Choosing to wear hijab is an endorsement of the oppression that created the custom

[Metaphor]

No. This is you trying to pick a fight with imagined misogynists instead of addressing the topic or the OP as I and others have.

That is blatantly false, Toni addressed the OP before you and you even agreed with her.

In an attempt to steer the discussion away from yhe gang attack and back towards the OP, I have a question - who really gives a flying fuck what women or men freely choose to wear?

Are you kidding? Every "woke" progressive in the Western world CAN'T SHUT UP from telling people what to wear. Like when they told that engineer who landed an artificial satellite on a comet that they were offended by what he wore. Or when they single out some space cadet girl wearing feathers or a dream catcher print on her dress at a music festival, or when uni-bloody-versities send official all-student emails telling students exactly what to not fucking wear on Hallowe'en.

 

[Toni]

At the "core"? Tell me, if the least sexist person you know had made the exact same argument, would you then address the argument?

You mean like when I said that I didn't think anyone should tell women what they can and cannot wear?

Since when was "balance" some kind of morally relevant point?

If a principle is applied to only one group of persons, then it seems that it is the group which is under attack, not a behavior.

When feminists advocate for women, do you decry their lack of 'balance' in not also advocating for men? Or do you consider the issue at hand on its own merits? When somebody posts an article about teenage girls experience of sexual harassment, do you throw your hands up in the air and ask for balance? Who asked the teenage boys their experience? I know that you don't because you have commented on an article exactly like that.

I'm not sure what equivalence you are arguing for or against. Ron didn't argue that Muslim women should be freed from the obligation of the hijab. He argued that they were wrong for wearing the hijab. He's essentially saying that the hijab is oppression and the women are wrong for being oppressed.

This is my stance: It is wrong for anyone to tell women what they can and cannot wear. I don't care if it is because of the religious views of some or the moral views of some or the fashion sense of some. I really don't care unless it is for health and safety reasons.

To argue that someone must not adhere to the practices of their religion because it is ....offensive to ron or to anyone here is bigotry. I believe in freedom of religion, including freedom from religion. That means that if people believe they should not wear buttons on their clothing or grow beards or wear crosses or hats or whatever or go to church on Sundays or synagogue on Saturdays or whatever: no one has the right to interfere with their choice. And no one has the right to force anyone else to comply with the religious beliefs and practices of any religion.

Somehow, the argument against turbans or beards or, for that matter, crucifixes or Stars of David never comes up. Nope. It's Muslim women and hijabs. It seems to me that something other than concern for those women is going on here.

There is no question in of why some women deliberately choose to wear the hijab or even a suggestion that women would better serve their community by abandoning the hijab. No: they’re wrong and they seem to be wrong in ron’s eyes because he disagrees with the tradition. I think—and yes, it’s my own speculation—that it’s easier for rob to take that position because hijab wearing Muslim women are other to him: female, Muslim, mostly not white. Other religious apparel or symbols are not similarly criticized, although certainly some are designed specifically to control people.

Why should he criticise them? Is he required to? Certainly it's the case that if other apparel fit the same circumstances that he has made about hijab, and these arguments were put to him, but he didn't want to criticise the wearers of those garments, that might be hypocrisy, but silence on the other points is not hypocrisy.

Of course ron is allowed to criticize who he wishes and to ignore similar transgressions of others if he wishes.

I'm allowed to disagree with that one sided position.

I think the hijab is stupid and there's nothing immodest about showing one's face or hair.

I'm agnostic about the hijab. My mother tied scarves around our heads when we were small girls, to keep the wind out of our ears and prevent ear aches. Didn't work but her intentions were good. There's not much difference between those scarves my mother made us wear and a hijab. Or the scarves starlets such as Audrey Hepburn and Sophia Loren wore in the 60's, which were the height of glamour. It's a head covering. I respect women who choose it because it has significance for them. I also respect women who wear it because the potential threats to their safety and welfare are too great for them to refuse to wear it. The first of those I embrace along with the women. The second, I decry---but I cannot see how shaming women into exposing themselves to danger that the men in this forum would never, ever, ever face is helpful or morally justified.

It's also the case that many women are forced to wear it, either by legal or physical coercion, or by complete familial control.

Right. This is one reason that it is, imo, wrong to criticize women who chose to follow what for them is a safer route.

My first principle is that women (and men) should be allowed to wear what they want.

The second principle is that it is wrong to expect others to take risks of harm that you will not face yourself for YOUR principles (you and your meaning a general you and your, not you specifically).

Now, as for ron's argument, I'm not sure I really agree that they should be criticised for wearing it because some other people are forced to wear it. I think that puts a special obligation on women because of what other people have done, and I am sick and tired of the idea that its okay to impose special obligations upon genders or races due to what other people have done.

I'm really sure that it is wrong and arrogant to criticize women for wearing the hijab for whatever reasons they choose--whether it is out of fear or out of obligation or because they find meaning in this aspect of traditional dress.

I would not be so inclined to see the sort of argument ron makes against hijab wearing women as misogynist or racist if I saw similar arguments against other religious symbols and apparel being worn. But those are never the center of the argument: Not the beards, not the crucifixes, not the modest dress, not the lack of buttons or whatever kind of religious based garments or hairstyles, etc. are endorsed and even enforced in certain religions. Just the hijab, a garment worn by some Muslim women. It is this single fixed point directed against a group that everyone here agrees faces some possibly serious recriminations if they abandon this garment. That seems racist, misogynistic and cowardly to me.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet apparently not too trivial for you to show up and post in this thread about it. Very good contribution you make too.

Thank you. Sorry I cannot point to any of your responses as contributions.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Must say, I actually couldn't have predicted which direction Toni would go on this (except that she'd find one way or the other misogynist). Other feminists call the hajib itself misogynist and call for bans on it similarly to Ron's logic, presenting women as especially oppressed and deserving of concern and protection they would not show to Muslim men who shave their beards and face social problems and violence for doing so.

One other thing, Toni, why have you not seen discussions about breeds and religious symbols? They are not non-existent. I recently had a discussion about ceremonial daggers for Sikhs. I don't believe they should be allowed where I am not allowed a knife, and same for burkas where I am not allowed to wear a ski mask.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Yet apparently not too trivial for you to show up and post in this thread about it. Very good contribution you make too.

Thank you. Sorry I cannot point to any of your responses as contributions.

I am sorry you can't point. It isn't easy for dogs, I know, but some learn how.

 

[zorq]

I'm allowed to care about what other people wear. I'm allowed to say something about it too. I'm not going to force the issue, but I will make a point if I think it's important for it to be made.

Suppose someone walks down the street with a T-Shirt that reads, "Just grab them by the pussy." No. That's not cool. Wearing that shirt is an endorsement of sexual harassment. Whether the wearer of that shirt has ever actually sexually harassed someone, or is even aware that the shirt advocates sexual harassment is beside the point. The clothing is endorsing sexual harassment, and I might choose to challenge the person wearing the shirt on those grounds.

Am I not allowed to talk about that vulgar endorsement just because I don't have female reproductive organs? Am I not allowed to talk about the shirt simply because most of the people who wear that shirt look different from the way I do? WTF?

I don't care if all the Inuit people living in Luxembourg are being violently coerced into wearing that shirt. People not living in Luxembourg have a choice of whether or not to wear it and their choice to wear it sends a toxic message.

...But I should refrain from talking about that???

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

You can talk about it all you want, so long as you are not attacking them for wearing it etc. I am not saying you would, but only mention that because we had a thread in which some were outright endorsing and excusing violence against people who wear MAGA hats simply for wearing said hats.

And in the case you give about statements of hate being printed in a shirt, it actually is a statement of nasty sentiments. A hajib is not necessarily that.

 

[The AntiChris]

However, I would argue that when it is worn freely and by choice, that is precisely when it most endorses and trivializes the oppression of women.

I think this is a tough one to argue persuasively.

It's like treating the continued oppression of those forced to wear into a kind of fashion statement.

No it's not. It's treating a tool of oppression as a fashion statement. It's really not trivialising oppression.

There can be no reasonable doubt that with liberty and equality, the custom of the hijab would disappear over time.

This is arguable, but even if it were true your conclusion does not follow:

So, wearing it as a choice endorses that oppression that created and maintains the custom.

This doesn't obviously logically follow and needs further argument.

 

[ruby sparks]

There are women, some of whom are also feminists and some of whom are also Muslim, who go as far as to support a ban on the hijab, which is much further than the OP went.

As such, acusations of sexism, racism and misogyny on the part of the OP are unwarranted.

It’s a tricky issue.

 

[Toni]

There are women, some of whom are also feminists and some of whom are also Muslim, who go as far as to support a ban on the hijab, which is much further than the OP went.

As such, acusations of sexism, racism and misogyny on the part of the OP are unwarranted.

It’s a tricky issue.

It is indeed a tricky issue. Hijabs and other garments and restrictions have been used to protect/control women, particularly Muslim women for centuries. Modern Muslim women take different positions with regards to the Hijab. Some see the hijab as repression and others see it as a way of expressing their faith and culture and of being modest. Certainly women fight for the right to compete in athletics while wearing the hijab. See some images and descriptions here:
https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyl...s-who-compete-in-a-hijab-in-pictures-1.753563

Some women activists who are Muslim embrace the hijab:
https://religionandpolitics.org/2019/02/05/what-these-muslim-activists-found-at-the-womens-march/

Afew times every block along the route of the third annual Women’s March in Washington, Khadija Husain heard a voice call out from the crowd: “May I take your picture?” Each time, she paused and held her poster high, smiling as the photographer offered a “thank you” or thumbs-up before moving on.

Although she wore a fashionably fuzzy cream-colored coat and crimson, striped Harry Potter scarf (Gryffindor), most likely it was her hijab that drew much of the attention. Her head scarf, a sign of her Muslim faith, along with her purple poster from the Muslim Women’s Alliance helped her stand out from the crowd.

Her poster read: “No Muslim Ban Ever. Black Lives Matter. Believe Women, Believe Survivors. Human Rights are Women’s Rights.” A quote often attributed to the Rev. Martin Luther King—“No one is free until we are all free”—was emblazoned across the top.

Other feminists decry the hijab as a symbol of oppression.

Some women feel compelled to wear the hijab for their own personal safety or in order to be welcome in their communities.

My position is that women (and men and everybody else) should wear what they want to wear and that people shouldn't try to control people by controlling their wardrobes. In the case of this particular thread, the writer of the OP is male so I specified my position against men telling women what they can and cannot wear---because that's a thing: men telling women what they can and cannot do, what they can and cannot think, say, wear. Given that even today, most laws and most legislatures and other governing bodies are male or heavily male dominated--men are much more free to impose their will than are women.

To be clear: I never accused ron or his position of being racist, misogynistic or sexist.

I said that his position: condemnation for women who choose to wear the hijab smacked of racism and misogyny.

There's a pretty big difference between saying that someone is a racist and /or misogynist and saying that a position they take may have some basis in misogyny and/or racism.

This difference seems to be lost on the usual suspects who don't have a problem calling me names but cannot tolerate when I criticize someone's post--not person but post as perhaps having some misogyny or racism attached.

Quelle surprise. It's almost as though they don't think that women can or should contribute to threads criticizing some women for what they wear.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

To be clear: I never accused ron or his position of being racist, misogynistic or sexist.

I said that his position: condemnation for women who choose to wear the hijab smacked of racism and misogyny.

Yes. I already said I stand corrected. You don't think ron is sexist or racist. You just think he writes sexist and racist posts, and aren't reading that in at all...

This difference seems to be lost on the usual suspects who don't have a problem calling me names but cannot tolerate when I criticize someone's post--not person but post as perhaps having some misogyny or racism attached.

Quelle surprise. It's almost as though they don't think that women can or should contribute to threads criticizing some women for what they wear.

Sure Toni. It's not what you wrote, its because you are a woman. That must be it. Sure. And your lens isn't to presume everything is sexist...

And you are the one being judged unfairly and not the one judging anyone or making adhoms. That's totally what's going on...

 

[ruby sparks]

To be clear: I never accused ron or his position of being racist, misogynistic or sexist.

I said that his position: condemnation for women who choose to wear the hijab smacked of racism and misogyny.

So you never accused him, or his position.....or....

There's a pretty big difference between saying that someone is a racist and /or misogynist and saying that a position they take may have some basis in misogyny and/or racism.

Not that big, really, when you're addressing the individual holding the position like this:

The fact that you are specifically targeting women ads a layer of misogyny to the whole bigotry pie.

Way ott, imo. Uncalled for.

Nor does the OP tell women what to do.

 

[Toni]

To be clear: I never accused ron or his position of being racist, misogynistic or sexist.

I said that his position: condemnation for women who choose to wear the hijab smacked of racism and misogyny.

Yes. I already said I stand corrected. You don't think ron is sexist or racist. You just think he writes sexist and racist posts, and aren't reading that in at all...

This difference seems to be lost on the usual suspects who don't have a problem calling me names but cannot tolerate when I criticize someone's post--not person but post as perhaps having some misogyny or racism attached.

Quelle surprise. It's almost as though they don't think that women can or should contribute to threads criticizing some women for what they wear.

Sure Toni. It's not what you wrote, its because you are a woman. That must be it. Sure. And your lens isn't to presume everything is sexist...

And you are the one being judged unfairly and not the one judging anyone or making adhoms. That's totally what's going on...

1. My post was not in response to you so...

2. Perfectly nice, well meaning, thoughtful and informed people can put forth positions that are wrong and even positions that hold bits of misogyny or racism. No one is perfect. I've never presented my view as anything other than my view.

3. I never asserted that your responses or those of others were because I am a woman. Freudian slip, there, Jolly?

 

[Toni]

So you never accused him, or his position.....or....



Not that big, really, when you're addressing the individual holding the position like this:

The fact that you are specifically targeting women ads a layer of misogyny to the whole bigotry pie.

Way ott, imo. Uncalled for.

Nor does the OP tell women what to do.

I disagree. Which is why I said that I felt that his positions smacked or or had some basis in misogyny or racism. I've posted the reasons I believe that several times. None of those times had anything to do with ron burgundy himself.

As for the OP telling women what to do:

from the OP:

But it only became a custom that reflects those beliefs b/c of violent oppression, and that oppression that still exist in countries controlled by Islam and is the reason why the vast majority of women who wear it do so. There can be no reasonable doubt that with liberty and equality, the custom of the hijab would disappear over time. So, wearing it as a choice endorses that oppression that created and maintains the custom. It's like treating the continued oppression of those forced to wear into a kind of fashion statement. It helps to hide the fact that the majority of women who wear it only do so b/c of oppression.

Women should NOT be forcibly prevented from wearing a hijab, but they they should not celebrated for doing so, and it should be criticized for the way such a choice promotes and endorses a custom that only exists b/c of historical and continued violent oppression of women.

So, ron is calling for women choosing to wear the hijab to be criticized for supporting the oppression of women-----and I am being called out for criticizing ron's position for having hints of misogyny and racism.

Got it.

That's not even addressing the fact that ron is factually wrong. Women have worn head scarves and other head coverings for centuries prior to Islam. But ok.

FWIW. please re-read the thread again. Read my first few posts. I addressed only that I felt that men shouldn't tell women what to wear. Jolly agreed with me until he was overcome by his unguarded reaction and then had to spend the next umpteen million posts criticizing me and asserting I was saying things I was not saying.

Go ahead and carry that water as far as you want.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

1. My post was not in response to you so...

So...? I'll have to remember that the next time you insert yourself into any public post anywhere, including your response to the OP itself, which wasn't specifically addressed to you.

2. Perfectly nice, well meaning, thoughtful and informed people can put forth positions that are wrong and even positions that hold bits of misogyny or racism. No one is perfect.

Sure. Somebody could inadvertently share a view with racists for completely other reasons, or based on data they don't realize is false and created by racists. or sexists. That would be perfectly fine and have nothing whatsoever to do with racism or sexism. That's not what you were doing though. No. You took a post that has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with misogyny and stated it is layered with both, merely because it didn't happen to also include commentary on related matters you didn't bother to ask the OP about before making your accusations.

I've never presented my view as anything other than my view.

That is certainly true.

3. I never asserted that your responses or those of others were because I am a woman. Freudian slip, there, Jolly?

Um...

. It's almost as though they don't think that women can or should contribute to threads criticizing some women for what they wear.

FWIW. please re-read the thread again. Read my first few posts. I addressed only that I felt that men shouldn't tell women what to wear.

That remains in agreement between us. Jarhyn took it out of your lens and applied to everyone, which is even better. It could have ended there. But then you then made your accusations of the OP being layered in racism and sexism, which is where you went off the rails and is why I called that out.

 

[ronburgundy]

Toni, do you realize that the OP could just as easily be written by a woman and that there are many women who agree with it?

Is your only dismissal of it your adhom accusing ron of misogyny, or do you also agree with me and Jarhyn that people should generally be allowed to wear what they want?

My belief that people should be allowed to wear what they want likely predates your birth and Jarhyn’s.

And your application of that platitude predates any application of reasoned thought. As I said in the OP, I am against legal restrictions on the hijab or other dress. It's a matter of how we view and socially critique choices to endorse such a cultural practice.
Do you think it acceptable for others to be critical of people who choose to wear the confederate flag or other racist symbols?
If your is "yes", then your "people should be allowed to wear what they want" is hypocritical and based on an vacuous platitude devoid of reasoning about what it really means. Same goes for all forms of attire, appearance, or hairstyle critiqued as "cultural appropriation". Do you think that all such critiques are invalid?

IMO, ron’s opinions about hijabs and the fact that he targets only women and only women who are most likely dark skinned add layers of misogyny and racism to his objections.

I already explained the idiocy of your notion that I am "targeting only women". The only reason women are the focus of a critique of wearing hijabs is the violent sexism that forced Muslim women to wear them. I am not critical of women who wear them by force or of the vast majority of woman who don't wear them and rightly view them of endorsing misogyny. My criticism is specifically of the choice to wear them and the dishonesty in pretending that such a "choice" means that one is no longer giving aid to the violently sexist ideology that created the custom in the first place that one is choosing to follow.

My posts have been clear that ultimate source of blame for the hijab is the men who violently created the custom of the hijab and forcibly wove it into female Muslim identity. But no one other than misogynists denies that they are a problem, so that's a pointless thread topic. Also, I am equally critical of men who endorse the custom of the hijab, they just don't do it by wearing a hijab and this thread is about wearing the hijab and efforts by a segment of leftists and pseudo-feminists to celebrate the hijab and treat it as symbol of religious freedom rather than the symbol of misogyny and oppression that it inherently is. And since most of those leftists and pseudo feminists who betray feminism to try and score religious tolerance points are white, my critique applies at least as much to whites on the predominantly darker skinned people who wearing the hijabs.

You're comment makes less sense than attacking someone who starts a thread about violence against women for not caring about violence against children just b/c they didn't make that one thread about that too.

 

[ronburgundy]

I disagree. Which is why I said that I felt that his positions smacked or or had some basis in misogyny or racism. I've posted the reasons I believe that several times. None of those times had anything to do with ron burgundy himself.

As for the OP telling women what to do:

from the OP:

But it only became a custom that reflects those beliefs b/c of violent oppression, and that oppression that still exist in countries controlled by Islam and is the reason why the vast majority of women who wear it do so. There can be no reasonable doubt that with liberty and equality, the custom of the hijab would disappear over time. So, wearing it as a choice endorses that oppression that created and maintains the custom. It's like treating the continued oppression of those forced to wear into a kind of fashion statement. It helps to hide the fact that the majority of women who wear it only do so b/c of oppression.

Women should NOT be forcibly prevented from wearing a hijab, but they they should not celebrated for doing so, and it should be criticized for the way such a choice promotes and endorses a custom that only exists b/c of historical and continued violent oppression of women.

So, ron is calling for women choosing to wear the hijab to be criticized for supporting the oppression of women-----and I am being called out for criticizing ron's position for having hints of misogyny and racism.

Got it.

Yes, b/c your accusation of me is utterly baseless, nonsensical, and intellectually dishonest. It is the equivalent of taking a thread that criticizes the ideology of "The Proud Boys" and accusing the author of "Misandry" and "anti-white racism", just b/c the Proud Boys are male and white.

I am not being critical of hijab supporters b/c they are women. Most women are not hijab supporters (including most who wear the hijab), and many hijab supporters are actually males and my thread is critical of them too. And I have had way more posts on here critical of whites and Christianity than about non-whites or religions dominated by non-whites.

That's not even addressing the fact that ron is factually wrong. Women have worn head scarves and other head coverings for centuries prior to Islam. But ok.

You are factually wrong that a hijab is simply a "head scarf", or that I ever implied that head scarves are limited to Islam.
I've stated repeatedly, that I am referring to the cultural practice of women covering their head in the presence of men, which is almost exclusively a coerced religious practice and in today's world 99% of those who practice it do so out of adherence to their Islamic beliefs. I also acknowledged that similar religious practices used to be more common, including forms of Christianity. This actually supports my point, b/c it shows that the practice is tightly correlated over both time and between cultures to religious based oppression and lack of legal rights for women.

 

[Toni]

So...? I'll have to remember that the next time you insert yourself into any public post anywhere, including your response to the OP itself, which wasn't specifically addressed to you.


.

I only pointed that out because you wrote your post as though it was in response to me responding to you. Head spinning, yes.

 

[Toni]

Yes, b/c your accusation of me is utterly baseless, nonsensical, and intellectually dishonest. It is the equivalent of taking a thread that criticizes the ideology of "The Proud Boys" and accusing the author of "Misandry" and "anti-white racism", just b/c the Proud Boys are male and white.

I'm pretty sure I've seen that on this board.

I am not being critical of hijab supporters b/c they are women. Most women are not hijab supporters (including most who wear the hijab), and many hijab supporters are actually males and my thread is critical of them too. And I have had way more posts on here critical of whites and Christianity than about non-whites or religions dominated by non-whites.

You specifically called out women who wear the hijab for 'endorsing endorses a custom that only exists b/c of historical and continued violent oppression of women.'

That's not even addressing the fact that ron is factually wrong. Women have worn head scarves and other head coverings for centuries prior to Islam. But ok.

You are factually wrong that a hijab is simply a "head scarf", or that I ever implied that head scarves are limited to Islam.
I've stated repeatedly, that I am referring to the cultural practice of women covering their head in the presence of men, which is almost exclusively a coerced religious practice and in today's world 99% of those who practice it do so out of adherence to their Islamic beliefs. I also acknowledged that similar religious practices used to be more common, including forms of Christianity. This actually supports my point, b/c it shows that the practice is tightly correlated over both time and between cultures to religious based oppression and lack of legal rights for women.

Women have worn head coverings of various kinds for many centuries prior to Islam.

Today, women still wear head coverings that are in no way in observance of Islam. First examples that leap to mind: some nuns and Amish women. Lots of southern black women in church. Upper class British women attending weddings, etc.

Is your position that it is ok for women to wear head coverings if you approve of their reasons but not if you don't?

Again, I think that men should quit telling women what they should and should not wear. Condemning women for wearing the hijab is control as much as insisting that women wear the hijab. If one is truly concerned that Islam oppresses women--and I think one could easily make such a case--then, IMO, the best course of action is to be supportive allies of women who are struggling with how to resolve their faith, their participation in their communities with restrictions too many men wish to place upon them. This work requires a great deal of insight and much more so: courage. It should be celebrated by anyone who wishes for people to be free to make their own choices, not condemned.

 

[Derec]

I think people in general should be allowed to wear what they want. However,


1. many of these women do not want to wear it, but are forced to do so by their families and community even in Western countries like US. In Islamic countries they are usually also forced to wear these things by the government.

2. when there are restrictions on head (or face in case of niqab/burqa) coverings, there should be no exception given to head coverings mandated by religions. And obviously, same rules should apply for males and females.

3. In some cases, hijabs and covering up one's body is stupid and hinders the wearer. Prime example:

The German outfits are not only more aesthetically pleasing, they also allow much more freedom of movement than the outfist Egyptian girls were made to wear.

Not surprisingly, the two Egyptian girls ended up at the bottom of their group without even carrying a set.