googooloo
Member
Just debate here about what you ppl think about the Burkha, and the Taliban. This comes from the recent article in the newspaper this week on crappy Afghan border secrurity, and rising Taliban forces.
What is oppressive about it in relation to the Burkha?Deus said:Oppression of women under the banner of religion. *shakes head*
Forgive me for contributing nothing useful, but that made me laughSonic said:it's a part of religion and it should not cause so much problems..
Deus said:Oppression of women under the banner of religion. *shakes head*
Sonic said:the total covering is an extremist view yet the hijab is used to protect the woman from unwanted people abusing her because of her looks and her beauty..
so, what about muslim women having their scarfs pulled off by racists pricks in suburbs with an anglo-saxon majority? wouldn't that be abuse because of her looks?Sonic said:the total covering is an extremist view yet the hijab is used to protect the woman from unwanted people abusing her because of her looks and her beauty..
voluntary "oppression" happens all the time.Deus said:Oppression of women under the banner of religion.
Generator said:In other words, it's a form of social control that requires a woman to account for the actions of others. Excellent.
*shakes head*
Generator said:Yes, there is a difference between preventing and accounting for another's behaviour, but when the justification for a particular device is provided in a manner similar to that which I quoted, I cannot help but think that the onus is upon women, not all, to moderate their behaviour.
This is meant to be a liberal democracy. There is no need for anyone to suggest that personal expression (be it with the hijab or a mini-skirt) should be curtailed merely because such a restrictive practice is meant to be 'preventative' in nature given sexual or political concerns, especially when such suggestions fail to address the key concerns (that of men's attitudes towards women and that of open and respectful political dialogue) in favour of a 'cop out'.
As for your quote from the Qur'ân, it seems to neglect the fact that both men and women are sensual beings by only requiring one sex to cover their features (the ellipsis was poorly placed, even if what was ommitted was of no real relevance).
lolz, I stopped reading after the bit in bold, but I'm sure it's all that good. 10 comedy points (lol).somechick said:Im sorry but some of your sentences don't make sense. Moreover, you can't understand contemporary cultures using traditional anthropology. Its an ethnography which requires you to experience it. but since i'm guessing that you're male, and anglo, you would never do such a thing . lol
"neglect the fact that...one sex to cover their features"
Men don't have boobs (well some don't lol). They dont have distinctly beautiful features as women do. men have sexual desires which somewhat outweigh those of women. Moreover, men don't have the powers women do. In this way, women are very powerful in their ability to control and influence the male (why do you think those music videos with bitches and ho's are so popular?). Islam recognises this, that women have powers beyond the male. But controlling those powers is one of personal inclination. You can manipulate men (here i get many signifiers: trophy wives, prostitution, selling yourself for material wealth: women are also oppressed in the west- the only way some pop stars get ahead is by taking their clothes off eww jessica simpson). But once again, that is a matter of choice-you choose to do what you want.
Point: women have power over the male. That is a basic understanding of the hijab.
here you go: this is the full translation of the passage from the Quran:
24:30 Tell the believing men to lower their gaze and be modest. That is purer for them. Lo! Allah is aware of what they do.
24:31 And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent, and to draw their veils over their bosoms, and not to reveal their adornment save to their own husbands or fathers or husbands' fathers, or their sons or their husbands' sons, or their brothers or their brothers' sons or sisters' sons, or their women, or their slaves, or male attendants who lack vigour, or children who know naught of women's nakedness. And let them not stamp their feet so as to reveal what they hide of their adornment. And turn unto Allah together, O believers, in order that ye may succeed.
maybe your reading is coming from the oppression of women in the bible?
"And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. For this reason, and because of the angels, the woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head" (1 Corinthians 11:3-10).
I'm not out to bible bash here, because the christians are my brothers and sisters. But the west has a whole history of the oppression of females based on these foundations of christian doctrine. Patriarchy, unfortunately, still reigns, including the islamic states which administer their own reading of the Quran as 'fact'.
You can critique a culture but until you experience it, as have many migrants and travellers, you will not know about it.
Point: more muslims know about the west than the west about the muslims. Unfortunetly so many people are eating up the western mainstream view of the Hijab.
Ummm, rightio.somechick said:Point: more muslims know about the west than the west about the muslims. Unfortunetly so many people are eating up the western mainstream view of the Hijab.
Ah, I think that you are the one constructing sentences that do not make sense. What exactly was my interpretation of contemporary Australia using a traditonal anthropological construct? Why is that I, as a man, cannot express my disdain for the lack of respect for women and political and cultural diversity evident in today's Australia merely because I have not immersed myself within those particular social contexts?Im sorry but some of your sentences don't make sense. Moreover, you can't understand contemporary cultures using traditional anthropology. Its an ethnography which requires you to experience it. but since i'm guessing that you're male, and anglo, you would never do such a thing . lol
i was trying to put it in the most layman terms possible. people dont read things if its not in their vernacular or not entertaining. My bad, do you want me to edit it out?ogmzergrush said:lolz, I stopped reading after the bit in bold, but I'm sure it's all that good. 10 comedy points (lol).
No that's fine, I'm sure people reading it with an interest in engaging in debate will take your meaning clearly enough.somechick said:i was trying to put it in the most layman terms possible. people dont read things if its not in their vernacular or not entertaining. My bad, do you want me to edit it out?
I meant your interpretation of islam, contemporary islamic cultures. and you would never wear a hijab because, obviously you're male, and anglo.Generator said:Ummm, rightio.
Ah, I think that you are the one constructing sentences that do not make sense. What exactly was my interpretation of contemporary Australia using a traditonal anthropological construct? Why is that I, as a man, cannot express my disdain for the lack of respect for women and political and cultural diversity evident in today's Australia merely because I have not immersed myself within those particular social contexts?
It is not prevention. Its a band aid protection.Prevention is different from accounting for others' behaviour