Support NeoGAF

[MUnited83]

You're actually right lol, just hopped over there he's there bragging about it. His post history is hilarious too, typical /pol/ alt right buzzwords.

Oh, I know, this is not my first run-in with the dude, he's pretty transparent. The only reason I haven't posted screencaps of his Voat posts is because I prefer to watch him dig his own hole as he goes along.

He was never arguing in good faith, and he never cared about women's rights in his life. The only thing he cares is about himself, being a shithead and showing off to his Voat friends.

 

[RustyNails]

Nothing to start off Friday with an islamophobic nutcase self-immolating on the pyre of western values patronizing women and culture he doesnt understand.

 

[Llyranor]

The marriage as a tool of oppression is an interesting comparison, especially when you consider that remnants of that still remain, like taking on the man's name. It was eye-opening to read opinions about some guys refusing to marry if the woman didn't take on their name, and on the other hand some women would insist on taking on their husband's name because it was part of tradition that they considered important for marriage.

Edit: voat is an.....interesting place. Never heard of it before. Pizzagate 'discussions', what? Explains so much about OP, actually

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Uh, no not everywhere. That's the problem.

Because I feel like I need to say this: I don't think the Hijab should be banned anywhere. I don't think every Muslim is sexist. But acting like every Muslim woman who wears one does so by choice is just wrong.

Who said such a thing ?

 

[rjinaz]

The marriage as a tool of oppression is an interesting comparison, especially when you consider that remnants of that still remain, like taking on the man's name. It was eye-opening to read opinions about some guys refusing to marry if the woman didn't take on their name, and on the other hand some women would insist on taking on their husband's name because it was part of tradition that they considered important for marriage.

That's actually interesting, I didn't consider that. I oppose garments like the hijab, but then you are right, even marriage has a history of oppression and even today it is expected the women take the man's last name. At the end of the day, if they are happy wearing it and don't feel like it is forced, so be it. It's their life.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

One of the reasons I'm in favor of banning all religious stuff in schools at least. Young kids shouldn't be forced (either by the government itself or due to their parents), but make the choice themselves when they are an adult.

It's an argument, but forcing teenagers out of school is not the best way to enforce women empowerment.

Also, when you are 17 you can make your own choice. The law of 2004 in France go through high school.

 

[pigeon]

No, i just find it disgusting how you equate the two. Part of the Western sex appeal culture is also a knee-jerk reaction of people finally getting over the puritan values that another oppressive religion tried to instill for many centuries. The legacy of the Hijab is oppression and not liberation, unlike Western "sexy" culture.

Wait, wait. Western "sex appeal" culture is also about constant sexual availability even for young women. It's also rooted in deeply misogynistic ideas and practices!

This is the problem with the "nobody can actually choose to wear the hijab because of social pressure" argument. The same argument applies equally to the things non-Muslims choose to wear. Social pressure is the water we all swim in. Western culture is also quite misogynistic, just in different ways.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

How else was I supposed to understand this comment in context of the discussion I had with this user?

My english is broken, so i was saying, in the context of the discussion about nun being free not being nun, that you can be a muslim and not wearing the hijab. I am speaking about how the religion view the hijab. So it's not a pre-requisit for somebody being a muslim. However it's true that you have place like Iran or Saudi Arabia (only those two place really) where the hijab is mandatory by law. And you have ton of place where you have social pressure to wear one. As you have social pressure to do a ton of stuff as a woman in every part of the world.

 

[Glix]

im not virtue signaling and im not making it out to be some " symbol of diversity or strength or empowerment"

I'm saying that if in a country where the hijab isnt forced onto women and a women wants to wear it then thats ok.

if a woman is forced to wear a hijab then thats not ok.



if you think people are defending this then i think you are completely missing peoples point. its disgusting that women are forced to wear the hijab.

im not defending iran treating women like this. im defending people's right to wear the hijab if they want to. wheras people like you and the OP seem to be keen to see it banned in western culture.

Should people be allowed to wear swastikas?

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

Should people be allowed to wear swastikas?

Epic Godwin.
Being a Muslim and being a Nazi is exactly the same thing.

 

[rjinaz]

Should people be allowed to wear swastikas?

In America as it is now, yes.

But I personally think it should be banned as it's a symbol of hate just as I do hate speech. But too many Americans feel like they aren't free if "others" can't hate people for the way they were born.

Anyway, I don't think the two are quite the same. There is religious context to the hijab.

 

[cackhyena]

Should people be allowed to wear swastikas?

That's...not how this works.

 

[hodgy100]

Should people be allowed to wear swastikas?

People can wear swastikas. its generally frowned upon because memories of WW2 are still pretty fresh in our mind. Id hope that in the far future Hinduism can fully reclaim it.

In America as it is now, yes.

But I personally think it should be banned as it's a symbol of hate just as I do hate speech. But too many Americans feel like they aren't free if "others" can't hate people for the way they were born.

Anyway, I don't think the two are quite the same. There is religious context to the hijab.

There's no point in banning the swastika. the problem lies with the intent behind it rather than the symbol itself

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

The main issue is that all the argument used against hijab as oppressive could be use against any kind of garment, like high heels. You can argue that it's only please men's eyes and destroy the body of a woman on the long run. Following that line of thought, you could say that women who says they choose to wear high heels have "internalized oppression".

I understand feminism as giving women agency, and not judging for her what she is doing and why she is doing so. Saying that a woman is free as long as she is following the western model of dressing is mental and just another facet of western cultural imperialism.

 

[Air Zombie Meat]

Philosophy lecturing others on rational discussion was always hilarious. He was just permanently mad that people gave him shit for his dumb takes.

 

[Phawx]

The main issue is that all the argument used against hijab as oppressive could be use against any kind of garment, like high heels. You can argue that it's only please men's eyes and destroy the body of a woman on the long run. Following that line of thought, you could say that women who says they choose to wear high heels have "internalized oppression".

I understand feminism as giving women agency, and not judging for her what she is doing and why she is doing so. Saying that a woman is free as long as she is following the western model of dressing is mental and just another facet of western cultural imperialism.

*This reply isn't towards you Golden_Pigeon, it's just a general statement.*

"internalized oppression" is basically the foundation for cults, no?

And people, men and women, who are in those cults defend the oppression of the cult. The effed up thing is when you go and try to point it out, they dig deeper.

Just because Scientologists defend Scientology doesn't mean that outsiders can't be empathetic. It's unfortunately one of those things that you have to shrug at. We could all go blue in the face for trying to convince those who "choose" to wear a hijab that they aren't actually choosing to do so. But because of the cult mentality, they would only dig deeper in that they are wearing it out of choice.

Same as Scientologists. Same as people who buy Monster Cables.

Do you know how many people I've told that their $90 HDMI Monster Cable is just as good as a $4 HDMI cable? They defend their purchase decision even more and swear by Monster Cable quality.

I'm just saying, Cult mentality is a messed up thing.

But ultimately, I do agree with the consensus in this thread but for entirely different reasons. If someone says they choose to wear the hijab, it's not your place to tell them different.

 

[GiantEnemyGoomba]

What do people think of the African Americans that have pride in the Confederate flag? I think it's a pretty interesting parallel even though I'm sure there's differences.

As for the hijab, I think anyone should be able to wear what the want outside of blatant hate speech. At the same time, I'd hope that those choosing to wear it made that choice while considering things like the history of cultural gender roles.

 

[radios shipping overview]

Newsflash! Iran is an authoritarian country whose supreme leader is autocratic and whose government attempts to control all aspects of life. It just uses Islamic norms as a framework. Same goes for Saudi Arabia. If you're really concerned about women being allowed to wear whatever they want, then focus on the real issue: these are not liberal democracies with thriving civil society. The idea that all their human rights issues will be solved when they become authoritarian countries that simply don't have Islam as their state religion is ridiculous.

 

[Golden_Pigeon]

*This reply isn't towards you Golden_Pigeon, it's just a general statement.*

"internalized oppression" is basically the foundation for cults, no?

And people, men and women, who are in those cults defend the oppression of the cult. The effed up thing is when you go and try to point it out, they dig deeper.

Just because Scientologists defend Scientology doesn't mean that outsiders can't be empathetic.

The main issue is that when you start opening the pandora box of "internalized oppression", they is absolutely any way to prove that you are doing what you are doing from your own will. I think it's very different with actual cult where there is a unquestionable leader with absolute authority telling people how to deal with their lives, and everything the members of the cult are in the direct interest of the cult leader.

If i pray 5 times a day or i don't, nobody gain anything from it, except me.

 

[ModBot 2]

OK folks, the show has come to a wet fart of a conclusion and now this thread has mostly become a meta-discussion about GAF. As always if you have real concerns about moderation do the socially-well-adjusted thing and PM a mod.