jones wrote:Wet shaving men are the absolute worst
Wet shaving is the worst.
Burqa Ban?
Qwiss! wrote: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"?
Daz 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.
I reckin Rex would make a good girls name.
A quick search tells me there are actually 9 girls in Sweden named Rex. I actually met one of them a few years ago too! 
A name is just a name ffs! If parents feel James is a beautiful name, which I think it is, then why shouldn't they name their daughter James? Who gets to decide that James is just for guys, Elizabeth is just for girls, but names like Jordan, Ashley and Kim are suitable for both girls and boys?
Basically, it's the same as with clothes in that these things change, and sometimes very fast. It wasn't too long ago that a girl in trousers was considered controversial, or a dude wearing make up was controversial. My opinion on these matters is that too many people feel they need to meddle in things that don't concern them. If you don't want YOUR girl to have the name James - don't name her James. If YOU as a dude have a problem with a skirt/wearing pink/make up - don't wear it. If you have a problem with gay marriage - don't marry someone of the same sex. If other people feel differently then let them, because it is absolutely none of your fucking business.
But Rex, society would crumble, hellfire would spew from the earth, and we'd all be sodomized for eternity by the dark angels of Satan.
This is where religion complicates things further, because it makes some people feel they have a mandate to dictate to others what they can and can't do, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with them, not affecting them in any way possible.
Further, men are especially good at trying to dictate what women can and can't do, what they should and shouldn't do. I laughed out loud when seeing this proposed bill. It is absolutely absurd, but it makes just as much sense as the equally ridiculous laws already in place.
y va marquer wrote:Qwiss! wrote:Weirdo.
Seriously the rules are so arbitrary it's ridiculous.
Which "rules"?
The rules of gender essentialists.
Rex wrote:Daz wrote:I reckin Rex would make a good girls name.
A quick search tells me there are actually 9 girls in Sweden named Rex. I actually met one of them a few years ago too!
A name is just a name ffs! If parents feel James is a beautiful name, which I think it is, then why shouldn't they name their daughter James? Who gets to decide that James is just for guys, Elizabeth is just for girls, but names like Jordan, Ashley and Kim are suitable for both girls and boys?
Basically, it's the same as with clothes in that these things change, and sometimes very fast. It wasn't too long ago that a girl in trousers was considered controversial, or a dude wearing make up was controversial. My opinion on these matters is that too many people feel they need to meddle in things that don't concern them. If you don't want YOUR girl to have the name James - don't name her James. If YOU as a dude have a problem with a skirt/wearing pink/make up - don't wear it. If you have a problem with gay marriage - don't marry someone of the same sex. If other people feel differently then let them, because it is absolutely none of your fucking business.
I see what you're saying.
Would you dress your children in what is considered the opposite sex's clothes?
Its fine to find something weird in my opinion, whether it's cross dressing, someone wearing a Burka or simply thinking Rex has a weird fashion sense. When that turns to anger or disgust then it gets a little more dangerous.
Yeah, getting lectured on fashion from the guy with beige pants isn't on; no one can take that seriously.
Tony - no, I wouldn't dress my guys in skirts and the like. However, both my boys at kindergarten had a blast at dressing up, and sometimes in heels and dresses too, and of course I'm perfectly fine with that. What's the harm? In fact, my now 16 year old, at around 3, wanted to wear a particular pair of heeled ladies' shoes they had at kindergarten for a period. He turned out alright despite that. What did bother me at the time though, was that when shopping clothes for my eldest when he was small, just over a decade ago, it was very difficult to find things with colors! You basically only had black, white, navy, grey and green in the boys' section of stores. I see it today as well; lots of grown ass men who are afraid of wearing a pink shirt or sweater for instance, or other things in bright colors. Some men perceive that as feminine, whereas I see it as anything but. I don't want my kids to grow up feeling bound by silly norms like that either.
Yeah I've seen you mention colour (or lack of it) with clothes before.
Rex wrote:You basically only had black, white, navy, grey and green in the boys' section of stores. I see it today as well; lots of grown ass men who are afraid of wearing a pink shirt or sweater for instance, or other things in bright colors.
Keep that up and he'll be wearing beige trousers in no time.
Rex wrote:This is where religion complicates things further, because it makes some people feel they have a mandate to dictate to others what they can and can't do, despite it having absolutely nothing to do with them, not affecting them in any way possible.
That's pretty much the point of religion as far as I can tell.
The hijab is not a fucking religious symbol, it's a bloody hat. Ugh.
And for the record, it doesn't matter who says otherwise, whether it's a Muslim woman or a Hindu man, it is simply a hat. Whether Islam has co-opted head-coverings or not (I mean, they've been working on religificating the huttah as well), it's a cultural practice no different than wearing a skirt or a kipah or kilt or a tie.
It is not a hat, it is not " a shaped covering for the head "
If it's going to be described accurately then it is a scarf, a length or square of fabric, worn to cover the hair and neck
The significance or lack of significance of the wearing of the scarf is very much decided by the motivation of the lady who wears it: for warmth, as a fashion item, as part of a uniform, to observe a dress code, as an articulation of their faith and identity, as a political statement.
Incorrectly describing it as a hat does not add anything to the debate, it's not a ko to all of those who view it differently.
More importantly is it unhelpful and insulting to suggest that Muslim women such as those quoted on here are mistaken or wrong to consider the symbolic nature of this scarf.
It suggests that the ladies don't know what they are talking about.
Ultimately the whole point is undermined by the confusing of a hat with a scarf, which no woman would do, ever
"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."
If it was just a hat then not wearing it in work wouldn't be a big deal. It clearly means more to people than that.
y va marquer wrote:
Really?
Yeah but mostly because of your name. If we're honest most females on the internet have usernames like Lady something or Sexy_gal_123
