iPaul93
Member
Pretty much this.I don't get why some people are upset over this.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Austria bans the burqa
- Thread starter Lime
- Start date
- Status
This is ridiculous. You are taking away people's agency. Replace 'miniskirt' with 'burka' and it's equally stupid.
No it won't.
The reason people don't even want to consider that possibility is because this...
is what's actually behind bans like these.
SlickShoes
Member
That's probably millions of people right there
MadJackChurchill
Banned
This picture screams "civil liberty" to me.
It's their business, not yours to pass judgment. You sound like you're from the 19th century. Cut that orientalist crap.
ClosingADoor
Member
The European Courts are not upholding racial segregation or anything of the sort.
The argument you use here can be used to uphold a lot of terrible things. We constantly uphold laws that infringe on some freedoms because we deem it better for society as a whole.
Some unfortunately live exactly like that, that's the whole fuckin point
http://pol-check.blogspot.it/2011/04/do-muslim-women-want-to-wear-burka.html
You're also doing that when you're banning polygamy. Still I see no uproar about this tradition, practiced in very few Muslim communities (i.e., like the burqa), being forbidden in Western countries.
Marriage laws and clothing bans are not the same thing at all.
http://www.thelocal.fr/20151012/france-burqa-ban-five-years-on-we-create-a-monster
Fuck this. I don't want to defend the stupid piece of cloth. I just don't want Muslims to feel threatened and marginalized in Austria. Which is what is happening.
Even if it is internalized misoginy, banning it outright seems like a very blunt and stupid way to force a cultural shift.
Especially done under the name of "freedom".
Internalized misoginy or not, if a woman wants to wear it, who are you to say no? (Barring specific instances where a face can't be covered for security reasons).
I'm an atheist and don't have all that much sympathy for religious bullshit, but I do think a cultural shift must take tact and time to work effectively, so does cultural integration.
To just "ban" something that doesn't cause immediate harm, is a bad way to go about it.
Why, exactly? The arguments of taking away one's agency and letting people choose freely what to do are applicable to polygamy pretty well.
No, only those wanting to wear a burqa, which is a really, really miniscule part of the Muslim population of Austria.
Because polygamy includes financial and family and inheritance laws that clothing doesn't.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
It's up to the women of each society or culture to liberate themselves. Let's not be patriarchal about it and demean them by saying "we must save them from themselves". Saudi Arabian women can now drive, and there's strong popular support for a waiver on the male guardian requirement. It progresses organically and intuitively. Mr. Western Europe isn't going to have much effect by saying to women "NO NO NO, you're only allowed to wear revealing things because blah blah go back to your own country".
I don't see how taking away a woman's right to wear a burqa is better for society as a whole.
ClosingADoor
Member
How would you achieve said cultural shift? We ban things all the time that we do not feel fit society. There is nothing wrong with that.
We are talking about Austria, not Saudi Arabia. Luckily, Austria is not at the stage of letting women drive still, but a bit ahead of that. And it is not up to the women to liberate themselves. What kind of nonsense is that? Shouldn't we all be in favor of that, instead of letting the group stand alone in that fight?
Nobody here is saying "go back to your own country" or anything of the sort.
Only the Muslims who think the burqa is an acceptional piece of clothing in a Western liberal democracy will feel marginalized by this, which is the intent.
Familienoberhauptvogel
Banned
to be fair it's not really taking away agency. Polyamory isn't against the law, just asking the benefits of marriage before the state more than once a time.
It's dumb, just come out and say it and not act as if you are saving the women. They have minds of their own and wear whatever the fuck they want. Who am I to say no?
Do you oppose polygamous relationships in general? I mean, I'm no expert so I don't know if there are tax-related reasons or other legal problems that would make legalizing polygamous marriage difficult. But I certainly support people's right to be in a relationship with more than one person. If a mormon or muslim women wants to be the second, third or even fourth wife/girlfriend of a man I've got no problem with that. Even if she believes she herself should not have multiple spouses because of her religion. I also of course think that women that do want it should be able to have multiple partners. If there's a way to make that a legally recognized marriage I'm all for it. So that's not really an argument in favor of a face-veil ban, at least not for me.
Actually, no one does that in any larger society worldwide. It's always bound by -- at least -- social norms.
And the burqa is simply outside the norms in Western Europe.
Probably with a conditioning over multiple generations, but I expect the Austrian parliament to be able to do better than me posting on gaf on afternoon.
"We ban things all the time" doesn't interest me as an argument, because it implies I'm OK with all other kinds of bans, when I'm not, it being a case to case basis.
On this very subject I'm sort of torn, but ultimately I think this is an overly simplistic way to go about it.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
JW's are exempt from the Hippocratic Oath.
Sikhs are exempt from motorcycle helmet safety laws.
Jews have their own special courts (in the UK at least).
I know it's nice and super liberal to think of every person as an amorphous blob with no cultural background or heritage, and will be much better living in a milquetoast European society where everyone drinks coffee, cycles and talks about how every person is an island etc etc...but that's just not practical and there needs to be ground for cultural relativity and substantive equality. Society is formed by us, not the inverse.
ClosingADoor
Member
It needs to go together with other ways to help women who are now in abusive relationships and the sort of course. But the ban itself is not a wrong thing.
The argument that it needs to go natural and over multiple generations is such a strange one to me. Would you also apply that argument to things like LGTB-rights? Should they just wait a few generations more before the world is ready? Of course not.
What are you even talking about?
For some things you just need to stand your ground and say: this is not acceptable for us. And I would put burqa's under that, since we need to stand up for women's rights.
I've never heard cultural relativity in any other context than oppressive practices being defended.
MadJackChurchill
Banned
Clearly I was arguing through analogy. Don't dismiss it as irrelevant because you don't know how to counteract a clear example of cultural change.
Second line was more of a straw-man, but there's too much socially-libertarian-until-someone-wears-something-I-don't-like going on.
I'm not going to force a Muslim to eat pork. I'm not going to make a devout Hindi eat beef. I understand it's prohibited. I love all meat. Cultural relativity. Please explain how my examples are 'oppressive'? It'd be culturally oppressive to say "that's not the Western European way of doing things"; especially considering there's a sizeable population of Muslims in Eastern Europe...which is its own conversation of "The Other".
I like how the underlying implication is that the oppressed are gonna figure things out somehow so we shouldn't influence the oppressors from the outside.
Stop trying to make this a pissing contest. Certain businesses have certain requirements for physical appearances. But they are not mandated under the threat of physical violence or familial abadonment. Becky does not have to worry her family will completely cut all ties with her because she showed up in the office without her lipstick on.
Meant to have a can in there, but still. Who am I to say "No! Don't wear this" That woukd be dickish of me
ClosingADoor
Member
Then I ask again: why do you think that women should fight this on their own and we should stay out of it? Shouldn't we all fight for women's rights?
I mean, I certainly don't like the obvious overtones of this law desgined to please certain right-wing parts of the population, but at the end, it really is a non-issue. In 2013, the Muslim population was at 573k in Austria. The number of women wearing burqas hovers around 100. Without the k. That's about .03% of the female Muslim population.
Stylising this ban as an attack on Muslims is a bit weird if 99.97% of them aren't affected at all by this law.
And furthermore, I really don't like reductive arguments à la "Let people do whatever they want!", when that's simply not the case in any larger society.
Why live in "milquetoast" Europe if you want to live out your misogynist fantasy of oppressing women then?
Then are many countries around the world that seems better suited to your Islamist bigotry.
psychowave
Member
I'm not. I'm saying makeup is oppressive too. Not as much as the veil, and not in the same ways, but it is oppressive, too. I've said this before and I don't like to repeat myself.
If it's a free, informed choice, why do only women make it? Why don't men ever feel like wearing the veil?
The general philosophy in certain European regions is that of laïcité, which basically means freedom of religion., not freedom for religion. General philosophy in other European regions is that of being identifiable on the street. Full face coverings are for instance forbidden in general in Belgium because we have laws where you need to be ID-able at all times.
You seem to avoid the distinction of personal agency here.
If a woman doesn't want to wear a Burqa, if a Muslim woman wants to go around in a bikini, the law should absolutely support and protect her (Same for LGBT rights) from any repercussion.
However if a woman wants to wear the burqa, whether that is internalized misoginy or not, you can't be the one to force her not to.
If you want to use the gay analogy, if a closeted homosexual doesn't feel comfortable coming out because of internalized homophobia, the government shouldn't be the one to force them to do so.
onken
Member
No it won't. If there's any justice the history books will record stuff like 2017 liberals defending awful shit like burkahs and pinpoint the exact point when they handed the world over to right-wing madmen. You are on the wrong side of history here.
Huw_Dawson
Member
There's Christian tradition of devout women wearing plain clothes and covering their hair - nuns!
So we shouldn't turn around to someone and say 'head coverings are not acceptable in society' - clearly they are.
The full-face veils are something I cannot understand, and it seems extremely unfair on women in households that use them - even if they are wearing them voluntarily. The important thing to do is talk to religious leaders and work around the problem.
So we shouldn't turn around to someone and say 'head coverings are not acceptable in society' - clearly they are.
The full-face veils are something I cannot understand, and it seems extremely unfair on women in households that use them - even if they are wearing them voluntarily. The important thing to do is talk to religious leaders and work around the problem.
Give me a fucking break.
Is there a GAF defence Force for this sort of shit posting? Why don't you try to read the thread?
MadJackChurchill
Banned
...By giving them a list of things they can and cannot wear. Great idea!
Way to ad-hom the shit out of the argument because you don't know how to address the fact you're arguing for compulsory dress codes for women.
Being gay is not a choice like being religious.
Okay Bill Maher. I didn't realize you had a GAF account.
ClosingADoor
Member
The law already supported and protected her. But that wasn't enough, so it seems we now go towards harsher measures. Would be good if it wasn't needed, but the problem doesn't go away on its own.
Better then saying: "well, figure it out on your own, not my fucking problem" like you did.
It is quite depressing.
But interesting to see how the defenders are slick enough try to phrase it in terms of "tolerance", "freedom" and "cultural relativity".
This is pretty much my view as well.
No, I don't have anything against polygamous relationship in general, because that definitely is a very private thing and doesn't concern me at all.
I am, however, against there being any kind of polygamous marriage. Not on principle, but because I think it would do more harm than good. Everyone always having complete agency over one's life is simply not reality and I think that polygamy would force (mostly) women into relationships of dependency.
Ros8105
Member
And some of them would even call themselves feminists, it's amazing.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked