P M Threatened With Libel Suit........
News2 mins ago
Burkas V. Mini-Skirts
Baroness Warsi says banning the burka would be like banning the mini-skirt
http://
but the comparison is flawed, in fact the mini-skirt is by far the healthier attire. The most important method of obtaining vitamin D is through exposure to sunlight, and in his book (my wife is reading); 'Allah ist mit den Standhaften' Peter Scholl-Latour points to the ill health of women avoiding such exposure,- some even covering the slit they look through with sunglasses. So apart from its other benefits, isn't the mini-skirt the better option?
http://
but the comparison is flawed, in fact the mini-skirt is by far the healthier attire. The most important method of obtaining vitamin D is through exposure to sunlight, and in his book (my wife is reading); 'Allah ist mit den Standhaften' Peter Scholl-Latour points to the ill health of women avoiding such exposure,- some even covering the slit they look through with sunglasses. So apart from its other benefits, isn't the mini-skirt the better option?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Fred
Your examples don't bear scrutiny
If we meet a Security guard on duty or a motorcyclist on their bike we might tolerate their facial concealment.
If one comes into our office for a conversation and retain their face covering we might well feel less comfortable and at a disadvantage in our interaction.
For example, are you seriously suggesting that public attitudes toward the police would not be affected if every single officer we dealt with was permanently hidden behind swat style ski mask and goggles?
People should be able to wear any clothing or headwear they like.
But face concealment is the preserve of only Health and Safety - and criminals!
The niqab was specifically designed to ostracise women. As such it is incompatible with women interacting with others.
Your examples don't bear scrutiny
If we meet a Security guard on duty or a motorcyclist on their bike we might tolerate their facial concealment.
If one comes into our office for a conversation and retain their face covering we might well feel less comfortable and at a disadvantage in our interaction.
For example, are you seriously suggesting that public attitudes toward the police would not be affected if every single officer we dealt with was permanently hidden behind swat style ski mask and goggles?
People should be able to wear any clothing or headwear they like.
But face concealment is the preserve of only Health and Safety - and criminals!
The niqab was specifically designed to ostracise women. As such it is incompatible with women interacting with others.
Fred, // It is not, for you, the burqa itself which is objectionable but what you perceive it stands for.//
It’s not what I ‘perceive’ it stands for – it’s what it does stand for. There are two types of women who wear this – those who choose it as a political statement, and those who have no choice – and those are the baby machines whose bruises are hidden, who are subjected to genital mutilation, who are married as children to grown men, who live as chattels – and who have no voice. That is my objection. Who among the apparently liberally minded when championing this completely unnecessary mode of dress speaks for them? None!
Many who defend this don’t seem to realise that even the simple headscarf that Muslim women adopt is not worn as a symbol of their religion, but to deter men from becoming so impassioned by the sight of their glorious female tresses that they cannot control their animal lust - and any respectable man should consider that an insult. Make no mistake - when it’s not about politics, it’s about sex – and vice versa.
It’s not what I ‘perceive’ it stands for – it’s what it does stand for. There are two types of women who wear this – those who choose it as a political statement, and those who have no choice – and those are the baby machines whose bruises are hidden, who are subjected to genital mutilation, who are married as children to grown men, who live as chattels – and who have no voice. That is my objection. Who among the apparently liberally minded when championing this completely unnecessary mode of dress speaks for them? None!
Many who defend this don’t seem to realise that even the simple headscarf that Muslim women adopt is not worn as a symbol of their religion, but to deter men from becoming so impassioned by the sight of their glorious female tresses that they cannot control their animal lust - and any respectable man should consider that an insult. Make no mistake - when it’s not about politics, it’s about sex – and vice versa.
Exactly, AOG, so how am I being silly in asking: Do you often speak to burqa clad women? Do you expect a biker in a full face helmet to remove it so you can study their facial expression? I note that you do not take the objection to the burqa being a sign of oppression of women.
So what is your answer? It is not enough to say that it is silly to ask those questions. Please be so kind as to answer them if you can.
So what is your answer? It is not enough to say that it is silly to ask those questions. Please be so kind as to answer them if you can.
En passent, breaking news; http://
Naomi, what is the way to what? If you refer to the oppression of women, the answer must be exposure to different ways. The women are not conscious of being oppressed and neither are the men seeing it as oppression. No law can cure the mindset, it merely makes people angry and defiant.
It may be that, given a truly free choice, the women will wear the burka. There are many things that we do for no other reason than we feel happier conforming. I wear a top hat and morning coat at Ascot every year. Many women wear a hat to church. Barristers wear stiff collars and would not be seen having a conference with a client when not wearing a tie. We could not successfully legislate against such practices. But they may change in time.
It may be that, given a truly free choice, the women will wear the burka. There are many things that we do for no other reason than we feel happier conforming. I wear a top hat and morning coat at Ascot every year. Many women wear a hat to church. Barristers wear stiff collars and would not be seen having a conference with a client when not wearing a tie. We could not successfully legislate against such practices. But they may change in time.
Fred, the question was to ichkeria who said “adopting this approach is not the way.”
So you’re saying we shouldn’t legislate because it will make people angry and defiant? I disagree. Pussyfooting around a backward, misogynistic culture simply because we might upset the people involved amounts to tolerating that culture and by extension, condoning it and allowing it to flourish. If women in any other section of our society were subjected to such treatment there would be outrage, and rightly so, but because it comes from the Muslim community, we are expected to turn a blind eye. The issue needs to be addressed – not ignored.
Boxy, //Huh, they call it "traditional Islamic dress" in that article..... //
What's wrong with that? If you see someone shrouded in a burka, you are in no doubt of the wearer's religion. For those who adopt it, or are forced to wear it, it is traditional Islamic dress.
So you’re saying we shouldn’t legislate because it will make people angry and defiant? I disagree. Pussyfooting around a backward, misogynistic culture simply because we might upset the people involved amounts to tolerating that culture and by extension, condoning it and allowing it to flourish. If women in any other section of our society were subjected to such treatment there would be outrage, and rightly so, but because it comes from the Muslim community, we are expected to turn a blind eye. The issue needs to be addressed – not ignored.
Boxy, //Huh, they call it "traditional Islamic dress" in that article..... //
What's wrong with that? If you see someone shrouded in a burka, you are in no doubt of the wearer's religion. For those who adopt it, or are forced to wear it, it is traditional Islamic dress.
Naomi, with matters of culture you can ban the practice but not the thinking. If you ban burkas in public you don't advance the rights of women; those who are oppressed remain oppressed; and those who freely choose to wear one, as a woman in church chooses to wear a hat, will feel justifiably annoyed.
It's otherwise if there is what anyone would regard as a criminal act; we are not going to allow people to steal or mutilate their children because they believe it is in their culture to do so.
It's otherwise if there is what anyone would regard as a criminal act; we are not going to allow people to steal or mutilate their children because they believe it is in their culture to do so.
Fred; You are being disingenuous when you compare wearing a top hat with a burka. You wear a top hat because (I imagine) you feel it makes you look and feel well-dressed and dashing. There is no connection whatsoever between that, and covering yourself in a cloth bag an peeping out of it through a narrow slit, - and you know it.
Khandro, I was comparing cultural practices. I only wear a top hat because that is what is expected of me, and I fit in when wearing it; if it was worn because I felt and looked dashing, I'd wear it, and the morning coat, every day. In that, there is no distinction between the burqa worn as convention and what we wear as convention. Women curtsey to the Queen as convention; there are many things which are done because they are done.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles12 mins ago
Pound Plummeting.....time To Throw The...
News13 mins ago
News46 mins ago
Crosswords48 mins ago
ChatterBank51 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.