gendered way. For example, Western society (Femen aside) expects women to cover their breasts in public, but not men. Many cultural and religious traditions also demand body covering, special headgear etc. Hijabs and burkas are the ones that get your Sarkozy or Orban out of bed for a bit of dog-whistling, though.

Many westerners get off on the idea of burka bans. They believe by supporting them they're "rescuing" women from Islam. Not that different from the way that Bavarian school you linked apparently believes a few score of Syrian families are a sexual threat to white schoolgirls.

As for Femen, this is worth a read:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/11/femen-nudity-racist-colonial-feminism

Femen is not a group capable of leading the emancipation of women in Islamic countries.

goon

Gurgen wrote:
Why not? Why be neutral about something fundamental you disagree with?

Neutral about whether or not women should follow it, we can disagree with the principle or the idea all we like.

Going back to the housewife example I cited, you can disagree with the principle that a womans place is in the home, but you have to ultimately remain neutral on whether or not she should remain in the home or have a career.

Otherwise you're not really giving her the freedom to choose, you're just replacing one expectation with another.

Gurgen

otfgoon wrote:
Gurgen wrote:
Why not? Why be neutral about something fundamental you disagree with?

Neutral about whether or not women should follow it, we can disagree with the principle or the idea all we like.

Going back to the housewife example I cited, you can disagree with the principle that a womans place is in the home, but you have to ultimately remain neutral on whether or not she should remain in the home or have a career.

Otherwise you're not really giving her the freedom to choose, you're just replacing one expectation with another.

What does remaining neutral mean? If you disagree with a principle and voice that disagreement, isn't it obvious which option you prefer? Obviously anyone is free to make up their own mind after that. Or are you suggesting we should keep difficult opinions to ourselves?

« Previous Page Next Page »