And now normal interaction between humans is being degraded down to being a right that somebody has the power to grant you?
Perhaps we should blind babies as what have they done to deserve the "right" to look at people?
Actually people do have the right to decide what interaction they have with others. You have it... I have it. What is your counter to the 'phone argument' by the way? Do you not think people can interact on the phone?
Do you know anything about the treatment of women in Orthodox Jewish communities? There are a great many similarities with Islam. Same applies to some Orthodox Christian sects as well. If someone purports to oppose the religious repression of women then I am wondering why it only applies to one group of them.
It doesn't! As several of us have said more than once and you well know.
The face veil is but one of the most visible manifestations of female control by men - but all the others need to be tackled as well - in all religions or sects. Through education of children starting at an early age, through education of the parents (though many devout religious people will be immune to that), and yes, through the law. New laws if necessary.
It may take a long time to accomplish all of that, just as women's votes and gay marriage took a long time, but the sooner we start the sooner we will get there. The most important minority here is the woman oppressed by religion and anachronistic culture: all of it. From Women Bishops in the C of E (we are getting there) to FGM (still not eradicated in spite of the laws) but here, with the face veil, we have one particular religious practice, a literally "in your face" and overt symbol of male domination of women, that not only could be outlawed but one that could relatively easily be enforced.
We need to get started now and not pussyfoot around for the next hundred years during which time more generations of children would be raised and indoctrinated to believe in subservience of females to to men - for that is what the face veil is an overt symbol of. It needs to stop. Now.
I am waiting for the sound of someone actually trying to find an argument to counter mine... the old 'that's a straw-man' is just a way of saying 'we can't think of one'.
It doesn't! As several of us have said more than once and you well know.
The face veil is but one of the most visible manifestations of female control by men - but all the others need to be tackled as well - in all religions or sects. Through education of children starting at an early age, through education of the parents (though many devout religious people will be immune to that), and yes, through the law. New laws if necessary.
It may take a long time to accomplish, just as women's votes and gay marriage took a long time, but the sooner we start the sooner we will get there. The most important minority here is the woman oppressed by religion and anachronistic culture: all of it. From Women Bishops in the C of E (we are getting there) to FGM (still not eradicated in spite of the laws) but here, with the face veil, we have one particular religious practice, a literally "in your face" and overt symbol of male domination of women, that not only could be outlawed but one that could relatively easily be enforced.
We need to get started now and not pussyfoot around for the next hundred years duriung which time more generations of children are raised and indoctrinated to believe in subservience to men - for that is what the face veil is an overt symbol of. It needs to stop. Now.
Well said. I find the misguided defence of of this outlandish mode of control of women misguided at best and enabling at worst.
Why can people not wear clothes that shout 'I am a Muslim' or 'I am a Jew' if they want to? Should we ban nun's habits, because they sure shout 'I am a Christian'.
Security risk... already answered that veils should be lifted where necessary for that. And 'growing extremism'... well as I said early on in the thread, the men who committed the 7/7 bombings wore jeans and trainers.
Because in the case of the burka, it discourages any communication, and is far more extreme than others. In many cases it is making a statement.
What about supermakets, department stores, shopping centres? They are pretty dodgy places nowadays. Just walking along the street, fgs. They are a huge security risk wherever they are.
Are you denying growing extremism? More and more people are wearing it as a part of this. What the men wore for 7/7 ? How is that relevant?
When having a conversation on the phone the participants are coming from a level playing field. When talking to a vieled person that person would have an advantage, that is if that person would speak to me!
It doesn't! As several of us have said more than once and you well know.
The face veil is but one of the most visible manifestations of female control by men - but all the others need to be tackled as well - in all religions or sects. Through education of children starting at an early age, through education of the parents (though many devout religious people will be immune to that), and yes, through the law. New laws if necessary.
It may take a long time to accomplish all of that, just as women's votes and gay marriage took a long time, but the sooner we start the sooner we will get there. The most important minority here is the woman oppressed by religion and anachronistic culture: all of it. From Women Bishops in the C of E (we are getting there) to FGM (still not eradicated in spite of the laws) but here, with the face veil, we have one particular religious practice, a literally "in your face" and overt symbol of male domination of women, that not only could be outlawed but one that could relatively easily be enforced.
We need to get started now and not pussyfoot around for the next hundred years during which time more generations of children would be raised and indoctrinated to believe in subservience of females to to men - for that is what the face veil is an overt symbol of. It needs to stop. Now.
Actually you are the first to say that others need to be 'tackled' - and I agree... but not by bans that will make it worse for the victims. That is the only difference between us - the means.
Because in the case of the burka, it discourages any communication, and is far more extreme than others. In many cases it is making a statement.
What about supermakets, department stores, shopping centres? They are pretty dodgy places nowadays. Just walking along the street, fgs. They are a huge security risk wherever they are.
Are you denying growing extremism? More and more people are wearing it as a part of this. What the men wore for 7/7 ? How is that relevant?
Why should strangers communicate with you if they don't wish to though? Of course I am not denying growing extremism, but why does a woman in a veil mean anymore than any other woman... that was my point about the 7/7 terrorists... they looked like any other young man, so why are you not frightened by young men in jeans and t-shirts?
Why shouldn't it be up to them if you get to see their face? Do you think your needs are more important than their needs?
Yep, I have only partial hearing and no chance of knowing what anyone in a burqa is saying to me. You probably think that's my problem, the issue of deaf children in classrooms with burqa-clad teaching assistants is the kids' problem, the same for old people with limited hearing in hospitals, council offices etc
Actually you are the first to say that others need to be 'tackled' - and I agree... but not by bans that will make it worse for the victims. That is the only difference between us - the means.
I've said it before and I am sure some others have... but the thread has been somewhat sidetracked of late by the face veil argument, which primarily affects one small part of one religion, the one that prompted this thread.
I find your 'it may make life difficult for some' argument to be defeatist, because we can and should try to tackle any consequential difficulties as well, along with all religious (and other) subservience of women to men. I hope you will, in time, think again.
I am waiting for the sound of someone actually trying to find an argument to counter mine... the old 'that's a straw-man' is just a way of saying 'we can't think of one'.
Are genuinely saying you don't know why the telephone argument is a false analogy and/or strawman ? Seriously ?
Have a wee think.
What do you think two parties engaged in a telephone conversation have in common which two people having a face to veil conversation do not ?
Well in that case address the more serious problems Muslim women face like the right of her husband to rape and beat her. That is after her father has beaten her. Her lack of rights to money and ownership of property apart from her dowry.
Why should strangers communicate with you if they don't wish to though? Of course I am not denying growing extremism, but why does a woman in a veil mean anymore than any other woman... that was my point about the 7/7 terrorists... they looked like any other young man, so why are you not frightened by young men in jeans and t-shirts?
This is the kind of society you want to have?
You want your children to grow up in?
There is no point about the 7/7 bombers. If anything it's the opposite to the one you are making. They didn't wear the whole Jihadi outfit because they wanted to fit in, they wanted to be seen as ordinary members of the public.
Had they been operating in a country where grass skirts and pink tights were the norm, that's what they would have worn.
Why shouldn't it be up to them if you get to see their face? Do you think your needs are more important than their needs?
In our culture, ie the one they live in, we don't hide our faces unless we're up to no good. I'd argue that we have a cultural need to see them & therefore, yes, our needs do indeed outweigh theirs.
I usually agree with you on this forum but tbh, I wonder if you need to take a step back on this one. You seem to be getting yourself all tangled up with whatabourery re jews etc.
Comments
Of course they aren't it's a blatant straw-man trolling argument.
Actually people do have the right to decide what interaction they have with others. You have it... I have it. What is your counter to the 'phone argument' by the way? Do you not think people can interact on the phone?
Please describe how using an example of effective communication that doesn't require face-to-face contact is a straw-man argument?
It doesn't! As several of us have said more than once and you well know.
The face veil is but one of the most visible manifestations of female control by men - but all the others need to be tackled as well - in all religions or sects. Through education of children starting at an early age, through education of the parents (though many devout religious people will be immune to that), and yes, through the law. New laws if necessary.
It may take a long time to accomplish all of that, just as women's votes and gay marriage took a long time, but the sooner we start the sooner we will get there. The most important minority here is the woman oppressed by religion and anachronistic culture: all of it. From Women Bishops in the C of E (we are getting there) to FGM (still not eradicated in spite of the laws) but here, with the face veil, we have one particular religious practice, a literally "in your face" and overt symbol of male domination of women, that not only could be outlawed but one that could relatively easily be enforced.
We need to get started now and not pussyfoot around for the next hundred years during which time more generations of children would be raised and indoctrinated to believe in subservience of females to to men - for that is what the face veil is an overt symbol of. It needs to stop. Now.
" Is that the phone ringing ? "
" No, it's the sound of a barrel being scraped. "
Yes, but if someone is talking to me face to face then I want to see what they look like. They can see me.
That's been the culture in this country for thousands of years.
I am waiting for the sound of someone actually trying to find an argument to counter mine... the old 'that's a straw-man' is just a way of saying 'we can't think of one'.
Well said. I find the misguided defence of of this outlandish mode of control of women misguided at best and enabling at worst.
YOU want. What about what they want?
Because in the case of the burka, it discourages any communication, and is far more extreme than others. In many cases it is making a statement.
What about supermakets, department stores, shopping centres? They are pretty dodgy places nowadays. Just walking along the street, fgs. They are a huge security risk wherever they are.
Are you denying growing extremism? More and more people are wearing it as a part of this. What the men wore for 7/7 ? How is that relevant?
It shouldn't be up to them. That's why I am in favour of a law to ban the burqa.
Actually you are the first to say that others need to be 'tackled' - and I agree... but not by bans that will make it worse for the victims. That is the only difference between us - the means.
Why shouldn't it be up to them if you get to see their face? Do you think your needs are more important than their needs?
I believe in openness and equality.
Why should strangers communicate with you if they don't wish to though? Of course I am not denying growing extremism, but why does a woman in a veil mean anymore than any other woman... that was my point about the 7/7 terrorists... they looked like any other young man, so why are you not frightened by young men in jeans and t-shirts?
Yep, I have only partial hearing and no chance of knowing what anyone in a burqa is saying to me. You probably think that's my problem, the issue of deaf children in classrooms with burqa-clad teaching assistants is the kids' problem, the same for old people with limited hearing in hospitals, council offices etc
We better all rush out and get our bin liners, because their needs obviously far more important.
I've said it before and I am sure some others have... but the thread has been somewhat sidetracked of late by the face veil argument, which primarily affects one small part of one religion, the one that prompted this thread.
I find your 'it may make life difficult for some' argument to be defeatist, because we can and should try to tackle any consequential difficulties as well, along with all religious (and other) subservience of women to men. I hope you will, in time, think again.
Are genuinely saying you don't know why the telephone argument is a false analogy and/or strawman ? Seriously ?
Have a wee think.
What do you think two parties engaged in a telephone conversation have in common which two people having a face to veil conversation do not ?
Well in that case address the more serious problems Muslim women face like the right of her husband to rape and beat her. That is after her father has beaten her. Her lack of rights to money and ownership of property apart from her dowry.
Not sure that is an answer though - because that is what you believe... what gives you the right to demand they believe the same?
This is the kind of society you want to have?
You want your children to grow up in?
There is no point about the 7/7 bombers. If anything it's the opposite to the one you are making. They didn't wear the whole Jihadi outfit because they wanted to fit in, they wanted to be seen as ordinary members of the public.
Had they been operating in a country where grass skirts and pink tights were the norm, that's what they would have worn.
In our culture, ie the one they live in, we don't hide our faces unless we're up to no good. I'd argue that we have a cultural need to see them & therefore, yes, our needs do indeed outweigh theirs.
I usually agree with you on this forum but tbh, I wonder if you need to take a step back on this one.