No. Idiotic false equivalence would be equating it to blackface or a t-shirt that says "I hate Ni**ers", both of which are clear intent of being offensive and bigoted (well the latter moreso than the former).
I didn't equate them. I used them to point out the absurdity of claims that what people wear has nothing to do with ethical actions or endorsing immoral ideologies.
People wear black face without trying to be offensive, and a person can just sincerely hate Ni&&ers and be expressing this belief without trying to offend. Yes, they inherently endorse bigotry and are inherently offensive, just like the practice of wearing a hijab endorses sexism and offend the millions of women who continue to be violently forced to wear them. This is the same violence of past centuries that created it as a custom which some women continue to chose to follow. They are all actions in which a person is choosing to wear something that only became an aspect of culture out of bigotry and oppression, and that oppression they reflect still continues, so no matter what the intent, to wear them is harmfully endorsing those practices, especially if the intent is to endorse Islam, which means it is being worn to specially to follow a custom created by violent oppression.
Covering your hair for personal modesty isn't. A muslima may be covering her hair for a variety of reasons, including both modesty and dedication to tradition and respect for her community and elders etc. It doesn't necessarily mean she is making a statement against women and for their repression.
That tradition only exists due to violent oppression that forced it on women, and those elders who it "respects" are the violent misogynists who created and reinforced it. Thus, it inherently does make a statement in favor of that oppression, whether she realizes it or not, just like black face makes a racist statement whether it's wearer intends it or not. It doesn't make the wearer a bad person, it just makes them a promoter of bad things for which they should be critiqued and discouraged from doing.
Women everywhere, regardless of law choose to cover their breasts most of the time.
That hasn't always been true, and though definitely common to many cultures that isnt universally true even today. Why do you think women feel the need to cover their chests, especially where the law and culture declare it indecent? You don't think that may have something to do with them being oppressed into doing so when some of them may like to go topless? The law here changed because some women actually decided to challenge the law here against them going topless on a hot day and the law was found unconstitutional precisely because it is repressive.
And yet, even there and other places where women can go topless, they don't do so 99% of the time. That's b/c there are intrinsic personal benefits and desires to covering their breasts. That is what makes it fundamentally different that the practice of always wearing a hijab in public and around men, which women only do when socialized in an ideology built upon violent repression of women.
If we were talking about women occassionally wearing a general head scarf when the weather and particular context made it something many women would naturally choose, then there would be a valid comparison. But we aren't. We are talking about women always wearing it in public and around men as part of a religious tradition built up violence.
Unless you want to claim that Islamic women are genetically determined to prefer to do something that all other women are not, then it is clearly a case of cultural force and coercion, and proves if there was no such coercion, almost none of the women currently "choosing" to wear one would choose it.
There is certainly a lot of cultural influence involved, in both the case of wearing hajib and in the case of not going topless. There is nothing genetic pushing all women to go either way on either matter.
The extremely strong negative correlation between legal and cultural women's equality/rights and them wearing a hijab shows that the practice is purely a product of violent religious coercion and that w/o such coercion the concept of a hijab would not even exist. It is not a coincidence that it remains a dominant custom only in countries where a violently misogynistic religion completely controls society, or that those women in free societies who still "choose" it are either descended from such countries or practice the religion that rules those countries. Without such sexist coercion, head scarves would just be something that women occassionally putting on a head scarf when it was cold or as an fashion accessory, but no sense of cultural identity wrapped up in it.
There is no such extreme correlation between nudity and nudity laws. Nudity laws vary greatly from country to country, and yet the practice of nudity varies little, with 99.9% of women choosing to not be nude most of the time. Wearing clothes isn't a statement endorsing anti-nudity laws b/c most people wear clothes even when they do not support an ideology that says nude people should be punished. In contrast, the vast majority of people who wear a hijab do so out of adherence to a religious custom that was created via violent control of women. To endorse Islam in general is to endorse misogyny, just as it is with Christianity. But to endorse it via the specific practice of a hijab is even more directly to endorse that misogyny, even if the wearer just thinks they are following their culture without thought to what the culture really represents and how it came to be.
