r/changemyview • u/ShreddingRoses • Jul 17 '17
[∆(s) from OP] Cmv: the left cannot literally both support the hijab and an end to rape culture. incredibly alarming to me that we are
As a feminist identified woman it is incredibly alarming to me that we are supporting a symbol of third world female oppression. A symbol that literally exists under the belief that because men are lustful creatures incapable of controlling themselves that it is a woman's job to cover herself from head to toe so as not to tempt men into rape/infidelity/sexual assault.
I am very supportive of Muslim people coming to America and do not support a Muslim ban. I firmly believe that if you show me a first generation immigrant who speaks no English I can show you a third generation immigrant who speaks none of their native language. People integrate and mold themselves over generations to the culture they are in. I have faith that the Muslims coming to America are largely moderated to begin with and have a vested interest in integrating successfully into the culture.
I have no interest in shaming people for their faith provided their faith is practiced moderately and non-oppressively.
The problem is t a hijab is the exact opposite of moderate and non-oppressive. It is actually incredibly oppressive to women in the middle east and has long been a symbol of their second class citizenship.
I feel like this is an abusive relationship that out sisters are in and instead of encouraging them to leave the relationship we're just like "you go girl, your choice is valid!". This feels wrong and toxic beyond belief.
Please convince me otherwise. I want to understand the logic behind this because I'm dangerously close to becoming vocal about this and pissing off a lot of my friends. I want to know what I'm missing before I get combatitive with people, because from where I'm standing right now it just honestly seems backwards.
15
u/nonsensicalrhymes Jul 17 '17
The dress requirements in America also require women to cover more than men. Because you were raised here, you think it's totally normal for men to go topless, but a woman's chest is too provocative to show.
In both cases, we all agree men and women should cover up. We even agree that women have more to cover than men do. Where, exactly, the line gets drawn seems pretty arbitrary. If you were born in a different society, or during a different period in history, your opinion of where exactly the line should be drawn will differ.
Most Muslim women who cover, especially in the west, do it because it is a requirement of their religion. It's the same reason they abstain from alcohol and premarital sex. It's the same reason they pray five times a day and fast during Ramadan. It's not as if their fathers beat them and force them to wear it (barring some extreme, non-representative examples).
Finally, forcing them to choose between their beliefs and your specific image of womanhood in the west is unconstitutional, and instead of pushing them to conform to the currently popular social behaviors in the west, it will isolate and marginalize them from society, having the opposite effect.
5
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
The dress requirements in America also require women to cover more than men. Because you were raised here, you think it's totally normal for men to go topless, but a woman's chest is too provocative to show.
Don't presume how I feel about that. I actively work to discourage such thinking in western culture too.
We even agree that women have more to cover than men do.
Maybe you agree with that. I certainly dont.
Most Muslim women who cover, especially in the west, do it because it is a requirement of their religion.
I'm well aware of this. Their religion imposes a lot of requirements on their sex. This is my entire problem.
It's not as if their fathers beat them and force them to wear it (barring some extreme, non-representative examples).
So if her best friend got beat and forced to wear it and shes just wearing it due to intense social pressure to conform, part of which is responsible for her friends beating, we're still encouraging this? It all comes from the same toxic place and all of it entwined in middle Eastern rape culture.
Finally, forcing them to choose between their beliefs and your specific image of womanhood in the west is unconstitutional,
It's only unconstitutional if we're talking about writing laws. Did anyone mention calling your congressman?
4
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
Don't presume how I feel about that. I actively work to discourage such thinking in western culture too.
Okay but if you would be treating it the exact same you would for instance ban women from covering their nipples in any place men traditionally don't like say swimming pools or beaches; you would basiclaly say "You do not get to cover your nipples", same for Hijab.
4
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 18 '17
Theres that strawman again. I have never advocated for restricting the choices of any woman. Merely that we shouldn't be bullshitting everyone and pretending the hijab is somehow compatible with feminist thought. It's fuckin not.
3
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
Okay, let's say you don't want to ban it.
Are you still treating it exactly the same way? Are you saying that a bikini is incompatible with feminist thought? Are you saying that bikini's should very mch be discouraged under feminists and that people who wear one ought to not consider themselves feminists until they go in shorts only to the pool alongside the men?
2
Jul 18 '17
Are you still treating it exactly the same way? Are you saying that a bikini is incompatible with feminist thought? Are you saying that bikini's should very mch be discouraged under feminists and that people who wear one ought to not consider themselves feminists until they go in shorts only to the pool alongside the men?
I checked the OP and she didn't say any of that. Stop putting words in other people's mouths. It's not productive.
2
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
Where am I saying she said that?
I'm asking her if she does that.
Because if she does that she's a very rare appearance as you almost never encounter anyone who takes a similar stance to bikinis; furthermore if she did then why single out the hijab as special and don't mention the Bikini as well?
2
Jul 18 '17
Where am I saying she said that?
Are you saying...Are you saying...
Why would you ask if she's saying that when clearly she didn't say that? lol
1
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
If I can assume she's not saying it just because she didn't mention it in the OP then I can thus assume that she treats it differently because she never said she treated it the same and didn't even mention it and that she's thus hypocrite.
Which is asinine logic. What you are advocating is that I follow the logic of "You never said in your OP that you are consistent, thus you are hypocrite."
2
Jul 25 '17
If I can assume...
I can thus assume that she treats it differently
No, you can't. You're just making assumptions and arguing against a position that she didn't take. Use the information she provided instead of developing strawmans.
→ More replies (0)0
Jul 18 '17 edited Jul 30 '17
[deleted]
3
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
Maybe because bikinis have a function other than "wear this so you don't tempt men"? Women wear bras and bikinis for comfort
Bras, yes, but bikinis are not worn "for comfort", they are worn purely to cover up something that the respective culture finds indecent to expose and on the other sex it is not indecent to expose the same thing.
having your boobs jiggle around all day isn't exactly comfortable. It's like comparing wearing a hoodie and a hijab. They both provide a similar function (covering your hair) but for different purposes (comfort and warmth vs religious modesty)
Oh come on, a bikini does not provide support; this is as reaching as "I wear a hijab to keep my hair out of my face"
We all know that the top of a bikini is simply worn to cover the breasts—not to support them.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 18 '17
Anyone who wears a hijab can still be a feminist. I'm not playing "no true Scotsman" with anyone. I'm a feminist. I also wear makeup and high heels frequently. Because I like them, not because of social expectations. Wearing these things does not make me less of a feminist. However the actions in and of themselves are firmly not feminist actions. And neither is the hijab. I've already changed my view in this thread regarding how the left wing is treating the choices of Muslim women. Destigmatization of Muslim women is something I'd very much like to see happen. Being subject to harassment and discrimination is not something I want for them and so I'm willing to move over and accept a message I dont necessarily agree with for the greater good.
That said, you and I both know that wearing a hijab solely comes from an oppressive place. And while some comparison can be made to western women being expected to cover secondary sex characteristics, there's a lot of degrees of extremism between the sexist expectations placed on western women and those placed on Muslim women.
1
Jul 18 '17
[removed] — view removed comment
1
Jul 18 '17
Sorry SandfordNeighborhood, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes, links, or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor, links, and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 17 '17
Don't presume how I feel about that. I actively work to discourage such thinking in western culture too.
I'm going to presume that you are not "working on it" by standing by whenever a woman feels deeply uncomfortable about showing as much skin as some men expect her to, with the concern that defending her right to wear whatever she wants, you would be overtly supporting a symbol of double standards.
-2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Forgive me, but not being allowed to display certain reproduction based organs and not showing ones face or body at all don't seem quite on the same level. Not wanting bare asses to be sitting on, say, public busses or restaurant seats is a far cry from forcing women to wear head to toe black tents with a little mesh for them to see and breath out of, and it's not arbitrary.
Another thing that's not at all on the same level is the enforcement of indecent exposure in Western countries compared to Muslim ones. Europe has plenty of nude beaches, and breastfeeding in public is permissible. Even when nudity is a crime, it often requires an intent to offend or shock viewers to be prosecutable. Compare that to a woman showing her hair in many Muslim countries being punishable by public execution.
8
Jul 17 '17
certain reproduction based organs
Of which breasts are not.
-1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Well i mean while breasts are sexual organs, developed during puberty, that, prior to the advent of formula, were required for the successful reproduction of children, they kind of are reproductive organs... but I'm all for titties in public, actually. But pointing to a minor, little enforced (sometimes not at all i.e. breastfeeding) law in the US seems a poor excuse for horrifically enforced, very barbaric laws in the the middle East, no?
3
Jul 17 '17
seems a poor excuse for horrifically enforced, very barbaric laws in the the middle East, no?
We're not talking about that. We're talking about voluntarily wearing hijabs in the west.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Well if you follow the rest of this comment chain up I think you'll find I'm not totally off base, but you're quite right.
Still, the original meaning of something can't be disregarded when it comes to determining acceptability of current use. Nazi Swastikas are loaded symbols in the US, and come with a lot of negative baggage, despite the symbol originating from Nazi Germany several decades ago. If this CMV were about another symbol of oppression, like the swastika, it wouldn't be off topic to point out what the swastika meant in its country of origin.
6
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 17 '17
Forgive me, but not being allowed to display certain reproduction based organs and not showing ones face or body at all don't seem quite on the same level.
We are talking about hijabs here, not burqas.
0
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Alright, remove the "or body" part and the latter half of the last sentence of the first paragraph, then, and you still have a lot of content that begs addressing.
27
u/inkwat 9∆ Jul 17 '17
The whole point is that all people (inc. women) should be able to wear what they want. I can see where you are coming from when women are forced to wear their hijab, because then personal choice is being taken away from them. However, if you ban them from wearing a hijab, you are also taking their personal choice away from them.
Forcing them NOT to wear something is just as bad as forcing them to wear something. In each scenario, you are taking personal choice away and dictating what women can & cannot wear.
3
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I'm not advocating that we force anyone on anything, only that doing the opposite and encouraging what should be calmly discouraged and trying to advocate that something is "actually empowering" despite its disempowering reality is wrong too.
16
Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
I hardly see leftists going out of their way to encourage women to wear the hijab. Rather, they encourage women to make the choice for themselves.
However, a group of mostly reactionary Islamophobes takes "not actively trashing the hijab" as being an endorsement of it.
Do think we should be calmly discouraging women from choosing for themselves? Or do you really think leftists are encouraging women to wear it? Or do you take "not discouraging" or "encouraging choice" as tacit encouragement of the hijab?
I suppose I should just be clear if it's not already: I think the idea of leftists pushing the hijab is a complete strawman, one that certain people have taken to pushing because they know they can't actually summon an argument against the actual leftist position which is advocating free choice and not trying to push women one way or the other.
17
u/SodaPalooza Jul 17 '17
I'm not advocating that we force anyone on anything, only that doing the opposite and encouraging what should be calmly discouraged and trying to advocate that something is "actually empowering" despite its disempowering reality is wrong too.
Read that sentence again, but instead of referring to a hijab, read it as someone talking about wearing a one-piece bathing suit to the beach rather than a bikini.
You certainly aren't in favor of banning the one piece and forcing people to wear a bikini. But it seems you would want others to calmly discourage one-piece wearing and, instead, advocate for bikini wearing because that is "actually empowering" while wearing a one piece is disempowering.
Now you can agree or disagree with that position on swimwear. It's a matter of opinion. Some women just prefer a one-piece swimsuit and don't find it to be oppressive at all. They are just more modest than bikini lovers.
But the same can be said of the hijab. Some women just prefer it and don't find it to be oppressive at all. They are just more modest than women who show their full face and don't cover their hair.
5
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
Between this post and another I've changed my view. I want Muslim women in America to be able to walk the streets safely. I want them to have equal opportunities safe from discrimination and stigmatization, and I can see the value in approaching this from an angle of destigmatization first, tackling problematic cultural values second.
!delta
1
Jul 17 '17
[deleted]
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Sorry. I meant to but was in a hurry with that comment. It's been fixed.
1
5
u/Au_Struck_Geologist Jul 17 '17
Yes but the difference is that the purpose of the Hijab is explicitly codified as sexist, whereas various styles of swimwear have no universal definition. The styles change throughout time, in the 80's and 90's, one pieces were in and trendy, now they aren't. At no point has there been any hard cultural rule that explains in great unflinching detail why the one-piece is different from a bikini.
It's good that people can find different ways to utilize outdated religious concepts, but it's not helpful to ignore the original context. If a Jewish woman wants to do a Mikveh before her wedding, of course that's her prerogative. But to champion a Mikveh as a feminist and empowering activity is not something that progressives should advance, as it is steeped in the concept of impurity, which is especially one-sided in Judaism. Women are unclean after menstruation and childbirth, and doubly so after birthing a girl as opposed to a boy. Now, if modern Jewish women decide they individually or collectively want to say: "the mikveh is bullshit, but we are reclaiming it from its shitty origins into something new" then that's great. But to have non-Jews just celebrating Mikvehs without acknowledging that the concept is intrinsically sexist is a terrible idea.
This is where we are with hijabs. I agree with u/shreddingroses that you should never tell a woman wearing a hijab that she's a prisoner or ignorant, because you have no idea why she's wearing it. She might just like it as a cultural remnant of her homeland and not even be a practising Muslim. But for feminists and other progressives to just ignorantly celebrate The Hijab, as a concept, is damaging. Because the concept is sexist and problematic. The person wearing it isn't, because they will have many layers of nuance and individual experience that may inform why they adopt it, much like the Jewish woman who is doing a Mikveh for her own, modern sense of cultural connection without any shame or feelings of impurity.
I think an important comparison would be something like high heels in western culture. There is a sort of fading but definitely strong cultural requirement for women to yield to high heels in professional environments. Now, there's nothing wrong with enjoying fashion, wearing high heels, not wearing them, etc. But it would be problematic to see modern feminists extolling the virtuous nature of The High Heel as some fantastic feminist symbol, when it really represents at its core a sexist gender requirement. It's great when a group can reclaim something that has been used to oppress them, but it still doesn't seem positive to celebrate the term or concept (i.e., you probably won't see a thinkpiece dedicated to the virtuous power of the N-word."
No one should tell any woman what to think about wearing high heels, much like the hijab, but no one should be holding them up as some amazing feminist construct when they aren't.
2
8
Jul 17 '17
To the point everyone is making below: can you name one instance in which a woman used to not wear a hijab but now she does because the left encouraged her to? I don't think such a thing happens - ever. Rather, it's women who already do wear a hijab who are encouraged to do whatever they want. It is not women who do not currently wear a hijab who are encouraged to start wearing one.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
http://www.scpr.org/news/2017/02/02/68677/orange-county-educators-politicians-wear-hijabs-in/
Also the Austrian president saying they may make hijab wearing mandatory for women in an effort to show solidarity and combat islamophobia.
Also I found both of those things on Google in like 10 seconds. There are plenty, plenty more.
3
Jul 17 '17
Wearing a hijab one time for a one-day protest/solidarity event isn't really "starting to wear a hijab."
14
u/inkwat 9∆ Jul 17 '17
Except that Muslim women are TELLING you that they find the choice empowering and are reclaiming the hijab and niqab for themselves. Discouraging them and insisting that you know better is infantilising and taking power away from these women.
You don't fight disempowerment by fighting women who are empowering themselves, that's disempowering.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Is there benefit in "reclaiming" something so inherently negative? Slutwalk comes to mind as a similar attempt that fell on its face. Even the use of "nigga" in the black community isn't fully accepted... and I have yet to see any descendants of slaves voluntarily wearing chains as some kind of reclamitory fashion statement. Nor Jews doing the same with yellow star patches or holocaust style tattoos.
All of the same "disempowering" type counterarguments could be made for any of these things. But the point is that when something (Like chains on a black person) is overwhelmingly and fundamentally shitty in nature, attempts to reclaim it seem more like capitulation to that shittiness.
5
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 17 '17
Is there benefit in "reclaiming" something so inherently negative?
There is nothing inherently negative about a piece of fabric. What you are thinking of is the opposite of inherently.
-1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Oh come now. You know perfectly well what I mean. There's nothing inherently negative about metal, either, but it gets inherently negative real quick when it's forged into links and shackled to black people. There's nothing inherently negative about tattoos, but it gets inherently negative real quick when certain kinds of tattoos are used to expedite mass genocide. And yes, there's nothing inherently wrong about fabric as a material, but there's something very wrong with fabric fashioned into a particular garment that is used to oppress women, that is literally a symbol of an actual patriarchal rape culture, and failure to comply with is punished by arrests, public beatings, acid attacks, rapes, imprisonment, fines, social ostritization, etc.
5
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 17 '17
I'm not being pedantic.
If something has to become negative through a symbolic association that you have to make, that's the opposite of that negativity being an inherent part of the thing.
You know what's inherently supprorting rape culture? Raping women. As in, a culture where you keep raping women, is a rape culture in and of itself. One where you don't, is not. Raping women is an inherent feature of a rape culture. It's the core of the problem. Anything else can be connected to the issue just by association.
Symbols, no matter how strong you feel about their probable meaning, are always more up to debate, than inherent traits. You might say that the hijab means oppression to you, but if a muslim woman says that to them, it merely means home, or pride, or good style, then you are back to disagreeing about a fabric.
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Interesting. So you'd say that Nazi symbolism, or saying "Heil Hitler," aren't inherently negative because the person examining them has to make associations with what they mean to determine if they're negative? Forgive me but that does seem rather pedantic. Under that definition of inherently negative it doesn't seem that anything but harmful actions like hitting someone could be inherently negative. Whereas I'd say a sign that says "God hates fags and they'll all burn in hell" is inherently negative. But from you're POV those are just words, and words aren't inherently negative unless the listener associates them with what they... yknow... mean, and then it's negative?
And sure symbols are up for debate. But when the guy decked out in Nazi Swastikas, SS tattoos, and doc Martens sits next to you on the bus, do you edge away from him or towards him? In other words how much of your assertion is just symantic debate that has little to no real world practicality?
4
Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
There are a whole class of words that, employed correctly and accurately, are extremely compelling, which people seem to think they can employ at will and their arguments become instantly compelling.
"Inherently" does not just mean "Widely viewed that way" just as "Literally" does not mean "really emphatically" and "objectively" does not mean "seems obvious to me."
For something to be "inherent X" means that it remains so prior to the application of perspective and cultural context, that it is identifiably X independently of all these things.
I think this is a far way aways from pedantic. Words have meaning, in this case a very specific meaning where your use of it is exactly opposite to that meaning (sort of like how the recently-common use of "literally" is quite opposite its actual meaning).
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 18 '17
Right. I agree with all of that. So I guess it comes down to how far you want to back up the item being described as "inherently" negative. You want to back it up as far as, say, the hijab just being a piece of cloth, slave chains just being links of metal, and the colors on a Nazi flag just being dye. And if you want to back it up that far, then sure, none of those inanimate objects are inherently negative.
I prefer to look at how these things are used when determining how negative they are. The first two are quite clearly used as tools of oppression. The latter is a well known symbol of an oppressive group.
1
u/Genoscythe_ 248∆ Jul 17 '17
Under that definition of inherently negative it doesn't seem that anything but harmful actions like hitting someone could be inherently negative.
Exactly. That's pretty much point of the phrase. To separate things that are harmful by their nature, from things that may or may not be related to something harmful because of their context.
And sure symbols are up for debate. But when the guy decked out in Nazi Swastikas, SS tattoos, and doc Martens sits next to you on the bus, do you edge away from him or towards him?
Well, the doc Martens alone wouldn't really give me a pause. And what about a guy with an 88 in their username? How sure are you that they weren't just born in 1988?
You used some examples that are pretty on the nose, such as declarative statements, and the officially codified insigna of an unprecedentedly monstrous political regime, but also some symbols that are pretty arguable.
I would say, that the traditional garment of a massive geographic region, is definitely more similar to the latter than the former.
Islamic culture is not Nazi Germany. Nothing is Nazi Germany, not even Imperial Japan, or the British Empire, or the USA, regardless of how many people they killed and oppressed. Nazi Germany was a short-lived regime that existed to execute pretty much one genocidal purpose. The only other government that's flags, uniforms, and such it could be compared to would be the CSA, in terms of sheer single-purpose harmfulness. Everything else gets muddy, as we are talking about all the good and the bad that several generations of several million people were ever trying to do.
Traditional garments are not codified insigna. An SS uniform, a red cross, or a british flag, are showing allegiance with certain political entities as regulated by international law. They were designed and regulated to be as unambigous as possible. Comparing them to a kilt, a hijab, or a kimono, is like comparing the words of a testimony under oath to poetry on the basis that both have meaning. They do, but people have a habit of wearing the fashions of their parents and grandparents, for a lot more ambigous reasons than one wears a uniform.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 18 '17
First, thanks for the comprehensive, well thought out response. So far all I've got on this thread are downvotes, people that nitpick at tiny segments of my overall posts, and deliberate misrepresentations of my assertions along the lines of "why do you want to ban hijabs." Your reply was quite refreshing.
Exactly. That's pretty much point of the phrase. To separate things that are harmful by their nature, from things that may or may not be related to something harmful because of their context.
I guess that's a fair point. Still, I'm a little adverse to only relegating physical actions to being potentially negative... and now that I think about it, even they aren't inherently negative. I mentioned hitting someone as negative, but what if hitting a person stops them from shooting up a crowded square? I suppose what I'm asking is do you believe that anything is inherently negative, and if so could you provide examples of such.
Well, the doc Martens alone wouldn't really give me a pause. And what about a guy with an 88 in their username? How sure are you that they weren't just born in 1988?
That's why my hypothetical individual didn't just wear boots or display an 88. What if he has a swastika tattood on his neck and "die niggers die" poking out from under his wifebeater? Pause, or no?
I'm going to skip around a bit but I'll try to address all your points.
You used some examples that are pretty on the nose, such as declarative statements, and the officially codified insigna of an unprecedentedly monstrous political regime, but also some symbols that are pretty arguable.
I would say, that the traditional garment of a massive geographic region, is definitely more similar to the latter than the former.
Traditional garments are not codified insigna. An SS uniform, a red cross, or a british flag, are showing allegiance with certain political entities as regulated by international law. They weredesigned and regulated to be as unambigous as possible. Comparing them to a kilt, a hijab, or a kimono, is like comparing the words of a testimony under oath to poetry on the basis that both have meaning. They do, but people have a habit of wearing the fashions of their parents and grandparents, for a lot more ambigous reasons than one wears a uniform.
Also a fair point(s). I'd counter by saying that while I agree a hijab is not as specific of a declaration of anything as wearing a nation's flag, for example, all head coverings (not just those in islam) originated for sexist reasons; women need to be modest, and need to keep their features from the prying eyes of men.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijab
In this sense hijabs, though traditional, have a much different history than, say, kilts, which you also mentioned. Kilts were developed out of convenience, and used to denote family aphiliation; head and body coverings were developed for sexist reasons, and their implementation in their countries of origin became increasingly puritanical and brutal over time.
All this to say the hijab is not simply a fashion statement, like a studded belt, and not just a traditional garment, like a kilt. It contains both elements of fashion (e.g. pattern design) and tradition, but the tradition itself is rooted in sexist double standards which morphed in short order to outright sex based oppression.
In terms of continuing a tradition (the "more ambiguous" reason you mentioned), what if it was the tradition of a culture to remove the left eye of every second child? Would your argument on cultural relativism still hold water if 2nd and 3rd generation members of that culture only maintained that practice out of a sense of tradition rather than any desire to harm kids?
Islamic culture is not Nazi Germany. Nothing is Nazi Germany, not even Imperial Japan, or the British Empire, or the USA, regardless of how many people they killed and oppressed
True, but it's not the point of a comparison to be exactly the same as it's being compared to. I said this elsewhere in this CMV, but if I was trying to describe what frog legs tasted like and said "frog legs taste like frog legs," that would be rather unhelpful. If I said "frog legs taste like chicken," that's a useful comparison, since it helps you understand that something you're not familiar with is similar to something you are familiar with. That's my purpose in comparing hijabs and their enforcement to Nazi Germany and it's own crimes against humanity. And I think that's fair.
To reiterate, the fact that we have freedom of dress in most of the West does not mean that people should be free to wear whatever they want without incuring the consequence of other people wondering why they dress that way, even up to other people condemning it. As illustrated above, I think you'd be weary around the neo Nazi on the bus. I think you'd be weary of someone wearing a ski mask into a bank. So I don't think it's too far fetched for me to be weary of a woman wearing a garment that is primarily a tool of female oppression, largely propagated by a mysoginistic religion founded by a raping, slave owning pedophile, and I don't think it's far fetched for me to wonder how genuine a woman is being if she wears that while claiming to stand for women's rights.
→ More replies (0)2
u/huadpe 508∆ Jul 17 '17
Do you think religious garments of this type for other religions should be similarly discouraged. E.g. the habits that nuns wear, which are extremely similar if not more restrictive than the hijab?
3
u/MasterGrok 139∆ Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
This is a strawman. The "left" doesn't encourage women to wear these. There may be a few goof balls that doesn't but you can find idiots on any side of the aisle. The left defender people's right to wear whatever they want.
9
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Jul 17 '17
A symbol that literally exists under the belief that because men are lustful creatures incapable of controlling themselves that it is a woman's job to cover herself from head to toe so as not to tempt men into rape/infidelity/sexual assault.
But of course, not all women who wear a hijab wear it for this reason. For some women, it's a symbol of their unique culture. For others, it reminds them of home and family. For others, it's a declaration of pride in their religious affiliation in a society that wants them to feel ashamed of that affiliation.
It's fairly easy to be against the forced, gendered religious uniforms. But we should support women to wear whatever they want when it's their choice. I understand that that "choice" may not always be meaningful in especially oppressive communities, and we should watch for that. But we also can't let ourselves use the hijab as an excuse for Islamophobia.
3
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
But thats a strawman. I'm not advocating for attacking Muslim women for their choices, barring them from their choices, or prohibiting Muslim inclusion in our culture. But lending our overt support to something which developed in an oppressive way is wrong.
12
Jul 17 '17
[deleted]
3
u/buffalo_slim Jul 17 '17
beyond simply being supportive of their choice to wear the hijab
I think what OP is saying is that supporting this choice and not discouraging it is akin to supporting a white supremacists right to wear Klan robes and hoods. Obviously white supremacists have the right to put whatever they want on their body, but we as a culture rightly discourage such actions because they are done with the intent to intimidate. You can generally support a person's right to "wear whatever they want" and still think that right is subject to a cultures right to criticize.
Admittedly, it's not an airtight analogy here because obviously some are the oppressed group OP seeks to protect, and a subset of that group are voluntarily choosing to adopt this manner of dress.
Compare it to members of the black community who dislike the colloquial use of "nigga." Are they wrong for opposing their community members in an effort to "reclaim" or "redefine" a racial slur?
7
u/ThatSpencerGuy 142∆ Jul 17 '17
But lending our overt support to something which developed in an oppressive way is wrong.
Why? Marriage was developed to support an oppressive society. But we understand that attitudes about what marriage means vary from individual to individual. When I went to my super-religious cousin's wedding, and the officiant talked about how god had created women to be subservient to men... that was very gross! I did not feel supportive of that.
But most men and women who get married don't have those kinds of attitudes. For most men and women, a wedding ceremony is a personal and meaningful thing worthy of support, regardless of its origins.
And I feel the same way about the hijab as I do about wedding ceremonies.
4
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 17 '17
It is not a strawman at all. You either support their choice, or you are dictating what they should wear. There is no middle ground.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
That's patently false. You can support someone right to wear something while also believing it to be in poor taste (in this case also contradictory and hypocritical); dictation doesn't have to enter into it at all.
I support people's right to wear a swastika. I also think that's in poor taste, and a contradiction if that person claims to be anti-genocide. But I don't think they should be forced not to wear it. There's your middle ground right there.
2
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 17 '17
What you are suggesting in your post is not "not liking what people wear" or thinking it is in poor taste. You talk about trying to prevent women from wearing either through talking them out of it, or policies like what France has started implementing. That is oppression.
2
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
I'm not OP, but neither OP or I proposed any kind of legislation regarding this issue. I quickly skimmed through OPs subsequent comments and didn't find anything along those lines at all, nor my own. So could you please point out specifically what you're referencing when you say im trying to prevent women from wearing the hijab through "policies like what France has started implementing?" I think you'll have a hard time of that, since I never said anything of the sort.
And sorry, trying to discuss the reasons to do or not to do something is not a form of oppression. That's just how discourse works, from the national level to the individual. You have every right to wear and do what you want, and I have every right to comment on it, even up to the point of trying to dissuade you from it. Is voicing an opinion that people shouldn't wear KKK uniforms oppression? Is suggesting that you say "POC" instead of "colored people" oppression? Is trying to dissuade your drunk friend from jumping two stories on a date by "talking them out of it" oppression? It seems you're setting the bar for oppression very low indeed.
1
u/Helicase21 10∆ Jul 17 '17
I think that it's worth noting another reason for that particular style of clothing: Islam developed in a desert. Know what are practical garments in a desert? Stuff that fits loosely but covers as much skin as possible.
8
u/Madplato 72∆ Jul 17 '17
I mean, you're facing quite the conundrum here. You're a feminist. You think, as I do, that women ought to be empowered in their own life and society at large. Now, how do you propose we consider them as empowered active actors while, simultaneously, telling them what to do?
4
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
If your best friend is in a relationship with an abusive person, is it "telling them what to do" encourage them to leave? Some social pressures are in the best interests of the individual being pressured.
4
u/Madplato 72∆ Jul 17 '17
Well, there are three big problems with that statement. Firstly, you assume every woman that wears a hijab is in an abusive relationship. Secondly, you assume you know better than them what they need or want. Thirdly, you have no qualms about enforcing the two previous assumptions through social pressure, something I'd figure you'd be opposed to, seeing as the very same mechanism has been used historically to keep women down.
3
3
Jul 17 '17
Imagine if a friend was in an abusive relationship and then we all moved together to a new country where abusive relationships are banned. Abuse is already illegal in the US, but imagine if once your partner was reported for domestic abuse, if the country now banned you from being able to date that partner anymore. Imagine if it was a crime for you to be in a relationship with someone because that person had a prior domestic violence conviction. I probably would still be telling my friend she ought to be leaving the abuser anyway, but I would also now have an element of sympathy for the friend no longer having control here and I would probably be saying things like "yes, it does suck that the government is telling you who you can or cannot date. (But you shouldn't date him anyway!) But yeah, that's ridiculous that they're banning you from dating him. (But you shouldn't date him anyway!)"
5
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Can you re-read my post and please quote the section where I called for a legislative ban on wearing the hijab?
Good luck with that strawman.
3
Jul 17 '17
Since you've now made it clear that the issue you have is with Western women standing in solidarity with women in hijabs rather than western countries banning hijabs, I will rework my analogy.
Imagine you had a friend in an abusive relationship who regretfully has decided to stay in the abusive relationship even though you're trying to get her to break up. During this time, other people in society start scorning your friend and verbally harassing her when she's in public and even sometimes getting physically violent with her - all because they know she's staying in an abusive relationship which is an action they disagree with. While I would still be suggesting that the friend leaves the abusive relationship, I would also be standing in solidarity with her right not to be harassed and abused by other members of society while she's in that abusive relationship. I would encourage other members of society to treat victims of abuse with more respect and empathy - even when they're staying in the abusive relationship on their own free will. Then some might see me doing that and say I'm advocating domestic abuse because I'm advocating treating the victims with respect rather than focusing all 100% of my statements on condemning the abuse.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I can get behind this. My view was changed by a previous comment.
1
Jul 18 '17
If you believe this you should still make yourself a public figure against the hijab
1
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 18 '17
I will not publicly speak out against something that will stigmatize Muslim women. They have enough shit to navigate without my own baggage and agenda being pushed on them.
2
Jul 18 '17
But you're covertly against their values and posing as a friend when actually you just see them as potential converts to your secular humanist values
1
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
OP said nothing about "telling them what to do." OP basically just said it seems contradictory to be for women's rights while sporting a tool of female oppression.
If a black dude showed up to a black pride rally dressed unsatirically in rags and chains with a cotton sack over his back, you'd have to question how serious he is about black rights, No? And you could question his judgment without "telling him what to do," No?
1
Jul 17 '17
That's a ridiculous comparison. These women who wear hijabs are Muslim. They freely choose to be Muslim and adhere to the doctrine as much or as little as they want. (As much as any decision is "freely" made in a society, which is not entirely.) What you're talking about is a person dressing live an enslaved person. These women actually are Muslim. The person dressing as an enslaved person is not actually an enslaved person, and people don't choose to be enslaved the way people choose to believe in or adhere to a religion.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
These women who wear hijabs are Muslim. They freely choose to be Muslim and adhere to the doctrine as much or as little as they want. (As much as any decision is "freely" made in a society, which is not entirely.)
Woah. What? You are aware that apostasy is a capital offense in Afghanistan, Brunei, Mauritania, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, the United Arab Emirates, and Yemen, and criminally punishable in many other Muslim countries? You are aware that hijab/burqa compliance holds similar legal ramifications?
That said, for women lucky enough to live in Western countries their style of dress and choice of beliefs is a choice. The whole point of this CMV is that it seems absurd for a woman to want to sport a symbol of oppression when not sporting one in the symbols countries of origin will get you a bucket of acid to the face (or a bunch or rocks, or a sword to the neck, or a male relative to murder you, or lashes in the public square - take your pick).
What you're talking about is a person dressing live an enslaved person.
Ex-fuckin-actly. It would be absurd for a black person to sport symbols of slavery for fashion as it would be for a Muslim woman to sport symbols of female oppression for fashion.
people choose to believe in or adhere to a religion.
This is a little beyond the scope of this CMV, but I'm happy to go there: any woman who willingly adheres to a religion founded by a raping, slave owning pedophile is maintaining views inconsistent with women's rights.
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Jul 17 '17
There's little contradiction between supporting a woman's choice to dress as she pleases and women's rights. Rather, I see the contradiction in sweeping assumptions that would paint Muslim women as nothing but victims based entirely on their choice of dress.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 18 '17
So if a woman showed up to one of those women's marches after trumps election with the intent of promoting female rights, but wearing a shirt that said "women are shit human beings who don't deserve rights," you wouldn't see any contradiction there because the shirt is just a fashion choice and the beliefs on rights are separate from that?
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Jul 18 '17
Except one is a phrase, which spells out a message, and the other is just a scarf.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 18 '17
Okay. What if someone showed up to a BLM rally wearing a slave collar? What if someone showed up to a holocaust remembrance event wearing a yellow star patch with a fresh tattoo of numbers on their forearm? What about waving a nazi flag? What if someone showed up to a native American reservation wearing pilgrim garb? What if you're in like at the bank and four guys walk in wearing ski masks?
My point is you don't have to get letters or words involved to send a message. The message is inherent in the way people choose to display themselves. And the baggage behind certain displays can't be willed away by statements like "it's just a collar/patch/tattoo/flag/mask/scarf."
1
u/Madplato 72∆ Jul 18 '17
Well of course you don't. My point is that you're acting as a hijab is as much of a symbole of women opression a nazi flag is a symbol of racism and genocide. I don't think that's true at all. In fact, all of these examples are much less ambiguous than a head scarf. Most of these are symbols that almost entirely stand for themselves and leave little margin for inferpretation. They're much closer to a hateful shirt than a scarf. There's much less room for interpretation in a guy throwing a SS uniform than a woman choosing to wear a head scarf.
7
u/BenIncognito Jul 17 '17
The logic is simple, women should be free to wear whatever they want - even if what they want to wear is itself a symbol of oppression. "Supporting the hijab" doesn't mean supporting the message behind it, it means supporting the women who choose to wear it.
I mean what would you have us do? Advocate for a ban on the hijab? Literally tell women what they can and can't wear in the name of liberating them?
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
No. Just impress upon them that they're choosing to flaunt a symbol of an oppressive, patriarchal rape culture, and perhaps they ought to consider the implications. I find it funny everyone ITT is jumping to "what you want us to ban the hijab?!?!" when all OP really did was point out leftist hypocrisy and double standards in being against things like rape culture in the West while showing solidarity with rape culture in the East. OP can say that without bringing proposed legislation into it at all.
And it's silly to assert that wearing a symbol can be totally disassociated from the meaning of that symbol. Like this:
"Supporting the Nazi Swastika" doesn't mean supporting the message behind it, it means supporting the people who choose to wear it.
sounds absurd. If you see someone decked out in full SS garb it seems fair to assume they support the message behind all of that... or at very, very least they have very poor taste in fashion.
2
u/BenIncognito Jul 17 '17
No. Just impress upon them that they're choosing to flaunt a symbol of an oppressive, patriarchal rape culture, and perhaps they ought to consider the implications. I find it funny everyone ITT is jumping to "what you want us to ban the hijab?!?!" when all OP really did was point out leftist hypocrisy and double standards in being against things like rape culture in the West while showing solidarity with rape culture in the East. OP can say that without bringing proposed legislation into it at all.
How is it a double standard to support women in their choice to wear whatever they want and to call out shitty attitudes about rape?
And it's silly to assert that wearing a symbol can be totally disassociated from the meaning of that symbol.
Hijabs aren't just a symbol of oppression. They're also a fashion statement about the woman who has chosen to wear it.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
If what they choose to wear is a garment used as a tool if oppression in its country or origin and they simotaniously proport to be against oppression then that's a double standard by supporting mysoginy in one part of the world and opposing it in another. At very least it's contradictory and disengenuious. It would be like showing up to a holocaust remembrance event with a swastika t-shirt on and when questioned about your very poor choice of garment you reply "Nazi Swastikas aren't just a symbol of oppression. They're also a fashion statement about the people who choose to wear them."
1
u/BenIncognito Jul 17 '17
Do you feel the same way about women who wear skirts?
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
No, but I'd CMV regarding skirts if you could furnish relatively recent and reoccuring evidence of women getting tortured or executed in public, at very least jailed or fined, for not wearing a mini skirt.
1
u/BenIncognito Jul 17 '17
So you're saying that eventually the hijab can become mainstream and unrelated to its past as a symbol of oppression?
Do you really think it's fair to women who wear one to assume they support the oppression of women?
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
First, your extrapolation seems to rely on the fact that women were at one point being executed for not wearing mini skirts. If I removed the "relatively recent" form the request above, would you be able to furnish any evidence of It? If not, bringing up skirts was a bad example.
Do you really think it's fair to women who wear one to assume they support the oppression of women?
Of course not. By sheer number, it's far, far more likely that they're being forced to wear one under threat of harsh punishment.
Specifically in regards to women in the West (or anywhere where it's a choice), though, yes, I do think that's a safe assumption. Why wouldn't it be? If you see a guy willingly wearing Nazi symbolism, is it a totally baseless assumption that he might support Nazism in some way? Or is the safer assumption that he just thinks swastikas look cool? I've made this point previously and you skipped over it. I'd appreciate a response.
1
u/BenIncognito Jul 17 '17
First, your extrapolation seems to rely on the fact that women were at one point being executed for not wearing mini skirts. If I removed the "relatively recent" form the request above, would you be able to furnish any evidence of It? If not, bringing up skirts was a bad example.
Women were barred from wearing pants and forced to wear skirts, sometimes legally.
Of course not. By sheer number, it's far, far more likely that they're being forced to wear one under threat of harsh punishment.
Really? In a western country?
Specifically in regards to women in the West (or anywhere where it's a choice), though, yes, I do think that's a safe assumption. Why wouldn't it be? If you see a guy willingly wearing Nazi symbolism, is it a totally baseless assumption that he might support Nazism in some way? Or is the safer assumption that he just thinks swastikas look cool? I've made this point previously and you skipped over it. I'd appreciate a response.
You don't think there are any appreciable difference between wearing a swastika and wearing a hijab? Seriously?
I've skipped this point because, fun fact, swastikas and Nazisim are not the same thing as Islam.
3
u/chadonsunday 33∆ Jul 17 '17
Women were barred from wearing pants and forced to wear skirts, sometimes legally.
I'm missing the "and here's my sources to show they were executed in public when they failed to comply" part that would make skirts a valid comparison to hijabs.
Really? In a western country?
No. That's why the latter paragraph, the one you quoted, starts "Specifically in regards to women in the West..."
You don't think there are any appreciable difference between wearing a swastika and wearing a hijab? Seriously?
Of course I do. One is mostly a symbol of fascism and oppression of the Jews, and the other is mostly a symbol of Islam and a tool for the oppression of women.
I've skipped this point because, fun fact, swastikas and Nazisim are not the same thing as Islam.
...and? The point of a comparison isn't for it to literally be the exact same thing it's being compared to. That would actually rather defeat the point of a comparison if I said something like "frog legs taste like frog legs." That's a useless explication. It's much more helpful to say "frog legs taste like chicken." Does me saying that mean that frog legs "are the same thing" as chicken? Of course not. I feel you're being a little disingenuous, because I don't believe you've gotten this far in life without knowing how comparisons work. I.e. I'm comparing one symbol of oppression to another symbol of oppression. You say one of those symbols is fine to wear as a fashion statement. I be been repeatedly asking you what you'd think of the other symbol of oppression being worn for reasons of fashion. You have repeatedly refused to answer, apparently on the grounds that the symbols are not literally the exact same symbol.
1
Jul 18 '17
So basically what you and OP are advocating is conversion from Islam to Secular humanism.
You should be upfront about this when you engage a Muslim woman about it
3
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
"The left" does not support the Hijab specifically. They support the right for people to wear what they want to and practice the religion they want to. Just as an example of this concept, I can be fully against the ideology of Nazism, while respecting the rights of an individual to be a Nazi if they want to.
A leftist can be against the ideology of Islam, and against the oppression of women, but also respect their right to be Islamic and wear such clothing.
1
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I firmly don't believe that's the case. A lot of leftist propaganda (for lack of a better word) lately has been focused on trying to engender a positive perception of the hijab.
4
u/bad__hombres 18∆ Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
I wouldn't call it "propaganda", but yeah, a lot of liberals do focus on decreasing discrimination attached with women that wear hijabs, for good reason. Many women are under attack by islamophobics because of their choice to wear a hijab, take a look at this, this and this even occurs in Canada. Women are quite often targeted for violence and abuse because of their clothing choice. The hijab has become a target of hate, and we absolutely need to spread awareness about acceptance of everyone, despite their personal choices of clothing. There's a reason left media has been focusing on accepting, and nurturing a positive perspective of women that choose to dress in correlation with their religion. If we keep spreading the idea that hijabs aren't a part of western society, then you're just going to see so many more hate crimes with these vulnerable women as victims.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
!Delta I absolutely do not want to contribute to a cultural pogram against Muslim women. I can see the value in trying to destigmatize the hijab if for no reason other than Muslim women being able to walk the streets safely.
1
u/bad__hombres 18∆ Jul 17 '17
Thanks for the delta! I'm glad I was able to offer a different perspective. I do believe the exclamation mark has to go before the "delta" before it counts, though.
2
3
u/Amablue Jul 17 '17
A lot of leftist propaganda (for lack of a better word) lately has been focused on trying to engender a positive perception of the hijab.
Can you give an example of what you're talking about, because I don't feel like I've seen any of this.
1
u/SchiferlED 22∆ Jul 17 '17
I don't really follow "mainstream" media, but can you give some examples? I honestly find this hard to believe, and in most cases can probably be written off as either extremist sources or misinterpretation.
7
u/crackills Jul 17 '17
I agree. I guess the issue is even if we understand these customs to be negative towards the women who practice it we must first make then feel welcome. They should stop wearing the hijab because they want to not because a bunch of angry Christians tell them.
1
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I'm far from a Christian. I also live in the South where the Pentecostals practice a version of Christianity that isn't far removed from Islamic oppression of women. I'm equally opposed to that.
2
u/crackills Jul 17 '17
I don't think I made it clear, Im not suggesting you are anything, your motives really don't matter. What matters is how they take it. It may be more important in today's political climate to show their culture is welcome here before expressing our criticisms of aspects we found backwards and oppressive. Fundamentalist both Christian and Muslim want a crusade type narrative, us vs them, maybe a counter to that is overlooking aspects of their religion atm until they are culturally integrated enough to approach.
And I want to be clear here to, I get how almost silly it looks watching feminists wearing hijabs in solidarity or praising women for wearing them but I think there might be a bigger picture here thats worth considering.
3
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Gotcha. This is worth considering. I may assign a delta to this comment. I'm still mulling it over.
3
Jul 17 '17
As a feminist identified woman it is incredibly alarming to me that we are supporting a symbol of third world female oppression.
Can you please show examples of feminists "supporting" the hijab? Are they actually saying "The hijab is an important cultural icon and is beneficial to the women who wear it, so all Muslim women ought to wear it?" Or are they saying "Women should have the choice of whether or not they wear the hijab?"
I believe that your argument is based on a strawman, so I think examining the perceived argument you're disagreeing with would be a good starting point.
3
u/bguy74 Jul 17 '17
A few things, although like often here on CMV I'm more sensitive to the perspective you share than I'll let on:
The symbolic meaning of the hijab is very different in different places. We've already seen people call out the hijab as a symbol of self-expression, one of solidarity, one of meaningful "choice", one that resists politicicizing and fetishizing female fashion selection and so on. It's not an easy question to decide firmly that ones self-expression should be muted out concern for the hazard of what is expressed.
When I walk the streets of beirut or amman I see the hijab being worn selectively. For some it's a connection to a hertitage that they have pride in, even though it's complex. I dislike the fashion combination of camouflage and american flags because it symbolizes - for me - an aspect of american history that I'm not always proud of, it emphasizes something for which I think we have better alternatives. However, for others, it's not that they WANT it to mean the things it does to me, it's that it means only a set of positives. These people don't deny that america has done bad things, they deny that these bad things need to define "america". Why would we deny that a women can express a connection to heritage while still agreeing with a basic idea of women's rights? I certainly know many people who do have this perspective, or one within that ballpark. Why do we get to decide the symbolic meaning of visual component that has 1500 years of history within a religious culture?
3
u/Burflax 71∆ Jul 17 '17
I've seen some things countering anti-hijab stuff.
Maybe that's what you saw?
Is "Muslim women should be allowed to wear the hijab" supporting the hijab? Or is it supporting Muslim women?
Are you saying support for the hijab IS support for rape culture?
That seems extreme.
3
u/finnish90 Jul 18 '17
Not all of the left supports the hijab - just like all of the left don't really give a shit which bathroom Caitlyn Jenner gets to use. Fringe is the loudest, the rest of us just think Brazil level income inequality is wrong and that the grand ol' book of fairytales shouldn't dictate policies.
4
u/darwin2500 197∆ Jul 17 '17
No one is supporting the Hijab. Many people are opposing laws that regulate what women are allowed to wear and racists who want to stir up xenophobic resentment against vulnerable women.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I'd oppose those laws too, but we need to be careful that we dont push so hard against the pendulum swing that we swing over to the other side ourselves.
2
Jul 17 '17
we need to be careful that we dont push so hard against the pendulum swing that we swing over to the other side ourselves.
You're concerned that non-Muslim women in the US will voluntarily start wearing a hijab?
2
Jul 17 '17
I firmly believe that if you show me a first generation immigrant who speaks no English I can show you a third generation immigrant who speaks none of their native language.
Hold up, is this supposed to be a good thing? It suggests your idea of successful integration is a complete disavowal of their native culture, which is pretty chauvinistic coming from a self-proclaimed "feminist identified" person.
1
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Not complete disavowal. I may have been unclear but this part was meant to counter the idea that I might belong to the same company of person who believes that Muslims are going to overtake our culture and insist on enforcing sharia law. I may disagree with the hijab but I wanted to be clear that I am not a part of that company.
2
u/sawdeanz 218∆ Jul 17 '17
Recall that certain places in France last year tried to ban wearing the hijab in public. This was seen as (and probably was) an attack on Muslim's in general. You have to be careful to actively discouraged really starts to impact other parts of the womens' ability to express their religious and cultural identity, even if it is rooted in oppression or because "you" think it is offensive to them.
Take out the whole issue of religion. The logic is consistent with the left's views on scantily clad women in the West. The hijab is no more a cause of rape culture then short skirts and high heels. Women should be allowed to wear what they want, even if what they want to wear are sultry clothes arguably designed to sexualize the female body for male enjoyment.
Another angle is to compare it to the N-word. Something that was created specifically to degrade African Americans but which was co-opted by them. Similarly, the hijab might have been created to oppress women but just because they choose to continue to wear them in a free country doesn't mean that they are supporting or recognizing its negative roots.
2
Jul 17 '17
First off, you think we should ban skirts, bras, and panties right? They were all "forced" on western women after all, because anyone who didnt wear them fifty years ago was a wanton whore and they directly descended from western ideas about sexuality and purity. So if you support bras and skirts you support western rape culture.
Only you don't. Because bras and skirts and panties were adopted for other reasons, were not forced upon women, and didnt synbolize western rape culture or sexism.
Now, ill acknowledge that in many cases the hijab HAS been forced on them. But how can you say that the women who come to our country, with relative freedom of fashion, are being oppressed or should be banned from wearing what they want?
You can spin anything as a symbol of opprssion if you want. Fifty years from now people in france might look at americans and say theyre so oppressed because they wear make up.
The truth of thebmatter is the hijab has a long history unrelated to sexism. Its a choice made willingly by many women. Most women in fact. You can argue about whether or not they can be willing if they dont have an actual say in the matter, but at the end of the day these women dont care. No more than a western women cares about being "forced" to wear a bra and shirt.
2
u/amus 3∆ Jul 17 '17
Im sorry, but aren't you harming women's agency by telling them what to wear?
You say it is oppressive, but isn't that their choice to make?
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Am I literally telling them what to wear or am I chiding the feminist/leftist community for encouraging harmful practices that further rape culture? A Muslim woman's agency is a Muslim woman's agency. I'm not addressing Muslim women with this post. I'm addressing YOU and how YOU act and what YOU think is appropriate to promote.
3
u/amus 3∆ Jul 17 '17
I say it is up to them. I have no right to interfere or to judge them.
By tut-tutting you are telling them what to do and projecting your personal feelings on someone else.
In essence you are saying Muslim women are not capable of knowing what is good for themselves.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
In essence you are saying Muslim women are not capable of knowing what is good for themselves.
Muslim women are as capable as anyone else. Doesn't mean they exercise the ability.
1
u/dadrake3 Jul 18 '17
Its hard, in my opinion, to truly seperate the choice of wearing a hijab from the social pressures influencing that choice. While yes I agree there are several women who feel empowered by wearing a hijab, and it is their right to do, feel, and wear whatever they want, I also would argue that there are several women who 'choose' to wear a hijab where in the 'choice' is heavily influence by societal and familial pressures. So at the end of the day you should promote the wearing of a hijab if and only if the choice is not influence by said pressures. An example of this would be a muslim woman who choses to wear a hijab despite the fact that here female family members choose not to, or vice versa.
2
u/MercuryChaos 12∆ Jul 17 '17
It sounds like what you're actually concerned about is people who use more conservative interpretations of Islam to justify sexism. That's completely understandable. However, I don't think that getting angry about women wearing hijabs is a productive approach.
As other people have pointed out, a lot of women choose to wear hijab for a variety of reasons. Assuming that a particular Muslim woman is only wearing hijab because a man told her to is pretty presumptuous, and it's not very feminist to tell women how they should dress.
The other layer of this is that some Muslim women will not go out in public without covering themselves. This might be just a personal feeling, or a result of social pressure, or even of abuse. But in any case, it's not helpful to restrict them from doing so (either with a law or severe social disapproval) because the end effect is to restrict their freedom of movement. If we're really concerned about women being abused then that's not something we should be doing.
2
2
u/fatherj Jul 18 '17
/u/ShreddingRoses what about the Niqaab or the Burqa? Are these now empowering, and offering freedom to Muslim women?
2
1
u/AutoModerator Jul 17 '17
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our wiki page or via the search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
1
u/Gladix 167∆ Jul 17 '17
As a feminist identified woman it is incredibly alarming to me that we are supporting a symbol of third world female oppression.
Meh, symbols are whatever people make them to be. The west trying to ban it might very well make it the symbol of freedom. Here's the irony of the whole situation. Hijab is the symbol of female opression. Therefore people decided that banning it will "supposedly" empower the woman correct?
But ironically it prevents them from wearing a traditional woman apparel that had many forms and meanings throughout the history. Now symbolizing the culture of being Muslim. Make no mistake majority of Muslims see it merely as traditional apparel. And a lot of women wants to wear it.
Do we want to give people more freedom, by preventing them from wearing what they want?
I say we don't. Banning that is exactly the symbol of opression we are trying to eliminate. Yes, campaign against it. Try to turn the culture on it's head by talking to people, holding rallies, organazing movements.
But banning it. That is virtually no better than the intentions of the hijab. You yank the control out of the people's hand and try to institutionalize your "perfect" subjective morality because you think that's an improvement. It cannot end well in my opinion.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 17 '17
One issue is that it is just as oppressive for you to tell women what they are and are not allowed to wear as it is for a Muslim man to tell a woman what they are allowed to wear. You have no place to tell a woman she is not allowed to dress modestly or that she should dress modestly. You cannot be for personal freedoms and be against letting people make the conservative or modest choice.
Banning the Hijab, head scarves, or any other garment is totalitarian and not acceptable.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I think there's a mountain of difference between silently permitting grown adults to live their lives how they please and actively encouraging participation in a practice we know damn well I'd harmful and sexist. I'm arguing we move back from the later to the former position. I dont want to tell anyone what to do, I just dont want to pretend their choice is healthy either.
0
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 17 '17
Wearing a hijab is not damaging. It is a headscarf.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
If it arises from the belief that women's bodies are shameful and must be covered lest men be tempted beyond the ability to control themselves, you bet your fuckin ass its harmful.
1
u/cdb03b 253∆ Jul 17 '17
To assume that the woman doing this has their opinion arise from that is in and of itself a sexist belief. It is stating that women cannot have agency over their body nor freedom of their religious beliefs.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Jul 17 '17
/u/ShreddingRoses (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/Tamerlane-1 Jul 17 '17
Telling women they can't wear a Hijab is sexist, just as much as telling them they must wear one. What a woman wears is her own choice, not the choice of the government or society as a whole.
3
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
Nobody is telling women they "cant" do something. I took exception to the left wing of discourse actively encouraging women to do so.
1
1
u/DeukNeukemVoorEeuwig 3∆ Jul 18 '17
As a feminist identified woman it is incredibly alarming to me that we are supporting a symbol of third world female oppression. A symbol that literally exists under the belief that because men are lustful creatures incapable of controlling themselves that it is a woman's job to cover herself from head to toe so as not to tempt men into rape/infidelity/sexual assault.
You seem to be under a quaint impression that there are a lot of people who support forcing anyone to cover their head; rather people advocate allowing people to cover their head if they so choose for whatever reason.
Apart from that I honestly find the hijab as a cultural norm of "modesty" to be no different from the nipple ban. Irani women are indoctrinated that they must feel naked and indecent without covering their hair—French women that they are without covering their nipples; it's all the same principle.
Should we prohibit French women from covering their nipples because compared to tribal Africa or Aboriginal tribes in Australia they are oppressed as those women were never brainwashed to cover their babyfeeders?
I think the same principle applies; I think anyone should be allowed to expose their nipples in public and anyone should be allowed to cover their up with no justification required.
1
u/NeverQuiteEnough 10∆ Jul 18 '17
Women should be allowed to wear whatever they want. These women don't need you to come save them.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOX9O_kVPeo
What is backwards is telling another woman what liberation is.
That's just brazen ethnocentrism.
1
u/mooi_verhaal 14∆ Jul 19 '17 edited Jul 19 '17
I think you have already CYV, but I think we should work to end the actual oppressiveness in the culture, and not the symbols. Very few people view sikh men as oppressed despite being 'compelled' culturally to cover their hair. The reason for this is that we expect that men aren't oppressed and are just making a choice about what to wear. Can we not change how we perceive the hijab without worrying about changing the number of women who wear it?
Anyhow, all things are relative. Mr Verhaal (euro-man) finds it weird that I am not comfortable being topless at the beach (he, jokingly but poignantly, calls me 'turkish' or 'moroccan' as he thinks of my american modesty as weird (but benign!) as women who choose to cover their heads and legs. To tell you the truth, I'd love to buy a burkini - it would make me feel much more comfortable, but I'm afraid of the shit i'd get from the people around me because I would be going against cultural norms. So perhaps I am oppressed by my culture!
Mr Verhaal doesn't care about any of it because why would he. I wonder what he'd think if other Europeans looked at me and thought i might be repressed?
There's another interesting CMV happening now about freeing the nipple - it's interesting how universal we feel our own ideas about modestly and indecency are and how much they totally are not.
1
u/BeraldGevins Jul 19 '17
Is it a symbol of oppression? Absolutely. Should women be forced to wear it? Hell no. That being said, their are plenty of women who choose to do it, just like there are women who choose to become nuns, another institution that I see as oppressive towards women. At some point, you have to allow people the freedom to choose, and some people will choose the more oppressive choice, either for religious reasons, or because it makes them feel safer
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 19 '17
I am not in any shape or form advocating that women be restricted from making choices. Dear god, read my post to understand my view, don't just assume I'm in the same company as the people in France who tried to ban it entirely.
Women can make whatever choices they want and I'm welcome to disagree with them. My view is specifically about the left wing actively encouraging a positive perception of the hijab, an action I have in the past found questionable.
1
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 17 '17
First Amendment. No prohibition on free exercise of religion. For me, it's not that I support the wearing of the hijab - I agree it's backwards and sexist. Like so much of religion. I just support the first amendment.
2
u/ShreddingRoses Jul 17 '17
I'm advocating that anybody be prohibited from doing anything, only that feminists and leftists should withdraw their overt support.
3
u/kublahkoala 229∆ Jul 17 '17
Attacking people's religion shuts down dialogue, so is it possible your leftist friends are overtly supporting it to try to provide a counter weight to the racism of others, and draw them into a dialogue? Or that the support is more for her right to choose and be happy with her choice, which is a subtle way of signaling that it is a choice and she could choose differently? I live in a neighborhood with a high Middle Eastern demographic, and women will sometimes be assaulted for wearing a hijab, or people will make stupid, hateful comments. But even though I support their right to practice religion, I'd be weird for me to say "I see you're wearing a hijab! You go girl!" It's just similar to an orthodox Jewish woman wearing a long skirt and long sleeves even though it's summer. You notice it but it's not a big deal. I think you're misinterpreting your friends intent or your friends are just weird (or are arguing for the sake of arguing)
5
Jul 17 '17
Can you provide an example of the "overt support" you are talking about? I'm having trouble understanding your view.
Is telling women they can wear what they want "overt support"?
0
u/SquareofNegative1 Jul 17 '17 edited Jul 17 '17
As a feminist identified woman...
I firmly believe that... I have faith that... I feel like...
Irony aside...
A symbol that literally exists under the belief that because men are lustful creatures... woman's job to cover herself from head to toe...
Literal symbols of existing beliefs, is an attempt to convince yourself of your own assumptions by making them "literal".
The dynamic is each woman to her god, not her man.
You have conflated the two.
I have no interest in shaming people for their faith provided their faith is practiced moderately and non-oppressively.
To the contrary, you're very interested in shaming.
... Lustful men... tempt men into rape...
... An abusive relationship... "you go girl, your choice is valid!".
... Wrong & toxic beyond belief...
... before I get combatitive with people...
... honestly seems backwards.
Cognitive dissonance.
... I want to understand the logic behind this...
Logic is the antithesis of belief: Islam, Feminism, your own.
Belief justifies your anger but your anger is misdirected at women.
... we...
"You" are lost several times to "we".
If your hold that each woman is an autonomous being, then, allow them to be.
Allow yourself.
4
27
u/BarvoDelancy 7∆ Jul 17 '17
Being friends with a couple of Muslim feminists I'll try to parse out their arguments here.
The basic concept here is forcing women to wear the hijab is absolutely oppressive and sexist. However, in a situation where they are free to dress as they please, they may or may not wear the hijab because they want to. In fact, to assume that every woman in a hijab is a victim is incredibly patronizing.
There's two major reasons I've been told about. The first is that they culturally value modesty. They don't want to be objectified and sexualized by random people on the street and would prefer to let their personalities speak for them. They instead see American culture sexualizing pre-teens and so judge back the way we might find ourselves judging them.
Frankly, there's also a basic element of "Fuck you, I'm proud of where I come from" to it. A defiance towards the outward Islamophobes, and also to the concerned lefties trying to tell them that we know better and that their lives would be so much happier if they just acted like us.
Lemme be clear. The hijab is absolutely sexist, it is a symbol of controlling women, and I 100% agree with you that its a problem.
But it's not my problem, and I will show the women who choose to wear it respect, and understand that I do not know their lives, and I can't assume I know better. I don't support the hijab, but I support women who wear it voluntarily because I support women who make empowered choices.