News Thread 2015: Page 94 - The Arsenal discussion forum and community: One More in the Tolly

News Thread 2015

Gurgen

Burnwinter 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?

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.

That's fantastic logic. I guess we shouldn't criticise the criminalisation of homosexual relations in other societies because we criminalise sexual relations with children in the West right? Because we do things a certain way, everything other cultures do is fine right? I can't really follow that line of thinking.

goon

Gurgen wrote:
otfgoon wrote:
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?

Remember what context we're talking about here. Remaining neutral essentially means not replacing one idea with your own idea. A woman should feel equally comfortable in a headscarf and without a headscarf, at home or in a boardroom, doing ballet or on a football pitch.

Burnwinter

Gurgen wrote:
Burnwinter wrote:
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.

That's fantastic logic. I guess we shouldn't criticise the criminalisation of homosexual relations in other societies because we criminalise sexual relations with children in the West right? Because we do things a certain way, everything other cultures do is fine right? I can't really follow that line of thinking.

We're talking about a customary head covering or mode of dress, not criminalising homosexuality. Utterly bankrupt analogy and a bad faith, and false accusation of moral relativism.

jones

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?

What about our doctrine that women have to cover their breasts? Since we're so enlightened here in the West that shouldn't be necessary either and bras should be banished as a tool of male oppression, right?

I find it hard to understand how one can criticise the perceived narrow mindedness of other cultures and at the same time have an assessment of values that's as strict as theirs. I might not always agree with lagos but this is exactly the Western arrogance that he's banging on about.

Biggus

I have heard all the criticism of Femen that they were started by a man that they use nudity for shock value and (ludicrously) traffic delay to cause outrage all of these charges are the whole point of manifestation.
Burnsy is correct in saying that true freedom of dress not exist in the west either, but Femen do quite obviously demonstrate against that too.
Women make over 50% of the population of the world I don't think Femen could speak for them all even if they wanted to, and that whats missing from this discussion- What do some of the ladies here think of them?

Rex

More than anything - they have achieved fuck all. They don't have a say in HOW their actions are presented in the media for instance. From a very, very quick glance it seems to me that it almost always is bare breasts in pics which take center stage, and what they are actually protesting against becomes almost irrelevant.

Who in their right mind will seriously listen to the arguments of someone who shows up half naked and screams 'fuck off, dictator' or something similar? To this point, from what I can tell, no one. How is what they are doing bringing our societies closer to equal pay for equal work? How is what FEMEN is doing getting more women into boardrooms?

I don't understand how a feminist group can be against legalizing prostitution. Now, I don't LIKE prostitution, but it is totally unrealistic to think it will go away anytime soon. Regulating that 'market' would PROTECT the women who work in the sex industry, and women who CHOOSE to accept pay for sex should be able to legally do so. IMO.

Then there is the burka. Telling women that DON'T feel oppressed that they ARE oppressed can't be right. Bah, there's more but I can't be arsed.

Personally, I think they have the right idea; fighting for equality between men and women is right. However, I personally think they are naive (read barking mad), contradictory, backwards, and in many respects a hindrance in the struggle they fight for.

jones

For what it's worth, most Muslim women have little time for burqas or niqabs (as opposed to the hijab).

arsedocmd

john oliver last week.

Biggus

Rex wrote:
Who in their right mind will seriously listen to the arguments of someone who shows up half naked and screams 'fuck off, dictator' or something similar?

Oh well there goes my idea for the Arsenal AGM.

Burnwinter

😆 "noted alleged swine fellatio enthusiast"

Qwiss

Burnwinter 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?

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.

This is just whataboutery. No one is saying Europe is perfect, many of us don't believe womens bare chests are any more offensive than mens either. On the bright side we are moving forward on issues like that generally in Europe and we aren't stoning women to death for adultery so thats nice.

Burnwinter

There's no equivalence between Islam, hijabs, burkas or "stoning women to death for adultery", that's the whole point.

Banning or questioning the hijab in western countries is a great example of an idea that discriminates against Muslims in the community without producing any positive effect. It's not even there as policy to be seriously implemented. It's there to single out Muslim practice and polarise the community. It's there for the racist populists to foment a transitory controversy with its illogic and inconsistency.

It has nothing to do with changing the status quo in those countries where homosexuality is criminal, or atheism is criminal, or honour killings are practised. Nor does Femen.

If you're genuinely worried about things like that you might wonder why US ally Saudi Arabia has been made chair of the UN Human Rights Committee.

And if you want to understand how committed the western world is to changing the rights of women in Saudi Arabia, take a look at the establishment response to Margot Wallström in Sweden. Money talks, bullshit walks.

Qwiss

The point is that Islam is inherently misogynistic, burkas, etc are just the most clearly visible sign of that. Its something that certainly doesn't deserve to be defended.

jones

On this very page there is a post about the vast majority of Muslim women rejecting burqas (which is because it is not part of mainstream Islam).

Burnwinter

Islam does need defenders, or at least empirical appraisal, when a barrage of propaganda currently attempts to redefine world affairs with reference to a false dichotomy between widely varying communities of faith (or secularism), which perhaps wasn't even much thought of until it became so expedient to the forces involved.

This is a recalibration people in the western world need to undertake as much for their own benefit as anyone else's. There's a reason why the embattled leaders of our democracies are so eager to sign up to a questionably premised Syrian campaign—foreign war is a great domestic political tool.

Qwiss

Islam needs criticism, especially if it wants its place in the west. You can't expect to come into countries with free speech and religious expression and not have your religions discussed in the same way all other religions are.

Kel Varnsen

Both the normative (text and tradition) and the descriptive (muslim beliefs and attitudes) aspects of Islam are hugely problematic vis-a-vis western, liberal values. Numerous passages in the Islamic texts and polls confirm this.

Burnwinter

"Western, liberal values" have only really approximately applied in postwar western Europe and the Anglosphere, and even then we all know it's been a rough ride shot through with prejudice and injustice.

Before that Europeans did the opposite in the world they colonised and the nations they lifted up and destroyed, and that's a great chunk of how we got to where we are today, with post-colonial clientelism, secular revolutions imploding to dictatorships, weird corporate-government hybrids and bloody fanatics forming the contemporary fabric of Middle Eastern polities.

Short memories.

Burnwinter

Qwiss! wrote:
Islam needs criticism, especially if it wants its place in the west. You can't expect to come into countries with free speech and religious expression and not have your religions discussed in the same way all other religions are.

Wouldn't you say having your religion equated implicitly or explicitly with terrorism, and having politicians propose laws to ban basic practices involving things like dress and food preparation is a bit more than most Christians deal with?

arsedocmd

In a recent interview Hillary clinton noted that she couldn't own a credit card in like 1974, except through her husband(even though she was making more than him, of course she said that lol).

Btw, just to calm things down and probably redirect the debate a little, I don't think the criticism is to the "more than 1.5 billion people" but towards the religious principles itself(which I think is misplaced too). I feel they are two different things, should be dissociated and talked as such. It'll just help in not taking things personally.🙂

« Previous Page Next Page »