Filed under: Political | Tags: stupid stuff americans said this week, ~feminism
There was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gang-raped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed up like a 21-year-old prostitute. And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it’s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn’t happen to our students.
So someone said this to me:
Wow aha, you’re combating one kind of self-righteousness with another. Your prejudice against “western women” doesn’t let you see past the fact that the actions of these girls were not right, as you’ve yet to tell me how posting those pictures is in any way beneficial. I forgot that only the oppressed can talk about the oppressed. God forbid a western woman talks about your kind. I’m not talking in behalf of them, I’m simply stating that their actions are juvenile and rather counteractive. I’m not framing the Middle East in any way, your prejudice against Western women has you fighting problems which weren’t there to begin with. But alright, I suppose you guys got this done, no sense in us privileged Westerners getting involved in the problems that you and your people can very well handle, yet haven’t. I wasn’t aware that by pointing out that their actions were insensitive to the issue was me undermining you in any way. Perhaps if you let go of that rage you have towards Westerners, you’d be able to see things a little more clearly. You may not have been deliberately trying to make fun of it, but that’s how it comes across. “Look at me I’m so oppressed lolololol.” I can’t imagine someone who is actually going through oppression would find that beneficial to their cause. I never said the point the original post was making was wrong. But again, just because these books are the only ones being published, does not belittle the worth of the story they tell. You seem to think that Western Women are out to get you, however, so I see that my very presence offends you, even though you know nothing about me, my agenda, or my life. Who’s judging books by their cover now?
Today I am fucking angry. When I call someone out on their privilege, I’m the irrational prejudiced one. So it fucking goes.
Muslims!
Can we maybe stop now?
Also, read this article on Saadawi.
DS: I lost a few followers with my niqaab rant yesterday #meh
ST: serves you right for defending “assimilation.”
DS: I wasn’t defending assimilation at all. I just said niqab is one extreme we can do without.
DS: If I were defending assimilation, I’d say the veil should be banned too.
ST: you’re making a distinction that shouldn’t exist. It’s not a question of which Muslim head covering should be banned.
ST: a violation of civil liberties should not be heralded as “feminism.” It’s part of a wider culture of European supremacy.
DS: Also there IS a distinction between hijab and niqab.
ST: there shouldn’t be in legal terms. All that does is demonize niqabis.
DS: Civil liberties also includes my right to see a person’s face in order to identify them.
ST: you don’t actually have a right to see other people’s faces. Your rights don’t extend to control over other people.
ST: niqab laws are nothing more than a targeting of France’s Muslim community disguised as women’s emancipation.
ST: they are xenophobic to the extreme.
@TheOnlyWarman: and their not banning crucifixes, skullcaps or orange robes
DS: Those religious symbols don’t hurt anyone or society.
WM: neither does the veil
ST: and niqabis do? Wtf.
DS: Not saying the veil should be banned. On the contrary. Just the face veil.
WM: but it’s still a part of freedom
ST: also demonstration of how secularism can become its own state religion and be used to justify intolerance.
DS: Why can’t they show their faces?
ST: ana maly it’s their choice.
@marwan_ehab: I can debate that the niqab is not a religious duty & it does more harm than good by posing a lot of threats
ST: it has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a religious duty which it demonstrably isn’t.
ME: y do people have an identity then? Might as well cancel any ID card bcuz it’ll be useless
ST: logistics. If a niqabi is pulled over for drunk driving then the police officer has a right to see her face. But come on ya3ny.
DS: But it’s my RIGHT to be able to see the person in front of me.
ST: no it isn’t. You have no rights when it comes to other people. They, on the other hand, have the right to cover their faces.
DS: What purpose does the face veil serve? It does more harm than good 2 society and poses as a security issue.
ST: clothes never serve as a force for good in any society so I don’t see your point.
ST: in sum, niqabis are human beings with agency and are therefore accorded the right to do what they want.
ST: you have no right to demand that they show their faces.
ST: in the Western context, niqab laws are an attempt to impose “correct” cultural values on an “alien” immigrant community.
DS: Thats not true its a basic right & need from any society 2 b able 2 see everyone’s face. Ma I’m saying it should b banned here 2
ST: we are debating the rights of a group of women to which none of us belong as if they’re up for grabs.
ST: rights, in case you need reminding, are inalienable.
ME: we should give rights 2 terrorists then to practice what they want if security doesn’t matter 2 u!
ST: terrorists kill or espouse the killing of people. Niqabis cover their faces for personal religious reasons.
ST: if you can’t see a distinction: a7a. Your conflation of niqabis and terrorists is extremely out of line and worrying.
ST: if you want to read about how niqab is being used as a site for rhetorical anti-Muslim violence (1)
ST: read “The Burqa in Vogue” and “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” both available through databases. (2)
DS: So would it be ok for men to cover their faces too?
ST: yes.
ST: Identifying niqabis with terrorism is flat out discrimination.
ST: I am a committed secularist and a hardcore agnostic who hates Wahabi Islam.
ST: However, niqabis are agent human beings who have rights that I will continue to defend.
ST: Even if the practice stems from a brand of faith that I personally despise. I uphold women’s rights to dress however they like no exception.
DS: So would it be ok for all of society to walk around with their faces covered?
ST: yes it would.
DS: That’s a problem.
@Deenasdfghjkl: I dont understand why there was OUTRAGE when France banned the face veil. Time to do away with these outdated traditions & improve our image
@spacetubes: no. France is targeting women who don’t conform to Western standards of dress. Women should be able to choose what they wear.
ST: appearing in public space under parameters you set for yourself is a condition for democracy.
DS: You can’t walk around covering your face. People have a right to know what you look like & this poses as a security concern.
ST: furthermore, assimilation is bullshit. Western does not equal modern or women’s emancipation.
ST: there was a lot of really disgusting colonial feminist rhetoric around this. It only affects 200 women in France.
ST: I personally hate niqab/hijab, but this is a violation of civil liberties.
DS: hijab is more than fine.I like to think of it as a fashion choice. Niqab makes absolutely no sense.
ST: I agree that it makes no sense. However, it’s not for me to decide what does or doesn’t make sense to other people.
DS: You can’t walk around covering your face. People have a right to know what you look like & this poses as a security concern.
ST: it poses a security threat in banks and airports, maybe. Logistics that can be individually dealt with.
DS: In all public spheres in general. A wanted criminal can be walking around in niqab and no one would know.
ST: a wanted criminal can always dye their hair or wear a fake moustache. Maybe France should ban them.
ST: come on. How many criminals do you think are randomly caught by strangers on the street?
ST: read: http://bit.ly/csVvOg
DS: You still can’t have people not show their faces! How is that even modest?
ST: I’m not defending the reasoning behind it. I don’t agree with it. It’s a question of rights and of minorities being targeted.
DS: how is it Islamic? It’s not.
ST: Deena! While it is not required by Islam, it is distinctly Islamic in the sense that Muslim women wear it.
DS: True but its a form of Islam that I believe the world can do without. I really really hate it and hate what it stands for.
ST: niqabis in public/people walking around in their underwear. Neither is a threat to French society.
ST: more reading: http://bit.ly/fDKvi8
ST: same here. I will, however, uphold the right of Muslim women to do whatever the fuck they want.
DS: Me too but there are limits.
