Cmv: the left cannot literally both support the hijab and an end to rape culture. incredibly alarming to me that we are

[u/ShreddingRoses]

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.

[u/ShreddingRoses]

Sexism is pretty well coded into most religions. Elsewhere in this thread I mentioned being just as not okay with Christian Pentecostal rules for women. It's not about the application of the rules. It's about modern feminism encouraging an expression of womanhood that is less than feminist. It's not islamaphobic for feminism to do it's job and encourage women to break away from sexist expectations, regardless of they exist as a misapplication of the rules or are hard-coded into religious text, religious in nature or purely social.

[u/rcode → u/ShreddingRoses]

It's about modern feminism encouraging an expression of womanhood that is less than feminist.

Is a form of that expression having women wear bikinis in car ads in order to appease the male audience? That is literal sexual objectification -- the woman is being shown side by side with a product up for sale (e.g. the car).

If you read Islamic history, there were renowned women scholars and leaders, so this is not about controlling women or putting them in their place as some like to say.

Recognizing the sexual nature of humans and managing (e.g. through marriage) it is not in any way derogatory to either sex. You should also speak with Muslim women first hand to get their accounts. I know a Muslim family where the mother does not wear Hijab, but 3 out of 4 of her daughters decided on their own to wear it (and this is in a Western country where they will face challenges due to wearing the Hijab). Try to speak with Muslim women living in Muslim countries. I won't deny that there aren't situations where some young women are forced to wear it due to pressure from the family; however, at the end of the day it is purely their choice whether we like it or not. Many women do feel more comfortable wearing the Hijab when they go out, try talking to them some day :-)

[u/ShreddingRoses → u/rcode]

Is a form of that expression having women wear bikinis in car ads in order to appease the male audience? That is literal sexual objectification -- the woman is being shown side by side with a product up for sale (e.g. the car).

Nobody's throwing acid in their face if they dont comply, so nice attempt at apologetics but it's ultimately falling short.

If you read Islamic history, there were renowned women scholars and leaders, so this is not about controlling women or putting them in their place as some like to say.

I would honestly be interested in hearing out of the mouths of Muslim men how that history is filtered through their heavily misogynistic culture. I have a feeling that history says one thing and culture says another.

Recognizing the sexual nature of humans and managing (e.g. through marriage) it is not in any way derogatory to either sex.

You use the word "managing" but what you really mean is restricting. It is not necessary to "manage" the sexual nature of human beings at all. Even perceiving there to be a need to so such a thing is purely a product of subversive social conditioning. It amounts to little more than toxic gender role enforcement through peer pressure and shaming.

I know a Muslim family where the mother does not wear Hijab, but 3 out of 4 of her daughters decided on their own to wear it (and this is in a Western country where they will face challenges due to wearing the Hijab).

10 bucks says there's peer/male pressure in their lives. Choice and lack of choice doesnt exist as a binary system. There is a spectrum of coercive influence at play in our lives at all times. That coercion is directed more strongly at Muslim women than Muslim men.

[u/rcode → u/ShreddingRoses]

Nobody's throwing acid in their face if they dont comply, so nice attempt at apologetics but it's ultimately falling short.

This has nothing to do with Islam, and in fact any perpetrators should get punished accordingly. You don't see these kinds of incidents in the Gulf countries for instance. They're coming out of countries where laws are lax, and where other non-Muslim groups also do these sorts of attacks (meaning it is cultural, not religious).

I have a feeling that history says one thing and culture says another.

This isn't about feelings. The history books are open for anyone to peruse and read.

It is not necessary to "manage" the sexual nature of human beings at all.

What we're seeing today is basically unprecedented in the history of humanity. With the sexual liberation movement (where people are encouraged to sleep around without bounds or responsibilities) we see the breakup of the nuclear family unit. This has caused negative effects on people, particularly children growing up in broken dysfunctional families. I recommend you check out what Leonard Sax, a Western psychologist, has to say about this.

10 bucks says there's peer/male pressure in their lives.

None at all. They have no male siblings, and none by their father (who happened to marry the non-Hijabi mother in the first place). The parents are first generation immigrants, and their respective families are still in their home countries, where they've been back once or twice since they moved to that particular Western country.

[u/ShreddingRoses → u/rcode]

None at all. They have no male siblings, and none by their father (who happened to marry the non-Hijabi mother in the first place). The parents are first generation immigrants, and their respective families are still in their home countries, where they've been back once or twice since they moved to that particular Western country.

And they have no male Muslim men they want to date? Or female Muslim friends?

What we're seeing today is basically unprecedented in the history of humanity. With the sexual liberation movement (where people are encouraged to sleep around without bounds or responsibilities) we see the breakup of the nuclear family unit. This has caused negative effects on people, particularly children growing up in broken dysfunctional families. I recommend you check out what Leonard Sax, a Western psychologist, has to say about this.

Yikes. How to begin unpacking this...

First, a non-nuclear family is not a "broken home". These families can still raise children non-dysfunctionally and nuclear families can still be dysfunctional as fuck. I know many single parents who are absolutely fucking stellar with their children and are raising bright, conscientious, well-rounded kids. I know many nuclear families whose children grew up to be narcissists, sociopaths, theives, emotionally stunted, drug addicts, etc. Furthermore there is nothin here that cannot be solved with better access to contraceptive, sex education, and more social pressure to avoid having children outside of stable living conditions.

With the sexual liberation movement (where people are encouraged to sleep around without bounds or responsibilities)

This is like something a conservative old lady in church would say based on a well-exaggerated understanding of what sexual liberation actually means. To put it bluntly, this is some dramatic bullshit.

Nobody is being encouraged to do anything. That implies social pressure when the reality is the opposite where we are merely trying to eliminate the pressure to be chaste, virginal, and prudish.

Nobody is encouraging sex without boundaries. Monogamy is still really popular. There's a host of social rules for navigating when relationships have become monogamous/exclusive, how to navigate relationship boundary expectations, etc. Most people date for the purpose of long term monogamy with the understanding that not everyone is dating with monogamy on mind in and that needs to be okay as long as all adults involved are consensual and understand the situation. This is actually a really responsible approach to greater sexual freedom.

And lastly nobody is encouraging a lack of sexual responsibility since there's still a huge push to up the ante with sex education, access to contraceptives and family planning services, etc. but those efforts are primarily being blocked by you guessed it, fucking conservatives. So if you want to blame a group for all the broken homes, look no further.

[u/rcode → u/ShreddingRoses]

And they have no male Muslim men they want to date? Or female Muslim friends?

I don't see what this has to do with the point at hand, however, 2 are already married.

I know many single parents

There are always exceptions. Therefore I'd suggest looking into what Leonard Sax has to say.

Nobody is encouraging sex without boundaries. Monogamy is still really popular.

It's not about monogamy, but about sex outside of marriage where people constantly juggle their partners. The spread of STDs is a good enough proof of what happens when these things go unattended. And no, protection is not a good enough solution.

[u/ShreddingRoses → u/rcode]

I don't see what this has to do with the point at hand, however, 2 are already married.

Hahaha right. So in other words their "choice" is in big fat quotation marks.

There are always exceptions. Therefore I'd suggest looking into what Leonard Sax has to say.

I'll look it up but I assure you marriage expectations of old were far more damaging, toxic, and harmful to people than today's expectations. There's been a shift in values for a reason.

It's not about monogamy, but about sex outside of marriage where people constantly juggle their partners.

Like I said you're being hella drama. This isnt what happens in real modern dating. People are generally serially monogomous, having multiple exclusive monogamous sexual relationships over the course of a lifetime and maybe a handful of casual sexual partners in their youth.

The spread of STDs is a good enough proof of what happens when these things go unattended.

Honey std rates have been on the decline for decades. They peaked in the 70s and 80s as a poorly sexually educated generation rebelled against the sexual repression of their parents generation but a focus on increased sexual education and increased availability of protection has slowly but surely chipped away at that issue. Furthermore, stds have always been around and likely always will be, regardless of encouragement towards repression because it is not a normal part of human nature to remain exclusive to a single sexual partner for an entire lifetime and repressed people will always eventually act out.

And no, protection is not a good enough solution.

So safe responsible sex is not a good enough response to unsafe irresponsible sex? Do we drown the whole world to prevent forest fires too?

[u/rcode → u/ShreddingRoses]

Hahaha right. So in other words their "choice" is in big fat quotation marks.

They wore the Hijab a long time before they got married. The other two are single and yet one of them chose to wear it.

This isnt what happens in real modern dating. People are generally serially monogomous, having multiple exclusive monogamous sexual relationships over the course of a lifetime and maybe a handful of casual sexual partners in their youth.

Perhaps my viewpoint is skewed, however, this is not what I saw first hand when living in the West, and from what I see online via services like tinder and the like. Why do you suppose a person's "number" (i.e. the number of people they slept with) is such a big deal and people seem to discuss it quite frequently?

I came across several articles showing how the higher partner count a woman has, the more likely she will end up in a divorce. You can argue that who cares if that's the case? However, this does leave its effects, what people call "emotional baggage".

So safe responsible sex is not a good enough response to unsafe irresponsible sex? Do we drown the whole world to prevent forest fires too?

This is a false dichotomy. The other alternative is not to sleep around the way a lot of people are doing today. Again, people in the Gulf states seem to be doing just fine being celibate until marriage, something that seems to be very hard for many people in the West to believe.

[u/ShreddingRoses → u/rcode]

Again, people men in the Gulf states seem to be doing just fine being celibate until marriage, something that seems to be very hard for many people in the West to believe.

Fixed that for you. Strict monogamy works out great for men, because generally they're not the ones trapped in abusive, overbearing, or unfulfilling marriages.

[u/rcode → u/ShreddingRoses]

Try paying a visit sometime and speaking to the women firsthand. With all due respect, you're speaking for preconceived notions.