Reply to TheMadFool What's the difference?[/quote]
The difference would be salient if either of them would feel oppressed by their outfit.
Quite likely, neither of them do.
In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression.
Reply to TheMadFool
Wouldn't it be good to ask them if they feel oppressed?
What happened in Egypt when elections happened after the spring-revolution (today is the anniversary by the way)? Check out who won...
Reply to TheMadFool What's the difference? From what I understand, the Islamic girls will be wearing expensive Western clothing under the Chador.
Deleted UserJanuary 25, 2021 at 21:36#4929380 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
CiceronianusJanuary 25, 2021 at 22:45#4929610 likes
Reply to TheMadFool
I'm curious about the picture of the nuns. The ones I know of stopped wearing that sort of habit when I was being taught by them in elementary school, and that, alas, was a long time ago. Thereafter they wore shorter skirts (not miniskirts, of course) and a kind of small jacket or vest, and a smaller veil. But for the viel and the uniform color of the rest of the outfit, they looked much like other women here in God's Favorite Country (the U.S.A.). I suppose the habits change according to the order.
One is only worn by a voluntary subset of religious practitioners, the other is sometimes mandated for all women. Choice is the difference
Let's say that Muslim women don't have a choice in the matter and those who chose to be Christian nuns did so of their own free will and the habit was part and parcel of the vows nuns make. A difference alright and I admit it's a heck of big difference.
What I find intriguing is that a Christian nun's habit is remarkably similar to the Muslim chador and the reason for adopting such attire in both cases is identical - piety. If we're willing to allow one (in public places), there simply is no reason (I can think of) to ban the other. Both, after all, are in deference to the divine, are expressions of faith.
Of course there's is a difference between a nun and a laywoman. In the Christendom, nuns are ordained into an order, are part of the clergy and have consecrated their lives to religion. In the case of Islam, laywomen wear the chador, not just the clerics.
However, the crux of the matter (Muslim women's attire and the Christian nuns' habit) can be teased out by asking two questions:
1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?
The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]
2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?
The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.]
If so, Muslim women too should be allowed to wear the chador (publicly) because their reasons for wearing it are exactly the same as those of Christian nuns' who have to dress in a strikingly similar fashion and we're totally OK with Christian nuns.
So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How?
Deleted UserJanuary 26, 2021 at 15:29#4932050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
PossibilityJanuary 26, 2021 at 16:54#4932200 likes
Reply to TheMadFool The difference is that the objection comes from those who object to their faith and their belief in the word of god, and perceive their outward show of confidence as a threat.
In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression.
The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.
Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.
In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities.
CiceronianusJanuary 27, 2021 at 16:57#4935050 likes
1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?
The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]
2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?
The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.]
In this matter, as in all matters, it's useful to consider the law. In the case of nun's, or sisters, Canon Law governs.
First: Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.
Second: Can. 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty. (An "institute" is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common.)
Third, and also in Can. 669: §2. Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of can. 284.
Now consider the words of John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, in 1996 at the end of a Synod, Vita Consecarta 25:
The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ.Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.
The habit of a nun/sister therefore (and others, e.g. priests and brothers), is worn to establish their membership in a particular order of the Church, and as a witness to of poverty. It also serves witness to the fact that they "belong to Christ" and "makes the Church visible in everyday life." Its form is not mandated, but varies according to the rules of the order to which the member belongs, as approved by the appropriate bishop, and may be adapted to time and place. Where no particular form of habit has been designated, then the dress of the member of an order should be simple and dignified and accord with local customs, and an appropriate symbol should be displayed.
The habit therefore is worn to reflect membership in a particular order of "institute" of the Church (the piety of such member being taken for granted), as a form of advertising for the Church and a particular order (loosely speaking). It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. Simply put, it's in the nature of a uniform more than anything else.
Really? Imho that is a lie. Their lie (Moslems) not your lie. They dress like that because both their faith and Moslem men are f**ked up. I'd appreciate learning a kinder, gentler reality, but I am persuaded there isn't one
In what sense are "...both their faith and Moslem men..." f**ked up? Are you suggesting that Islam breeds thoroughgoing male chauvinists who engage in the oppression of women? Does Islamic doctrine produce the right conditions for male domination? Many think that's the case; the internet is chockablock with detractors of Islam especially on the matter of how women are treated in that religion and from what I gather they've done their homework.
The questions then are:
1. Does a Christian nun's habit represent a similar misogynistic tendency in Christianity?
If no,
2. Why? The point of covering up a woman from head to toe in a loose garment seems to be a denial or rejection of their sexuality and it's a well-known fact that Christianity too has major issues with sex, vows of celibacy figures prominently as conditions for becoming a priest or nun. To make the long story short, a Christian nun's habit is consistent with Christian views on sex with respect to religion.
If yes,
3. Why is it tolerated and not the hijab, the niqab, the burka, the chador?
The difference is that the objection comes from those who object to their faith and their belief in the word of god, and perceive their outward show of confidence as a threat.
You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah.
You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed??
That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. Objectifying women i.e. treating them as objects and property manifests in two forms: at one end, women must keep their sensuality under wraps and at the other end, they must display it to the hilt. I feel bad for women now but they should be happy, at some level, that they are part of a paradox. What shall I call this paradox? The Bikini-Burqa paradox of the objectification of women. That sounds like a good name for a paradox.
The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.
Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.
In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities.
It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male.
:up: Thanks for the reply. Very informative but I can't help notice how a nun's habit fits like a glove with Christianity's views on sex [modesty] (see here.
Kenosha KidJanuary 28, 2021 at 12:07#4938350 likes
Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2021 at 14:16#4938810 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women.
This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.
And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.
Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or opressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.
Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.
The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.
The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.
Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence.
"Fashion is not the opposite of oppression". I'm not claiming that it is but oppression if it's institutionalized can have a profound effect on fashion and I suppose the opposite is also true if one takes into account how strongly women feel about fashion.
"Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material" is another one of those mind tricks women fall for. They pay as much for a full-length gown as they do for a mini-skirt with less than half the material. What on earth are they [women] paying for? Vitamin D from more exposed skin? :chin:
What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items?
Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns? Some posters have taken the trouble to list the reasons for the particular way a nun's habit is designed - covering the body from head to toe. Nowhere in that list does it say that it's got to do with a woman's sexuality, specifically that a nun's habit was/is designed to conceal it. Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.
Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.
Not a suggestion, but as you note, a strong-seeming fact. I refer you back to a Times Magazine cover of a few years ago of a clearly attractive young Afghani girl/women. If memory serves, she had gone to school. Do you remember that photo of that atrocity?
As to the habits of nuns, there might have been a time when you wore a boy scout uniform and were glad to wear it. Imagine being forced to wear it, under threat of severe penalty if you did not. And Ciceronianus notes the whys of habits v. the whys of burkas. Not really a discussion here, at least on the clothes, I think.
Why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in bikinis and miniskirts? What's up with that? Surely, concerns for modesty and keeping their sexuality hidden are key to this prohibition or our taking umbrage if and when nuns do dress like that. Basically, a Christian nun's habit is, despite what Ciceronianus said, about a woman's sensuality. Christian nuns are held in high esteem for their devotion to god and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh i.e. modesty plays a huge role in their moral lives. So, shouldn't a Moslem women who wears a burqa/hijab/chador/niqab be viewed in the same light? As women who are devoted to a moral life, just like a Christian nun?
This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.
And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.
Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or oppressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.
Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.
The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.
The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.
It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.
PossibilityJanuary 28, 2021 at 16:27#4939110 likes
You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah.
I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’.
The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment.
There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression.
Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts?
Do Christian nuns _want_ to wear miniskirts? I doubt it.
Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.
Have you ever thought about how revealing Victorian dresses actually are?
Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.
(I tried to find the news article about it, but it's been awhile.) When Madeleine Albright was in her official capacity talking to women from Muslim countries (I forgot exactly from which country), she spoke to them on the assumption that those women felt oppressed and Albright saw herself as some kind of savior to them, or at least, to commiserate with them. But those Muslim women clearly told her that they didn't feel oppressed.
I don't feel offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors, nor about the habits of Catholic nuns.
It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.
But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
Kenosha KidJanuary 28, 2021 at 17:39#4939300 likes
What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items?
There's a difference, though, between advocating against wearing the chador for symbolic reasons and advocating against forcing it upon women for political reasons. Other than monocultural misfits (e.g. your Brexit-baiting crowd), I don't know that anyone objects to the chador itself. It's knowing that chances are the woman is wearing it out of fear of violence that is objectionable.
By contrast, the fear of being judged as unfashionable is of little concern. It's voluntary as to whether you care about that stuff and hang out with other people who judge you on that stuff. It's comparable to a fear of being judged as not knowing enough Tolkien lore. Who gives a rat? :D
Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns?
Well, I think they should! You're right, in both cases there's an element of chastity and discretion. But for nuns it's something they want to do. And if a Muslim woman wants to wear a chador, they absolutely should feel free to. As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens.
Not a clue. But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. If and when the same women are at no risk whatever they wear, then we can ask what their free choices symbolise, if we care (which I don't).
Actually, I do have a clue, and this is quite general and unpopular: don't do business with dictatorial countries that believe rights depend on demographic. We prop up regimes that oppress women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities then complain that other countries follow suit.
But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid.
It's politically correct to call it a "choice".
How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.
Clearly, this doesn't compare with having acid thrown into one's face. But one would think that "civilized" countries would be more inclusive about a person's appearance ...
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2021 at 19:58#4939700 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 28, 2021 at 20:19#4939760 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Kenosha KidJanuary 28, 2021 at 20:57#4939870 likes
How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.
Unequally bad, yes. I'm not sure it's a thing these days, but it was in my lifetime. However even that is about how one dresses for work, not how one dresses when out and about generally. It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack.
During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base.
It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack.
Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard, or no man will want her, and she will be ridiculed for being an old spinster. Well, at least she can take solace in not having acid thrown into her fce!
R-i-g-h-t! When a woman gives offence in those cultures she's burned, stoned, beaten to death, hanged - what else?. The offence? The sensibilities of some man were offended.
A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
Kenosha KidJanuary 28, 2021 at 22:18#4940070 likes
Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard
Well no, she doesn't. Or, when she does, that is wrong. You can't have a society in which a woman can wear a nun's habit or a microskirt and stilettos and at the same time insist that women are forced to wear a microskirt and stilettos. That makes no sense.
I get that there are pressures to conform to fashion, peer groups, etc. But one has the freedom to not opt into that.
Reply to Wayfarer
It is not certain that he sees it as a rhetorical question. But the question with the identity of the gods is so clear that everything must collapse.
Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster.
I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. The typical story told is that women feel like they become invisible, but it's worth bearing in mind that today's and yesterday's invisible older ladies were the day before's catcalling victims.
One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore.
Deleted UserJanuary 29, 2021 at 16:11#4943050 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore.
Nobody is talking about an "adoring crowd", but about a woman not being good enough to be loved. Not pretty enough, not rich enough, not successful enough to be loved by a man.
A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
— baker
Their country, their rules.
— baker
Well, you have emptied both the ignorant barrel and the stupid barrel; just what are you working on? Are you suggesting that what is wrong on one side of an arbitrary line is right on the other?
What are you talking about??
It's bizarre that a person goes to some foreign country and expects that the people there will play by this person's rules.
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression.
depends upon who is doing the seeing. I suspect there are many Muslims (and some of them women) who believe their attire is the epitome of virtue.
Similarly, I suspect there are many non-theists who consider the habits worn by nuns to be oppressive symbols worn by those most likely raised in oppressive religious environments.
For the most part, I suspect both groups consider themselves to be virtuously attired.
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2021 at 16:11#4947200 likes
There are enforced dress codes in the enlightened democratic rational West too. Some body parts must be exposed, and some must be covered. Walk down the street clad in a balaclava and nothing else, and see how free you are.
Deleted UserJanuary 30, 2021 at 16:12#4947210 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserJanuary 30, 2021 at 16:19#4947270 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
unenlightenedJanuary 30, 2021 at 16:37#4947330 likes
As they are in every part of the world, the writ of human law being universally local. But the point stands against anyone who wishes to claim superiority of freedom, or of equality between the sexes, for their own enlightened culture. Inconsistency of rules across time and place with unmarked borders is not that great a virtue either.
Reply to tim wood
One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.
Again:
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
Deleted UserJanuary 30, 2021 at 17:49#4947660 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
— baker
At some point, yes. How not?
You, too, are arguing for moral realism, or, in your case, moral egoism/narcissism.
You are very confused. Nuns are free to wear what they like whenever they like. Even nothing at all. Theirs a choice, their own choice. Moslem women, not their choice. And big trouble if they don't comply.
During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base. And routinely we see news reports of some woman savagely killed for essentially nothing. Whether Islam itself is a rabidly vicious disease of a religion is more than I know. That many practitioners are is a matter of fact.
I've never heard of Christian nuns being at liberty to "...wear what they like whenever they like" This is news to me and I'm going to need some reliable sources to believe you.
I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’.
I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage.
The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment.
The fact is Christians and Moslems both worship the same deity although they have different names for that deity. Given this, it's not surprising at all that a woman's piety in both religions is partly measured by the garments they don (the habit of Christian nuns is virtually a carbon copy of the Moslem chador).
There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression.
I daresay many of the sharpest critics of the Moslem stipulation on how women should be attired have ever bothered to get Moslem women's views on the matter. Western media too seems biased - granting airtime only to one side of the story. For all we know the majority of Moslem women could be in favor of the hijab and its variants.
As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens.
You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch.
Kenosha KidJanuary 31, 2021 at 21:05#4952340 likes
You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch.
As I said, many might wear it anyway for cultural reasons, but while that threat of violence exists, it can't be dismissed. Remove the threat of violence and let women wear what they want.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2021 at 00:32#4953390 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2021 at 00:51#4953560 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
TheMadFoolFebruary 01, 2021 at 04:22#4954480 likes
What prevents them? Is it the same thing that prevents an Moslem woman from wearing whatever she wants, when she wants to? Or is that something different?
Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.
In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves?
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Ask a Christian nun why she wears what she wears and whether she has any issues with the arrangement and the answers may surprise you. Christian nuns are more than happy to wear chador-like garments for they consider it a religious duty to hide their sexuality. The same logic applies to Moslem women. It takes two to tango.
Deleted UserFebruary 01, 2021 at 14:44#4956060 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
PossibilityFebruary 02, 2021 at 06:56#4958890 likes
I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage.
I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case.
Christian nuns factor the wearing of a habit into their decision to take the Holy Orders - this is a conscious choice. And I know a number of catholic nuns in our local area whose Order (Sisters of St Joseph) does not require them to wear a habit at all. Canon law requires only that they are identifiable in their manner of dress as members of a Holy Order.
The problem is that those who condemn Muslim headdress as misogynistic are ASSUMING they are forced to do so. Yes, in a number of Muslim countries it is required by law or enforced as a cultural norm, but my main issue is with those upset by Muslim women in Western society who wear the hijab or chador, interpreting it as nothing more than a symbol of oppression and misogyny. This can be offensive to women who choose to wear the headdress, like nuns, as an identification of their community of faith.
Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two.
Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’...
TheMadFoolFebruary 02, 2021 at 08:50#4959160 likes
I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case.
Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.
Two points to note:
1. the reason is identical for both (piety)
2. the dress codes are identical
Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former.
Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two.
I'm not too sure about Moslem women wearing hijabs and the like as a mark of "...their obedience to man..." There are many Moslem women in the so-called free world and while some choose to adopt Western clothes, many continue to dress in the same old way that Westerners find offensive. Do you mean to imply that [Moslem] women are oppressed in the "free" world as much as they are in other places? Probably not but then that means Moslem women actually prefer the hijab and such over other fashion alternatives.
Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’
:up:
Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust" :chin:
Deleted UserFebruary 02, 2021 at 11:55#4959540 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
All Moslem women are Moslem women. Not all Christian women are Christian nuns..
Becoming a Catholic nun is not entirely a free choice, out of context. One can, ideally, only ordain if one has received "the higher calling". Catholic nuns and monks will tell you that God chose them, and they answered the call. Not that they chose God, out of a multitude of options.
But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
— baker
It takes two to tango. Right!
— TheMadFool
Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.
In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves?
*sigh*
Strawmen prove nothing.
Clearly, you are emotionally invested in this topic and are willing to look at it only from a very narrow perspective.
Sure, looking at things from a chronologically narrow perspective, they appear the way you describe them.
But this way, you're also asking us to believe that for millennia, women have been helpless victims of men.
That all men (or at least the vast majority of men) have been crazy, uncaring, aggressive, misogynist zombies.
And that the most that anyone can ever do in the face of prospective aggression is hunker down and give in.
Think about that.
PossibilityFebruary 02, 2021 at 13:45#4959850 likes
Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.
Two points to note:
1. the reason is identical for both (piety)
2. the dress codes are identical
Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former.
I agree that we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist by women who choose to wear either. But you’re assuming that ‘showcasing their piety’ is the reason in both cases - and ‘publicly declaring their religiosity’ is another blanket assumption that fails to understand the distinction between their identifying with a faith community and their obedience based on religious dogma. There are cases of both among Christian nuns as well as Muslim women.
I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system.
I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system.
Exactly.
Further, in order to ge closer to the truth of this matter, we'd need to carefully interview these women, and also account for when they give socially desirable answers and why they do so.
PossibilityFebruary 02, 2021 at 15:54#4960080 likes
Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust"
It’s the pronunciation ‘mawzlem’ as an adjective that is a little too close to ‘zalim’, literally translated as ‘dark/night’, but also understood to mean ‘one who is evil/unjust’. Interestingly, the UK Society of Editors also published the following in their (2002) document for journalists on ‘Reporting Diversity’, apparently after multiple correspondence from local Muslim community groups asking them to stop using the term:
“Muslim is preferred. People refer to themselves as Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent dislike being called negroes.”
Jack CumminsFebruary 02, 2021 at 16:03#4960100 likes
I once worked with a Muslim woman who was having a conflict with a senior manager who took objection to her coming to work wearing a head covering. It was in an advice office and the senior manager had objected that people coming into the office would make all kinds of assumptions about the person they were coming to see for advice wearing certain Muslim attire. The woman, who was in fact tolerant of all people of all identities felt really upset about the objection because she saw her covering as one of personal expression. From my experience of knowing Muslim women in England, they do frequently wear their traditional clothing with a sense of expression and pride in their identity.
PossibilityFebruary 02, 2021 at 16:11#4960120 likes
Reply to Jack Cummins This goes back to a fear of what we don’t understand. Often we anticipate the possibility of a negative relation and seek to avoid it - not realising that in doing so we’re deliberately attributing that potential negativity to what we can do something about, not to what’s really causing it: a lack of understanding.
Jack CumminsFebruary 02, 2021 at 16:14#4960140 likes
Yes, I think that many are inclined to make assumptions about the way certain people feel about how they present themselves without really entering into the meaning for those particular individuals.
Far as I know, if a Christian nun for some reason is out in public in ordinary clothes she runs zero risk of arrest or unwanted official attention. Far as I know, in Moslem countries, if a woman is not "properly attired" in public she risks arrest or other unwanted official attention. Which in turn is just a part, in those countries, of suppression of women.
I’m not entirely sure it’s ‘official’ attention - I think this is a misunderstanding. The negative attention uncovered women attract in Muslim countries is from those exercising religious ‘power’ or moral indignation, with police and other ‘officials’ in a cultural supporting role.
By comparison, a Christian nun out in public in ordinary clothes is invisible. If she lived in a monastery and came down to dinner without her habit, she would receive similar ‘official’ attention as the Muslim woman ‘inappropriately dressed’ in public.
It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws.
It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws.
I agree. And what is worse, it's not uncommon for women to be complicit in these assumptions, supporting them.
In Western culture, much of the fashion advice given to women -- by other women! -- is about how to be attractive, and specifically, sexually attractive.
Pick up any women's magazine: on the fashion and relationship pages, women are advised to look attractive to men. Or watch an extreme make-over reality show: when they do an extreme make-over on a woman and then present her in her new look, that look is typically in clothes, shoes, and make up that is sexually revealing and is intended to be attractive to men. Even regardless of the woman's age!
Some, if not most, women have deeply internalized these norms and don't question them. An acquaintance of mine once complained to me about her shoes with high heels -- how her feet hurt because of them, how she began to slouch. And then she said, in a matter-of-fact manner, "But alas, what can you do, such shoes must be worn."
baker@TheMadFoolLet me make sure I understand you two: in terms of obligations to wear certain clothing and not wear other clothing, according to you two, there is no difference between a Christian nun and a Moslem woman. That at least is what you appear to be arguing.
Have I got it? If not please correct.
What do you mean here by "obligation"?
We've been saying all along that it's far more complex than that.
On the topic of obligation: I take it you're a male living in the Western world. And you wear pants, not a skirt or some other garment that covers the lower part of the body. Would you say you wear pants out obligation?
The problem is that those who condemn Muslim headdress as misogynistic are ASSUMING they are forced to do so.
When those that choose not to are free from coersion and violent consequences, then coersion and violent consequences will cease to be factors in their decision about what to wear. There is a natural priority here. No one is saying that no woman would choose to wear chador. It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive and violent misogyny is alarmingly prominent.
It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive [forces are] prominent.
To a lesser or greater extent, this applies to any choice people make anyway.
It's not like it would be acceptable for, say, a male bank teller to come to work wearing a bikini. He probably wouldn't be stoned for it, but it would certainly not be good for his reputation and his CV.
Oppressive social forces are always at work, in every culture. The only difference is in how they externally manifest.
In the oh so civilized West, people can get fired for trifles. How's that not bad?
Kenosha KidFebruary 03, 2021 at 15:22#4963700 likes
it would certainly not be good for his reputation and his CV
But we're not talking about whether it's good for a woman's CV: we're talking about whether it would result in her having acid thrown in her face, or restrictions of freedoms, or domestic abuse, or loss of life. The man in a bikini example is directly comparable to a nun choosing not to wear her habit, not to a Muslim wearing a chador for fear of death or disfigurement. I find the false equivalence of these quite alarming.
But we're not talking about whether it's good for a woman's CV: we're talking about whether it would result in her having acid thrown in her face, or restrictions of freedoms, or domestic abuse, or loss of life. The man in a bikini example is directly comparable to a nun choosing not to wear her habit, not to a Muslim wearing a chador for fear of death or disfigurement. I find the false equivalence of these quite alarming.
It's not an equivalence. I'm saying those repercussions are on a spectrum.
The repercussions that someone in the West will face for not living up to dress standards are, of course, far milder than elsewhere in the world. However, even those repercussions can end up having lasting and even fatal consequences, such as becomnig homeless due to job loss and dying in the street.
My point is that we in the West are not free either, and we make many choices out of fear of repercussions.
I am at a loss to account for just how you-all can be as ignorant and stupid as you're being with the arguments you're presenting here, and disgusting.
I'm not going to defend stances that you merely imagine I hold.
I've been polite to you so far, but you're abusing it.
Kenosha KidFebruary 03, 2021 at 16:17#4963980 likes
The repercussions that someone in the West will face for not living up to dress standards are, of course, far milder than elsewhere in the world.
They're not just milder, they're qualitatively different. If you accept a position at a firm with a dress code then, like a nun, you have weighed up whether conformity is something you're willing to adhere to get something you want.
However when weighing up whether or not to wear a headdress in public, you are weighing up whether or not the risk of insane and hateful punishment is worth taking.
Wanting a particular job is not on the same spectrum as not wanting acid in your face. That's the troubling aspect about this.
My point is that we in the West are not free either, and we make many choices out of fear of repercussions.
There are milder, broader issues around things like dress and oppression. Transvestites are often attacked by homophobes. However a) it's comparatively rare, not systematic, and b) the victim has recourse to the law. The same coersion that forces women to wear particular clothing in public (which is far more totalitarian than just in the workplace) will typically either place them outside of the protection of the law, or else under a law that supports that mode of oppression. We're talking the kinds of countries that stone women to death for being raped. Even in the most comparable cases, it's qualitatively different.
Deleted UserFebruary 03, 2021 at 16:21#4964000 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
PossibilityFebruary 03, 2021 at 17:19#4964210 likes
When those that choose not to are free from coersion and violent consequences, then coersion and violent consequences will cease to be factors in their decision about what to wear. There is a natural priority here. No one is saying that no woman would choose to wear chador. It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive and violent misogyny is alarmingly prominent.
I do agree with what you’ve said. My issue is with those in Western cultures telling Muslim women that they shouldn’t wear the chador, or who claim to be offended by women wearing it in a supposedly free, Western culture - this is what the discussion is about, is it not?
Just one of many such articles and references. I am at a loss to account for just how you-all can be as ignorant and stupid as you're being with the arguments you're presenting here, and disgusting. That there exist women who might choose to wear certain clothing is not in question - although one might very well wonder just exactly how they came to make that decision.
Hold up - the question presented here was why people are offended by Muslim women wearing head-coverings but not Christian nuns doing the same. I took this as referring to Muslim women in a Western cultural setting, but you keep defending those offended by the wearing of chador from the perspective of a radical Islamic state.
I’m not trying to justify the conditions of women in a radical Islamic state. The fact that this oppression and violence is sanctioned at a state level is a serious international issue that needs to be addressed, but I don’t believe we will solve it by attributing our disgust or hatred to the wearing of the chador itself - particularly if we wish to claim our society to be ‘free’ by comparison.
I’m arguing for the freedom of women in Western culture to express their commitment to a faith that is as much about peace and love as Christianity. That not all Muslim communities are violent, misogynistic or oppressive towards women does not deny that some are - same with Christianity.
I’m saying that our point of difference from the states you’re so passionately against should not be about faith or what women can and can’t wear, but about how men interpret the appearance and behaviour of women. And the arguments here show that we have a long way to go before we can claim the high ground.
Deleted UserFebruary 03, 2021 at 18:02#4964390 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Kenosha KidFebruary 03, 2021 at 18:33#4964470 likes
My issue is with those in Western cultures telling Muslim women that they shouldn’t wear the chador, or who claim to be offended by women wearing it in a supposedly free, Western culture - this is what the discussion is about, is it not?
The former is wrong, for sure. Best case scenario, it's victim-blaming. The latter is because, at least in part, of genuine concern. Offense is an inappropriate response perhaps, but concern is not.
PossibilityFebruary 04, 2021 at 05:56#4966780 likes
I accept your qualification, but with reservations. There is no symmetry between nuns and Moslem women in general. And I am far from persuaded that Moslem women in the west have a free choice as to what they wear. No doubt some do - more power to them! But if free, in no way similar to the same freedom that non-Moslem women have, in that at least the latter do not have to think about burkas, chadors and the like, and likely don't, whereas Moslem women likely do.
Of some interest is the French effort to outlaw such clothing. When, where, under what circumstances, and even if they have, I am not up on. It seems extreme, but then so has Moslem violence in France been extreme. I imagine a 13-year-old French girl under the gun at home to wear her whatever whenever she goes out of the house, only to be under the French gun for wearing it. Not a good situation.
It’s not a symmetry, no. But I do think that some parallels can be drawn (carefully), especially to highlight the question of choice and of how men interpret what women wear as a message intended for men.
The French situation highlights my point: the issue is not what women wear, but how we interpret and respond to what women wear. The young girl is being told on all fronts and under no uncertain terms that what she wears is to be interpreted from an external (male) perspective, and is therefore not a choice she is ever free to make alone. You simply cannot argue for liberty and egalitarianism under these conditions.
I would argue that Muslim violence is supported in France by a culture that traditionally portrays a woman’s appearance as a message intended for men, who are entitled (encouraged?) to respond. It comes as no surprise, then, that they would be at the forefront of moves to outlaw Muslim head-coverings for women, further limiting a girl’s options.
PossibilityFebruary 04, 2021 at 06:56#4966860 likes
My issue is with those in Western cultures telling Muslim women that they shouldn’t wear the chador, or who claim to be offended by women wearing it in a supposedly free, Western culture - this is what the discussion is about, is it not?
— Possibility
The former is wrong, for sure. Best case scenario, it's victim-blaming. The latter is because, at least in part, of genuine concern. Offense is an inappropriate response perhaps, but concern is not.
Agreed. But check your concern and how you interpret it.
There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent. It is these conditions of perceived potentiality - in particular what a woman’s clothing means regarding the potential and value of interactions with her - that women are rarely given a say in as free-thinking agents, in any culture. THIS is an area of concern.
And you're a seeming apologist for some of the worst practices in the world.
"Seeming" being the operative word.
My bad if I misunderstand. Please correct me.
No, that's not good enough.
But being confirmed by lack of correction, I shall respond as I see fit, and the standard you're setting abysmally low.
There you go. You think that with an attitude like you've been displaying here toward me and some others, you invite open discussion? Too bad this forum doesn't have the type of report function that some others have, because I've been wanting to report you from the beginning of this.
The standard of discussion that you're setting here is abysmally low and does not warrant much engagement.
There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent. It is these conditions of perceived potentiality - in particular what a woman’s clothing means regarding the potential and value of interactions with her - that women are rarely given a say in as free-thinking agents, in any culture. THIS is an area of concern.
Exactly. And there's a name for this wanting to rescue others, seeing them as helpless victims: white knighting.
This, combined with being a social justice warrior makes it impossible to actually discuss any social problem, and makes sure that the conversation is kept on the surface of the issue, while the deeply embedded factors that bring about and maintain the very problem that the SJW and WK want to save the poor victim from, are left intact.
It's a way of maintaining the status quo while pretending to be acting for change.
They're not just milder, they're qualitatively different. If you accept a position at a firm with a dress code then, like a nun, you have weighed up whether conformity is something you're willing to adhere to get something you want.
For one, the nun probably isn't weighing her options like that. I wouldn't assume nuns or prospective nuns generally do that. There was a time when I wanted to become a Catholic nun, and I can say from personal experience that the standards of dress were never an issue for me; it went without saying that if I were to become a nun, I would wear the habit or whatever standard attire would be prescribed by the order. I have also not felt in any way oppressed by the standard of dress for nuns; there was no fear involved in the prospect of wearing the habit. On the contrary, I looked forward to it, I felt proud about it. I dare say I am not the only one who thinks so.
Becoming and being a nun is just not for every woman, nor is every woman required to be one. Your generalizations don't apply.
For two, one needs a job, and the options are, for many people, rather limited. The dress code is sometimes a necessary evil. But because the job is a necessity, one views the requirements of the job in a similar way as one views the requirements of one's citizenship, which one received simply by being born into a certain country (as is the case for most people): it's a preexisting unilaterally imposed obligation over which one has no say.
However when weighing up whether or not to wear a headdress in public, you are weighing up whether or not the risk of insane and hateful punishment is worth taking.
I don't know. How many Muslim women have you interviewed about this?
From what you've said, I surmise that you're assuming that the baseline from which all women all over the world all over history start (or from which they should start) is the same: that they all want to live by a certain Western secular standard; and that if they can't live by that standard, they feel oppressed and only follow social norms out of fear.
This is where you're wrong.
Wanting a particular job is not on the same spectrum as not wanting acid in your face. That's the troubling aspect about this.
It's a false dichotomy to begin with.
There are milder, broader issues around things like dress and oppression. Transvestites are often attacked by homophobes. However a) it's comparatively rare, not systematic, and
b) the victim has recourse to the law.
Recourse to the law in "civilized" countries?
Where do you live???!
Yes, we have laws, on paper, but they're only as good as how much money and power one has.
The same coersion that forces women to wear particular clothing in public (which is far more totalitarian than just in the workplace) will typically either place them outside of the protection of the law, or else under a law that supports that mode of oppression. We're talking the kinds of countries that stone women to death for being raped. Even in the most comparable cases, it's qualitatively different.
Your most fundamental mistake is that you think that Western secular men are better feminists than any woman could ever be.
Heaven knows you feel a fierce moral indignation and your armor is shining on your white horse.
Kenosha KidFebruary 04, 2021 at 12:22#4967520 likes
Agreed. But check your concern and how you interpret it.
There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent.
The opposite seems to be the case here, where people are speaking up for a potentially oppressed person's apparent choices without reference to the limitations placed on those choices. Ultimately my argument is that you can only do this once the coersion is removed, e.g. the threat of violence is removed. Is your counter-argument that this coersion should be sustained? If not, and putting aside as unjustified your guesses as to men's motives and knowledge, it's difficult to see what your point is.
Kenosha KidFebruary 04, 2021 at 13:41#4967670 likes
There was a time when I wanted to become a Catholic nun, and I can say from personal experience that the standards of dress were never an issue for me
And why do you assume that wearing a suit and tie in my first job was any more of an issue for me? Point is, they're equivalent. They are equivalently an issue, and equivalently a non-issue.
Becoming and being a nun is just not for every woman, nor is every woman required to be one.
Neither is becoming a middle manager of a stationary company, or a police officer, or a surgeon, or a soldier, or indeed anyone else who's vocation dictates their attire.
How many Muslim women have you interviewed about this?
Funny, that's the second time I've hit this kind of logic. If I interviewed 100 and 90 said that they weren't concerned about the repurcussions of not wearing hijab because they wanted to wear it anyway, would that make it okay?
From what you've said, I surmise that you're assuming that the baseline from which all women all over the world all over history start (or from which they should start) is the same: that they all want to live by a certain Western secular standard; and that if they can't live by that standard, they feel oppressed and only follow social norms out of fear.
That's not from what I've said, so you're being dishonest. As I've repeatedly said, women are being attacked, disfigured, raped, and killed for not wearing hijab. Male government figures have repeatedly pushed the viewpoint that these women deserve such. Do you agree? Is that okay by you? Because I believe, as I've said, that that kind of coersion needs to be removed before you can make any ab rectum claims about women having a choice.
There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent.
— Possibility
The opposite seems to be the case here, where people are speaking up for a potentially oppressed person's apparent choices without reference to the limitations placed on those choices. Ultimately my argument is that you can only do this once the coersion is removed, e.g. the threat of violence is removed. Is your counter-argument that this coersion should be sustained? If not, and putting aside as unjustified your guesses as to men's motives and knowledge, it's difficult to see what your point is.
This threat of violence is perceived as a ‘force’ that needs to be removed, and I do understand how you can think it’s that simple. But simply removing a ‘force’ as such doesn’t turn an object into an agent, it only leaves the object open to new ‘forces’. A denial of agency is a necessary condition of coercion - this is where the real problem lies.
But solving this problem doesn’t lend itself to an action-hero scenario. In fact there is no way to predict or control what follows, making it difficult to evaluate the ‘success’ of our actions, let alone get any form of thanks for it.
Deleted UserFebruary 04, 2021 at 18:24#4968670 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Kenosha KidFebruary 04, 2021 at 20:03#4968920 likes
But solving this problem doesn’t lend itself to an action-hero scenario. In fact there is no way to predict or control what follows, making it difficult to evaluate the ‘success’ of our actions, let alone get any form of thanks for it.
You seem pretty dedicated to casting a man's dislike of violence against women purely in terms of self-glory. I can't really do anything with or about that. It's not only obnoxious, it's a conversational dead-end.
Kenosha KidFebruary 04, 2021 at 23:11#4969750 likes
Iranian women have been forced to wear hijab since 1979. In 2016, an Iranian woman named Masih Alinejad dared to film herself driving (Iran is off and on about women driving) without hijab as an effective call for freedom. She started a movement as a mass of followers (millions on social media) took to the streets in protest against this thing they apparently choose freely to wear. Many of those women have been arrested, imprisoned for up to 10 years with up to an additional 74 lashes, and referred for psychiatric treatment. They have been assaulted in the street by police officers who have been commended by Iran's police commander. Masih Alinejad herself can't currently return to Iran because she'll be arrested, and she has received daily death threats for years.
A few years ago in Afghanistan, four women were beaten and arrested by police for insufficiently covering up. One of them, who was wearing a burqa but no face mesh, was beaten unconscious. They were then sentenced to severe floggings.
In 2016 in Saudi Arabia, a woman posted a photo of herself on Twitter that resulted in calls from conservative Saudis for her to be beheaded. She was arrested and imprisoned for three years, thankfully avoiding the lash. Activists who supported her were then arrested, imprisoned and, according to Amnesty, assaulted and raped while in prison. Her husband was then arrested.
In 2016 in Somalia, Ruqiya Farah Yarow was shot dead for not wearing the veil. Somalia is probably the worst offender for enforcing the veil, with women routinely being beaten, stripped naked, and raped for not wearing hijab, even if they are police officers or doctors or soldiers.
Dozens of women in Pakistan are attacked with acid each year, one of the main reasons being not satisfactorily covering their hair (the other being rejecting a proposal of marriage). Not no hijab, just not good enough hijab. Acid attacks against women for inappropriate dress are also common in Iran, and not unknown in the west.
Worst of all, none of these are atypical.
It's really not like being a nun.
Yes, there a millions of women who choose to dress this way, and too often they too are attacked by the same kind of dickhead men in the west. But that's not a reason to brush under the carpet the millions of women who are forced to wear it. For something that's supposed to be like wearing a nun's habit, there's an awful lot of women protesting being forced to wear it, an awful lot of men violently punishing them for not wearing it, and an awful lot of state, police and judicial effort expended on mandating the wearing of it.
TheMadFoolFebruary 05, 2021 at 00:12#4969870 likes
Reply to tim wood First off, I'm neither attacking nor defending a side on the matter of outlawing Moslem women's dress code. What I do want to convey is the glaring inconsistency in allowing Christian nuns to wear their choice of clothes [clothes that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Moslem chador] and then taking umbrage at the Moslem chador. The fact is the former doesn't upset us because we believe it's considered a sign of virtuous piety. Moslems too consider the chador as a garment for virtuous women. Shouldn't we then extend them the same courtesy we do to Christian nuns?
Either that or condemn the Christian nuns' habit too as a deplorable mark of oppression.
Kenosha KidFebruary 05, 2021 at 00:32#4969940 likes
What I do want to convey is the glaring inconsistency in allowing Christian nuns to wear their choice of clothes [clothes that bear an uncanny resemblance to the Moslem chador] and then taking umbrage at the Moslem chador.
(My emphasis.) There is a glaring inconsistency here, and you obviously know about it because you avoided reference to a Muslim woman's choice.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 00:55#4970040 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
PossibilityFebruary 05, 2021 at 02:39#4970200 likes
But solving this problem doesn’t lend itself to an action-hero scenario. In fact there is no way to predict or control what follows, making it difficult to evaluate the ‘success’ of our actions, let alone get any form of thanks for it.
— Possibility
You seem pretty dedicated to casting a man's dislike of violence against women purely in terms of self-glory. I can't really do anything with or about that. It's not only obnoxious, it's a conversational dead-end.
That’s not what I’m doing at all - I’m simply pointing out a perspective that is conveniently overlooked in these discussions because it calls out the existing patriarchy, and therefore the perceived ‘norm’. Your defensiveness and indignation is understandable - I’m asking you to look honestly and humbly at your motivations for speaking out against the level of coercion that exists in the lives of Muslim women. That isn’t easy, and I’m neither surprised nor offended by this kind of response, which I’m sure frustrates you all the more.
I want to be clear that my comments here should not be construed as an attack on men, but call for a critical evaluation of the systems of value and perceived potentiality that perpetuate the coercion of women. I’m sure it feels like an attack when your cultural identity is constructed from it, but I’m not going to apologise for that. You are more than your cultural identity.
It’s a ‘conversational dead-end’ because you can neither admit nor deny what I’m arguing here. To admit it would be to recognise that you contribute to it, and that the structures maintain your own value and perceived potentiality. To deny it would be to undermine the purpose of your participation in this discussion - to support an end to these incidents of violence and threats against women.
And the fact that I am a woman does in no way give me the high ground here - I contribute to these conditions as much as you do, only in different ways. And I have deliberately not responded to @baker’s suggestions that women are complicit in all of this because I am in the minority here, and therefore neither going to paint a target on my back so you all feel less victimised, nor get defensive about something I recognise to be true. I use the pronoun ‘we’ to include myself, and women in general, in perpetuating the conditions of coercion.
That said, I’m also questioning the predicted effectiveness of removing these structures of coercion in relation to women’s agency. While I recognise that they do absolutely need to be removed, the idea that this removal solves the problem is naive at best. We need to recognise that these situations of coercion are symptoms of a larger issue.
I wish that everyone wasn’t so defensive, it would make these discussions much more productive. I genuinely do not mean to attack those who have engaged with me here, but I do think a dose of humility is in order. I hope it’s not too much to ask.
Here's a thing to keep in mind: it's the laws of particular countries that are wrong, not the clothing they command.
Sometimes this gets mixed up.
Well said, but just to be more clear, it's not just laws but cultures, especially patriarchal cultures, especially those that back up their unofficial laws with misogynistic violence.
There are plenty of countries like Indonesia that wear headdress without violent enforcement, where it is not only a matter of tradition but of fashion, and I'm sure that when we see those none of us are remotely perturbed.
ChristofferFebruary 05, 2021 at 12:57#4971310 likes
There are no difference between them other than what people attribute to them by being outside viewers. Not able to separate different types of observations we attribute oppression to one and choice to the other. While the truth is that both are indoctrinated in faith and oppressed by the doctrines of society. The same as people being against Minaret songs but ok with church bells. People in western society are fine with what they are used to and attribute less oppression to what's existed for long in our culture, while calling other cultures oppressed based on being outsiders observing them.
Truth is, oppression is not felt by Muslims in the same way as we think they "should" and we are blind to the invisible oppression we enforce within our own cultural norms. Many don't get annoyed by church bells and nuns, but would get annoyed by Minaret songs and Niqabs. Many don't see how society and Christian religion indoctrinate people into these positions, but clearly see how Muslim nations oppress and indoctrinate their people. It's easy to see systems from the outside than spot the systems we live in.
The many conflicts and problems we spot in Muslim nations almost always have more to do with people in power using religion to oppress and control. The problems are always means of power, not the religion itself. Religion is a powerful tool to control people far more effectively than anything else.
So the more interesting question is; If we remove systems of power, what would become of religion? How does practice, rituals and ways of living look if religion as a means of power is changed to being a religion with pure choice. Meaning, no one force religion on anyone, not their children, not a stranger, not the people.
Before saying these people have a "choice" or define the differences between the two by a scale of "feeling" oppressed, we must break down how people are formed into making either a choice to be, indoctrinated or forced to be something.
All of us are products of a deterministic society, nature and nurture where even nature is formed by the nurture of past people. So to define differences we need to detach ourselves from the shackles of this determinism in order to purely objectively observe the nature of being and understand that there are no differences between the two, it's only a narrative we've formed to be comfortable in existence.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 14:43#4971490 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 14:48#4971500 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 14:55#4971510 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
ChristofferFebruary 05, 2021 at 15:15#4971550 likes
I'm being more general in the matter. Historically, the west have gotten more free of government oppression by religion, but only due to capitalist interests dominating power rather than specific individuals using religion. While the west has people using capitalism to gain power, the middle-east has kept using religion.
So, we are all oppressed in some way, some more than others, we just don't see western oppressive behaviors clearly since we live in the system and might even be part of that system. The level of suffering must also be balanced to the way it is portrayed in media and the common narrative. It's hard to know the level of oppression if the narrative is never truly objective, but subjective in media and enforced by echo chambers in the public.
Many in the middle-east find themselves oppressed more by western society invading through culture than their own government and religion does.
So how do we balance perspectives and narratives to form a truly objective overview of oppression in the world? Singular examples of oppression like Kenosha Kid mentioned are real, but singular, they form a singular perspective. So if someone form examples from western society of oppression, we get another singular perspective.
The idea I proposed is to back up and view oppression as a concept first, before talking specifics of how different nations, religions, and cultures act upon their own people.
Kenosha KidFebruary 05, 2021 at 16:06#4971650 likes
The same as people being against Minaret songs but ok with church bells.
I'm not aware of anyone having a problem with call to prayer, except when it's through loudspeakers at sweet FA o'clock in communities where people have to work, then it's annoying, in the same way church bells are annoying at 4 am (which is why they don't typically ring at that time).
Seems a quintessential 'Don't be a dick about it' issue.
Here's a thing to keep in mind: it's the laws of particular countries that are wrong, not the clothing they command.
Sometimes this gets mixed up.
What gets to me in these discussions is that feminists (be they women or men) propose to have so much concern and compassion for women somewhere on the other end of the world, but muster none for the woman they're talking to right there on the spot.
So these feminists bring up some obvious point of injustice or abuse, and then harp and hammer on it. And when there are others who don't join them in a "muh tribe" manner, those feminists ostracize those others as The Enemy and The Misogynist.
It's a surefire way to prevent any discussion of the matter and to maintain the status quo. While in the meantime, the plight of women, once more, goes unnoticed.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 17:44#4971880 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 17:45#4971900 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
PossibilityFebruary 05, 2021 at 17:51#4971940 likes
Evidence presented in this thread that the level of coercion is extreme and state, religion, and culturally supported. Please address those.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken here, because I don’t want to assume: am I to understand that it isn’t the coercion of women that you object to, but this extreme level of coercion where violence against women is sanctioned at all levels of authority?
I’m not denying the evidence, and I really don’t think anyone here is. I’d like to establish a clearer picture of what it is that you believe must be removed, because you seem keen to take the focus off my suggestion that a necessary condition of this kind of coercion is a denial of female agency. Misogynistic violence amounts to ‘any means necessary’ to maintain this denial, but in my view it’s a symptom, not the cause.
State, religious or cultural sanctioning of violence against women is abhorrent and needs to stop. But from my perspective, what we’re not doing here is addressing the underlying conditions that give rise to this violence. I don’t see this coming from state or religious authorities, but from the culture that sustains them. This authority is given, not taken. Surely the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has demonstrated that removing particular state or religious authority does not solve the problem of cultural hatred or violence? It’s like Hydra: cut off one head, and two more grow in its place...
Deleted UserFebruary 05, 2021 at 18:20#4972030 likes
This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.
I have trouble understanding this sentence:
my suggestion that a necessary condition of this kind of coercion is a denial of female agency.
— Possibility
What I understand is that you claim that a necessary part of the machinery of the coercion is denial of the basic equality of the humanity of women - or even denial of their humanity itself. That is, it is a thing taken from them by force, and the taking involving no complicity by women. Or you could mean a deliberate denial of women's complicity, they being, per claim, complicit.
It’s not that simple.
By agency, I mean the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own choices. The interdependence of humanity - that our actions are not entirely independent, and therefore our choices are not entirely our own - has been historically more obvious to women than it is to men. It is this imbalance of perception that has traditionally limited the perception of female agency, but not its evidence in reality. Plausible deniability of male interdependence and its attribution to the female aspect of humanity helps to consolidate illusions of independence in patriarchal society.
This is particularly noticeable in relation to an individual’s capacity to act independently and make their own choices in sexual relations and in the life of an unborn or infant child - two aspects of humanity where female agency/male interdependence appears particularly undeniable.
It is these two aspects that have enabled women to gradually negotiate for expressions of agency within patriarchal society, but has also motivated those societies to strive for a tight rein on the cultural systems of meaning within which women express this agency. So the behaviour or appearance of a woman that might portray her agency (and by extension, a man’s interdependence) as explicitly undeniable is still carefully isolated within or else excluded from the social construct of a valuable, moral or even lawful existence for women.
Most modern cultural systems of language and morality still have structures that protect and promote the deniability of female agency, and it is within these systems that fundamentalism gains a foothold. What women choose to wear is still closely linked to morality and sexual status in relation to men. I’m socially, if not morally or legally, held responsible for how a man might interpret my hemline or neckline in certain settings, as if male interdependence is neatly packaged up with my choice. This makes it easy for men to freely interpret a woman’s expression of agency (as a come-on or a sign of her sexual immorality) while maintaining an illusion of independence. Both Muslim and Christian cultural traditions offer written examples of morality laws and justification for controlling female agency in this way that are of particular interest to fundamentalists.
At this point, I draw attention back to Indonesian culture, where the wearing of the ‘jiljab’ has not been enforced by law, and remains a choice for women that is part of their cultural identity. Until 1998, the government had kept a tight rein on the influence of Islamic groups, but since then there has been a rise in the wearing of more traditional Muslim head coverings than the loose-fitting jiljab, with culturally-specific fashion trends leading the push. The question of how women can or should dress has merged in the last two decades as a highly politicised topic in Indonesia, in a similar vein to the ongoing US abortion debate. Political campaigns have in recent years drawn attention to images of the candidates’ wives with particular head coverings as a show of morality/choice, and fundamentalist groups calling to enforce Muslim dress for all Indonesian women are gaining traction.
What Indonesia illustrates is how easily choice may be eroded in what is otherwise a ‘free’ society. This is how it started for a number of radical Islamic states that currently operate. Hosseini’s book A Thousand Splendid Suns depicts this descent from apparent freedom to oppression, and Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale shows how fragile the perception of female agency remains in modern Western/Christian society.
I don't think I need an especially elevated moral ground to not be okay with throwing acid in women's faces. I'm sorry you're not there yet.
So there are Western feminists who severely criticize some men for how they treat women, saying how those men are oppressing women. Yet these same Western feminists are, in terms of principle, doing the very same thing they criticize others for.
Or maybe women are supposed to be so happy because Western feminists are not throwing acid into their faces, but are, instead, only seeing themselves as the arbiters of women's reality?
This is why I don't share in the fierce moral indignation that some Western feminists display. Because they still consider themselves to be the ones who get to define what a woman's thoughts are, what a woman's intentions are, what a woman's words and actions mean. They get to act in bad faith, they get to jump to conclusions and think the worst of some woman. They get to consider the woman guilty until she proves herself innocent, on their terms.
Comments (133)
The difference would be salient if either of them would feel oppressed by their outfit.
Quite likely, neither of them do.
Rebelling against social norms is for teenagers.
Maybe this is not the case anymore, but in the past parents used to force daughters to become nuns as well...
Wouldn't it be good to ask them if they feel oppressed?
What happened in Egypt when elections happened after the spring-revolution (today is the anniversary by the way)? Check out who won...
Who hasn't?
I'm curious about the picture of the nuns. The ones I know of stopped wearing that sort of habit when I was being taught by them in elementary school, and that, alas, was a long time ago. Thereafter they wore shorter skirts (not miniskirts, of course) and a kind of small jacket or vest, and a smaller veil. But for the viel and the uniform color of the rest of the outfit, they looked much like other women here in God's Favorite Country (the U.S.A.). I suppose the habits change according to the order.
Let's say that Muslim women don't have a choice in the matter and those who chose to be Christian nuns did so of their own free will and the habit was part and parcel of the vows nuns make. A difference alright and I admit it's a heck of big difference.
What I find intriguing is that a Christian nun's habit is remarkably similar to the Muslim chador and the reason for adopting such attire in both cases is identical - piety. If we're willing to allow one (in public places), there simply is no reason (I can think of) to ban the other. Both, after all, are in deference to the divine, are expressions of faith.
Of course there's is a difference between a nun and a laywoman. In the Christendom, nuns are ordained into an order, are part of the clergy and have consecrated their lives to religion. In the case of Islam, laywomen wear the chador, not just the clerics.
However, the crux of the matter (Muslim women's attire and the Christian nuns' habit) can be teased out by asking two questions:
1. Why do Christian nuns' and Muslim women dress the way the do?
The answer: As an expression of their faith; as a sign of their piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god. [The reason is identical for both.]
2. Why is it that the Christian nuns' habit is permitted, with deference even?
The answer: A Christian nun's habit is [an expression of their faith; as a sign of piety; as proof of their belief in the word of god.]
If so, Muslim women too should be allowed to wear the chador (publicly) because their reasons for wearing it are exactly the same as those of Christian nuns' who have to dress in a strikingly similar fashion and we're totally OK with Christian nuns.
Quoting baker
So, both parties - Christian nuns and Muslim women - have been brainwashed. How?
You think wearing a minskirt and high heels is _not_ a case of _not_ being brainwashed??
The punishment for not wearing a nun's habit is not being a nun anymore. The punishment for not wearing the chador ranges from having acid thrown in your face to being beaten to death.
Another difference is that if the nun, whether she is wearing the habit or not, is raped, it is the rapist's fault. If a Muslim woman wearing a chador is raped, it is the rapist's fault. But if a Muslim woman not wearing a chador is raped, it is invariably the woman's fault. She might even be arrested for being raped. Some have described raping women who are not sufficiently covered as a man's duty.
In that context, whether there are women who would choose to wear the chador anyway is rather irrelevant, essentially what-iffing about alternate realities.
In this matter, as in all matters, it's useful to consider the law. In the case of nun's, or sisters, Canon Law governs.
First:
Can. 284 Clerics are to wear suitable ecclesiastical garb according to the norms issued by the conference of bishops and according to legitimate local customs.
Second:
Can. 669 §1. Religious are to wear the habit of the institute, made according to the norm of proper law, as a sign of their consecration and as a witness of poverty. (An "institute" is a society in which members, according to proper law, pronounce public vows, either perpetual or temporary which are to be renewed, however, when the period of time has elapsed, and lead a life of brothers or sisters in common.)
Third, and also in Can. 669:
§2. Clerical religious of an institute which does not have a proper habit are to wear clerical dress according to the norm of can. 284.
Now consider the words of John Paul II, Pontifex Maximus, in 1996 at the end of a Synod, Vita Consecarta 25:
The Church must always seek to make her presence visible in everyday life, especially in contemporary culture, which is often very secularized and yet sensitive to the language of signs. In this regard the Church has a right to expect a significant contribution from consecrated persons, called as they are in every situation to bear clear witness that they belong to Christ.Since the habit is a sign of consecration, poverty and membership in a particular Religious family, I join the Fathers of the Synod in strongly recommending to men and women religious that they wear their proper habit, suitably adapted to the conditions of time and place.Where valid reasons of their apostolate call for it, Religious, in conformity with the norms of their Institute, may also dress in a simple and modest manner, with an appropriate symbol, in such a way that their consecration is recognizable.Institutes which from their origin or by provision of their Constitutions do not have a specific habit should ensure that the dress of their members corresponds in dignity and simplicity to the nature of their vocation.
The habit of a nun/sister therefore (and others, e.g. priests and brothers), is worn to establish their membership in a particular order of the Church, and as a witness to of poverty. It also serves witness to the fact that they "belong to Christ" and "makes the Church visible in everyday life." Its form is not mandated, but varies according to the rules of the order to which the member belongs, as approved by the appropriate bishop, and may be adapted to time and place. Where no particular form of habit has been designated, then the dress of the member of an order should be simple and dignified and accord with local customs, and an appropriate symbol should be displayed.
The habit therefore is worn to reflect membership in a particular order of "institute" of the Church (the piety of such member being taken for granted), as a form of advertising for the Church and a particular order (loosely speaking). It isn't required of women only, and need not be of a particular type or nature, i.e. need not cover X, Y or Z, need not be of a particular color, need not be a sign of sexual modesty or worn to prevent the arousal of the brute needs of the male. Simply put, it's in the nature of a uniform more than anything else.
Whether or not one feels oppressed by something is not the only indicator of whether that thing is right or wrong, no?
Or did I misunderstand you?
In what sense are "...both their faith and Moslem men..." f**ked up? Are you suggesting that Islam breeds thoroughgoing male chauvinists who engage in the oppression of women? Does Islamic doctrine produce the right conditions for male domination? Many think that's the case; the internet is chockablock with detractors of Islam especially on the matter of how women are treated in that religion and from what I gather they've done their homework.
The questions then are:
1. Does a Christian nun's habit represent a similar misogynistic tendency in Christianity?
If no,
2. Why? The point of covering up a woman from head to toe in a loose garment seems to be a denial or rejection of their sexuality and it's a well-known fact that Christianity too has major issues with sex, vows of celibacy figures prominently as conditions for becoming a priest or nun. To make the long story short, a Christian nun's habit is consistent with Christian views on sex with respect to religion.
If yes,
3. Why is it tolerated and not the hijab, the niqab, the burka, the chador?
Quoting Possibility
You mean to say Christians are nervous about how strong a Moslem's faith is? Oddly, Christians and Moslems, even Jews, believe in the same god. For that reason, Christians should be happy to have Moslem women dressed as they're supposed to (hijab, niqab, burka, chador); after all, they're wearing apparel that's standard for Christian nuns, women who've dedicated their lives to god who also goes by the name Allah.
Quoting baker
That's the other extreme of male chauvinism's effect on women. Objectifying women i.e. treating them as objects and property manifests in two forms: at one end, women must keep their sensuality under wraps and at the other end, they must display it to the hilt. I feel bad for women now but they should be happy, at some level, that they are part of a paradox. What shall I call this paradox? The Bikini-Burqa paradox of the objectification of women. That sounds like a good name for a paradox.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Can you have a look at my reply to baker above?
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
:up: Thanks for the reply. Very informative but I can't help notice how a nun's habit fits like a glove with Christianity's views on sex [modesty] (see here.
Honestly, I think the idea that bikinis and miniskirts are one pole and burqas another is overstated. Fashion is not the opposite of oppression. Demand for fashion is manufactured. Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material. Miniskirts are likewise a manifestation of the focus on selling cheap, disposable product to the working classes. It's still people wearing what they're told to wear, it's just a different group telling them, one of which has the option to say no without fear of violence.
This is giving men too much credit. The idea that a half of the population is supposedly under the thumb of the other half of the population is problematic, to say the least.
And you're forgetting the effect that women have on what men wear, how much say women have in what men wear.
Further, there are other interpretations of the purpose of clothes that women are supposed to wear in Islam: Namely, the idea that there is a strict line between the public and the private. The burka isn't hiding or opressing the woman's sexuality; it is reserving it for her husband. As it should, when people take marriage seriously.
Similarly, a Catholic nun is married to Christ, and her sexuality is reserved for him, and she manifests this with her dress, among other things.
The dress follows from the vows, not the vows from the dress.
The idea that a person should indiscriminately flaunt their sexuality is an invention of pop-psychology.
"Fashion is not the opposite of oppression". I'm not claiming that it is but oppression if it's institutionalized can have a profound effect on fashion and I suppose the opposite is also true if one takes into account how strongly women feel about fashion.
"Bikinis are a product of manufacturers needing to sell wares with less material" is another one of those mind tricks women fall for. They pay as much for a full-length gown as they do for a mini-skirt with less than half the material. What on earth are they [women] paying for? Vitamin D from more exposed skin? :chin:
What I'm concerned about though is how women are in a wardrobe dilemma. Dress in a burqa and it's a sign of oppression at the hands of men, dress in a mini-skirt and it's again that. So, are we supposed to look for the Aristotelian golden mean here? A knee-length skirt and mutatis mutandis other clothing items?
Anyway, coming to the main issue the OP is about, why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in miniskirts? In other words, why are mini-skirts and bikinis inappropriate for nuns? Some posters have taken the trouble to list the reasons for the particular way a nun's habit is designed - covering the body from head to toe. Nowhere in that list does it say that it's got to do with a woman's sexuality, specifically that a nun's habit was/is designed to conceal it. Nevertheless, received opinion suggests that, for a woman, covering her body is a demonstration of her modesty and her refusal to validate the sexual objectification of women by men.
Given that's the case, there's no legitimate reason for us to be offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors.
Quoting tim wood
Why aren't Christian nuns allowed to dress in bikinis and miniskirts? What's up with that? Surely, concerns for modesty and keeping their sexuality hidden are key to this prohibition or our taking umbrage if and when nuns do dress like that. Basically, a Christian nun's habit is, despite what Ciceronianus said, about a woman's sensuality. Christian nuns are held in high esteem for their devotion to god and renouncing the pleasures of the flesh i.e. modesty plays a huge role in their moral lives. So, shouldn't a Moslem women who wears a burqa/hijab/chador/niqab be viewed in the same light? As women who are devoted to a moral life, just like a Christian nun?
Quoting baker
It's a two-way street then. Men influence women and, conversely, women influence men too. Yet, this is no well-balanced relationship as far as I can tell; men have the upper hand. A simple proof of this is that, ceteris paribus, men control the wealth of the world, also wield power in greater numbers, and as they say, whoever has the gold makes the rules. I'm quite sure that men were/are one up on women and will be for the foreseeable future. The perfect conditions then for the status quo to remain as it is for a long time to come.
I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’.
The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment.
There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression.
Do Christian nuns _want_ to wear miniskirts? I doubt it.
Have you ever thought about how revealing Victorian dresses actually are?
(I tried to find the news article about it, but it's been awhile.) When Madeleine Albright was in her official capacity talking to women from Muslim countries (I forgot exactly from which country), she spoke to them on the assumption that those women felt oppressed and Albright saw herself as some kind of savior to them, or at least, to commiserate with them. But those Muslim women clearly told her that they didn't feel oppressed.
I don't feel offended or concerned about Moslem women and their hijabs, burqas, niqabs, and chadors, nor about the habits of Catholic nuns.
But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
There's a difference, though, between advocating against wearing the chador for symbolic reasons and advocating against forcing it upon women for political reasons. Other than monocultural misfits (e.g. your Brexit-baiting crowd), I don't know that anyone objects to the chador itself. It's knowing that chances are the woman is wearing it out of fear of violence that is objectionable.
By contrast, the fear of being judged as unfashionable is of little concern. It's voluntary as to whether you care about that stuff and hang out with other people who judge you on that stuff. It's comparable to a fear of being judged as not knowing enough Tolkien lore. Who gives a rat? :D
Quoting TheMadFool
Well, I think they should! You're right, in both cases there's an element of chastity and discretion. But for nuns it's something they want to do. And if a Muslim woman wants to wear a chador, they absolutely should feel free to. As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens.
And how do you propose to do that??
Not a clue. But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. If and when the same women are at no risk whatever they wear, then we can ask what their free choices symbolise, if we care (which I don't).
Why don't you care?
Actually, I do have a clue, and this is quite general and unpopular: don't do business with dictatorial countries that believe rights depend on demographic. We prop up regimes that oppress women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities then complain that other countries follow suit.
Quoting baker
I've never cared what people choose to wear. Clothes just aren't that interesting to me.
It's politically correct to call it a "choice".
How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.
Clearly, this doesn't compare with having acid thrown into one's face. But one would think that "civilized" countries would be more inclusive about a person's appearance ...
Unequally bad, yes. I'm not sure it's a thing these days, but it was in my lifetime. However even that is about how one dresses for work, not how one dresses when out and about generally. It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack.
???
Their country, their rules.
Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard, or no man will want her, and she will be ridiculed for being an old spinster. Well, at least she can take solace in not having acid thrown into her fce!
A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
Well no, she doesn't. Or, when she does, that is wrong. You can't have a society in which a woman can wear a nun's habit or a microskirt and stilettos and at the same time insist that women are forced to wear a microskirt and stilettos. That makes no sense.
I get that there are pressures to conform to fashion, peer groups, etc. But one has the freedom to not opt into that.
And doing so comes at a cost. It's not free.
Only if you value what's lost, in which case you'd opt in.
Could you please explain how a god with a son can be the same as a god without a son?
It is not certain that he sees it as a rhetorical question. But the question with the identity of the gods is so clear that everything must collapse.
Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster.
I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. The typical story told is that women feel like they become invisible, but it's worth bearing in mind that today's and yesterday's invisible older ladies were the day before's catcalling victims.
One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore.
Meet you there!
Quoting Kenosha Kid
Nobody is talking about an "adoring crowd", but about a woman not being good enough to be loved. Not pretty enough, not rich enough, not successful enough to be loved by a man.
What are you talking about??
It's bizarre that a person goes to some foreign country and expects that the people there will play by this person's rules.
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
depends upon who is doing the seeing. I suspect there are many Muslims (and some of them women) who believe their attire is the epitome of virtue.
Similarly, I suspect there are many non-theists who consider the habits worn by nuns to be oppressive symbols worn by those most likely raised in oppressive religious environments.
For the most part, I suspect both groups consider themselves to be virtuously attired.
As they are in every part of the world, the writ of human law being universally local. But the point stands against anyone who wishes to claim superiority of freedom, or of equality between the sexes, for their own enlightened culture. Inconsistency of rules across time and place with unmarked borders is not that great a virtue either.
Can you say, "People who refuse to integrate into the socio-economic system in which they live and insist on being a minority thereby risk ostracism"?
One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.
Again:
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?
I think ownership of turf is the highest epistemic and moral principle.
You already made the case for this earlier:
Quoting tim wood
You, too, are arguing for moral realism, or, in your case, moral egoism/narcissism.
*sigh*
I've never heard of Christian nuns being at liberty to "...wear what they like whenever they like" This is news to me and I'm going to need some reliable sources to believe you.
Quoting Possibility
I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage.
Quoting Possibility
The fact is Christians and Moslems both worship the same deity although they have different names for that deity. Given this, it's not surprising at all that a woman's piety in both religions is partly measured by the garments they don (the habit of Christian nuns is virtually a carbon copy of the Moslem chador).
Quoting Possibility
I daresay many of the sharpest critics of the Moslem stipulation on how women should be attired have ever bothered to get Moslem women's views on the matter. Western media too seems biased - granting airtime only to one side of the story. For all we know the majority of Moslem women could be in favor of the hijab and its variants.
Quoting baker
It takes two to tango. Right! :up:
Quoting Kenosha Kid
You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch.
As I said, many might wear it anyway for cultural reasons, but while that threat of violence exists, it can't be dismissed. Remove the threat of violence and let women wear what they want.
Quoting tim wood
Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Ask a Christian nun why she wears what she wears and whether she has any issues with the arrangement and the answers may surprise you. Christian nuns are more than happy to wear chador-like garments for they consider it a religious duty to hide their sexuality. The same logic applies to Moslem women. It takes two to tango.
I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case.
Christian nuns factor the wearing of a habit into their decision to take the Holy Orders - this is a conscious choice. And I know a number of catholic nuns in our local area whose Order (Sisters of St Joseph) does not require them to wear a habit at all. Canon law requires only that they are identifiable in their manner of dress as members of a Holy Order.
The problem is that those who condemn Muslim headdress as misogynistic are ASSUMING they are forced to do so. Yes, in a number of Muslim countries it is required by law or enforced as a cultural norm, but my main issue is with those upset by Muslim women in Western society who wear the hijab or chador, interpreting it as nothing more than a symbol of oppression and misogyny. This can be offensive to women who choose to wear the headdress, like nuns, as an identification of their community of faith.
Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two.
Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’...
No. Enlighten me.
Quoting Possibility
Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.
Two points to note:
1. the reason is identical for both (piety)
2. the dress codes are identical
Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former.
Quoting Possibility
I'm not too sure about Moslem women wearing hijabs and the like as a mark of "...their obedience to man..." There are many Moslem women in the so-called free world and while some choose to adopt Western clothes, many continue to dress in the same old way that Westerners find offensive. Do you mean to imply that [Moslem] women are oppressed in the "free" world as much as they are in other places? Probably not but then that means Moslem women actually prefer the hijab and such over other fashion alternatives.
Quoting Possibility
:up:
Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust" :chin:
Becoming a Catholic nun is not entirely a free choice, out of context. One can, ideally, only ordain if one has received "the higher calling". Catholic nuns and monks will tell you that God chose them, and they answered the call. Not that they chose God, out of a multitude of options.
*sigh*
Strawmen prove nothing.
Clearly, you are emotionally invested in this topic and are willing to look at it only from a very narrow perspective.
Sure, looking at things from a chronologically narrow perspective, they appear the way you describe them.
But this way, you're also asking us to believe that for millennia, women have been helpless victims of men.
That all men (or at least the vast majority of men) have been crazy, uncaring, aggressive, misogynist zombies.
And that the most that anyone can ever do in the face of prospective aggression is hunker down and give in.
Think about that.
I agree that we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist by women who choose to wear either. But you’re assuming that ‘showcasing their piety’ is the reason in both cases - and ‘publicly declaring their religiosity’ is another blanket assumption that fails to understand the distinction between their identifying with a faith community and their obedience based on religious dogma. There are cases of both among Christian nuns as well as Muslim women.
I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system.
Exactly.
Further, in order to ge closer to the truth of this matter, we'd need to carefully interview these women, and also account for when they give socially desirable answers and why they do so.
It’s the pronunciation ‘mawzlem’ as an adjective that is a little too close to ‘zalim’, literally translated as ‘dark/night’, but also understood to mean ‘one who is evil/unjust’. Interestingly, the UK Society of Editors also published the following in their (2002) document for journalists on ‘Reporting Diversity’, apparently after multiple correspondence from local Muslim community groups asking them to stop using the term:
“Muslim is preferred. People refer to themselves as Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent dislike being called negroes.”
I once worked with a Muslim woman who was having a conflict with a senior manager who took objection to her coming to work wearing a head covering. It was in an advice office and the senior manager had objected that people coming into the office would make all kinds of assumptions about the person they were coming to see for advice wearing certain Muslim attire. The woman, who was in fact tolerant of all people of all identities felt really upset about the objection because she saw her covering as one of personal expression. From my experience of knowing Muslim women in England, they do frequently wear their traditional clothing with a sense of expression and pride in their identity.
I’m not entirely sure it’s ‘official’ attention - I think this is a misunderstanding. The negative attention uncovered women attract in Muslim countries is from those exercising religious ‘power’ or moral indignation, with police and other ‘officials’ in a cultural supporting role.
By comparison, a Christian nun out in public in ordinary clothes is invisible. If she lived in a monastery and came down to dinner without her habit, she would receive similar ‘official’ attention as the Muslim woman ‘inappropriately dressed’ in public.
It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws.
I agree. And what is worse, it's not uncommon for women to be complicit in these assumptions, supporting them.
In Western culture, much of the fashion advice given to women -- by other women! -- is about how to be attractive, and specifically, sexually attractive.
Pick up any women's magazine: on the fashion and relationship pages, women are advised to look attractive to men. Or watch an extreme make-over reality show: when they do an extreme make-over on a woman and then present her in her new look, that look is typically in clothes, shoes, and make up that is sexually revealing and is intended to be attractive to men. Even regardless of the woman's age!
Some, if not most, women have deeply internalized these norms and don't question them. An acquaintance of mine once complained to me about her shoes with high heels -- how her feet hurt because of them, how she began to slouch. And then she said, in a matter-of-fact manner, "But alas, what can you do, such shoes must be worn."
What do you mean here by "obligation"?
We've been saying all along that it's far more complex than that.
On the topic of obligation: I take it you're a male living in the Western world. And you wear pants, not a skirt or some other garment that covers the lower part of the body. Would you say you wear pants out obligation?
I suggest you talk to as many women as you can. Ask them by whom they have felt most oppressed in their lives.
I bet at least some of them will reply that it was by other women.
When those that choose not to are free from coersion and violent consequences, then coersion and violent consequences will cease to be factors in their decision about what to wear. There is a natural priority here. No one is saying that no woman would choose to wear chador. It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive and violent misogyny is alarmingly prominent.
To a lesser or greater extent, this applies to any choice people make anyway.
It's not like it would be acceptable for, say, a male bank teller to come to work wearing a bikini. He probably wouldn't be stoned for it, but it would certainly not be good for his reputation and his CV.
Oppressive social forces are always at work, in every culture. The only difference is in how they externally manifest.
In the oh so civilized West, people can get fired for trifles. How's that not bad?
A key distinction.
Quoting baker
But we're not talking about whether it's good for a woman's CV: we're talking about whether it would result in her having acid thrown in her face, or restrictions of freedoms, or domestic abuse, or loss of life. The man in a bikini example is directly comparable to a nun choosing not to wear her habit, not to a Muslim wearing a chador for fear of death or disfigurement. I find the false equivalence of these quite alarming.
Quoting baker
I didn't have social forces in mind. I was referring to the oppression of an individual by another, e.g. her husband.
It's not an equivalence. I'm saying those repercussions are on a spectrum.
The repercussions that someone in the West will face for not living up to dress standards are, of course, far milder than elsewhere in the world. However, even those repercussions can end up having lasting and even fatal consequences, such as becomnig homeless due to job loss and dying in the street.
My point is that we in the West are not free either, and we make many choices out of fear of repercussions.
Really? The constitution of Iran states that people can wear whatever they want??
I'm not going to defend stances that you merely imagine I hold.
I've been polite to you so far, but you're abusing it.
They're not just milder, they're qualitatively different. If you accept a position at a firm with a dress code then, like a nun, you have weighed up whether conformity is something you're willing to adhere to get something you want.
However when weighing up whether or not to wear a headdress in public, you are weighing up whether or not the risk of insane and hateful punishment is worth taking.
Wanting a particular job is not on the same spectrum as not wanting acid in your face. That's the troubling aspect about this.
Quoting baker
There are milder, broader issues around things like dress and oppression. Transvestites are often attacked by homophobes. However a) it's comparatively rare, not systematic, and b) the victim has recourse to the law. The same coersion that forces women to wear particular clothing in public (which is far more totalitarian than just in the workplace) will typically either place them outside of the protection of the law, or else under a law that supports that mode of oppression. We're talking the kinds of countries that stone women to death for being raped. Even in the most comparable cases, it's qualitatively different.
I do agree with what you’ve said. My issue is with those in Western cultures telling Muslim women that they shouldn’t wear the chador, or who claim to be offended by women wearing it in a supposedly free, Western culture - this is what the discussion is about, is it not?
Quoting tim wood
Hold up - the question presented here was why people are offended by Muslim women wearing head-coverings but not Christian nuns doing the same. I took this as referring to Muslim women in a Western cultural setting, but you keep defending those offended by the wearing of chador from the perspective of a radical Islamic state.
I’m not trying to justify the conditions of women in a radical Islamic state. The fact that this oppression and violence is sanctioned at a state level is a serious international issue that needs to be addressed, but I don’t believe we will solve it by attributing our disgust or hatred to the wearing of the chador itself - particularly if we wish to claim our society to be ‘free’ by comparison.
I’m arguing for the freedom of women in Western culture to express their commitment to a faith that is as much about peace and love as Christianity. That not all Muslim communities are violent, misogynistic or oppressive towards women does not deny that some are - same with Christianity.
I’m saying that our point of difference from the states you’re so passionately against should not be about faith or what women can and can’t wear, but about how men interpret the appearance and behaviour of women. And the arguments here show that we have a long way to go before we can claim the high ground.
The former is wrong, for sure. Best case scenario, it's victim-blaming. The latter is because, at least in part, of genuine concern. Offense is an inappropriate response perhaps, but concern is not.
It’s not a symmetry, no. But I do think that some parallels can be drawn (carefully), especially to highlight the question of choice and of how men interpret what women wear as a message intended for men.
The French situation highlights my point: the issue is not what women wear, but how we interpret and respond to what women wear. The young girl is being told on all fronts and under no uncertain terms that what she wears is to be interpreted from an external (male) perspective, and is therefore not a choice she is ever free to make alone. You simply cannot argue for liberty and egalitarianism under these conditions.
I would argue that Muslim violence is supported in France by a culture that traditionally portrays a woman’s appearance as a message intended for men, who are entitled (encouraged?) to respond. It comes as no surprise, then, that they would be at the forefront of moves to outlaw Muslim head-coverings for women, further limiting a girl’s options.
Agreed. But check your concern and how you interpret it.
There is a tendency to focus on the ‘victim’ as the passive object of our concern, rather than as a free-thinking agent who has been limited under conditions of culturally perceived potentiality. Men want to rescue the victim from certain ‘forces’, without examining the conditions that attribute potentiality to these ‘forces’ rather than the agent. It is these conditions of perceived potentiality - in particular what a woman’s clothing means regarding the potential and value of interactions with her - that women are rarely given a say in as free-thinking agents, in any culture. THIS is an area of concern.
"Seeming" being the operative word.
No, that's not good enough.
There you go. You think that with an attitude like you've been displaying here toward me and some others, you invite open discussion? Too bad this forum doesn't have the type of report function that some others have, because I've been wanting to report you from the beginning of this.
The standard of discussion that you're setting here is abysmally low and does not warrant much engagement.
I feel disgusted by your attitude.
Exactly. And there's a name for this wanting to rescue others, seeing them as helpless victims: white knighting.
This, combined with being a social justice warrior makes it impossible to actually discuss any social problem, and makes sure that the conversation is kept on the surface of the issue, while the deeply embedded factors that bring about and maintain the very problem that the SJW and WK want to save the poor victim from, are left intact.
It's a way of maintaining the status quo while pretending to be acting for change.
For one, the nun probably isn't weighing her options like that. I wouldn't assume nuns or prospective nuns generally do that. There was a time when I wanted to become a Catholic nun, and I can say from personal experience that the standards of dress were never an issue for me; it went without saying that if I were to become a nun, I would wear the habit or whatever standard attire would be prescribed by the order. I have also not felt in any way oppressed by the standard of dress for nuns; there was no fear involved in the prospect of wearing the habit. On the contrary, I looked forward to it, I felt proud about it. I dare say I am not the only one who thinks so.
Becoming and being a nun is just not for every woman, nor is every woman required to be one. Your generalizations don't apply.
For two, one needs a job, and the options are, for many people, rather limited. The dress code is sometimes a necessary evil. But because the job is a necessity, one views the requirements of the job in a similar way as one views the requirements of one's citizenship, which one received simply by being born into a certain country (as is the case for most people): it's a preexisting unilaterally imposed obligation over which one has no say.
I don't know. How many Muslim women have you interviewed about this?
From what you've said, I surmise that you're assuming that the baseline from which all women all over the world all over history start (or from which they should start) is the same: that they all want to live by a certain Western secular standard; and that if they can't live by that standard, they feel oppressed and only follow social norms out of fear.
This is where you're wrong.
It's a false dichotomy to begin with.
Recourse to the law in "civilized" countries?
Where do you live???!
Yes, we have laws, on paper, but they're only as good as how much money and power one has.
Your most fundamental mistake is that you think that Western secular men are better feminists than any woman could ever be.
Heaven knows you feel a fierce moral indignation and your armor is shining on your white horse.
The opposite seems to be the case here, where people are speaking up for a potentially oppressed person's apparent choices without reference to the limitations placed on those choices. Ultimately my argument is that you can only do this once the coersion is removed, e.g. the threat of violence is removed. Is your counter-argument that this coersion should be sustained? If not, and putting aside as unjustified your guesses as to men's motives and knowledge, it's difficult to see what your point is.
And why do you assume that wearing a suit and tie in my first job was any more of an issue for me? Point is, they're equivalent. They are equivalently an issue, and equivalently a non-issue.
Quoting baker
Neither is becoming a middle manager of a stationary company, or a police officer, or a surgeon, or a soldier, or indeed anyone else who's vocation dictates their attire.
Quoting baker
Funny, that's the second time I've hit this kind of logic. If I interviewed 100 and 90 said that they weren't concerned about the repurcussions of not wearing hijab because they wanted to wear it anyway, would that make it okay?
Quoting baker
That's not from what I've said, so you're being dishonest. As I've repeatedly said, women are being attacked, disfigured, raped, and killed for not wearing hijab. Male government figures have repeatedly pushed the viewpoint that these women deserve such. Do you agree? Is that okay by you? Because I believe, as I've said, that that kind of coersion needs to be removed before you can make any ab rectum claims about women having a choice.
Quoting baker
No, it isn't and, as I said, it's extremely troubling that you think it is.
Quoting baker
In the countries where nuns dress as per the OP.
Quoting baker
I don't think I need an especially elevated moral ground to not be okay with throwing acid in women's faces. I'm sorry you're not there yet.
This threat of violence is perceived as a ‘force’ that needs to be removed, and I do understand how you can think it’s that simple. But simply removing a ‘force’ as such doesn’t turn an object into an agent, it only leaves the object open to new ‘forces’. A denial of agency is a necessary condition of coercion - this is where the real problem lies.
But solving this problem doesn’t lend itself to an action-hero scenario. In fact there is no way to predict or control what follows, making it difficult to evaluate the ‘success’ of our actions, let alone get any form of thanks for it.
You seem pretty dedicated to casting a man's dislike of violence against women purely in terms of self-glory. I can't really do anything with or about that. It's not only obnoxious, it's a conversational dead-end.
A few years ago in Afghanistan, four women were beaten and arrested by police for insufficiently covering up. One of them, who was wearing a burqa but no face mesh, was beaten unconscious. They were then sentenced to severe floggings.
In 2016 in Saudi Arabia, a woman posted a photo of herself on Twitter that resulted in calls from conservative Saudis for her to be beheaded. She was arrested and imprisoned for three years, thankfully avoiding the lash. Activists who supported her were then arrested, imprisoned and, according to Amnesty, assaulted and raped while in prison. Her husband was then arrested.
In 2016 in Somalia, Ruqiya Farah Yarow was shot dead for not wearing the veil. Somalia is probably the worst offender for enforcing the veil, with women routinely being beaten, stripped naked, and raped for not wearing hijab, even if they are police officers or doctors or soldiers.
Dozens of women in Pakistan are attacked with acid each year, one of the main reasons being not satisfactorily covering their hair (the other being rejecting a proposal of marriage). Not no hijab, just not good enough hijab. Acid attacks against women for inappropriate dress are also common in Iran, and not unknown in the west.
Worst of all, none of these are atypical.
It's really not like being a nun.
Yes, there a millions of women who choose to dress this way, and too often they too are attacked by the same kind of dickhead men in the west. But that's not a reason to brush under the carpet the millions of women who are forced to wear it. For something that's supposed to be like wearing a nun's habit, there's an awful lot of women protesting being forced to wear it, an awful lot of men violently punishing them for not wearing it, and an awful lot of state, police and judicial effort expended on mandating the wearing of it.
Either that or condemn the Christian nuns' habit too as a deplorable mark of oppression.
(My emphasis.) There is a glaring inconsistency here, and you obviously know about it because you avoided reference to a Muslim woman's choice.
That’s not what I’m doing at all - I’m simply pointing out a perspective that is conveniently overlooked in these discussions because it calls out the existing patriarchy, and therefore the perceived ‘norm’. Your defensiveness and indignation is understandable - I’m asking you to look honestly and humbly at your motivations for speaking out against the level of coercion that exists in the lives of Muslim women. That isn’t easy, and I’m neither surprised nor offended by this kind of response, which I’m sure frustrates you all the more.
I want to be clear that my comments here should not be construed as an attack on men, but call for a critical evaluation of the systems of value and perceived potentiality that perpetuate the coercion of women. I’m sure it feels like an attack when your cultural identity is constructed from it, but I’m not going to apologise for that. You are more than your cultural identity.
It’s a ‘conversational dead-end’ because you can neither admit nor deny what I’m arguing here. To admit it would be to recognise that you contribute to it, and that the structures maintain your own value and perceived potentiality. To deny it would be to undermine the purpose of your participation in this discussion - to support an end to these incidents of violence and threats against women.
And the fact that I am a woman does in no way give me the high ground here - I contribute to these conditions as much as you do, only in different ways. And I have deliberately not responded to @baker’s suggestions that women are complicit in all of this because I am in the minority here, and therefore neither going to paint a target on my back so you all feel less victimised, nor get defensive about something I recognise to be true. I use the pronoun ‘we’ to include myself, and women in general, in perpetuating the conditions of coercion.
That said, I’m also questioning the predicted effectiveness of removing these structures of coercion in relation to women’s agency. While I recognise that they do absolutely need to be removed, the idea that this removal solves the problem is naive at best. We need to recognise that these situations of coercion are symptoms of a larger issue.
I wish that everyone wasn’t so defensive, it would make these discussions much more productive. I genuinely do not mean to attack those who have engaged with me here, but I do think a dose of humility is in order. I hope it’s not too much to ask.
Here's a thing to keep in mind: it's the laws of particular countries that are wrong, not the clothing they command.
Sometimes this gets mixed up.
Well said, but just to be more clear, it's not just laws but cultures, especially patriarchal cultures, especially those that back up their unofficial laws with misogynistic violence.
There are plenty of countries like Indonesia that wear headdress without violent enforcement, where it is not only a matter of tradition but of fashion, and I'm sure that when we see those none of us are remotely perturbed.
Truth is, oppression is not felt by Muslims in the same way as we think they "should" and we are blind to the invisible oppression we enforce within our own cultural norms. Many don't get annoyed by church bells and nuns, but would get annoyed by Minaret songs and Niqabs. Many don't see how society and Christian religion indoctrinate people into these positions, but clearly see how Muslim nations oppress and indoctrinate their people. It's easy to see systems from the outside than spot the systems we live in.
The many conflicts and problems we spot in Muslim nations almost always have more to do with people in power using religion to oppress and control. The problems are always means of power, not the religion itself. Religion is a powerful tool to control people far more effectively than anything else.
So the more interesting question is; If we remove systems of power, what would become of religion? How does practice, rituals and ways of living look if religion as a means of power is changed to being a religion with pure choice. Meaning, no one force religion on anyone, not their children, not a stranger, not the people.
Before saying these people have a "choice" or define the differences between the two by a scale of "feeling" oppressed, we must break down how people are formed into making either a choice to be, indoctrinated or forced to be something.
All of us are products of a deterministic society, nature and nurture where even nature is formed by the nurture of past people. So to define differences we need to detach ourselves from the shackles of this determinism in order to purely objectively observe the nature of being and understand that there are no differences between the two, it's only a narrative we've formed to be comfortable in existence.
I'm being more general in the matter. Historically, the west have gotten more free of government oppression by religion, but only due to capitalist interests dominating power rather than specific individuals using religion. While the west has people using capitalism to gain power, the middle-east has kept using religion.
So, we are all oppressed in some way, some more than others, we just don't see western oppressive behaviors clearly since we live in the system and might even be part of that system. The level of suffering must also be balanced to the way it is portrayed in media and the common narrative. It's hard to know the level of oppression if the narrative is never truly objective, but subjective in media and enforced by echo chambers in the public.
Many in the middle-east find themselves oppressed more by western society invading through culture than their own government and religion does.
So how do we balance perspectives and narratives to form a truly objective overview of oppression in the world? Singular examples of oppression like Kenosha Kid mentioned are real, but singular, they form a singular perspective. So if someone form examples from western society of oppression, we get another singular perspective.
The idea I proposed is to back up and view oppression as a concept first, before talking specifics of how different nations, religions, and cultures act upon their own people.
I'm not aware of anyone having a problem with call to prayer, except when it's through loudspeakers at sweet FA o'clock in communities where people have to work, then it's annoying, in the same way church bells are annoying at 4 am (which is why they don't typically ring at that time).
Seems a quintessential 'Don't be a dick about it' issue.
What gets to me in these discussions is that feminists (be they women or men) propose to have so much concern and compassion for women somewhere on the other end of the world, but muster none for the woman they're talking to right there on the spot.
So these feminists bring up some obvious point of injustice or abuse, and then harp and hammer on it. And when there are others who don't join them in a "muh tribe" manner, those feminists ostracize those others as The Enemy and The Misogynist.
It's a surefire way to prevent any discussion of the matter and to maintain the status quo. While in the meantime, the plight of women, once more, goes unnoticed.
Please correct me if I’m mistaken here, because I don’t want to assume: am I to understand that it isn’t the coercion of women that you object to, but this extreme level of coercion where violence against women is sanctioned at all levels of authority?
I’m not denying the evidence, and I really don’t think anyone here is. I’d like to establish a clearer picture of what it is that you believe must be removed, because you seem keen to take the focus off my suggestion that a necessary condition of this kind of coercion is a denial of female agency. Misogynistic violence amounts to ‘any means necessary’ to maintain this denial, but in my view it’s a symptom, not the cause.
State, religious or cultural sanctioning of violence against women is abhorrent and needs to stop. But from my perspective, what we’re not doing here is addressing the underlying conditions that give rise to this violence. I don’t see this coming from state or religious authorities, but from the culture that sustains them. This authority is given, not taken. Surely the ongoing conflict in the Middle East has demonstrated that removing particular state or religious authority does not solve the problem of cultural hatred or violence? It’s like Hydra: cut off one head, and two more grow in its place...
It’s not that simple.
By agency, I mean the capacity of individuals to act independently and make their own choices. The interdependence of humanity - that our actions are not entirely independent, and therefore our choices are not entirely our own - has been historically more obvious to women than it is to men. It is this imbalance of perception that has traditionally limited the perception of female agency, but not its evidence in reality. Plausible deniability of male interdependence and its attribution to the female aspect of humanity helps to consolidate illusions of independence in patriarchal society.
This is particularly noticeable in relation to an individual’s capacity to act independently and make their own choices in sexual relations and in the life of an unborn or infant child - two aspects of humanity where female agency/male interdependence appears particularly undeniable.
It is these two aspects that have enabled women to gradually negotiate for expressions of agency within patriarchal society, but has also motivated those societies to strive for a tight rein on the cultural systems of meaning within which women express this agency. So the behaviour or appearance of a woman that might portray her agency (and by extension, a man’s interdependence) as explicitly undeniable is still carefully isolated within or else excluded from the social construct of a valuable, moral or even lawful existence for women.
Most modern cultural systems of language and morality still have structures that protect and promote the deniability of female agency, and it is within these systems that fundamentalism gains a foothold. What women choose to wear is still closely linked to morality and sexual status in relation to men. I’m socially, if not morally or legally, held responsible for how a man might interpret my hemline or neckline in certain settings, as if male interdependence is neatly packaged up with my choice. This makes it easy for men to freely interpret a woman’s expression of agency (as a come-on or a sign of her sexual immorality) while maintaining an illusion of independence. Both Muslim and Christian cultural traditions offer written examples of morality laws and justification for controlling female agency in this way that are of particular interest to fundamentalists.
At this point, I draw attention back to Indonesian culture, where the wearing of the ‘jiljab’ has not been enforced by law, and remains a choice for women that is part of their cultural identity. Until 1998, the government had kept a tight rein on the influence of Islamic groups, but since then there has been a rise in the wearing of more traditional Muslim head coverings than the loose-fitting jiljab, with culturally-specific fashion trends leading the push. The question of how women can or should dress has merged in the last two decades as a highly politicised topic in Indonesia, in a similar vein to the ongoing US abortion debate. Political campaigns have in recent years drawn attention to images of the candidates’ wives with particular head coverings as a show of morality/choice, and fundamentalist groups calling to enforce Muslim dress for all Indonesian women are gaining traction.
What Indonesia illustrates is how easily choice may be eroded in what is otherwise a ‘free’ society. This is how it started for a number of radical Islamic states that currently operate. Hosseini’s book A Thousand Splendid Suns depicts this descent from apparent freedom to oppression, and Margaret Atwood’s book The Handmaid’s Tale shows how fragile the perception of female agency remains in modern Western/Christian society.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
So there are Western feminists who severely criticize some men for how they treat women, saying how those men are oppressing women. Yet these same Western feminists are, in terms of principle, doing the very same thing they criticize others for.
Or maybe women are supposed to be so happy because Western feminists are not throwing acid into their faces, but are, instead, only seeing themselves as the arbiters of women's reality?
This is why I don't share in the fierce moral indignation that some Western feminists display. Because they still consider themselves to be the ones who get to define what a woman's thoughts are, what a woman's intentions are, what a woman's words and actions mean. They get to act in bad faith, they get to jump to conclusions and think the worst of some woman. They get to consider the woman guilty until she proves herself innocent, on their terms.
https://fakebuddhaquotes.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Image-from-iOS-26-1024x976-1-e1611927131807-660x559.jpg