Of course it's a criticism, and I don't have a problem with the general question, but moreso the blanket effect of the statement by use of words like 'nobody' and 'ever'. There are also no threads that I can see or remember that are only focussed on "men's issues" either. Personally, I'd happily make a contribution to discussions about gender etc and I know for a fact I have posted about such things as gendered violence, sexual assault etc in the past. So if there is an interest in having a specific discussion then let's do so, but maybe we should begin without the presumption that nobody on here is ever interested in these issues.

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.

Rex wrote:

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.

I would’ve thought that as well.
As for it being by definition "weird" because it's different.....no.....only if you've lived a very sheltered existence surrounded by people exactly like yourself.
Men in tights, men in skirts, men wearing makeup - it's not bloody weird, men dressed like that for centuries

I know a woman, born woman, who has a full proper long  beard - it's due to some hormonal imbalance - she refuses to shave it off.
She's a doctor, practices in a small community in Brittany, I think she's a pioneer.

You think she is a pioneer because she keeps a beard.

That's what I said, yes.

We see the same trend in Sweden with names too btw, where traditionally male or female first names are getting increasingly more popular for 'the other' sex. So far it is mostly as a second name as far as I can tell, but it is definitely changing. There is no reason really why a James has to be a dude and Melissa a dudette.

Ev, that's pretty cool. It takes courage on a level that most people lack to do something like that.

I know a man with no hair on his face.

Pioneer.

Rex wrote:

We see the same trend in Sweden with names too btw, where traditionally male or female first names are getting increasingly more popular for 'the other' sex. So far it is mostly as a second name as far as I can tell, but it is definitely changing. There is no reason really why a James has to be a dude and Melissa a dudette.

Of course there's a reason to give a boy a male name, it's so people know upon reading or hearing it that you're talking about a bloke.

Even if you disagreed, why would you want to call your daughter James?

Rex wrote:

We see the same trend in Sweden with names too btw, where traditionally male or female first names are getting increasingly more popular for 'the other' sex. So far it is mostly as a second name as far as I can tell, but it is definitely changing. There is no reason really why a James has to be a dude and Melissa a dudette.

I reckin Rex would make a good girls name.

flobaba wrote:

I know a man with no hair on his face.

Pioneer.

jones wrote:

Rex wrote:

We see the same trend in Sweden with names too btw, where traditionally male or female first names are getting increasingly more popular for 'the other' sex. So far it is mostly as a second name as far as I can tell, but it is definitely changing. There is no reason really why a James has to be a dude and Melissa a dudette.

Of course there's a reason to give a boy a male name, it's so people know upon reading or hearing it that you're talking about a bloke.

Even if you disagreed, why would you want to call your daughter James?

"Being the only girl named James makes you pretty hard to forget. What might have made you the target of confusion in elementary school can make you the stand-out candidate in college or the real world."

Rex wrote:

Ev, that's pretty cool. It takes courage on a level that most people lack to do something like that.

Definitely.
I know I wouldn't have the courage to do that if I had that condition.

flobaba wrote:

I know a man with no hair on his face.

Pioneer.

Weirdo.

Seriously the rules are so arbitrary it's ridiculous.

Which "rules"?

y va marquer wrote:

jones wrote:

Of course there's a reason to give a boy a male name, it's so people know upon reading or hearing it that you're talking about a bloke.

Even if you disagreed, why would you want to call your daughter James?

"Being the only girl named James makes you pretty hard to forget. What might have made you the target of confusion in elementary school can make you the stand-out candidate in college or the real world."

So you'd pick a name of the other gender to raise your chances of getting a job? Leaving aside that no sane staffer would do something ridiculous as that, giving your child a funny name for the sake of standing out is pretty much the worst reason to pick a name for your child.

y va marquer wrote:

Wet shaving men are the absolute worst

You asked why somebody would call a daughter James, I responded with one possible reason.
As someone whose name often causes confusion (lots of people have assumed I was a guy before meeting or speaking to me) I can vouch for the good intentions of my parents in giving me a name that they thought beautiful and special.

There will always be people who get wound up over "funny" names, seem to take it as a personal affront if a child is called something outside of a list they deem "suitable" or "normal" - fair enough - you can't control how people react to a name.
I would suggest that anyone who gets wound up over a girl named James needs to chill out. I actually think it's a great name for a girl, I might occaisionally change it to Jimmy if it were mine.

y va marquer wrote:

You asked why somebody would call a daughter James, I responded with one possible reason.
As someone whose name often causes confusion  (lots of people have assumed I was a guy before meeting or speaking to me) I can vouch for the good intentions of my parents in giving me a name that they thought beautiful and special.

I can vouch for the bolded part as well, I thought you were a bloke for a good few months after first joining

  Really?