What the Heck is Going on in France with the Burkini??

[McBell]

I am not French, but this doesn't seem that complex to me.
French culture is under assault. Muslims want to benefit from it, when it suits them. Change, confront, even violently oppose it when it doesn't.

This law is the cultural equivalent of passive aggression. Rather like putting pork in school lunches.

Pretending that the problem is the French is to invite the passive aggression to morph into active aggression.

Tom

The ban of the burkini serves no purpose other than to reveal the hypocrisy of the French.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

I do not agree with the policy. Were I a lawmaker in France, I would presumably not vote for it.

But it is the law, and it is a respectable law.

I am going to say something that a lot of people who are European want to say but usually feel that they cannot say: You do not get to dictate what Europeans do,and you do not get to make Europeans bad for standing up for European values. This is France, not Saudi Arabia. France gets to demand a certain minimum standard of public decency, even if that does not comport with Islamist norms, which are among the most indecent in the world.

European values are better than Islamic values. Yup, you heard that right. At a minimum, Europeans feel that they are. And I agree: They're worth defending. We should not apologize for it any more. And I'm not going to, and I hope others don't. If Muslims want to have an Islamist pride parade, they can do it in Mecca.

This, so much this. Nobody is upset that the Moroccans are pissed off about a ban on burkinis in private hotels because it's against their cultural values and, as one politician called it, "the rudeness of the new colonisation". And nobody seems to have batted an eye at the fact that a photographer got assaulted by a mob of Muslim men wielding hatchets and harpoons.

It seems more and more to me these days that only Muslims are allowed to have a culture, or at least one whose defence is permissible.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

What, exactly, about the Burkini is "indecent"?

Mandatory body-covering perpetuates a misogynist culture that engages in systematic ****-shaming & victim-blaming of women - a culture some French (perhaps even 'many') view as anathema to their own more liberal way of life than the harsh, repressive environs of many Muslim countries. It also leads to women be objectified as commodities. It forces women to take responsibility for the desires & actions of the men around them by hiding themselves, rather than having the men exercise self-control in their interactions with them.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

The ban of the burkini serves no purpose other than to reveal the hypocrisy of the French.

Hypocrisy: feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness. (Webster)

Where's the hypocrisy? The French don't like public parades of religion or behaviour which creates social divisions. The burkini does both, so they want to ban it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Something I've been thinking about ...

I wonder why nobody takes offense to nuns walking around in their modest attire, or when Jewish men choose to wear yarmulkes, or some women cover their hair with a babushka and wear long dresses, or Sikhs walk around with their hair covered and traditional attire, etc., etc., etc. But when Muslim women wear similarly modest attire suddenly everyone freaks out about Muslims trying to push their culture onto everyone else.

Some food for thought, I guess.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Something I've been thinking about ...

I wonder why nobody takes offense to nuns walking around in their modest attire,

1. Because nuns are renunciants who have chosen to live apart from society;
2. Nuns habits do not cover their entire face;
3. Becoming a nun in this day & age is entirely voluntary.

or when Jewish men choose to wear yarmulkes, or some women cover their hair with a babushka and wear long dresses,

There's a significant amount of well-placed guilt in Europe over the Holocaust - any attempt to restrict any expression of Jewish culture (no matter how reasonable) cannot help but be viewed through this lens.

or Sikhs walk around with their hair covered and traditional attire, etc., etc., etc.

The turban is not used to ****-shame and oppress an entire demographic of the population.

But when Muslim women wear similarly modest attire suddenly everyone freaks out about Muslims trying to push their culture onto everyone else.

Some food for thought, I guess.

Probably because that's exactly what they're doing. Read about the North Africans attacking tourists & French youths on a beach in Corsica with harpoons and axes because the tourists were taking pictures containing Muslim women (even if they weren't facing the camera). It's got so bad that even the left-wing mayor of Corsica has banned the burkini. It's good to see my fellow left-wingers are starting to wake up to this problem.

 

[McBell]

Mandatory body-covering perpetuates a misogynist culture that engages in systematic ****-shaming & victim-blaming of women - a culture some French (perhaps even 'many') view as anathema to their own more liberal way of life than the harsh, repressive environs of many Muslim countries. It also leads to women be objectified as commodities. It forces women to take responsibility for the desires & actions of the men around them by hiding themselves, rather than having the men exercise self-control in their interactions with them.

Perhaps it would help if you presented your definition of "indecent"?

 

[McBell]

Hypocrisy: feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness. (Webster)

Where's the hypocrisy? The French don't like public parades of religion or behaviour which creates social divisions. The burkini does both, so they want to ban it.

When did the French ban the habit from their beaches?

 

[McBell]

Mandatory body-covering perpetuates a misogynist culture that engages in systematic ****-shaming & victim-blaming of women - a culture some French (perhaps even 'many') view as anathema to their own more liberal way of life than the harsh, repressive environs of many Muslim countries. It also leads to women be objectified as commodities. It forces women to take responsibility for the desires & actions of the men around them by hiding themselves, rather than having the men exercise self-control in their interactions with them.

Ah, so it is basically nothing more than a blatant attack on Islam.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Ah, so it is basically nothing more than a blatant attack on Islam.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Hey, if you want to associate all that with Islam then I'm not going to argue.

 

[McBell]

Hey, if you want to associate all that with Islam then I'm not going to argue.

Seeing as the French have not banned the habit from beaches...
Kinda makes your little rant above seem like a big steaming pile of bull **** to justify attacking Muslims.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Seeing as the French have not banned the habit from beaches...
Kinda makes your little rant above seem like a big steaming pile of bull **** to justify attacking Muslims.

Seeing as you can only become a nun in Europe voluntarily whereas being born a Muslim woman isn't a matter of choice...

And no, it's an attempt to counter the culture of ****-shaming, victim-blaming, outright misogyny and objectification of women that Muslims are bringing into Europe - as refugees fleeing war or as voluntary migrants who grew up in cultures where women were obliged to cover themselves.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Something I've been thinking about ...

I wonder why nobody takes offense to nuns walking around in their modest attire, or when Jewish men choose to wear yarmulkes, or some women cover their hair with a babushka and wear long dresses, or Sikhs walk around with their hair covered and traditional attire, etc., etc., etc. But when Muslim women wear similarly modest attire suddenly everyone freaks out about Muslims trying to push their culture onto everyone else.

Some food for thought, I guess.

Because of Islamophobia. They also conveniently miss the point that many women choose to convert to Islam and decide to dress modestly of their own volition. In fact, the only women I've seen wearing the niqab in person have been American-born African-American Muslims. The Somali, Arab and Pakistani Muslim women I've seen just wear the hijab, if they choose to veil themselves at all. Many women see it as liberating not to be viewed as a sex object. A point that's often missing from these debates is that women are basically in the position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You have "feminist men" decrying a woman not dressing in a titillating enough fashion for them, and you have strict religious fundies decrying women dressing in too titillating a fashion for them. Both of them need to shut up and let women wear what they want. It's none of their business and certainly the law needs to stay out of it.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Because of Islamophobia.

Which doesn't exist.

They also conveniently miss the point that many women choose to convert to Islam and decide to dress modestly of their own volition.

These women are choosing to perpetuate a culture that treats other women like second-class citizens; which teaches them to shoulder the blame for how other people think & react to them simply being there.

In fact, the only women I've seen wearing the niqab in person have been American-born African-American Muslims. The Somali, Arab and Pakistani Muslim women I've seen just wear the hijab, if they choose to veil themselves at all. Many women see it as liberating not to be viewed as a sex object. A point that's often missing from these debates is that women are basically in the position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You have "feminist men" decrying a woman not dressing in a titillating enough fashion for them, and you have strict religious fundies decrying women dressing in too titillating a fashion for them. Both of them need to shut up and let women wear what they want. It's none of their business and certainly the law needs to stay out of it.

You have secularist men who don't see why Muslims should be given an exemption from the secular culture prevalent in France. Enforcing culture upon foreigners only seems to be bad when Europeans or Westerners do it.

You have "feminist men" decrying a woman not dressing in a titillating enough fashion for them

Really? Where?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Which doesn't exist.

Of course anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim bigotry exists. Don't try to play me for a fool.

These women are choosing to perpetuate a culture that treats other women like second-class citizens; which teaches them to shoulder the blame for how other people think & react to them simply being there.

What makes you think your interpretation of how they choose to dress and generally live their lives is unquestionably the right one? Hint: it isn't. The issue is more complex than that. If a woman chooses to dress modestly, how in the world is it any of your business? Why do you think you should have a say in her choice of attire? Would you want someone policing your wardrobe?

You have secularist men who don't see why Muslims should be given an exemption from the secular culture prevalent in France. Enforcing culture upon foreigners only seems to be bad when Europeans or Westerners do it.

French secularism is more hardline than general secularism. They take it a bit too far. It's definitely going too far when they're trying to make laws telling citizens how to dress. In America, we can wear whatever the hell we want.

Really? Where?

It's called reading between the lines. Both sides think they have the right to tell women how they should dress and shame them for not living up to their expectations. Doing it under the ironic veil of "liberation" and "women's rights" is just pure hypocrisy for yet another attempt to control women.

Have a read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-burkha-islam-dear-white-people-a7207811.html
http://feministing.com/2016/08/26/a...n-the-burkiniban-and-discussing-muslim-women/

Also, Muslim men are supposed to dress modestly, as well. Why aren't we forcing them into skinny jeans and muscle shirts in the name of "liberation"?

These poor oppressed men! Quick, give them some Western white knight-style Liberation®!

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Of course anti-Islamic/anti-Muslim bigotry exists. Don't try to play me for a fool.

Of course it does; but you didn't say that. You said Islamophobia which is a meaningless term. We already have a phrase for anti-Muslim bigotry. It's 'anti-Muslim bigotry'. And being against Islam is not bigoted. Sorry to tell you.

What makes you think your interpretation of how they choose to dress and generally live their lives is unquestionably the right one? Hint: it isn't. The issue is more complex than that. If a woman chooses to dress modestly, how in the world is it any of your business? Why do you think you should have a say in her choice of attire? Would you want someone policing your wardrobe?

Because European/non-Islamic culture is superior to Islamic culture. Enough relativist bull****; it needs to be said. Forcing women to cover themselves is antithetical to our way of life and quite obviously perpetuates a culture which causes a great deal of harm. If this argument shifted to Muslims demanding polygynous marriage would you still be as accommodating in the name of multiculturalism? And this is about women continuing a culture that causes them, as a group, great harm. It'll become our business when women walking through Muslim neighbourhoods in Europe start being harassed because they're dressed 'immodestly'. Why should I have a say in her choice of attire? I shouldn't because I didn't inform the anti-burkini law because I'm not a French citizen; I'm merely expressing my opinion that mandatory veiling & body-covering is wrong and should be out-lawed.

French secularism is more hardline than general secularism. They take it a bit too far. It's definitely going too far when they're trying to make laws telling citizens how to dress. In America, we can wear whatever the hell we want.

There are laws which make it a crime to walk around naked but I don't see you campaigning against them. Society defined what people can & can't wear long before the issue of the burkini or even the full-face veil cropped up but most liberals (myself included) ignore them because they don't offend our sensibilities.

It's called reading between the lines. Both sides think they have the right to tell women how they should dress and shame them for not living up to their expectations. Doing it under the ironic veil of "liberation" and "women's rights" is just pure hypocrisy for yet another attempt to control women.

I actually agree. There's plenty wrong with this situation and neither side of the argument comes out smelling particularly rosy. However I find the greater inconsistency exists in liberals sticking up for & defending a religious culture which is notably illiberal & repressive when it is in control of society.

Have a read:
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-burkha-islam-dear-white-people-a7207811.html
http://feministing.com/2016/08/26/a...n-the-burkiniban-and-discussing-muslim-women/

I will.

Also, Muslim men are supposed to dress modestly, as well. Why aren't we forcing them into skinny jeans and muscle shirts in the name of "liberation"?

Muslim men quite obviously aren't oppressed because they're the ones who determine what Islamic culture is; because Islam is inherently misogynistic. The veil is a Muslimah's expression of her religious belief because men have decided it is; Muslimahs should cover their bodies to avoid arousing the lusts of men because men decided that was what should happen even though Muhammad caught one of his companions staring lustily at a woman and making her uncomfortable so he forcibly turned the companion's head away so he couldn't look at her.

This is one of the biggest failures of feminism in the Western world. It's quite willing to smash the patriarchy unless it's got anything to do with Muslims or Islam. Then the patriarchy can remain in place as long as Muslim women continue claiming they're empowered by their chains. Muslim feminists challenge Sharia law because it discriminates in favour of men; Western feminists don't because that's 'Islamophobic'.
Muslim feminists challenge FGM but from Western feminists there's nothing but silence on the issue because to challenge that would be racist or culturally imperialist. Some argue Muhammad was a visionary with ideas millennia ahead of his time but cue the awkward silence from feminism when you point out Muhammad married and ****ed a child who, at best, was starting puberty when Muhammad consummated his marriage. Child marriage is another thing feminists in Muslim countries also fight against.

Feminism in the West needs to decide whether it's for or against the religion that promotes & perpetuates these aspects of patriarchy. If it's against them, great. Feminists should have no trouble tearing Islamic patriarchy a new ******* just like it does with non-Islamic patriarchy. If it's not against Islam doing these things then it should drop the act of being an ideology that empowers women because apparently oppressing women is only bad if you're white or non-Muslim.

These poor oppressed men! Quick, give them some Western white knight-style Liberation®!

Lol!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because of Islamophobia. They also conveniently miss the point that many women choose to convert to Islam and decide to dress modestly of their own volition. In fact, the only women I've seen wearing the niqab in person have been American-born African-American Muslims. The Somali, Arab and Pakistani Muslim women I've seen just wear the hijab, if they choose to veil themselves at all. Many women see it as liberating not to be viewed as a sex object. A point that's often missing from these debates is that women are basically in the position of "damned if you do, damned if you don't". You have "feminist men" decrying a woman not dressing in a titillating enough fashion for them, and you have strict religious fundies decrying women dressing in too titillating a fashion for them. Both of them need to shut up and let women wear what they want. It's none of their business and certainly the law needs to stay out of it.

This^^^^ So much this.

I have to admit, there have been more than a few times I've been walking around somewhere wishing I could throw on something like a burka as I received catcalls, solicitations and other various unwanted attention from random strange men. I understand the sentiment of those who chose to cover their bodies.

 

[SkepticThinker]

1. Because nuns are renunciants who have chosen to live apart from society;
2. Nuns habits do not cover their entire face;
3. Becoming a nun in this day & age is entirely voluntary.

Nuns make a choice to don the habit. Many Muslim women make the same choice to don their religious attire (most do not cover their entire face). As do woman of many other cultures and religions. Nobody should be forced to wear or not wear anything.

I work with this really great guy who happens to be a Muslim. He has a wife and two daughters. He recently showed me a picture of the three of them together in Pakistan. Only one of his daughters was wearing a niqab while his other daughter and wife wore nothing to cover their heads or faces. It was very obvious to me that those three women were free to make their own choices as to what they wanted to wear. As it should be.

There's a significant amount of well-placed guilt in Europe over the Holocaust - any attempt to restrict any expression of Jewish culture (no matter how reasonable) cannot help but be viewed through this lens.

Maybe they should think hard on that and extend the right to wear the religious attire of choice to everyone else.

The turban is not used to ****-shame and oppress an entire demographic of the population.

The turban has indeed been used to oppress an entire demographic of people in the past.

I refer you to Frank's excellent post for the rest.

Probably because that's exactly what they're doing. Read about the North Africans attacking tourists & French youths on a beach in Corsica with harpoons and axes because the tourists were taking pictures containing Muslim women (even if they weren't facing the camera). It's got so bad that even the left-wing mayor of Corsica has banned the burkini. It's good to see my fellow left-wingers are starting to wake up to this problem.

A brawl on a beach over somebody taking a photo of women in burkinis is the equivalent of an entire culture of religious people forcing their beliefs on everyone else? How so? You'll have to explain that to me.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Of course it does; but you didn't say that. You said Islamophobia which is a meaningless term. We already have a phrase for anti-Muslim bigotry. It's 'anti-Muslim bigotry'. And being against Islam is not bigoted. Sorry to tell you.


Because European/non-Islamic culture is superior to Islamic culture. Enough relativist bull****; it needs to be said. Forcing women to cover themselves is antithetical to our way of life and quite obviously perpetuates a culture which causes a great deal of harm. If this argument shifted to Muslims demanding polygynous marriage would you still be as accommodating in the name of multiculturalism? And this is about women continuing a culture that causes them, as a group, great harm. It'll become our business when women walking through Muslim neighbourhoods in Europe start being harassed because they're dressed 'immodestly'. Why should I have a say in her choice of attire? I shouldn't because I didn't inform the anti-burkini law because I'm not a French citizen; I'm merely expressing my opinion that mandatory veiling & body-covering is wrong and should be out-lawed.


There are laws which make it a crime to walk around naked but I don't see you campaigning against them. Society defined what people can & can't wear long before the issue of the burkini or even the full-face veil cropped up but most liberals (myself included) ignore them because they don't offend our sensibilities.


I actually agree. There's plenty wrong with this situation and neither side of the argument comes out smelling particularly rosy. However I find the greater inconsistency exists in liberals sticking up for & defending a religious culture which is notably illiberal & repressive when it is in control of society.

I will.

Muslim men quite obviously aren't oppressed because they're the ones who determine what Islamic culture is; because Islam is inherently misogynistic. The veil is a Muslimah's expression of her religious belief because men have decided it is; Muslimahs should cover their bodies to avoid arousing the lusts of men because men decided that was what should happen even though Muhammad caught one of his companions staring lustily at a woman and making her uncomfortable so he forcibly turned the companion's head away so he couldn't look at her.

This is one of the biggest failures of feminism in the Western world. It's quite willing to smash the patriarchy unless it's got anything to do with Muslims or Islam. Then the patriarchy can remain in place as long as Muslim women continue claiming they're empowered by their chains. Muslim feminists challenge Sharia law because it discriminates in favour of men; Western feminists don't because that's 'Islamophobic'.
Muslim feminists challenge FGM but from Western feminists there's nothing but silence on the issue because to challenge that would be racist or culturally imperialist. Some argue Muhammad was a visionary with ideas millennia ahead of his time but cue the awkward silence from feminism when you point out Muhammad married and ****ed a child who, at best, was starting puberty when Muhammad consummated his marriage. Child marriage is another thing feminists in Muslim countries also fight against.

Feminism in the West needs to decide whether it's for or against the religion that promotes & perpetuates these aspects of patriarchy. If it's against them, great. Feminists should have no trouble tearing Islamic patriarchy a new ******* just like it does with non-Islamic patriarchy. If it's not against Islam doing these things then it should drop the act of being an ideology that empowers women because apparently oppressing women is only bad if you're white or non-Muslim.




Lol!

I don't know where you're coming up with that.

There are plenty of groups that have been fighting FGM for a long time.

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/fgm infographics final.pdf
http://www.equalitynow.org/fact-sheets
http://www.endfgm.eu/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Hosken
https://www.change.org/p/fgm-abolit...minist-statement-on-female-genital-mutilation

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Nuns make a choice to don the habit. Many Muslim women make the same choice to don their religious attire (most do not cover their entire face). As do woman of many other cultures and religions. Nobody should be forced to wear or not wear anything.

Then tell that to the Muslims who force women to cover up or be subjected to harassment and ****-shaming. Tell that to those who perpetuate a culture that tells people that views of women like this are acceptable because they don't cover up. Gods be good, there's a member of this board espousing exactly the sort of opinion that a forced body-covering culture causes & supports yet I'm the problem for trying to stand against it?!

I work with this really great guy who happens to be a Muslim. He has a wife and two daughters. He recently showed me a picture of the three of them together in Pakistan. Only one of his daughters was wearing a niqab while his other daughter and wife wore nothing to cover their heads or faces. It was very obvious to me that those three women were free to make their own choices as to what they wanted to wear. As it should be.

That's great, really. Sadly anecdotal evidence does not a misogynist culture unmake.

Maybe they should think hard on that and extend the right to wear the religious attire of choice to everyone else.

In an ideal world this would be perfect but since Islam tolerates no cultural voices other than its own it should not be tolerated.

The turban has indeed been used to oppress an entire demographic of people in the past.

Wait, really? Could you elaborate further on that please? This is the first I've heard of it.

A brawl on a beach over somebody taking a photo of women in burkinis is the equivalent of an entire culture of religious people forcing their beliefs on everyone else? How so? You'll have to explain that to me.

I wouldn't say so much it's a case of forcing their beliefs on everyone else as opposed to being intolerant (violently so) of non-Muslims. The North Africans didn't appreciate non-Muslims taking pictures containing Muslim women and got violent because they couldn't intimidate the tourists into leaving the beach - as if it was theirs to begin with. This isn't the first time Muslims have got violent in Corsica either; Arab youths attacked fire fighters last December.

I don't know where you're coming up with that.

There are plenty of groups that have been fighting FGM for a long time.

http://www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/fgm infographics final.pdf
http://www.equalitynow.org/fact-sheets
http://www.endfgm.eu/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran_Hosken
https://www.change.org/p/fgm-abolit...minist-statement-on-female-genital-mutilation

Okay, hands up, I was waaaay wrong on that. Thanks for illuminating my ignorance.