Hijabs and legally enforced standards of dress.

[Scarletbegonia]

^ Sorry, but not following your thought process. So, are you saying that an American woman should wear a hajib when in countries where required, and muslim woman should not wear them here in US?

Personally, I think women forced to wear a hajib are oppressed, not allowed to show their femininity. Plus, not so sure they always have the choice to go with, or without, whereas a woman in the U.S. has the choice to go to a topless beach, for example, or not.

If one is in a country that covers, it is respectful to do so. Many articles on round the world travel emphasize this, mostly in a "if you want to go in the temples" sort of way.
The USA does not, and should not, ban covering, so the second part doesn't really apply.
My only concern, born of a near miss accident, is peripheral vision for drivers and cyclists.
The driver, distracted for sure by a cell phone in her hand, had deep loose folds in her hijab, and didn't see me, a pedestrian, starting to cross a parking lot driveway. She came to the required stop, but then pulled forward, heading for traffic.
I only got tapped, but it was scary all around for a moment.

Scarf pins are your friend.

 

[TexanStar]

Here's what prompted all of this: https://www.unwatch.org/game-changer-chess-queen-refuses-used-pawn/

She's not attending the chess tournament because she thinks it would be oppressive to wear a hijab and would thus send a bad example.

On the one hand, I agree, when in Rome, do as the romans do. If she's unwilling to wear a hjijab, then just not going is the proper choice.

However, I disagree pretty strongly w/ her decision not go attend. I think in the context of this specifically being a women's tournament, if her goal actually is womens rights, it's better to participate in the event. Locally, within the culture that is oppressing women, activities like this are positive and empowering for the women that live there. It encourages pursuit of equality for women.

Like imagine if Jesse Owens had sat out from the Olympics when they were held in Germany (not that civil rights in the US were great for black people at the time). It's not exactly a parallel, but the point is that there's a benefit to visibility and participating in events like this even when they're held in countries that have ongoing civil rights issues. Stepping out removes your voice from the local conversation.

Her stepping out is a form of protest, but I don't think it's as effective with respect to the end-goal as if she would've attended.

Sorry for the weird link, one of the chess players referenced is < 18 so I had to strip the pictures:

https://www.textise.net/showText.as...ead-scarf-israeli-match/28320535.html#content

That's how to protest And good for them.

 

[TexanStar]

Sorry for the weird link, one of the chess players referenced is < 18 so I had to strip the pictures:

https://www.textise.net/showText.aspx?strURL=http%3A//www.rferl.org/a/iran-bans-teen-chess-siblings-over-head-scarf-israeli-match/28320535.html#content

That's how to protest And good for them.

And this is not how to protest: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...e-headscarf-meeting-walk-out-fn-a7591141.html

Color me a skeptic, but I very much believe Lebanese officials that she was informed in advance that head covering would be required. I think she came there only to blow off the meeting in order to score political points from her supporters. Except that games like that put her in a he said / she said situation where she's now calling the Lebanese government a bunch of liars in order to perform her antics which is counterproductive if your long term goal is actual progress on the issue (considering that she's the one who's actually lying).

Fuck her.

 

[TexanStar]

Women in the US do not have the choice to go without in all the areas that men go without. I can take off my shirt and go mow the lawn with no issue, but my wife could risk police coming by if she tried the same.

There are parts of the US where women have won equality in dress codes through legislation or court decision, but in much of the US there is still a legal inequality except in those designated areas where some priviledge has been carved out (like nude beaches).

A bit off topic from my last posts in this thread, but toplessness laws just had their first Federal court ruling ever this week (in favor of women being allowed to go topless): http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2017/02/23/federal_judge_blocks_fort_collins_topless_ban.html

I doubt it's going to get appealed up to the Supreme court or anything, but interesting none the less.

 

[TheRob]

the problem (in my eyes) as to if it is oppression or not is twofold, one if it's LEGALLY enforced to wear a hijab it is oppressive. you said you are ok with it if it is the ladies choice to wear them, but if the girl was brainwashed to believe it is moraly right to wear them and wrong to not, what defense is it to say it is her choice?

and some standards of dress enforced by the law can be oppression as well
you can actually oppress an entire population instead of just a subsect of it

 

[TheRob]

[QUOTE="TexanStar, post: 6338204, member: 925570"

I agree it's oppressive. I just don't think it's any more oppressive than laws governing breast coverage in the USA.
[/QUOTE]

I agree with most of what you say, but on this point you are utterly wrong and after I tell you why I think you'll concede at least partially.
In the usa if a woman is to be penalized for having her boobs exposed it will not involve a beating.
in some Muslim countries the penalty for not wearing hijab is a caning....I said a CAINING bro
so while both can classify as 'opression' they can't be called the same level of oppression
obviously there are a lot of Muslim countries out there and I'm not talking about ones where the penalties would be on par with what a topless American would face, there we agree it's just cultural difference
but there is no way you can say that a fine or community service (tits) is the same as being beaten with a stick(hijab)

 

[TheRob]

No.

1) You're wearing it by choice, not force of law (force of law when men don't have the same requirement).
2) You're still recognizable as an individual.

so what about a Muslim country where it is also a legal requirement for men to have their hair covered
you say it is not oppression since it is levied equal, I say it IS oppression it is just oppression being leveled to both Genders....

 

[TexanStar]

In the usa if a woman is to be penalized for having her boobs exposed it will not involve a beating.
in some Muslim countries the penalty for not wearing hijab is a caning....I said a CAINING bro
so while both can classify as 'opression' they can't be called the same level of oppression
obviously there are a lot of Muslim countries out there and I'm not talking about ones where the penalties would be on par with what a topless American would face, there we agree it's just cultural difference
but there is no way you can say that a fine or community service (tits) is the same as being beaten with a stick(hijab)

Depending on the circumstances and the zealousness of the prosecutor involved, women can be charged with indecent exposure and added to the sex offender registry which is a life destroying penalty.

There is even a case where two 14 year olds were added to the sex offender registry because they mooned their classmates (google it if you don't believe me).

I know we like to pretend that the US is so far ahead of the middle east in these regards, but there are more than enough zealots here willing to destroy lives over an exposed breast or butt cheek.

 

[TexanStar]

so what about a Muslim country where it is also a legal requirement for men to have their hair covered
you say it is not oppression since it is levied equal, I say it IS oppression it is just oppression being leveled to both Genders....

Men and women both have to drive on the right side of the road. We don't call that oppression, even though it is a restriction on our freedoms. It's just the law.

If you want to consider clothes, both men and women in the USA need to cover their genitals in public. Do you consider that oppression?

 

[TheRob]

Depending on the circumstances and the zealousness of the prosecutor involved, women can be charged with indecent exposure and added to the sex offender registry which is a life destroying penalty.

There is even a case where two 14 year olds were added to the sex offender registry because they mooned their classmates (google it if you don't believe me).

I know we like to pretend that the US is so far ahead of the middle east in these regards, but there are more than enough zealots here willing to destroy lives over an exposed breast or butt cheek.

I was under the impression those were male students
and if the beating is always the answer in the culture in question then it is both the minimum and maximum, so if you were to compare it to the minimum punishment it is insane, if you compare it to the maximum it is not
but I'd like to see some links to women getting on the sex offenders registry over flashing tits when I have seen over a dozen ladies SPARED the sex offenders registry even tho they had sex with underaged boys....

plus like I said you are looking at the extreme example and i'm looking at the standard punishment....

 

[TheRob]

Men and women both have to drive on the right side of the road. We don't call that oppression, even though it is a restriction on our freedoms. It's just the law.

If you want to consider clothes, both men and women in the USA need to cover their genitals in public. Do you consider that oppression?

you simply want to argue and play devils advocate
if you can't see that having standards of how we drive (because running people over can kill them and automobile wrecks are a fucking problem) is different from someone's hair being seen in public there is little hope for you

similar situation with genitals, let us be diplomatic and point out that it is a matter of cleanliness for the public well being, again not a problem when it comes to hair, other then potential headlice

remember please I agree with something like 80% of your initial arguments and you are still looking for points (of extreme examples) to have an excuse to argue.

 

[TexanStar]

I am saying I would rather be caned than end up on the sex offender registry.

One is excruciating physical punishment that I would live through and recover from.

One would make me want to kill myself.

Regardless of whether men are more likely to end up on the registry than women for the same crime, the point was to illustrate that the US has just as much history of overreacting to what are defined as moral offenses. (and here i'm talking about things like being put on the offender registry for mooning someone, not more serious offenses).

In the case of Iran, for which this article was referenced, the female chess player caught playing without a hijab was not caned, she was kicked off the chess team.

Similarly, even for Iranian citizens, the legal punishment is typically small fines. There are sometimes acts of violence (sometimes horrific acts), but those tend to occur in rural areas and are from radical locals, not the government.

 

[TexanStar]

you simply want to argue and play devils advocate
if you can't see that having standards of how we drive (because running people over can kill them and automobile wrecks are a fucking problem) is different from someone's hair being seen in public there is little hope for you

similar situation with genitals, let us be diplomatic and point out that it is a matter of cleanliness for the public well being, again not a problem when it comes to hair, other then potential headlice

remember please I agree with something like 80% of your initial arguments and you are still looking for points (of extreme examples) to have an excuse to argue.

It's cultural sensitivity. If another country has standards of dress that are applied to all citizens equally, I don't consider that oppression even if it's not my preferred style of dress.

You are the one who asked if it would be oppressive if a government required men and women to both wear hijabs. I answered you honestly that no, it would not. America doesn't define the dress standards for the entire world.

 

[TheRob]

It's cultural sensitivity. If another country has standards of dress that are applied to all citizens equally, I don't consider that oppression even if it's not my preferred style of dress.

You are the one who asked if it would be oppressive if a government required men and women to both wear hijabs. I answered you honestly that no, it would not. America doesn't define the dress standards for the entire world.

and you were wrong
it is oppression
the part where you want to make it a fight is where you use these nonsense examples like having laws concerning driving or genitals (again public safety) and compare them to laws about hair on your head (arguable but we can call public morality) but NOT public safety

grow up

 

[TexanStar]

and you were wrong
it is oppression
the part where you want to make it a fight is where you use these nonsense examples like having laws concerning driving or genitals (again public safety) and compare them to laws about hair on your head (arguable but we can call public morality) but NOT public safety

grow up

Look up the dictionary definitions of oppression, cruel, and unjust.

You'd be hard pressed that men and women both being required to wear a scarf on their heads is either cruel or unfaIr. You could argue it's annoying, or unfashionable, but just because something is not a cultural norm where you live would not make it oppressive for others.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

I've a dear driend who would probably go for caning. He's on the registry and daily life is just so difficult.

 

[TexanStar]

I've a dear driend who would probably go for caning. He's on the registry and daily life is just so difficult.

Yeah, certainly there are cases that warrant it, but it's pretty much the nuclear option and it gets misapplied all the time (like for people mooning. Jesus christ...)

I wouldn't want to be in either situation, but caning to me looks like the one that would be easier to live with.

 

[Scarletbegonia]

Shorter duration, less emotional scarring, no vigilantes coming to,your house.
Yep. Caning.