2017 and we're debating whether women should be covered in a tent

Is there a bigger waste of time than religion? Following Arsenal maybe, but other than that..

Coombs wrote:

Gurgen wrote:

As Aboutaleb (current mayor of Rotterdam) said, wear a burqa if you want but don't complain about not being able to get a job and don't expect the state to provide for you.

What a pandering little bastard.

What about going to an interview in traditional Papuan dress - only a tiny little straw skirt? Totally unfair and racist if someone doesn't hire you right?

Difference is nobody is making a public statements about people in straw skirts not getting jobs and pandering to an angry mob about a virtually non-existent issue.

He was answering a question in an interview with a feminist magazine. No mobs were seen.

Still a public statement, still standard dog whistle tactics. Goon's point holds.

I'm not sure whether rhetoric or tactics like this will ever lead to a satisfactory resolution. All this will result in is more polarisation on both sides which I doubt you want. I agree that outdated cultural norms need to be demolished but 'civilising' groups of people from the outside has never borne anything more than further resentment.

For what it's worth, I don't think the ECJ are wrong - it's the subsequent narrative that people have seized on to justify their own povs.

What sides are those? The handful of people that think burqas are a good idea and the rest of the world? The man who said this is a deeply devout Muslim. Word is he doesn't talk to his daughters because they are married non-Muslims

I wish we heard more from people who are fully committed to all women's rights in this debate.
I'll start with
[size=small][font=Georgia, Cambria,]“Any woman regardless of her dress, her faith----whether she is an atheist or believer----can join a mobilisation for women rights. The participation of all women, wearing or not wearing veils of any kind, in political and social activities should simply be welcomed”[/font][/size][size=small][font=Georgia, Cambria,], says Catherine Samary.[/font][/size]

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article18184

Gurgen wrote:

2017 and we're debating whether women should be covered in a tent

Is there a bigger waste of time than religion?

Shame it's much worse than just being a waste of time. It's a massive hindrance to the society.

Bold Tone wrote:

I wish we heard more from people who are fully committed to all women's rights in this debate.
I'll start with
[size=small][font=Georgia, Cambria,]“Any woman regardless of her dress, her faith----whether she is an atheist or believer----can join a mobilisation for women rights. The participation of all women, wearing or not wearing veils of any kind, in political and social activities should simply be welcomed”[/font][/size][size=small][font=Georgia, Cambria,], says Catherine Samary.[/font][/size]

http://www.europe-solidaire.org/spip.php?article18184

I would say that as a woman I'm fully committed to women's rights.

I already said: 

"If women are obliged, by the dictates of their religion, to wear any specific scarves or veils then they are denied a personal freedom.

If by choice women wear scarves or veils because they choose to observe the practice that's fine - but it's difficult to ascertain just when it's an actual choice or whether the practice is observed out of fear.

It's cruel to force women to wear head or face coverings, it's just as cruel to force women to remove these coverings and put them in a situation where they are in conflict with the law if they continue to wear them at work."

Naturally that was ignored   

You could apply the same principle in terms of women's freedoms in relation to giving birth: no woman should be forced to go full term with a child just because a church doctrine says she should, no woman should be put in direct conflict with the laws of the state for having an abortion.

If a woman chooses to go full term and endanger her own life because of her religious beliefs, then that is her right, but again it's difficult to ascertain how much of the choice is imposed upon her by fear brought about by religious conditioning.

My post wasn't aimed at you or anybody on this forum but at commentators/politicians who never show any interest in women's affairs but use this issue to score political points such as the farages of this world who have spawned this obnoxious trump wannabe.
http://www.bernerzeitung.ch/region/bern/Der-junge-Donald-Trump-von-Frutigen/story/22079307

http://www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/bern/svpler-wollte-diskutieren-burka-bomber-aus-berner-reithalle-verjagt-id4828369.html

Bold Tone wrote:

My post wasn't aimed at you or anybody on this forum but at commentators/politicians who never show any interest in women's affairs but use this issue to score political points such as the farages of this world who have spawned this obnoxious trump wannabe.

Yeah just look around the internet. You'll see people who absolute despise feminism suddenly start talking about womens rights if it means they get a chance to tell Muslim women how to dress, thats a twofer.

To be fair nobody on here ever shows much interest in women's affairs either unless those affairs are tacked onto broader issues.

That's not a criticism, it's normal enough on a footy forum I'd say.

I reckon most of you would last roughly a week as a woman ;D

There are only a handful of niqabis in Newcastle, but each time I see one I want to grab her by the shoulders and shake some sense into her. Protecting her image is not worth the trauma their Muslim sister is experiencing in Glasgow.

This is particularly true for niqabis who wear the burqa for the most ludicrous reasons. Most Saudi women, like me, leave the burqa (abaya) and niqab in Saudi Arabia. But I’m guessing that more than a few Saudi girls wear the niqab because their husbands insist on it. The husband doesn’t care whether strangers see his wife’s uncovered face, but he cares a great deal that his Saudi male friends do. His selfishness and warped view of manhood are more important that his wife’s safety is inexcusable. Thankfully, most Saudi women ignore this kind of male behavior, but others don’t.

For a long time I strongly objected on principle alone to ban the burqa. A burqa ban is equally offensive as the Taliban’s mandate for women to wear one. I see no difference. But Muslims no longer have the luxury of choosing whether to wear the burqa in the West. The French government has led the campaign to steal that choice from us. We now must think in practical terms. Co-existing with non-Muslims in the West means what we must reconsider our cultural and religious values or we go home. By the same token Muslims rigidly adhering to wearing cultural dress unnecessarily invites trouble. It doesn’t take much to compromise and adapt at some level to a new environment.

There is no reason to pass laws to ban the burqa. The climate of fear is so prevalent today that wearing the burqa will slowly disappear out of necessity of survival. There will be a price, though. Some Muslim women will return home without a Western education and that will make bridging the gap between Muslims and non-Muslims more difficult. This fear also forces Muslims who want to live in the West to conform to Western appearances. It will also cause resentment and make the fight against religious extremism more difficult. People are not inclined to help governments that pass abusive laws. Muslim women will continue to fear harassment from non-Muslim. And non-Muslims will continue to fear Muslims wearing traditional clothing and hijabs because it represents beliefs alien to them.

Outlawing the burqa will create a tremendous divide between non-Muslims and Muslims. But wearing the burqa in the West is also just plain stupid.

This article will divide people. Women I respect and like wear hijabs and jilbabs to articulate their faith and identity. Others do so to follow their dreams, to go into higher education or jobs. And an increasing number are making a political statement. I am not assuming that the coverings all represent simple oppression. What I am saying is that many women who take up the veil, in any of its forms, do so without delving fully into its implications, significance or history. Their choice, even if independently made, may not be fully examined.

Like a half-naked woman, a veiled female to me represents an affront to female dignity, autonomy and potential. Both are marionettes, and have internalised messages about femaleness. A woman in a full black cloak, her face and eyes masked walked near to where I was sitting in a park recently, but we could not speak. Behind fabric, she was more unapproachable than a fort. She had a baby girl in a pushchair. Her young son was running around. Will the girl be put into a hijab, then a jilbab? Will the son expect that of his sister and wife one day? To never have the sun warm your face, the breeze through your hair – is that what God wants? Whatever happened to sisterhood?

But do those who choose to veil think of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and even the west, who are prosecuted, flogged, tortured or killed for not complying? This is not a freestanding choice – it can’t be. Although we hear from vocal British hijabis and niqabis, those who are forced cannot speak out. A fully burqaed woman once turned up at my house, a graduate, covered in cuts, burns, bruises and bites. Do we know how many wounded, veiled women walk around hidden among us? Sexual violence in Saudi Arabia and Iran is appallingly high, as is body dysmorphia.

“I genuinely like wearing it. It makes me feel put together and confident in a weird way. Maybe because it does take a certain level of courage to visibly separate yourself from normal society. To start wearing a hijab I had to stop caring about what other people thought and now I can be proud of that.

“It definitely doesn't stop street harassment, but men do treat you with a bit more respect. I don't think it's right to treat a girl differently because of how she's dressed but it does happen. When I'm wearing a hijab it's much easier not to care when I'm getting leered at because what exactly is he looking at? My face?”

y va marquer wrote:

...

I reckon most of you would last roughly a week as a woman ;D

:hat:

I am in the less than a week category, btw!

y va marquer wrote:

To be fair nobody on here ever shows much interest in women's affairs either unless those affairs are tacked onto broader issues.

That's not a criticism, it's normal enough on a footy forum I'd say.

I reckon most of you would last roughly a week as a woman 

I'm not sure that first part is entirely true y va.

If you're going to make claims like that, you'll need to cite some instances.

This thread is an instance.

Where are the OMTT threads discussing women's issues?

Like I said it is not a criticism, though it will perceived as such.

Given that mags and I are the only two women left here it's not unusual.

y va marquer wrote:

I reckon most of you would last roughly a week as a woman ;D

I'd be back to being a man in about five minutes, burqa or otherwise.

I make an effort to care about women's issues, but it's very hard to connect with the needs and perspectives of a group of which you're not a part.

To me is one of the reasons why burqa bans are shit.

On a slightly different topic - on the platform waiting for my train yesterday morning I saw a dude in full woman's clothing. Dress, tights, make up. I know it was a dude because he also had a pretty full beard. Not that I haven't seen a man in woman's clothing before, but it was a first on a random Thursday morning in the middle of rush hour, presumably on his way to work. Power to him. Or her.

Personally think that's weird, but each to his (or her) own.

flobaba wrote:

Personally think that's weird, but each to his (or her) own.

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

I would rather no one wore a niqab. I would rather that no woman had effectively to disappear, from a young age, because that is the norm in her family. I would rather that no one had to go through the discomfort and social awkwardness of dealing with a woman whose face you cannot see. I would rather that Islam be purged of the niqab and all its permutations.

Those who defend the right of women to wear the niqab under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure. Those who oppose it under the banner of secularism and the oppressive nature of the niqab are making their own assumptions about Muslim women’s motivations.

The debate about the veil is not about religious freedom. It is about civil liberty proscribed by practicality – a liberty that entails that no woman should be told what to wear, except where this choice actually infringes on someone else’s rights.

When it comes to matters of security, identification, and other legal matters it is highly reasonable that a woman be asked to show her face. All further legislation on the matter should be rooted in freedom of choice.

I believe the Government should be more robust in determining the guidelines. No manner of dress should be compulsory. Girls in schools should not be forced to wear religious dress when they are too young to question it. In hospitals, the concern that patients should be able to see health‑care professionals’ faces is a valid one. A lot of the arguments against the niqab are valid, but I am not sure that they call for a ban.

In France, a ban on veils in public places has done nothing but provide a state sanction for prejudice. The most visible target is women who cover their faces.

A crackdown on the niqab might be seen as the hallmark of a nation that stands up for its principles, but is in fact the opposite. As Dan Hodges wrote in the Telegraph this week: this is Britain, and in Britain you should be allowed to wear what you want.

The response to this, of course, is: but what about those woman who can’t wear what they want because they are being coerced into wearing the niqab? The answer is, unless you can look into every woman’s heart and know her motivations, this is a risk we will have to tolerate.

Leave it to the ladies to sort this out, men.
That lady makes perfect sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10323303/I-was-forced-to-wear-the-veil-and-I-wish-no-other-woman-had-to-suffer-it.html

Qwiss! wrote:

flobaba wrote:

Personally think that's weird, but each to his (or her) own.

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

Not going to derail the thread, but physiological differences are taken into consideration in the design and fitting of male and female clothing. It's weird (and probably uncomfortable) to want to put on clothing items that aren't designed for your gender specificities.

y va marquer wrote:

To be fair nobody on here ever shows much interest in women's affairs either unless those affairs are tacked onto broader issues.

That's not a criticism, it's normal enough on a footy forum I'd say.

I reckon most of you would last roughly a week as a woman ;D

y va marquer wrote:

This thread is an instance.

Where are the OMTT threads discussing women's issues?

Like I said it is not a criticism, though it will perceived as such.

Given that mags and I are the only two women left here it's not unusual.

y va marquer wrote:

I would rather no one wore a niqab. I would rather that no woman had effectively to disappear, from a young age, because that is the norm in her family. I would rather that no one had to go through the discomfort and social awkwardness of dealing with a woman whose face you cannot see. I would rather that Islam be purged of the niqab and all its permutations.

Those who defend the right of women to wear the niqab under the banner of religious freedom gloss over the fact that this “freedom” is often dictated by social pressure. Those who oppose it under the banner of secularism and the oppressive nature of the niqab are making their own assumptions about Muslim women’s motivations.

The debate about the veil is not about religious freedom. It is about civil liberty proscribed by practicality – a liberty that entails that no woman should be told what to wear, except where this choice actually infringes on someone else’s rights.

When it comes to matters of security, identification, and other legal matters it is highly reasonable that a woman be asked to show her face. All further legislation on the matter should be rooted in freedom of choice.

I believe the Government should be more robust in determining the guidelines. No manner of dress should be compulsory. Girls in schools should not be forced to wear religious dress when they are too young to question it. In hospitals, the concern that patients should be able to see health‑care professionals’ faces is a valid one. A lot of the arguments against the niqab are valid, but I am not sure that they call for a ban.

In France, a ban on veils in public places has done nothing but provide a state sanction for prejudice. The most visible target is women who cover their faces.

A crackdown on the niqab might be seen as the hallmark of a nation that stands up for its principles, but is in fact the opposite. As Dan Hodges wrote in the Telegraph this week: this is Britain, and in Britain you should be allowed to wear what you want.

The response to this, of course, is: but what about those woman who can’t wear what they want because they are being coerced into wearing the niqab? The answer is, unless you can look into every woman’s heart and know her motivations, this is a risk we will have to tolerate.

Leave it to the ladies to sort this out, men.
That lady makes perfect sense.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/10323303/I-was-forced-to-wear-the-veil-and-I-wish-no-other-woman-had-to-suffer-it.html

Correct me if i misunderstand but aren't these posts contradictory?

Um no, not to me, but if you think so fair enough.

Perhaps I should have expressed it like this:
"Leave it to the ladies to sort this out, men "

flobaba wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

Not going to derail the thread, but physiological differences are taken into consideration in the design and fitting of male and female clothing. It's weird (and probably uncomfortable) to want to put on clothing items that aren't designed for your gender specificities.

I could wear y-fronts and boxer shorts without encountering any problems

y va marquer wrote:

Um no, not to me, but if you think so fair enough.

Perhaps I should have expressed it like this:
"Leave it to the ladies to sort this out, men "

I'm not sure that's why i replied in question format only for you to go even more cryptic.

flobaba wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

Not going to derail the thread, but physiological differences are taken into consideration in the design and fitting of male and female clothing. It's weird (and probably uncomfortable) to want to put on clothing items that aren't designed for your gender specificities.

Why would a skirt be any more comfortable for a woman than a man?

Qwiss! wrote:

flobaba wrote:

Personally think that's weird, but each to his (or her) own.

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

There is a logical reason. It might not necessarily be right but it's definitely logical.

Tony Montana wrote:

Qwiss! wrote:

There is no logical reason to think its weird though.

There is a logical reason. It might not necessarily be right but it's definitely logical.

It's different and/or unusual and/or unexpected. Therefore, by definition, it's weird.

I'd think a skirt would actually be a really comfy garment for a guy, to have your junk get all the air and freedom it wants. I don't imagine Scottish blokes who wear a kilt think it's uncomfortable for instance.

On that note, there are too many stereotypes regarding clothes and gender anyway, and it is important to realize that a lot of these norms change, and quite fast too sometimes. It didn't hit me until I became a dad shopping for clothes for kids how stores imprint these things in us from the very start. Things have changed quite a bit in Sweden since then, but 16 years ago there was a clear boys' and girls' section with very specific clothes and colors thought of for different genders. Oh, and the girls' section was about three times the size too.

y va marquer wrote:

This article will divide people. Women I respect and like wear hijabs and jilbabs to articulate their faith and identity. Others do so to follow their dreams, to go into higher education or jobs. And an increasing number are making a political statement. I am not assuming that the coverings all represent simple oppression. What I am saying is that many women who take up the veil, in any of its forms, do so without delving fully into its implications, significance or history. Their choice, even if independently made, may not be fully examined.

Like a half-naked woman, a veiled female to me represents an affront to female dignity, autonomy and potential. Both are marionettes, and have internalised messages about femaleness. A woman in a full black cloak, her face and eyes masked walked near to where I was sitting in a park recently, but we could not speak. Behind fabric, she was more unapproachable than a fort. She had a baby girl in a pushchair. Her young son was running around. Will the girl be put into a hijab, then a jilbab? Will the son expect that of his sister and wife one day? To never have the sun warm your face, the breeze through your hair – is that what God wants? Whatever happened to sisterhood?

But do those who choose to veil think of women in Iran, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, and even the west, who are prosecuted, flogged, tortured or killed for not complying? This is not a freestanding choice – it can’t be. Although we hear from vocal British hijabis and niqabis, those who are forced cannot speak out. A fully burqaed woman once turned up at my house, a graduate, covered in cuts, burns, bruises and bites. Do we know how many wounded, veiled women walk around hidden among us? Sexual violence in Saudi Arabia and Iran is appallingly high, as is body dysmorphia.

I know lots of women who'd take exception to statements like these throwing in hijabs with niqabs und burqas.

I'm sure there are plenty women who would disagree - that's the opinion of one Muslim woman though so it holds some weight.

I was talking about Muslim women too of course.

I read the full piece you're quoting and while that lady does raise a number of good points her whole piece becomes worthless when she starts conflating reasonable criticism of burqas with some condescending nonsense about how and why women should dress in a certain way:

The hijab, jilbab, burqa and niqab are visible signs of this retreat from progressive values.

If you think wearing a scarf on your head is a visible sign of progressive chances are you're not that progressive yourself.