'Feminists' are planning a protest about the Burkini ban in France

[Burney]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

[Billy Goat Sverige]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

"Women should have free agency to choose how they dress" :hehe:

[Sir C]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

I wonder if someone is going to point out to them that it's 'Le Touquet', not 'La Touquet'.

Thick and mental, wd them.

[Burney]

"Women should have free agency to choose how they dress" :hehe:

I know. It's an irony-free zone, apparently.

[Burney]

I wonder if someone is going to point out to them that it's 'Le Touquet', not 'La Touquet'.

Thick and mental, wd them.

When basic logic is a stranger, accurate spelling is too much to ask. I'm intrigued by the 'good feels' offered in return for lifts, though.

[George Morrell's Tache]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

I'm not sure the burkini constitutes the gravest source of oppression to the female sex. Whilst I agree that Islamic covering rules are arcane and medieval, my understanding of the feminist position in this case, is that the burkini does not cover the face, so is less problematic than the veil, and primarily lets women access activities they may well be forbidden to them. The alternative would be Muslim women being kept in and unable to enjoy the sea. Notwithstanding that, it does seem a cruel irony that the state which prides itself on liberty, is being absurdly illiberal and prescriptive about what one wears on the beach. To say that women can only access the beach if they wear a bikini or a swimsuit is ridiculous, and as it only affects women, it's reasonable for feminists to take issue with it.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Anyone who defends the burkini or the burkha is not a feminist. Full stop.

The most ridiculous argument I've heard in favour of it is that it is worn by people who've suffered from skin cancer and don't want exposure to the sun. Don't guys get skin cancer then?

[Ash]

I'm not sure the burkini constitutes the gravest source of oppression to the female sex. Whilst I agree that Islamic covering rules are arcane and medieval, my understanding of the feminist position in this case, is that the burkini does not cover the face, so is less problematic than the veil, and primarily lets women access activities they may well be forbidden to them. The alternative would be Muslim women being kept in and unable to enjoy the sea. Notwithstanding that, it does seem a cruel irony that the state which prides itself on liberty, is being absurdly illiberal and prescriptive about what one wears on the beach. To say that women can only access the beach if they wear a bikini or a swimsuit is ridiculous, and as it only affects women, it's reasonable for feminists to take issue with it.

Good post, George Morrell's Tache.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

Yeah great points. In fact why not let slaves who are locked up go with their masters to the beach as well? So they can run around for a little while and pretend they're free?

[Ash]

Yeah great points. In fact why not let slaves who are locked up go with their masters to the beach as well? So they can run around for a little while and pretend they're free?

Would you legally force women to go topless on a beach, even if it might reflect your personal aesthetic preferences? Or would you respect their choice to wear what they choose? This isn't about face-covering, which is a completely different matter.

Nothing wrong with this outfit imo:

http://ep00.epimg.net/elpais/imagenes/2016/03/23/estilo/1458745542_742927_1458748403_noticia_normal.jpg

OTOH there is to my mind definitely something wrong with a law that forces women to take off their clothes.

[Mo Britain less Europe]

No. I would ask them to go where they don't make people with normal bathing costumes uncomfortable. Nudists go to nudist beaches, non-nudists go to non-nudist beaches. Peeping toms can go f uck themselves. It's not my fault their archaic anti-woman religion forces them to wear these inhumane outfits.

I can't walk into a mosque in a thong, why should they walk onto a beach in a sack? They don't want to be looked at, don't go to the beach.

Reform the middle-ages restrictions, don't encourage them with a phoney relativistic liberalism.

[George Morrell's Tache]

Yeah great points. In fact why not let slaves who are locked up go with their masters to the beach as well? So they can run around for a little while and pretend they're free?

I don't think you understood what I said. You are seeing matters as a question of absolutes, without nuance. Never a good thing.

[George Morrell's Tache]

No. I would ask them to go where they don't make people with normal bathing costumes uncomfortable. Nudists go to nudist beaches, non-nudists go to non-nudist beaches. Peeping toms can go f uck themselves. It's not my fault their archaic anti-woman religion forces them to wear these inhumane outfits.

I can't walk into a mosque in a thong, why should they walk onto a beach in a sack? They don't want to be looked at, don't go to the beach.

Reform the middle-ages restrictions, don't encourage them with a phoney relativistic liberalism.

There is a lot of space between regressive relativism and absolute readings of every situation. I think it is dangerous and highly problematic for any organisation, especially the state, to rigidly prescribe what somebody ought, and ought not, wear. If you are doing a public job, in a public place, then its fair to make restrictions on grounds of secularism (Laicite in France) not to wear a veil for example. But, somebody going about their private business in public to be restricted from wearing what they choose is absurd. As for your examples, there is no reason to go to Mosque in a thong, but as far as I know there were no specific stipulations about required attire for the beach, until the local authority decided to make a random one. I would hazard a guess that the decision was not based on the concern for Muslim women's freedom!

[TheCurly]

I don't think you understood what I said. You are seeing matters as a question of absolutes, without nuance. Never a good thing.

The instances of skin cancer in Muslim countries must be minute.wd the Muslims.

[Burney]

I'm not sure the burkini constitutes the gravest source of oppression to the female sex. Whilst I agree that Islamic covering rules are arcane and medieval, my understanding of the feminist position in this case, is that the burkini does not cover the face, so is less problematic than the veil, and primarily lets women access activities they may well be forbidden to them. The alternative would be Muslim women being kept in and unable to enjoy the sea. Notwithstanding that, it does seem a cruel irony that the state which prides itself on liberty, is being absurdly illiberal and prescriptive about what one wears on the beach. To say that women can only access the beach if they wear a bikini or a swimsuit is ridiculous, and as it only affects women, it's reasonable for feminists to take issue with it.

Of course it isn't the biggest problem. However, it is an attempt to undermine muslim men's control over their womenfolk by making it clear that the law will not tolerate it. It is an attack on a clear symbol of patriarchal oppression and thus on the whole system of oppression that is inherent to Islam. As things stand, Islamic women's bodies are controlled by Islamic men. This is an attempt to wrest that control away from them and thus undermine their social control.
Your argument presupposes that these women have entire agency over how they dress. They do not. By conditioning, coercion and threat they are forced into this ridiculous garb from the time they hit puberty to allow their families and later their husbands to control them. An entire culture is busy keeping these women dressed like this and the only agency with the power to help these women escape these bonds is the state, which by its nature can only do it by heavy-handed means.
The fact is that these women's bodies are a battleground in a war between western, liberal culture and regressive, patriarchal Islam. Of course we all would wish that these women would simply be allowed to dress as they wish, but as things stand, they are being forced to dress a certain way by the regressive, patriarchal Islamic culture. If it's a binary choice (and it is) between that and being forced to dress a certain way by western culture, I would prefer the latter.
Up to now we have allowed Islam to retain often brutal control over its womenfolk and not insisted upon our cultural norms. As it becomes clear that Islam won't compromise, that is changing and the west is starting to wake up to the fact that if we don't insist on our way of doing things, we will be washed away.
Of course armed men forcing a woman to remove clothes makes for bad optics. We all agree that it is not desirable to force our norms upon people, but if those people refuse to assimilate and that refusal becomes problematic to the point of violence and terrorism, then no choice is left. To quibble about the optics of the situation is to miss the bigger point.

[Burney]

There is a lot of space between regressive relativism and absolute readings of every situation. I think it is dangerous and highly problematic for any organisation, especially the state, to rigidly prescribe what somebody ought, and ought not, wear. If you are doing a public job, in a public place, then its fair to make restrictions on grounds of secularism (Laicite in France) not to wear a veil for example. But, somebody going about their private business in public to be restricted from wearing what they choose is absurd. As for your examples, there is no reason to go to Mosque in a thong, but as far as I know there were no specific stipulations about required attire for the beach, until the local authority decided to make a random one. I would hazard a guess that the decision was not based on the concern for Muslim women's freedom!

Make no mistake: there is nothing 'liberal' about tolerating an explicit symbol of female oppression by men on our streets. We can call it liberalism, but it is in fact nothing but cowardice and a refusal to stand up for our values. A woman in a burka might as well be being led around the streets on a leash by her husband - that is the reality and that is what we tolerate in the name of liberalism. And we disingenuously console ourselves by pretending that it is her 'choice' - as if that choice had ever been made freely.

[Burney]

Would you legally force women to go topless on a beach, even if it might reflect your personal aesthetic preferences? Or would you respect their choice to wear what they choose? This isn't about face-covering, which is a completely different matter.

Nothing wrong with this outfit imo:

http://ep00.epimg.net/elpais/imagenes/2016/03/23/estilo/1458745542_742927_1458748403_noticia_normal.jpg

OTOH there is to my mind definitely something wrong with a law that forces women to take off their clothes.

a/ Their 'choice' is not being freely made
b/ There is everything wrong with that outfit, as it is emblematic of a regressive, violent and dangerous form of Islam that is currently killing people all over the west.

[George Morrell's Tache]

a/ Their 'choice' is not being freely made
b/ There is everything wrong with that outfit, as it is emblematic of a regressive, violent and dangerous form of Islam that is currently killing people all over the west.

1. How do you know?
2. Don't be silly.

[Burney]

1. How do you know?
2. Don't be silly.

1/ I know because I know how the strictures of Islamic society work in relation to the male domination of women. Did you not notice the way that the Taliban and ISIS on taking anywhere over immediately insist on extreme clothing restrictions and an end to education for women? Do you imagine that's just a coincidence or do you maybe think it might be part of a pattern of extreme systematic social control of men over women within Islam - of which ridiculous garb like this is just one manifestation? Any woman telling you that she's wearing this because she wants to is simply a victim of the extreme social and religious conditioning of her culture. To find out how 'free her choice was, ask her how her menfolk would react if she turned up to the beach in a bikini.
2/ Nothing silly about it. These garments are simply an attempt to normalise a backwards thread of Islamic thought whose roots are exactly the same as those that currently feed global Islamic terrorism. Making that link may make you uncomfortable, but it's true.

[TheCurly]

Anyone who defends the burkini or the burkha is not a feminist. Full stop.

The most ridiculous argument I've heard in favour of it is that it is worn by people who've suffered from skin cancer and don't want exposure to the sun. Don't guys get skin cancer then?

:throwsinarandompicture: :walksawaywhistling:

256

[Burney]

:throwsinarandompicture: :walksawaywhistling:

256

Difference is that I don't think anyone has coerced a nun into her vocation for at least a couple of centuries, c.

[TheCurly]

Difference is that I don't think anyone has coerced a nun into her vocation for at least a couple of centuries, c.

I know-I was jesting.Personally in Islamic countries I don't think it's our "fight" but in Western countries if they make it illegal then that's just that.Obey the law of the land and all that.

[Monty92]

Would you legally force women to go topless on a beach, even if it might reflect your personal aesthetic preferences? Or would you respect their choice to wear what they choose? This isn't about face-covering, which is a completely different matter.

Nothing wrong with this outfit imo:

http://ep00.epimg.net/elpais/imagenes/2016/03/23/estilo/1458745542_742927_1458748403_noticia_normal.jpg

OTOH there is to my mind definitely something wrong with a law that forces women to take off their clothes.

Where is there a law that forces women to take off their clothes?

[Monty92]

Of course it isn't the biggest problem. However, it is an attempt to undermine muslim men's control over their womenfolk by making it clear that the law will not tolerate it. It is an attack on a clear symbol of patriarchal oppression and thus on the whole system of oppression that is inherent to Islam. As things stand, Islamic women's bodies are controlled by Islamic men. This is an attempt to wrest that control away from them and thus undermine their social control.
Your argument presupposes that these women have entire agency over how they dress. They do not. By conditioning, coercion and threat they are forced into this ridiculous garb from the time they hit puberty to allow their families and later their husbands to control them. An entire culture is busy keeping these women dressed like this and the only agency with the power to help these women escape these bonds is the state, which by its nature can only do it by heavy-handed means.
The fact is that these women's bodies are a battleground in a war between western, liberal culture and regressive, patriarchal Islam. Of course we all would wish that these women would simply be allowed to dress as they wish, but as things stand, they are being forced to dress a certain way by the regressive, patriarchal Islamic culture. If it's a binary choice (and it is) between that and being forced to dress a certain way by western culture, I would prefer the latter.
Up to now we have allowed Islam to retain often brutal control over its womenfolk and not insisted upon our cultural norms. As it becomes clear that Islam won't compromise, that is changing and the west is starting to wake up to the fact that if we don't insist on our way of doing things, we will be washed away.
Of course armed men forcing a woman to remove clothes makes for bad optics. We all agree that it is not desirable to force our norms upon people, but if those people refuse to assimilate and that refusal becomes problematic to the point of violence and terrorism, then no choice is left. To quibble about the optics of the situation is to miss the bigger point.

I'm with you all the way on this, of course, but no-one "forced" that woman (who I have seen suggested was a plant, given that she had absolutely no beach paraphernalia with her) to remove clothes. She could have left the beach.

[Burney]

I'm with you all the way on this, of course, but no-one "forced" that woman (who I have seen suggested was a plant, given that she had absolutely no beach paraphernalia with her) to remove clothes. She could have left the beach.

It certainly looked like a demonstration, I agree. All the hand-wringers seem to ignore the fact that she must have known the law (fûckssake, I know the law and I live in England) and did it anyway.

[Burney]

I'm with you all the way on this, of course, but no-one "forced" that woman (who I have seen suggested was a plant, given that she had absolutely no beach paraphernalia with her) to remove clothes. She could have left the beach.

This, basically

259

[Monty92]

This, basically

259

I guess the question is whether the opposing French bans on burkinis while challenging the mindset of those who support burkini is the more sensible approach.

[Burney]

I guess the question is whether the opposing French bans on burkinis while challenging the mindset of those who support burkini is the more sensible approach.

Persuasion of these people doesn't work. They're not interested. There has to be a direct legal obstacle to these behaviours. A literal line in the sand, if you will.

[Ash]

I'm with you all the way on this, of course, but no-one "forced" that woman (who I have seen suggested was a plant, given that she had absolutely no beach paraphernalia with her) to remove clothes. She could have left the beach.

And returned to the beach with less clothes, presumably. This is not the same as the discussion about burkas and niqabs. There are women who prefer to dress modestly who are not muslims and who are not forced to do so by the social pressures of a religion.

I am not convinved that removing certain civil freedoms for a members of a specific religion is the way to deal with the challenge that religion poses for western culture, but while there is a case for restrictions against burkas and niqabs, the beach is not the place for that battle. On the contrary, in a time where it feels that muslims and non-muslims inhabit seperate universes, public spaces which which we can all enjoy together are a good thing.

[Monty92]

And returned to the beach with less clothes, presumably. This is not the same as the discussion about burkas and niqabs. There are women who prefer to dress modestly who are not muslims and who are not forced to do so by the social pressures of a religion.

I am not convinved that removing certain civil freedoms for a members of a specific religion is the way to deal with the challenge that religion poses for western culture, but while there is a case for restrictions against burkas and niqabs, the beach is not the place for that battle. On the contrary, in a time where it feels that muslims and non-muslims inhabit seperate universes, public spaces which which we can all enjoy together are a good thing.

I think the strongest defence of the ban (which, unless I'm mistaken, has so far only been put into force in two French towns) has been made by Berni and the Economist quote I posted earlier, and relies on the argument that the threat from political Islam is sufficiently grave that civil liberties must suffer while we get to grips with it.

This is just about convincing enough for me, Clive. After all, I assume you don't object to profiling?

[George Morrell's Tache]

The instances of skin cancer in Muslim countries must be minute.wd the Muslims.

I suspect you are right.

[AFC East]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

The protest isn't a defence of the Burkha, which is undoubtedly an unfortunate symbol of patriarchal Islam. It's a defence of the right to wear what one chooses to wear. Many islamic women have made the choice to follow this part of their religion. These are not necessarily women living under dogged oppression on a daily basis. In the same way some Catholic women will not use contraception. Both are examples of a deeply patriarchal religion dictating to women. One is more visible, one is potentially more physically harmful.

I have no evidence, but I sincerely doubt that fundamentalists will be on the beach in a Burkini. I'd guess that fundamentalists hate these women more than the French do.

Let's have a proper public debate, rather than an ill thought out ban.

[George Morrell's Tache]

Well argued.

[Ash]

Well argued.

Yes, and there should be more public debates about all the difficult subjects, rather than running away from the issues and passing unhelpful laws for the sake of a bit of SomethingMustBeDonery.

[redgunamo]

That's right. Feminists are going to oppose the patriarchy by...ummm...defending one of the most blatant and explicit manifestations of the oppression of women.

I literally do not know where to start with the degree of stupidity and doublethink required to imagine this is a good idea. :shakehead:

https://www.facebook.com/events/191575907926970/

Surely perfectly understandable, if the alternative is to support the oppressively male design that the more shape and skin a woman shows, the better she is to be honoured?

I presume their idea is that the burqa/burqa ban is simply one more damn thing.

[World's End Stella]

The protest isn't a defence of the Burkha, which is undoubtedly an unfortunate symbol of patriarchal Islam. It's a defence of the right to wear what one chooses to wear. Many islamic women have made the choice to follow this part of their religion. These are not necessarily women living under dogged oppression on a daily basis. In the same way some Catholic women will not use contraception. Both are examples of a deeply patriarchal religion dictating to women. One is more visible, one is potentially more physically harmful.

I have no evidence, but I sincerely doubt that fundamentalists will be on the beach in a Burkini. I'd guess that fundamentalists hate these women more than the French do.

Let's have a proper public debate, rather than an ill thought out ban.

Yes, and heaven forbid that we might look at the issue on a practical level. Is there anyone who really believes that banning the burkini is going to influence the misogynistic nature of Islamic culture in a positive way? Really? Do you think women who are coerced into wearing the burkini are going to suddenly become Germaine Greer on a camel?

The problem isn't women who are forced to cover up, it's the men, the culture and the community who encourage it. I would suggest we focus our attention there. And although I admit that we are likely to encounter the same group of people who will be protesting the ban on burkinis, at least in this scenario we'll have a valid argument.

[redgunamo]

..at least in this scenario we'll have a valid argument.

Not if you're a Western Feminist though; their primary target is Western men, not Islamic ones.

[World's End Stella]

Not if you're a Western Feminist though; their primary target is Western men, not Islamic ones.


Trust me, red, when I say 'we', it never includes Western feminists. FACT.

[redgunamo]

Trust me, red, when I say 'we', it never includes Western feminists. FACT.

Same difference really; feminists can be women too.

[Ash]

Surely perfectly understandable, if the alternative is to support the oppressively male design that the more shape and skin a woman shows, the better she is to be honoured?


gpwm. Feminists and Muslimists have always been in agreement on the modesty thing.

[redgunamo]

gpwm. Feminists and Muslimists have always been in agreement on the modesty thing.

Right. But so has everybody else. At least, with regards to their own dollies. Or other people's, if you're a woman.

Economic realities have meant that Western blokes are no longer in a position to prescribe what their women wear. At least, not nearly so directly as the Islamists do and this makes us jealous and resentful. We must sneak around the question and do it in other, more subtle, sublime ways. Saying "Yeah, but ..terrorism!" is merely the latest McGuffin, so far as the Fems are concerned.

Men and women, both, may feel the burqa is an excellent idea actually. The girls because it reduces, or at least levels, the competition, and boys because they feel strongly that the skirts their wives wear to work are about two feet too short and is having so much cleavage on show really suitable business attire anyway. But they'll be damned if they say so (if every woman in *their* workplace started wearing the burqa, men working-from-home would become de rigeur and universal overnight). But also and by the same token, they may both be against it. An attractive woman may not *want* to cover up and would rather take her chances; a man wants to be seen to have an attractive partner.

Which is why multi-culturalism was invented, I suppose. Simplifying the whole business by introducing, as it did, lots of foreign and above all cheap and available, fanny, which, completely coincidentally, of course, happened to be expected to go about in various states of exotic undress. Purely in the interests of celebrating ethnicity, you understand and which also had the happy consequence of forcing every other woman to up their game.

Ultimately, whether it is Bavarian barmaids, Turkish belly-dancers, Ipi Ntombi or Swedish child-minders or those dusky Pacific Island dollies who always get their tits out for HMQ or French chambermaids, Thai masseurs or Russian mail-order brides and Romanian pole dancers, "women" have been bantered off; they'd all love to cover up, and their men would like them to as well, but the afore-mentioned economic realities mostly mean that they cannot succeed fully in their professional and personal lives if they do (our new prime minister is an example of this; highly intelligent and successful, of course, but her profound unattractiveness makes her essentially a human embodiment of a burqa anyway and therefore, obviously, acceptable to all).

It's an especially complicated Catch-22 in which women feel they need to look attractive, especially to men, in order to get anywhere, and their men also need them to because they need the money, even though they'd rather they didn't. Look so attractive to other men, that is, or need the money, even though, as ever, it was us what made the rules in the first place :-\

[Ash]

It's an especially complicated Catch-22 in which women feel they need to look attractive, especially to men, in order to get anywhere, and their men also need them to because they need the money, even though they'd rather they didn't. Look so attractive to other men, that is, or need the money, even though, as ever, it was us what made the rules in the first place :-\

There are degrees of modesty, though, and there's quite a lot of sartorial space between tiny skirt plus plunging cleavage on one hand, and the full-bananas blobby burka on the other. I expect only a tiny number of incredibly jealous or paranoid westen men would want their missus to attend work in a niqab. One might expect boobies to be covered at work, but not faces.

For me the burka and burkini debates are completely different.

[redgunamo]

There are degrees of modesty, though, and there's quite a lot of sartorial space between tiny skirt plus plunging cleavage on one hand, and the full-bananas blobby burka on the other. I expect only a tiny number of incredibly jealous or paranoid westen men would want their missus to attend work in a niqab. One might expect boobies to be covered at work, but not faces.

For me the burka and burkini debates are completely different.

Women's fashions, A. As a chap you're better off staying out of it.

[Ash]

Women's fashions, A. As a chap you're better off staying out of it.

Depends on the fashions. Some of them I want to get well into. :Phwoar:

edit: I can see how that mighht be misinterpreted.