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.
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.
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.
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