If a culture's survival is dependent on women wearing a garment to suppress the "uncontrollable" desires of men, that culture is probably not worth saving. Hijabs are bad and misogynistic, this law is bad and racist, these positions are not mutually exclusive. Is banning FGM cultural genocide?
Yes or no, is oppositiom to FGM cultural genocide? Also, for the last fucking time with you people, I'm not white. Just because my feminism agrees with this aspect of colonialism, doesn't make it wrong. The social values of Stalin's USSR are aligned with modern conservatives, does that make conservatism good or socialism bad? Or can we just agree that there is no commutative property of morality?
Yes or no, is oppositiom to FGM cultural genocide?
Fuck off with this false equivalence bullshit. Chopping up kids' genitals so they don't do sex stuff isn't even on the same plane of existence of Bad Things as wearing a fucking hat. Is it a dated and sexist practice? Yeah, it is, but this bullshit law is specifically targeting Muslims based on racial prejudice—pretending it's anything but that tells us you're a pretty shitty intersectional feminist.
Let us respond to your shitty bait question with another shitty bait question. Do you get Big Mad on the Internet about:
Catholic nuns' veils?
Catholic bishops' miters?
Orthodox monks' kamilavka?
Jews' sheitel?
Jews' yarmulke?
Jews' kippah?
Sikhs' dastar?
If you only get mad about the hijab—surprise!—you may need to re-assess if your opposition is rooted more in feminism, or more in racism.
Umm I literally said in my previous comment that yarmulkes and crosses should be banned.
Liberalism has engendered this false value that "cultures" need to be respected and have some nebulous right to self determination, but how far should we take that? This is why a classless society is the only solution.
Let's take this narrative and turn it on its head and place ourselves in an alternate history where the middle eastern peoples had gone on the offensive after the crusades. Now imagine the British Isles colonized by Muslims and Anglo immigrants to Arabic nations attempting to practice primae noctis amongst their own communities. Would the dominant culture be practicing "brown supremacy" because they pass laws outlawing this practice to protect citizens from rape? Are they engaged in cultural genocide because they are trying to restore agency to an underclass within an underclass? Stop acting like everything you associate with "white" culture is bad or you risk becoming an apologist for some pretty vile stuff.
I think clothes are kinda different on the totem-pole of “shit parents make kids do” to mutilation, so fgm part I think is a kinda bad faith-ish part of your comment. But sure, forcing clothes on kid is also bad, just less bad.
If your "value system" tells you that someone wearing a little cross and chopping up children's genitals is on the same footing them something is wrong with said "value system".
C'mon. It's a way to signify an identity. No one's actually getting raped or not raped because of a hijab. I just had a passover dinner. It's not because I actually thought the angel of death killed a bunch of Egyptians and spared the Jews. I did it to express some Jewishness.
They absolutely are being raped because of a hijab. It's indoctrination to a culture that others women and identifies them as less than. Women are devalued in the eyes of men and stripped on their agency and self esteem. It's a tool of the patriarchy and analogous to western rape culture.
Forcing women to wear hijabs is really terrible and the traditional reason they are worn is reactionary but what you are saying is also really dumb and bad, pretty much epic Internet atheist tier stuff.
Because it makes no sense. I can't even figure out where you are going with it. Do you think individualism is when you allow people to do some stuff slightly different from other people? But then it makes even less sense for cultural practices because cultural practices are collective, it's the opposite of what seems to be your idea of individualism. Either way it really doesn't matter because it is an entirely incorrect way to approach the issue and a large misunderstanding of what individualism means in marxism.
Women are being raped because of hijabs? What does that even mean?
You know we're talking about hijabs, which are like, a scarf, and not even burqas, right?
You may disagree with a culture, but how does you policing what people wear, religious or otherwise, help anyone, if it is not causing direct harm. If we're talking about FGM or foot binding or skull shaping or something that is a "cultural or religious practice" that permanently debilitates women, then, yeah, that's no good. But it's a scarf that covers hair. I know lots of progressive, fucking amazing Muslim women who wear hijabs and kick ass. They wear it to be closer to their god and their religion, not because it signifies deferance to men.
It is a different situation in say, Saudi or Iran where it is mandatory - however, that is also overreach on governments policing clothing.
Your argument to me is based on some iteration of Islam that I haven't experienced, and I'm not sure that outside of religiously ruled countries it exists. For that reason, it has a sense of Islamophobia - that is, policing the clothing of Muslim people. You're choosing the default culture, and you're choosing it to be in line with Western white anti-theistic ideals.
I simply recognize that the dominant culture in Islamic countries is misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic. And hell yes I'm anti-theist, but that is not "western". I'm fiercely anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-individualist, I'm as least western as they come. I'm definitely a chauvinist, but it's moral, not cultural. Also I explained exactly how a hijab others women and removes their agency, but I see you've chosen not to engage with that topic at all and instead decided to call me, a non-white person who wasn't raised in the hegemonic western culture a western chauvinist.
If you ignore what I wrote about having the government dictate mandatory hijabs, as in Saudi and Iran as being bad, and yea, misogynistic, then I guess you could say I "didn't engage". If you don't ignore that, and instead see where I said that women outside of those countries are choosing to wear hijabs are celebrating their religion as a personal choice, then you might see my point of view better.
Just because you're not white and not "Western" doesn't mean that your chauvinism doesn't align with white western ideals.
I am against mandated headscarfs in theocratic autocracies, but this has little to do with mandated no-headscarfs in other countries.
You are coming at this from a moralistic ideological stance. You can't tell women what to wear and then claim that this is improving their agency. You are morally against this but you are morally against the culture - so it is in fact cultural, and it's a cultural difference that is against the white western culture being superior - from a moral perspective. When this type of thinking is directed against Muslims this is where it lines up with Western white chauvinism.
This is a bit of a trek to get from "the government shouldn't mandate what people wear" to suggesting I support all breadth of individualist arguments.
I suppose a certain amount of individualism under capitalism is in fact classist, racist, and exploitative, but removing any libertarian, self sufficiency nonsense and looking strictly at clothing and style and personality, people should be able to be who they are and who they want to be. I don't think this is a concept at odds with left wing economic systems.
I think we disagree that a headscarf in general is detrimental to society. I don't think it is, and you do think it is. Unfortunately, I have too many really cool empowered women examples that will sway me that outside of a theocracy there is anything bad about hijabs.
But again, native desert people in their place of birth (before air conditioning) would all wear something similar, no?
Also, this is again tilting in strange arguments, go have fun in struggle session, law is undoubtedly racist and will increase ethnic tensions, and lead to further absence of solidarity.
No actually in a socialist society people are allowed to do what they want and not be told what to do by an outside authority that something they choose to do is illegal.
The first one is cultural genocide, though.
If a culture's survival is dependent on women wearing a garment to suppress the "uncontrollable" desires of men, that culture is probably not worth saving. Hijabs are bad and misogynistic, this law is bad and racist, these positions are not mutually exclusive. Is banning FGM cultural genocide?
congrats, your feminism happens to align precisely with the civilizing project of european white supremacists
Yes or no, is oppositiom to FGM cultural genocide? Also, for the last fucking time with you people, I'm not white. Just because my feminism agrees with this aspect of colonialism, doesn't make it wrong. The social values of Stalin's USSR are aligned with modern conservatives, does that make conservatism good or socialism bad? Or can we just agree that there is no commutative property of morality?
Fuck off with this false equivalence bullshit. Chopping up kids' genitals so they don't do sex stuff isn't even on the same plane of existence of Bad Things as wearing a fucking hat. Is it a dated and sexist practice? Yeah, it is, but this bullshit law is specifically targeting Muslims based on racial prejudice—pretending it's anything but that tells us you're a pretty shitty intersectional feminist.
Let us respond to your shitty bait question with another shitty bait question. Do you get Big Mad on the Internet about:
If you only get mad about the hijab—surprise!—you may need to re-assess if your opposition is rooted more in feminism, or more in racism.
Assume good faith and see comment from same comrade below, jesus christ. Why so argumentative
Umm I literally said in my previous comment that yarmulkes and crosses should be banned.
Liberalism has engendered this false value that "cultures" need to be respected and have some nebulous right to self determination, but how far should we take that? This is why a classless society is the only solution.
Let's take this narrative and turn it on its head and place ourselves in an alternate history where the middle eastern peoples had gone on the offensive after the crusades. Now imagine the British Isles colonized by Muslims and Anglo immigrants to Arabic nations attempting to practice primae noctis amongst their own communities. Would the dominant culture be practicing "brown supremacy" because they pass laws outlawing this practice to protect citizens from rape? Are they engaged in cultural genocide because they are trying to restore agency to an underclass within an underclass? Stop acting like everything you associate with "white" culture is bad or you risk becoming an apologist for some pretty vile stuff.
I think clothes are kinda different on the totem-pole of “shit parents make kids do” to mutilation, so fgm part I think is a kinda bad faith-ish part of your comment. But sure, forcing clothes on kid is also bad, just less bad.
Removed by mod
The wise man solemnly bowed his head...
If your "value system" tells you that someone wearing a little cross and chopping up children's genitals is on the same footing them something is wrong with said "value system".
That’s the wrong part of your value system :galaxy-brain: (that’s a joke)
CW: sexual assault, mutilation
spoiler
Yep, you got me. Chopping up kids genitals and raping slave women is the same thing as hats. Damn, I'm owned.
C'mon. It's a way to signify an identity. No one's actually getting raped or not raped because of a hijab. I just had a passover dinner. It's not because I actually thought the angel of death killed a bunch of Egyptians and spared the Jews. I did it to express some Jewishness.
They absolutely are being raped because of a hijab. It's indoctrination to a culture that others women and identifies them as less than. Women are devalued in the eyes of men and stripped on their agency and self esteem. It's a tool of the patriarchy and analogous to western rape culture.
It's true. They do live in a society with gender norms, which will surely change when expressions of their ethnic identity are criminalized.
So attack the racist motivations behind the law, then. Or does the idea of critical support only apply when supporting non-western aligned morality.
I am opposed to the racist motivations, and I'm also opposed to banning hijabs.
Removed by mod
Forcing women to wear hijabs is really terrible and the traditional reason they are worn is reactionary but what you are saying is also really dumb and bad, pretty much epic Internet atheist tier stuff.
What am I saying that's terrible and bad exactly?
That you want to literally ban people wearing religious symbols and cultural signifiers. Which is really, really dumb and bad.
Removed by mod
What? This is literal nonsense lmao
Why?
Because it makes no sense. I can't even figure out where you are going with it. Do you think individualism is when you allow people to do some stuff slightly different from other people? But then it makes even less sense for cultural practices because cultural practices are collective, it's the opposite of what seems to be your idea of individualism. Either way it really doesn't matter because it is an entirely incorrect way to approach the issue and a large misunderstanding of what individualism means in marxism.
Women are being raped because of hijabs? What does that even mean?
You know we're talking about hijabs, which are like, a scarf, and not even burqas, right?
You may disagree with a culture, but how does you policing what people wear, religious or otherwise, help anyone, if it is not causing direct harm. If we're talking about FGM or foot binding or skull shaping or something that is a "cultural or religious practice" that permanently debilitates women, then, yeah, that's no good. But it's a scarf that covers hair. I know lots of progressive, fucking amazing Muslim women who wear hijabs and kick ass. They wear it to be closer to their god and their religion, not because it signifies deferance to men.
It is a different situation in say, Saudi or Iran where it is mandatory - however, that is also overreach on governments policing clothing.
Your argument to me is based on some iteration of Islam that I haven't experienced, and I'm not sure that outside of religiously ruled countries it exists. For that reason, it has a sense of Islamophobia - that is, policing the clothing of Muslim people. You're choosing the default culture, and you're choosing it to be in line with Western white anti-theistic ideals.
I simply recognize that the dominant culture in Islamic countries is misogynistic, homophobic and transphobic. And hell yes I'm anti-theist, but that is not "western". I'm fiercely anti-capitalist, anti-racist and anti-individualist, I'm as least western as they come. I'm definitely a chauvinist, but it's moral, not cultural. Also I explained exactly how a hijab others women and removes their agency, but I see you've chosen not to engage with that topic at all and instead decided to call me, a non-white person who wasn't raised in the hegemonic western culture a western chauvinist.
If you ignore what I wrote about having the government dictate mandatory hijabs, as in Saudi and Iran as being bad, and yea, misogynistic, then I guess you could say I "didn't engage". If you don't ignore that, and instead see where I said that women outside of those countries are choosing to wear hijabs are celebrating their religion as a personal choice, then you might see my point of view better.
Just because you're not white and not "Western" doesn't mean that your chauvinism doesn't align with white western ideals.
I am against mandated headscarfs in theocratic autocracies, but this has little to do with mandated no-headscarfs in other countries.
You are coming at this from a moralistic ideological stance. You can't tell women what to wear and then claim that this is improving their agency. You are morally against this but you are morally against the culture - so it is in fact cultural, and it's a cultural difference that is against the white western culture being superior - from a moral perspective. When this type of thinking is directed against Muslims this is where it lines up with Western white chauvinism.
Removed by mod
This is a bit of a trek to get from "the government shouldn't mandate what people wear" to suggesting I support all breadth of individualist arguments.
I suppose a certain amount of individualism under capitalism is in fact classist, racist, and exploitative, but removing any libertarian, self sufficiency nonsense and looking strictly at clothing and style and personality, people should be able to be who they are and who they want to be. I don't think this is a concept at odds with left wing economic systems.
I think we disagree that a headscarf in general is detrimental to society. I don't think it is, and you do think it is. Unfortunately, I have too many really cool empowered women examples that will sway me that outside of a theocracy there is anything bad about hijabs.
You know that the significance of those two things are not the same
They are for me.
If you don't participate in passover, you probably won't get the same reaction as removing your hijab
I'm sure in both cultures you would get reactions that range from shrugging to apocalyptic freakout.
The important thing is where central tendancy would lie, and from my experience, a family just shrugging when hijab is no longer worn is pretty rare
A very western chauvinist way of viewing it, sure. Would you also presume to tell natives what they can and can't wear?
I am indigenous bright boi.
deleted by creator
But again, native desert people in their place of birth (before air conditioning) would all wear something similar, no?
Also, this is again tilting in strange arguments, go have fun in struggle session, law is undoubtedly racist and will increase ethnic tensions, and lead to further absence of solidarity.
deleted by creator
No actually in a socialist society people are allowed to do what they want and not be told what to do by an outside authority that something they choose to do is illegal.
Removed by mod