Requiring Wearing A Head Scarf, Burqa, Or Other Body Covering Is NOT Religion But Misogyny.

[TheMastersNemesis]

Last edited Fri Apr 29, 2016, 05:47 PM - Edit history (1)

Even if women say that they want to do it, wearing a head scarf or some garment like a partial or complete burqa is just plain bullshit. It is not about religion or belief but a man's obsession with controlling women and making them second class citizens.

I saw a Frontline special on "Uncovering Saudi Arabia". What a bunch of tribalist cretins they are the way they treat women and they spread their cancerous poison through the plant. If Wahabists and radical Moslems had their way ALL women would be required to live by their super Puritanical standards. In the end their attitude toward women is extreme misogyny meant to make women their sex slaves. In some areas sexual mutilation is an acceptable practice. Even worse is women must be treated by a female doctor where female doctors are few or not allowed.

They believe in the ultimate separation of the sexes where women are not much better than. Being forbidden to go anywhere with our you husband or a male relative is absurd. And to be punished or even killed for violating such dictum is NOT religious belief. Honor killing is still the law of the land in places like Saudie Arabia and other parts of the world. India is another glaring example and they are not Moslems for the most part.

So any male Moslem who believes in such crap has my disrespect. Screw their religion if that is what they believe.

ADDENDUM: Wearing certain kinds of garments because of religious belief really is NOT voluntary upon careful examination. Brainwashing, programming and influencing from an early age to trick the person into believing they are volunteering is in play. Other social forces also play into continuing the activity. Even violence as we know is a real factor.

Certain sects even beyond Islamic go to extreme measures to separate the sexes. The Catholic Church did the same thing with same sex schools. It is worse in Islamic with separation even in worship and normal living activities. The idea that a woman can ONLY be seen by her husband or legitimate male relative is absolutely insane.

Some fucking cultural idea need to die. Sorry for the language. We are in the 21st century.

[Warren Stupidity]

1. It's both. Religion doesn't get a free pass.

Many religions are deeply misogynistic.

[Fresh_Start]

2. +100

[mr blur]

11. Is there a religin which isn't misogynistic?

Any invented by women, maybe?

[Warren Stupidity]

30. Well I didn't want to give the religionists a thread-bare argument.

So I opted for "most".

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

88. Have Lutherans or Episcopalians advocated stoning women to death?

Islam seems to encourage it, for terrible crimes like holding hands or kissing.

[rug]

95. The Shakers were founded by Ann Lee.

They were celibate.

[malaise]

3. For the nuns too??? n/t

[Indydem]

9. That is a choice.

They are choosing to join the faith and wear the Habit.

[Chan790]

23. In Europe and the Americas...

most Muslim women wearing a head-covering are doing it because it's their choice to wear that outward signifier of their faith, not because anybody is forcing them to do so.

The position you and TMN are arguing for is persecution, just like France attempting to ban women's right to choose to wear a religious garment. It's less like any example any of the opponents in this thread have given and more like if we tried to ban people from being allowed to wear crucifixes, kippah or tichel in public.

...or do you believe that people shouldn't be allowed to choose to wear garments that reflect their adherence to their faith because you believe their faith is oppressing them?

[Indydem]

28. A lot of assumptions there.

I am for freedom in all ways at all times, so I don't care if a woman wears a scarf, or even a burqa.

It is still misogyny and descended from a culture of male domination.

[whathehell]

39. Thank you. n/t

[Hortensis]

32. +1000, Chan790.

The OP may contain some genuine truth, but as written it is profoundly insulting to Muslim women and to all persons of faith. As a woman, even if not a person of faith, I am offended for them and personally.

Is Trumpism, i.e., hoisting mysogeny right up there to flap alongside religious bigotry in the conversational wind, spreading beyond his own cult of supporters?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. No. No you don't.

If your religion says 'girls must be modest and cover up' with various specifications of coverings, and doesn't say the same for boys, that's sexist bullshit and you know it.

[Hortensis]

54. Me, yes. But I'm talking about Muslim women.

How do you imagine you should be able to get away with reducing all Muslim women to mindless, principle-less, belief-less victims, child-like in their helplessness? These days no one on DU could get away with accusing blacks of that. So why do you think bigotry against women and against Muslims should be acceptable? And, yes, misogyny is bigotry against women.

Btw, this very same argument is used to attack Christian women who make choices based on religious doctrine.

[AtheistCrusader]

58. Are you familiar with the concept 'duress'?

When social, religious, and familial pressure demands you do X, I recognize not only will someone who doesn't know life any differently do it, they may come to seek it as the 'norm'.

This is why you wont' see me say 'it should be banned'.

But I will not pretend it is anything other than what it is; shackles foisted upon someone. I will call it what it is, and I will hold out a hand and offer safe space where people can drop it and walk away from it.

Interesting that you compare with 'blacks'. When slavery was the norm, Harriet Tubman would help escaping slaves, as we all know. But depending on how much you know about her, you may not know that when an escaping slave had second thoughts, she put her pistol to their heads and told them 'you'll be free, or die a slave'...

Social change can make people uncomfortable. That discomfort doesn't convince me the change isn't worth it. I doubt the discomfort caused by my brand of encouraging social change is anything like the discomfort some escaping slaves felt.

[Hortensis]

67. We all must decide our own attitudes

toward religions, which will always be with us, and followers of religion. And, of course, women.

Among the many faults people can have, though, IMO profound lack of respect for the beliefs of others and profound intolerance of other ways are yoooge ones. These are the big troublemakers of the world.

“To be one, to be united is a great thing. But to respect the right to be different is maybe even greater.” -- Bono

[AtheistCrusader]

85. Indeed.

[SheilaT]

56. If all of the women in a particular group of Muslims, let's say

all who live in a given area, are wearing a head scarf, then it's very hard to see any choice involved. They often claim that, and yet not a one has a Muslim friend, sister, cousin who goes scarfless.

I do agree that it is a symbol of a coercive woman hating religion, and while I try to respect others' beliefs and practices, this is one that bothers me a great deal. Especially, at the risk of repeating myself, I see almost no choice involved.

[etherealtruth]

90. I am curious what you are basing this on?

Certainly there are not laws requiring it, there are not "religious" police enforcing it .... but there is a big gap between it being codified and free choice

[Kurska]

15. If you can't understand the difference between an optional religious order

and a mandatory societal social edict on the behavior of all women, that is your problem.

That said, I think the modesty requirement for the way nun's dress is silly too. The difference is no nuns are being beaten to death for deciding to take off their garbs and put on something more reasonable.

But please, continue to equivocate.

[cleanhippie]

17. It's excusable because it's misogyny-lite?

The RCC doctrine and dogma is overtly and inherently misogynistic. But because in the west women aren't beaten or killed for not following it, that makes it ok?

[Kurska]

19. I said it was silly and foolish. I'd rather it not be a thing.

But trying to directly equate the two is like comparing shop lifting to double homicide.

And it isn't being brought up to make a valid point, it is being used to distract from a problem the poster would just really rather not think about. Just another way to excuse misogyny when it isn't happening in the west or at least by cultural westerners. Pointing out the way nun's dress to go "Oh we do it too" when the topic is the absolute suppression and brutalization of women in Saudi Arabia is asinine and transparent in intent.

[cleanhippie]

20. I don't disagree with you.

And if we only focus on Islam and how women are treated under that religion, then you're spot-on.

From a larger perspective, the problem is rooted in patriarchal religion. And only by condemning the root cause of misogyny, can we ever expect to defeat it. Turning a blind eye to less severe forms of misogynistic oppression only enables the most egregious offenders.

[whathehell]

41. Nuns in America, at least, modernized their

style of dress decades ago

I personally know two nuns. The last time I saw them they were both wearing blouses and shorts and nothing on their heads.

[a la izquierda]

55. Mandatory social edict?

I'll be sure to inform my female Muslim friends who aren't veiled that they're violating a mandatory social edict. Their parents will probably honor kill them...

[Kurska]

59. I'm not talking about all western Muslims.

I'm making the distinction that in some places

1. It is enforced by law
2. It is enforced by social pressure
3. It is enforced by social pressure backed up with a threat of ostracism and violence.
4. it is merely a personal choice.

The third is a mandatory social edict and such circumstances are shameful. The far more common first three is why I don't like it even in the fourth circumstance.

[a la izquierda]

61. They live in Turkey. Nt

[Kurska]

63. And?

Turkey is a relatively westernized muslim country (which is sadly going in entirely the wrong direction lately).

I genuinely don't get your point.

[Gore1FL]

26. Absolutely. Christianity is Misogynic. Nuns are but one great example of it in Catholocism. n/t

[whathehell]

42. Hilarious... I know two nuns in two different orders.

The last tI saw tjem they were both wearing shorts, blouses, and nothing on their heads.

They modernized their dress code decades ago...You should try to keep up

[Oneironaut]

73. Remember the last time a nun got stoned to death or beheaded for not covering her head?

It was awful!

[Katashi_itto]

4. Whatever. We all will be starving soon enough to worry about it much.

[gordianot]

5. Or paying Nestle for your bottled water.

[Katashi_itto]

7. Exactly. Wonder when they will wake up to the simple fact

social justice takes a back seat to economic justice.

[gordianot]

12. Flint Michigan was a good trial balloon for that.

Sorry I got off topic a little there are so many distractions to consider on social outrage.

[Katashi_itto]

13. No that was an excellent example.

[smirkymonkey]

6. K&R

[Jitter65]

8. Does that apply to yamakas too? nt

[Indydem]

10. Are people stoned for not wearing yamakas?

[LanternWaste]

21. Was stoning an implicit part and parcel of the original question?

Was stoning an implicit part and parcel of the original question?

[Gore1FL]

27. Women don't wear yamakas, but Judism is horribly misogynic, yes. n/t

[Yo_Mama]

14. When the govt/society forces women to do it, it's misogyny. Otherwise, it's religion. n/t

[Kurska]

16. What about when it is their families?

Or a stockholm syndrome like belief in the shame they should have for their own body?

It is a toxic idea and it shouldn't be defended.

[Yo_Mama]

22. But when the government/larger society is not forcing this, the concept CAN be

criticized. In every open society, there are those who adopt private rules of living. That is the purpose of an open society.

The requirement to cover doesn't relate to family, but to public life.

I am not defending the idea - personally I don't approve. But individuals do have a RIGHT to cover in most circumstances.

[Kurska]

33. People have a RIGHT to wear whatever they want.

They don't have a right to be free of criticism when what they are wearing is symbolic of systemic oppression based on gender. Especially when wearing it by choice is a massive outlier in terms of the total individual who wear that garbe

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

50. Yes! I agree.

nt

[MH1]

94. ^^^ Very well said. nt.

[whathehell]

43. +100. n/t

[cleanhippie]

18. And that makes it ok?

[Yo_Mama]

24. Individuals have the right to their own modesty rules. Defending individual freedom

requires that one defends the right to control one's own body.

That includes both veiling it and AND unveiling it, in most circumstances.

I defend the freedom to do many things of which I disapprove. I defend the right to speech of which I disapprove. In free societies, the toxic ideas, habits and customs tend to die a natural death.

[awoke_in_2003]

37. All religions, at their core, are misoginistic. nt

[whatthehey]

25. It's religious misogyny

Please to refute that, tell us of a secular group which requires and enforces such practices. After all, faithapologists on DU love to paint atheists as a bunch off mean old sexists so surely it's prevalent in non-believing groups.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

29. Probably., but why single out Islam for misogyny? Catholics make it a part of their

system that women are 2nd class citizens.

[Kurska]

34. Why single out Islam for defense of it?

Go ahead and tell me you'd make the same comment if this thread was about Christian misogyny.

[Jackie Wilson Said]

38. That is easy, the reason right wing xtians annoy the fuck out of me.

[Kurska]

51. And Islamic extremist don't?

Personally, I'm a little more than annoyed by any exertion of religious lunacy. Especially when it impacts personal liberties.

It is easy to ignore the problem of Islamic fundamentalism in America, it is rarely relevant here. However, on the world stage it is a massive problem that needs to addressed.

[Arugula Latte]

35. And let's not forget the other Abrahamic Big Mythology sect...

I live in an area with lots of Hasidic/Orthodox Jewish people. The women are largely regarded as breeding machines.

Then, across a major avenue, is a neighborhood with many burka-wearing Islamic women. It's so pathetic that modern people feel the need to follow this patriarchal controlling bullshit.

And of course Christianity continues its idiotic reign of terror in our country ...

A pox on all these stupid superstitions.

[Egnever]

31. Agreed

And that is why I don't support allowing burkas or hajibs in all the various places they want them like drivers licenses or forcing employers to alow it.

[LibDemAlways]

36. I once witnessed behavior on the part of a group

of Muslim men that demonstrated extreme disrespect toward their wives. It was in a restaurant. The six wives were covered head to toe. (I have no idea whether or not they had a choice regarding their dress, but I suspect not.) Each woman had one or two small children. The men were seated at a different table across the room. Because the women were tending to the chidren, they had less time to eat their own food. The men finished quickly. When they were done, they simply paid the bill, (presumably the women's too), got up, and walked out. They didn't even glance over at their wives. The women, seeing the men walk out, abandoned their half-eaten meals, grabbed the kids, and hastily ran after them.

I hope this incident was an abberation and those guys were just assholes. I hate to think that veiled Muslim women expect and accept that kind of treatment as the norm.

[JCMach1]

40. Tell that to some of the Gulf Arab feminists I have known... you would surely enjoy the tongue

lashing that's going to follow.

Cover in Islam has never solely been about 1 thing. And yes, it can be misogyny... it can also be about many other things as well.

[Democat]

44. Do you think that forcing only women to cover their faces is misogyny by definition?

If it's optional, that's a different question.

[ancianita]

46. Any force of women's free will about anything is definitely coming from a misogynistic place.

It can also be coming from a drive to dominate, no matter the context.

[JCMach1]

93. Just pointing out it's more complicated than a simple misogyny label...

Yes, absolutely it can be misogynistic...

However (please note my opinions come from my experiences living in the Gulf region for more than a decade), it can be an act of Islamic Feminism (resisting the male gaze). It, of course can be cultural (tribal identity)... And, it can also be a POLITICAL statement... i.e. resistance against Western cultural hegemony.

And, especially in the wealthy Gulf countries it can also be FASHION!

[whathehell]

47. Lol..

What are the "many other" things cover can be about?

Enlighten us.

[ancianita]

45. At heart it is. The test of that is the free will choice to remove it. We know the result.

Where dress codes are not enforced, spiritual dominance and territorial control are given up and the spiritual equality of the wearers' free will, and faith in their faithfulness to belief is a kind of "reform."

[Scootaloo]

48. I'm sure ranting at us about it will solve the problem handily

Try to not sprain something while you pat yourself on the back.

[Kurska]

52. He's not pointlessly preaching to the choir

It is clear by some of the responses in this thread that many individuals genuinely don't believe it is or merely downplay the problem.

On an offtopic note, Good to see you're back scoot.

[Scootaloo]

57. No, he's pointlessly yelling at a crowd.

[Kurska]

60. I don't get the distinction or your point EOM.

[Scootaloo]

66. Really?

Preaching to the choir implies a person with some knowledge of the subject imploring people who already agree with him.

Yelling at a crowd implies a guy on a street corner screaming at passersby about what's on his mind.

There's only one useful thought in this "discussion" - women should be free to wear what the fuck they please. Any attempt to force or coerce them into (or out of) some form of garment is intrinsically anti-woman.

[Kurska]

68. The point is the undiscussed and oft ignored form of oppression this represents

Which is something many progressives seem more than happy to do intellectual twister to justify or at minimum ignore.

You wanna walk down the street wearing a clownsuit, more power to you. When you put on the hijab, however, you are putting on the uniform of systemic gender based tyranny and oppression. As is your right as a free citizen, but it is also my right to criticize that choice.

[Scootaloo]

71. Undiscussed my ass

Do you go up to muslim women and round them out for what they wear? Serious question, do you stop women in hijab and tear them a new one over it?

Do you actually involve muslim women in this "discussion" in any capacity whatsoever, or are they simply being used as cyphers for something else?

[Kurska]

74. To answer your question, no I am not an absolute jerk

I'm arguing against the normalization of this flaunting of religious tyranny. No you shouldn't be allowed to wear it for a drivers licenses, no your employer should not be forced to accommodate your choice of dress (anymore than I'd be allowed to claim that I should get to wear blue jeans and a wife beater to my job, no special accommodations for religion period).

When I see a hijab, what I think of is all the women who don't have a choice. That is what people should think of when they see one, not wishy washy "oh it is just their culture" b.s.

I'd be more happy around someone stark assed naked than wearing the religious uniform of the downtrodden. That doesn't mean I'm going to go around ripping it from people's heads though scoot. People have the right to look like fools.

Same goes for the outfit of nuns, at least as stupid as that it, I know it is 100% being worn by choice. I don't know if the woman wearing a hijab is doing it by choice or if she'd face the wrath of her family if she dared take it off. Sadly, that is the state we find ourselves in many western countries.

[Scootaloo]

84. Alright, so you just "criticize" online, away from the subjects of criticism?

'Cause i can't help but notice that there appears to be no attempt whatsoever to bring hte subjects of the discussion - Muslim women - into the discussion. In fact I'm willing to bet you go out of your way to avoid the subject entirely if you find yourself around Muslims.

What you think of when you see a woman wearing something isn't important. What she thinks while wearing it is. And that's kind of the end of it.

[Kurska]

89. I never said I haven't had the discussion

You asked me if I accosted random women on the street and you knew the answer to that before you asked.

[packman]

53. I basically posted the same thing several months ago

and got raked over the coals for being culturally insensitive, myopic and an unworldly dolt. I agree with you 100%, it is demeaning and , in my opinion, dehumanizing.
My post was the culture shock I received when I saw a women (guess it was a women) in a grocery store covered from head to toe and even wearing gloves in a black complete burga. Except for a small slit in the hood, it was completely covering her in the darkest of dark material. Her male companion was dressed in a T-shirt, jeans, and wearing flip-flops. What the hell--

[Coventina]

62. And that is my issue in a nutshell. The men get to wear whatever they want, while the women have to

adhere to "traditional" dress.

That highlights that it's all about misogyny, and NOT about religion.

[Kurska]

70. I find it absolutely perplexing that some humans have a problem with the human body.

When I learn that the ultimate source of their discomfort is an invisible man in the sky, I start to wonder to what extent insanity has really permeated society.

[Coventina]

72. No. the invisible man in the sky is a convenient excuse. They can say, "it's the will of God."

Instead of admitting that it all boils down to ensuring that they are passing their property down to their own offspring.

[Arugula Latte]

64. I'd call it Religion-Enabled-and-Justified Misogyny

[Act_of_Reparation]

65. Religion and misogyny are not mutually exclusive.

I know it's a hard pill to swallow, but we don't leave in the Realm of Ideal Forms. Religions are what people make them, and the religions misogynists made are misogynist religions.

[jtuck004]

69. A local mosque invited neighbors in, we went. I asked the fella at the door, if my wife covered her

head with a scarf, would that show respect. He nodded, so she did, and we went in, very nice folks.

I don't believe in anyone's god, but I do believe in respect. Most times.

Several white women came in, sat in the front, turned around to the women in back in their coverings, several times, back and forth. During the question and answer period they showed their obvious disdain for the women, the men, the religion, and they, like you, seemed to seize on that whole headcovering thing. Snooty, unpleasant, just there to represent the neighborhoods around. They left. I realized they are also my neighbors. At least one drove to a block that just ran a successful campaign to keep Catholic Charities from building a 12 unit apartment for low-income folks. So it would be within walking distance of the grocery.

The complainers said it would bring property values down, to have those people there. (Catholic Charities just announced a 48 million dollar program to house every homeless family in Spokane.Looks a lot better than any of the homes the whiners live in.)

Anyway, we left.

So then we went outside and my wife took off her shirt and let her breasts fly in the wind, as we walked downtown. We passed guys who had their shirts off too, no one gave anybody a second look.

'Cause their ain't no damn misogyny here.

Okay, I made those last 3 lines up.

[Oneironaut]

75. The requirement of hiding yourself under a giant blanket with eyeholes because little boys

can't handle seeing even the tiniest bit of female flesh is laughably absurd. It's truly is silliest thing ever - something people 300 years from now will probably point and laugh at. Even dumber is claiming that your omnipotent sky fairy is afraid of female ankles or faces.

These outright absurd traditions don't deserve respect. They deserve to be purged from the world forever.

[Skittles]

91. it is indeed pathetic

[Glassunion]

76. What happens when a religion dictates that men wear a headcovering and women

can choose to wear one if they desire?

[Coventina]

77. Any god that requires a specific mode of dress is laughably immature and doesn't deserve worship.

[Glassunion]

82. Does not answer my question. Specifically adressing the misogyny statement from the OP.

Also, religion is not God, but a system of faith. The religion may have rules that are not proscribed by what it is they are placing their faith in. This is why I have zero issues with faith, but I have many issues with religion.

[Coventina]

83. OK then, I'll let the OP answer for themselves. I can only speak for myself, and that is any

religion OR god that requires special dress is laughably immature.

on edit: typo

[randr]

78. Many religions require covering the head

Even Pastafarians wear a colander.

[CharlotteVale]

79. Exactly how I feel. Anyone who wants to argue otherwise can feel free to explain why

men don't wear them.

[davidn3600]

80. If you think it's a choice....

...what do you think will happen if women in Syria, Saudi Arabia, or Iran start choosing to remove their head coverings? It won't be pretty. But liberals will turn their cheeks and chalk it up to cultural relativism.

[SomethingFishy]

81. True.. But claiming the high road

in a country where one state just ruled it's ok to rape a woman if she is unconscious or drunk seems a little dubious to me.

A gay man put it to me well... "I'm supposed to be happy because I live in the land of the free, where I might get beaten to death in a back alley instead of stoned to death or beheaded in public?"

[Odin2005]

86. Paternalistic "white man's burden" BS.

This whole notion that women in other societies need to be "saved" by us "enlightened" Westerners is just a pretext for Western imperialism in the Islamic World.

[Democat]

96. Did you think the same about apartheid?

Because that sounds a lot like Ronald Reagan's followers.

[Odin2005]

97. Bullshit comparison.

Apartheid SA was supported because it was seen as a RW bulwark against "Communism" (AKA, governments that helped the locals as opposed to Western capitalists) in Africa

[TheMastersNemesis]

87. Religion Generally Treats ALL Women As Inferiors.

I was raised Catholic and upon reflection after 50 years of NOT practicing I now fully realize how badly woman were viewed and treated. Even nuns who took the vow of chastity way back were in a sense required to wear "habits" It was a way of announcing your chastity and renunciation of vanity. Women entering church had to wear hats or scarves to show respect. It really was misogynistic bullshit when fully examined.

Plus many church policies were also anti woman. And what was more or less emphasized in Genesis was that Eve "screwed" Adam in many ways. And the temptation of Eve presents her as naive and weak minded if you really think about it.

[Skittles]

92. CORRECT

[Odin2005]

98. Blaming religion for sexism is getting the casuality backwards.

Sexist dogmas in religions are nothing but a reflection of sexism in the larger society. Religions change along with the societies they are in, it is just that some denominations are more resistant to change because of institutional inertia (like the Catholic Church) or because the members are part of a more conservative subculture within the society.