I just cannot see forcing a woman to reveal a part of her body she is not comfortable revealing as

[redgreenandblue]

an expression of "enlightened secularism".

So France just passed a law forbidding what has been called "burquini", a type of bathing suit that covers most of the body, including the head, but not the face. And now they have cops wandering around on beaches, harassing women and forcing them to take off pieces of clothing. And all of it is being sold as a display of the "superior progressiveness of the West". Congratulations.

What people often overlook in this is that most traditions surrounding clothing, and food for that matter, while they may or may not have a religious origin in principle, ultimately exist in practice fully in their own right, uncoupled from what created them in the first place. Ultimately it is our upbringing that conditions us to differentiate which parts of our body are private and which foods are edible. There need not be any religion involved at all for such customs to take hold.

My step dad, who is from Pakistan, and who is in fact a practicing Muslim, does not avoid pork because "his god told him to". He avoids it because he finds it disgusting. Pigs are dirty animals and eating them is disgusting. It is that simple. The origin of this tradition might be religious. In the end, who cares? I eat pork, but I find it disgusting that the French eat snails. I don't need a religion for that. I simply find that they are slimy and disgusting. See how that works?

Likewise, the Turkish Muslim women that I went to school with, who later earned college degrees and remained unmarried by choice, would just as soon go in public without a veil as non-Muslim American women would go to work with their breasts exposed. They simply feel like their hair is no ones business. I find that I no more have the right to demand that a woman show her hair than I have the right to demand that she show her breasts. It is that simple.

In my view, what France has done, with cops running around forcing women to show their hair, is creating what amounts to systemic sexual assault. Congratulations France, you are so very classy and secular.

By the way, I find it telling that they are pushing pork on school children but not snails and frogs. I'm guessing this has something to do with the fact that this might alienate the "good" kind of immigrants.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

1. it is not enlightened. it is highly bigoted.

[Dorian Gray]

72. And offensive

It's the reverse of the religious police in Iran arresting women for not being covered enough.

And of course, they're targeting women on beaches, obviously the backbone of Islamic militants. Women enjoying swimming and family time on the beach, being told what to wear or what not to wear. It's barbaric.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. honestly it's just mind boggling that liberals can support this.

[Brickbat]

2. It's terrible.

[NCTraveler]

3. Liberal Isolationists and progressives are too often conflated and look nothing like one and other.

You can find a lot of liberal isolationists in France these days. We have many in the US as well. They are a truly frightening group and I cannot stand how they often get lumped in with progressives.

[Ilsa]

4. I agree. Except for the face for identification purposes,

I see no reason to require women in burkinis to strip down to another type of bathing suit.

[MADem]

98. They could wear yoga pants, a large floppy hat and a long t shirt and get the same effect.

Have the same "modesty" and coverage, without calling attention to themselves. The ethnic dress does call attention to themselves, which is, in actual fact, at odds with what they're trying to achieve--IF they're wearing the clothing as a religious and not a political statement.

The objection that the French are expressing has to do with garments being associated with a conservative religious bent. Given that the beach where they're enforcing this ban has a promenade where many people were mowed down by a religious zealot, the police do have the support of the population.

The French aren't like us. They don't 'do' multiculturalism. We're a nation of people from all over the world and we cut people a lot of slack to be "not like us," they're a nation of French people--and those who aren't French, who move to France, have got to "get the spirit" and adjust to the culture.

They've ALWAYS been this way--it's not new. They've always had laws about the proper use of the French language, and they've nannied their population with regard to their culture in other ways, as well. They are INTENT upon preserving that which makes a Frenchman (or woman) different from other people in Europe.

It's just that most other groups that came to live in France got in line and assimilated...but the conservative muslims who are moving in are having a more difficult time adjusting.

The French are getting all the attention for being hardasses on this score, but they aren't the only ones who place limits on the freedom of their immigrant population to express themselves.

This is a good discussion of the issue, I think:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/19/world/europe/frances-burkini-bans-are-about-more-than-religion-or-clothing.html?_r=0

[Ilsa]

130. Thanks for the perspective.

Then I suppose they simply have to give them a choice: leave or wear yoga pants.

[goldent]

172. Only it the yoga pants coordinate well.

[MADem]

175. Well of course--the French OWN style!!! nt

[MADem]

174. They could also wear a jazzy caftan or a nifty beach robe with that floppy hat.

No one would even approach or bother them in that case.

They'd blend in with no issue.

Of course, their husbands might not be satified, particularly if the clothing came from a non-Islamic source. All those western styles are haram, you see.

[radical noodle]

5. I agree

As long as they don't hurt anyone, we have no business telling other cultures or religions how to live their lives. It's much like the "missionaries" who went to countries and told them how bad they were for NOT covering themselves and changing their entire way of life. Help them with medical care and the things they want, but stop telling them how to dress.

There's a Bible verse that says something like not worrying about the speck in someone else's eye if you have a log in your own. As long as we have over 30% of people who think the things Trump says are A-okay, we have plenty to worry about right without worrying about what some women choose to wear.

[kiva]

68. So we have no business telling the French

how to live their lives, i.e. choosing to be a secular society that bans overt symbols of religion?

[radical noodle]

70. I don't believe the French should ban clothing nor should we

but we cannot force them to change. We can suggest, we can use some leverage, but we can't make it happen. I think they're making a big mistake and will find themselves more targeted by terrorists than they were before if they continue down this path.

[MADem]

102. They aren't going to take advice from us--or anyone else -- on their culture or their society.

They really don't care what we think on this at all!

And they do have the support of the courts on this in other rulings around the EU. The courts do take into account "secular governments" and they'll give a country cultural leeway so long as they aren't singling out one religion in particular. I suppose if a crowd of Fundamentalist Mormons came to that beach in long bathing costumes, they might get the same treatment--we'd have to see it happen to know.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/01/world/europe/eu-legal-opinion-upholds-employers-ban-on-head-scarves.html?rref=collection%2Ftimestopic%2FMuslim%20Veiling

http://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2016/08/economist-explains-19

[Eleanors38]

181. Not going to tell the French how to live. But it still stinks...

...and I WILL tell authorities here to not pull that crap.

[packman]

6. Is this systemic sexual assault or being prudent and responsible

Woman forced to remove covering at Nice, France beach


[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

Nice became the latest French resort to ban the burkini. Using language similar to the bans imposed earlier at other locations, the city barred clothing that “overtly manifests adherence to a religion at a time when France and places of worship are the target of terrorist attacks”.

The Nice ban refers specifically to the truck attack in the city on 14 July that claimed 86 lives, as well as the murder 12 days later of a Catholic priest near the northern city of Rouen.



https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach?CMP=fb_gu

[ck4829]

16. 4 male officers telling a woman what she can or can't wear?

Oh the irony seen here.

[librarylu]

56. And they're showing their calves!

That's for UPS truck drivers.

[jberryhill]

30. Prudent and responsible?

I cannot imagine what is prudent and responsible about going after women on a beach or how it relates to a man who did a horrible thing with a truck.

It is misdirected, counterproductive and insane.

[muriel_volestrangler]

33. How is this 'prudent' or 'responsible'?

What do you think a purpose for this could be that someone could call 'responsible'? It says she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”. What could be the 'bad' morals involved in wearing a headscarf? What the law seems to be saying is that being identifiable as a Muslim on a beach is morally wrong (though not, it seems, on the way to it). Would they ban a priest from wearing a dog-collar on a beach?

How could it be 'prudent' or 'responsible'?

[packman]

85. Perhaps you missed--

&quot The)Nice ban refers specifically to the truck attack in the city on 14 July that claimed 86 lives, as well as the murder 12 days later of a Catholic priest near the northern city of Rouen."

Seems like the French would have a reason to enforce a law which views a religion that flies in the face of its attempt to promote secularism. And , yes, they should have the same ban on any priest-rabbi-monk displaying overt religious symbolism which basically states that worldly laws have no meaning to them.

Frankly, I am disgusted by the rabid religious fanatics and the damage they have inflicted on the human race.

[muriel_volestrangler]

114. I don't think taking revenge on a religion would be 'prudent' or 'responsible', however

The reference to the attacks is an admission they made up to rule to piss off Muslims because Muslim fanatics did those attacks. This is collective punishment.

I have no idea at all where "basically states that worldly laws have no meaning to them" has come from. Neither a headscarf nor a dogcollar means that at all.

[RobinA]

140. So How Soon

do they start tearing down cathedrals and churches?

[packman]

149. About 2,000 yrs. too late

in one case.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

84. She could have left the beach, so she wasn’t really forced.

It reminds me of when people say that if you’re uncomfortable with unisex bathrooms, then don’t use them. A person needs to relieve themselves but they don’t need to sit on a beach.

Are there dress codes in Muslim countries? I remember hearing about westerners being arrested in a Muslim country for indecency, or something like that, for kissing and/or holding hands in public.

When in Rome..

[randome]

7. I don't think it was France, but individual beaches including Cannes.

Cannes is, arguably, the 'melting pot' of planetary filmdom -a place and an ideal that celebrates diversity- so I don't think it's as easy as pointing a finger and saying 'bigot'.

This topic was already discussed in a previous thread a couple of weeks ago: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141549184.

I neglected to make the above point so thought I'd throw that out there now. Other than that, I don't have anything to add that wasn't covered in that previous thread so I'll probably bow out of this one.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]The truth doesn’t always set you free.
Sometimes it builds a bigger cage around the one you’re already in.[/center][/font][hr]

[Act_of_Reparation]

8. I am completely against the ban.

But you've made some astoundingly shitty excuses for what is inarguably systemic misogyny.

No woman should feel compelled by men to wear anything, bikini, burqa, or otherwise.

[Ohioblue22]

9. Why are pigs anymore filthy than any other animal and you can't clean a pig?

[closeupready]

20. For one, they eat cow shit. Literally.

They'll eat anything.

[Ohioblue22]

34. Doesn't it all go into a stomach and then broken down by acid.

[closeupready]

36. I don't know, but then why can't people eat crap if we have HCl in our stomachs, too?

Some of the reasons why people can't eat crap are reasons which likely apply to swine, too, though they may be capable of digesting more of it more effectively than humans.

Regardless, the larger point is, some people and cultures are picky about what kinds of food they eat. Pigs are unpopular with a number of cultures due to the perceptions that, if you are what you eat, then pigs are literally part-crap. That was my response to the question, what is dirty about pigs.

It's like vultures or rats - both are probably edible, but if you were starving, would you be able to consume these animals? Probably not.

[Travis_0004]

60. And somehow turn it into bacon.

Magical.

[snpsmom]

138. Chickens also eat shit n/t

[LeftyMom]

66. Because historically keeping pigs was a good way to get trichinosis.

The whole association of near eastern religions with dietary rules probably had a lot to do with the regional climate and food safety. That would make sense with the relaxation of rules in early Christianity, at a time of relatively high technology and food abundance, and the reintroduction of rules more suited to European peasantry by the Catholic church in the middle ages when technology and trade were at a low ebb.

[littlemissmartypants]

10. Misogynistic crap

Here's a fun fact...

http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/02/04

It Is Now Legal for Women to Wear Pants in Paris
Ladies of Paris, you no longer have to fear arrest for wearing trousers in the French capital.

[treestar]

26. lol !

A real version of actual fashion police?

[MicaelS]

11. France has made it quite clear

That they are a secular state, and intend to remain one. They are not going to let religious zealots overwhelm their society. In other words they are making it clear that immigrants will confirm to and assimilate into French culture and not the reverse.

[ck4829]

14. This makes it sound like they have no problem letting paranoia overwhelm their society though

[Marr]

77. They should be paranoid. After Charlie Hebdoe, the Nice attack,

and all the rest, I think they're perfectly justified in making their country less accommodating of religious zealotry. The real place to have addressed this was and is in their immigration policies, but I can hardly be surprised that it's coming out now in things like dress.

[MicaelS]

80. Giving how France has suffered from

Multiple terrorist attacks, I am surprised France has not gotten tougher than they have.

[eissa]

15. THIS

When I visit France, I'd like to feel like I'm actually in France. People escaped from their societies for a reason; trying to recreate them in another country seems rather illogical to me. Retain your own culture and religious practices, but some assimilation must also be expected.

This is kind of personal to me as I've hosted quite a few families from the middle east recently that have escaped war and savagery, only to bitch and moan about EVERY FUCKING THING here. Nothing we do is right. Swear to god, I feel like I'm going to burst at some point and scream "the fucking plane goes both ways!"

[smirkymonkey]

62. Not trying to thread jack, but just curious. What are their biggest complaints?

Is there nothing that they like here? Aren't they at least grateful to be in a safe, clean place?

[eissa]

69. They hate it here

Have family from both Syria and Iraq (we're part of a Christian minority in both countries.) Both sets say they would not have left had the US not involved. The Iraqis blame Bush for toppling Saddam, the Syrians for our backing of the rebels/terrorists. They find our lifestyle totally incomprehensible; we work too much and don't socialize enough (hence our productivity, I argue, and why the west is more advanced.) Our entertainment is immoral, people dress like slobs when they go out (as if everyone there dresses to the nines to go to the store), blah, blah, blah. I'm not blind to the injustices we committed over there, but I tire of the victim routine. Take some fucking responsibility for the fact that your countries are corrupt shitholes that prop up brutal dictators. And when any nation takes you in I firmly believe that you assimilate into your adopted country, regardless of the reasons why you arrived here. If you find the values of your new country to be completely unacceptable, well maybe it's time to consider a country whose laws and societies are more inline with your lifestyle.

[smirkymonkey]

97. Thank you for filling me in. Very interesting.

One thing I have noticed from people from that part of the world is that they are not very introspective. They are completely incapable of seeing their own shortcomings. We have a lot to be blamed for, but they do nothing but point the finger without looking at their own complicity.

[eissa]

100. Exactly!

Everything is the fault of the US and "the Zionists." Absolutely zero ownership for the current state of their countries. The way they do things, which they brag is how it's been done for centuries, is the only right way. Their rigidity and reluctance towards change of any kind is alarming.

[MADem]

103. You have my deepest sympathies....

And you're very good to offer help, too.

[RobinA]

143. I Get Where You Are Coming From

on this, but on the other hand... My family was Palatinate Germans who came from the Rhine Valley in the 1760s. They settled first in Germantown outside Philadelphia because that's where they landed. Pretty soon they made their way about two hours north to an area that...looked very much like where they came from. They built houses that looked like where they came from. They named towns after towns where they came from, New Alsace. They spoke a dialect that many who still live in that area speak today. My point is, it was always thus. My family eventually assimilated, as did the other Palatinate Germans, but it wasn't the first, or really even second, generation.

Most of the time when groups of people leave their native land they don't do so because they want to, they do it because they are chased out. It is extremely stressful to emigrate, and keeping things the same is a way to lessen a stress that can cause major problems.

I get the "plane goes both ways" sentiment as well. It's inherently rough for all involved.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

151. My cajun family was much the same

However, they - like your German relatives - were independent of the dominant culture, made no demands on the dominate culture, and probably didn't have a few resident terrorists hiding among the more conservative, fundamentalist germans.

In fact, I'm pretty sure our government was not afraid of the more conservative strain of Catholicism that lurked within the cajun culture (as long as one didn't run for president), whereas the French have every reason to fear what lurks within fundamentalist Muslims communities.

[treestar]

25. That's not better than a state religion

If that is actually true. What would they do with the Amish? Or the Jewish people who wear certain clothing? I'm glad we are a free society, free to express religion or not depending on ourselves. And we would never ban burqas either. This is not something for the French to be proud of.

[jberryhill]

31. Then why are there crosses on every mountaintop?

Do they go after Jews wearing yarmulkes? Christians wearing crosses, or Christian clerics going about in their distinctive garb?

No.

They have singled out one group for special treatment.

[MicaelS]

37. Actually they have gone after other religions

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools

[demosincebirth]

74. Right, they are a secular country.

[jberryhill]

154. That's the law. The practice is quite different

I spent a good chunk of this summer in Provence, and it's pretty clear that nobody is going to interfere with the public practice of Christianity and its symbols in France.

[awoke_in_2003]

42. I agree with their ban of the burka...

it covers the face and could (potentially) hide identity. This ban, however, is stupid. What if I, as an overweight male, want to wear something similar because I don't want to show off my fat ass? Am I now not allowed to enjoy the beach?

[MicaelS]

48. You are aware that in France

Men are REQUIRED to wear Speedos while swimming. No trunks or cutoffs. So the answer to your question is probably no.

[awoke_in_2003]

50. Are you serious?

If so, I guess I won't be swimming when I go to France.

[MicaelS]

51. Quite serious. n/t

[DawgHouse]

58. Wow - I had no idea so I looked it up!

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-01/no-speedo-then-dont-try-go-swimming-france-seriously

[jberryhill]

156. That's at most pools - not the beach, rivers or lakes

We are talking about beachwear here, not swimming pools.

I was swimming in the lake at Aix Les Bains three weeks ago - in my cycling shorts - and there was no shortage of people in trunks.

This poster is misinformed and attempting to apply to beachwear, a rule that generally applies to pools.

And, if you aren't going into the water, you can wear whatever you want poolside.

[jberryhill]

155. First of all, that is simply not true

You can wear what you want in the ocean.

Most pools do not allow trunks or other things that look like street clothes, as they assume that a dedicated swim suit is not going to be as dirty as street clothes, or cover up any sores or lesions that someone might have.

But, no, sorry, I was swimming at the lake in Aix Les Bains, three weeks ago, in trunks, as were many others.

You are wrong and misinformed.

[underahedgerow]

45. The trump-like factions of muslims migrating to Europe have stated over and over again

in no uncertain terms that they wish to dominate all of the EU with their culture. They want to eliminate all other religions and replace them with Islam, and to impose their ways and practices on every state in the EU.

THIS is what France is afraid of, and what every other nation in the EU should be afraid of. It's very real, it's very possible and it's a real danger. This isn't paranoia, it's reality. There are entire neighborhoods in the UK that are completely given over to Islamic culture, and it's benefiting no one, especially not the state as a whole. They are not prosperous neighborhoods, they are steeped in crime, bigotry, hatred and poverty. I stated in an earlier post about the perils of being in Germany and in the same manner, Belgium, where deep set Islamic communities have been allowed to thrive for decades, and they are the source of the wave of violence and terrorist attacks in the past year.

Allow one footstep and you allow a stampede.

France is correct in its refusal to tolerate public displays of cultural and religious extremism. Anyone wishing to immigrate to western nations must be required to assimilate or go where they are welcome.

I'm to the point now where I am extremely uncomfortable seeing any woman covered up. I see it as symbolic of the terrorism they've brought with them. I just associate one with the other. It's scary.

On the other hand, my concern is that the world wide coverage of France banning the burquini on their public beaches will cause some of the radical psychos to further act out in violence against tourists and citizens. It could trigger some unfortunate reactions.... or it could serve to draw out those who need most to be taken into custody. Maybe not the worst thing to do? Get them agitated in the short term so they don't have a lot of time to plan anything serious, but act on the spur of the moment without a lot of preparation. Pure speculation, sorry.

Islam at its core is a religion of peace as much as any other, but it's the ones who seize on it to enact their imaginary revenge fantasies that need worrying about. The trumps and the hitlers aren't imaginary and the trickle becomes a tsunami.

[Chemisse]

65. I fail to see how wearing a "burquini" is a display of cultural and religious extremism.

There is nothing wrong with other cultures having different customs, including that of clothing.

Immigrants historically cluster in neighborhoods, and they are generally poor. They dissipate over generations as the immigrants are integrated into society.

And I would like to see a link wherein immigrants to Europe have stated a desire to dominate the culture. (And ISIS doesn't count, because it really is extremist).

[underahedgerow]

99. Think of it this way: If wearing said garment and being modest was so incredibly important

to her, then why did she continue sitting on the beach, finally revealed in all her 'immodest' glory, rather than just leaving?

And yes, it takes a number of generations for the lower-income immigrants to integrate into society, or rather, in reality, to create their own societies, as is the case in Germany and the UK in particular. People fleeing from the middle eastern conflicts of the 60's haven't integrated into western societies in those countries; instead they've recreated their own neighborhoods and cultural identities, driving out everything they don't tolerate and living within their own sets of rules.

And it's not so much a stated and vocalized desire of the majority but an empirical observation. When workers are demanding that their employers allow them to adhere to their religious beliefs in the workplace, such as not selling pork or booze, that's evidence of trying to force other cultures into Islamic beliefs and trying to make it the norm rather than the exception.

Now public pools in Germany are being forced to have separate hours for females and males because males won't tolerate females and are being openly aggressive; it's a forced adaptation. The demands that pork be removed from public school lunch menus -- not to just be provided with an option, but totally removed -- is yet another sign.

Aside from the radical Islamic state crowing that 'europe is a cancer and islam is the answer' the proliferating actual population has little interest in adopting western ways, but rather forcing their own beliefs and cultural behaviors onto the people they now choose to live among. The ongoing and growing attacks on females throughout Europe show just how intolerant of western culture that the recent immigrants are. But it's not a new behavior! The systemic sexual abuse and exploitation of young, white females by islamic males goes back decades, and is only now being prosecuted. Hundreds of (that we know of) girls as young as 9 were repeatedly raped and abused by entire communities of islamic males in the UK, and it was ignored by the policing agencies, because it was considered 'racist' to even accuse these guys of this behavior.

Can islam take over is the whole question, and people assume that it's just not possible. I say it's not impossible. Is it a concerted effort, being vocalized and put on posters and on leaflets? Not literally, no. But the community behaviors show us otherwise. I've read recently that attacks on people wearing simple crosses on their necklaces are on the rise. This whole 'my god is better than your god' crap is getting out of hand.

The other question is can islam and democracy in general live side by side and in harmony? It doesn't appear possible without some radical alteration of one or the other. Consider that Democracy in its current form is barely 200 years old, while islam is a couple thousand years older. Local justice systems with large islamic populations are already dealing with the conflict of beliefs vs modern justice, and it's an uphill battle.

I think it's pretty effing important for the modern world to be completely intolerant of any culture that is regressive, especially in its treatment of other human beings; i.e., half the population.

Do we really want future generations to believe that it's acceptable for some people to treat half the population like dirt, just because they are females? Or that some people can treat others badly, because that's the religion they've chosen? Do we want anyone of any age, from anywhere to continue to believe that these behaviors are ok for some, but not for others?

Western societies and justice systems finally, and only recently have realized that males cannot beat their wives in private. the rape culture in the US is finally being talked about openly, and is becoming less acceptable (unless you're a white collegiate swimmer of course) and barely making inroads in the legal system as it is, but it IS making progress, thank goodness.

Tolerating any regressive behavior and cultural beliefs turns back the tides of social progress. It's one step forward and two steps back.

We have to decide which is more important and productive - and which is of greater benefit to all humankind:

Is it better to be 'tolerant' of harmful and regressive cultures and silly belief systems, than to protect modern, progressive, global thought processes that advance and protect the human spirit?

I know which one I choose. How to get there is a whole 'nuther episode.

[muriel_volestrangler]

119. Why didn't she just leave the beach when ordered to by the uniformed representatives of the state?

Why didn't she just get to the back of the bus when ordered to? What makes her think she has the same rights to use that beach, or that bus seat, as someone showing the current state-mandated amount of skin, or with the right shade of skin?

[jberryhill]

157. The "burkini" is not a religious garment anyway

It has been designed for women who, yes while primarily members of a particular religion, do not want to show as much of their bodies as other women do.

However, there is no religious ceremony or ritual in which this garment plays any role.

[LeftyMom]

67. The idea that "France" is not inclusive of Muslim women is the problem.

Thank you for summing it up so neatly.

[RobinA]

142. To This Atheist

the ship sailed a long ago on not letting religion overwhelm their society. The place displays Catholicism, and therefore Christianity, around every corner. My personal relatives had to leave their little corner of France because Louis the 14th decided they should be Catholic. Given how steeped France is in one particular religion, I think their desire to suddenly be "secular" is a bit convenient.

And I get their paranoia after recent events, but this is surely not the answer. Prohibition doesn't work!

[Democat]

147. DU loves right wing religious extremists

As long as they aren't white Christians.

[GOLGO 13]

12. When you deny the bikini you deny all that is France.

Viva la France!

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

129. Since it was named for a U.S. bomb test site, Vive les Etats Unis!

And, Vive la bomb!

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

13. Pigs are not actually dirty animals.

I suspect your father believes this because (I'm guessing here) his religion has told him that. In actuality, Islam would have inherited that prohibition from Judaism, and that prohibition has a very firm ecological/economic basis, as the raising of pigs in the desert isn't very practical. Better eat other animals that do well in that environment. So telling people that their God has passed some rule here made sense, but please don't buy into an ancient superstition without questioning it.

The anthropologist Marvin Harris wrote the book Cows, Pigs, Wars and Witches: The Riddles of Culture, which is well worth reading. It addresses the pork thing.

[redgreenandblue]

19. I know pigs are not dirty. The point is that what meat is edible is entirely subjective.

At least in an industrialized setting where parasites and germs are not such a big issue.

Europeans and Americans don't eat cats and dogs. There is no objectively compelling reason for this. It might as well be a religious tradition.

[Act_of_Reparation]

27. Your reasoning is still problematic.

Subjectivity is judgement based on one's opinions, independent of outside influences. The man's opinion of pigs is not subjective, but largely formed and reinforced by his religion and and society.

Just like wearing a veil isn't an act of subjective preference, but of conformity to the socio-religious expectations of one's community.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. Should conforming to the expectations of your community be punishable?

Would you fine a Scotsman for wearing a kilt in the USA? Are all people who retain something from another culture to be suppressed?

[underahedgerow]

113. Ah but is the kilt representing repression of half the world population? No.

The burqa IS. It's a form of dress forced on or adapted by females due to the negative and aggressive behavior of men, within a sexually repressed and regressive culture.

A kilt is quirky and cute and just a costume.

[muriel_volestrangler]

117. So forcing conformity to the socio-religious expectations of the majority of the country is fine

for you, because you don't think the woman is able to think for herself about whether she's being repressed or not?

What other choices that you'd normally let an adult make for herself do you want to withhold from her? Would she be allowed to stay at home and bring up children, or would you force her to go to work? Would you insist that she can't use social media under a pseudonym, but has you give her real name, because she shouldn't give in to the possible negative consequences of someone identifying her?

[underahedgerow]

124. No, none of those things. What I expect is that if she wants to not wear a headscarf or

a burqini that her adopted country would support her right not to be forced to wear such items, superceding the demands of her family.

For all we know, the woman in France who was told to disrobe by the police was being forced to wear this item to the beach by her husband or family.

And it's not about enforcing socio-religious expectations on anyone, it has nothing to do with France's religions of choice - no one is being forced to become xstian. It's about not permitting the display of repressively oppressive cultural clothing which, by its permission, validates the premise of the regressive and archaic religious rules that are not socially acceptable in this modern world.

You may not realize that males in the extremist ME cultures control everything females wear, right down to their underwear. I was baffled for years to see husbands even choosing their wive's sanitary hygiene products. Yes, many, many times I have seen, up close and in person, men choosing the maxi-pads they allow their wives to use. It's entirely possible that some women actively choose such a lifestyle; we've seen this type of behavior in the freaky mormon and LDS cults that also enable the extreme oppression and exploitation of females. And it's always at the female's expense, not for their benefit. What female benefits by males choosing their garments for them and controlling all aspects of her life?

And finally, as Cannes Mayor Cannes Mayor David Lisnard. "It is precisely to protect these women that I took this decision. The burkini is the uniform of extremist Islamism, not of the Muslim religion

[muriel_volestrangler]

127. OK, so your approach to public freedom is to mind-read what happened back at home

and assume that the woman was forced to do something by a man who isn't around, and fine her just on the chance someone told her what to do. Even in your world, you are blaming the victim.

"And it's not about enforcing socio-religious expectations on anyone" ... go on ...

"It's about not permitting the display of repressively oppressive cultural clothing which, by its permission, validates the premise of the regressive and archaic religious rules that are not socially acceptable in this modern world. "

OK, so you are enforcing your socio-religious expectation on the woman, but it's not about that, oh no. You have decided what the symbolism of the headscarf is, and you want to punish the woman for it, who you say has been forced into using it by a man.

"You may not realize that males in the extremist ME cultures control everything females wear, right down to their underwear."

And you may not realise that these beaches are in France, not the Middle East. That a single woman on the beach, or a woman there with her child (the 2 examples we have in The Guardian article in this thread - reply #6) is not an example of "extremist Islamism", even if she's wearing a headscarf. In extremist Islam, a woman wouldn't get to go to the beach on her own.

"What female benefits by males choosing their garments for them"

Indeed. That's the whole point, which you are missing.

Here's an oppressed female, accepting a Nobel Peace prize:



and talking to a man who is "permitting the display of repressively oppressive cultural clothing" - I wonder if you can identify him?



And here she is, being interviewed at an international cricket match in England. You never used to get people wearing headscarves at these matches. Why oh why is the heart of British culture being invaded by extremist Islam like this?

[underahedgerow]

135. Yes in fact, I think it's appalling that women are forced by the rules that males invented to cover

up and hide their natural selves.

Women didn't invent these rules of covering the hair, hiding their faces, cloaking themselves in huge robes. Males did. Just because some women are used to it and somehow find themselves accepting of such corrupt and deviant ideals doesn't mean they're on their way to being liberated.

OMFG 'OHMYGAD she's wearing a headscarf AND she's DRIVING A CAR!!!! Look how LUCKY she is to have escaped that oppression!'

Seriously?

I see 'I'm still a slave to archaic ideals, but yeah, wow, look how liberated I am! Maybe one day, if I'm a good girl I can sit astride a horse with a leg on BOTH SIDES! Maybe if I'm really really lucky and daddy says I don't have to marry my 58 year old uncle when I'm 12, I'll be able to finish high school before I marry my cousin and pop out 8 kids!'

NO modern, realistic woman who seeks to not be enslaved by a ridiculous patriarchy ruled by fear and aggression would wear a headscarf much less those stupid robes, much less the veil. She has no advancement in the real world and is merely perpetuating an absolutely ridiculous extremist idealism. It has no place in modern society. None. At all. It is completely unacceptable and shouldn't be permitted. Granting its permission and deeming it acceptable perpetuates the extremist ideals and it will never, ever end.

Girls gotta take that power back from the men. The men aren't serving well that power they hold, and it alienates and corrupts everything it touches. Religions are like that. Until someone tells them what is right and what is wrong, the wrong and perverse will prevail. Every single time.

[Act_of_Reparation]

183. No, and I never so much as hinted that it should be.

In an ideal world, anyone should be able to wear whatever they want, free from the puerile judgements of nosey people we know all too well.

[redgreenandblue]

39. Yes. But this is just as true for not eating cats. No social conditioning exists in a vacuum.

The point is, regardless of what the origin of some custom originally was (and many "religious" customs served some practical purpose at some point in history) and to what degree it is expected by one's community, at some point it becomes part of one's identity. The Muslim woman who wears a veil feels "naked" without it. I feel disgust at the thought of eating maggots. I don't eat dog meat because a dog is a pet to me. Of course the broader "society" was responsible for the conditioning, but that is beside the point. The point is, can a society claim to be enlightened that forces something on a person that makes this person feel violated?

Here is a small anecdote concerning the veil: The woman I spoke of in the OP was a girl I was in the fifth grade with. She wore the veil then already. What was funny is the way us boys responded to it. We picked up very quickly on the fact that her hair was something "special" that not everyone got to see. What it did ultimately was stimulate a lot curiosity. We got that it was "private" and that made it all the more interesting.

[PoindexterOglethorpe]

49. Well, you did say that your father avoids pork

because he finds it disgusting. "Pigs are dirty animals and eating them is disgusting. It is that simple."

I get not liking various sorts of foods, either because you don't like the taste (I dislike the flavor of lamb) or you don't like something else about it (I find the texture of jello to be truly disgusting). But you did put out the blanket statement "Pigs are dirty animals."

I gather you didn't really mean that, and so I'll accept that.

[redgreenandblue]

118. He considers them dirty. I don't. To each their own.

[A HERETIC I AM]

21. Not to mention that pigs are difficult to "herd" and parasites in swine was a real problem for ....

centuries.

Now chickens........that's not a particularly clean animal either, but there you go.

[MADem]

17. France is an AGGRESSIVELY secular nation.

We get our "church-state" separation from them, not from UK where the Queen also heads up the church.

They are not "lassaiz-faire" as we are on the topic, they take active steps to limit religious display that they feel is out-of-step with French history or tradition.

This is a country that takes their culture very seriously, to the point that they made a big stink about "Le Weekend" being used to describe Saturday and Sunday. The Académie française is always pitching a fit about the creeping "franglais" in the vocabulary.



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2048323/French-language-website-creates-list-English-words-wants-ban.html

France IS a bit of a "nanny state" that expects the citizens to toe the French line. People love it when the government tells people what the maximum number of hours you can work is, or that you can't do work on weekends, or when they dole out this education/health benefit or that, but they do tend to make rulings that benefit the MAJORITY--not the minorities who live within their society. The nail that sticks up gets hammered down in that country, often as not. And when minorities get too much consideration, the Le Pen types in that country will pipe up and complain, in Trump style, about them.

We can complain about their POV all day, but they won't care. And, to make my view quite clear, I am not "endorsing" their attitudes and laws, simply noting that they're unlikely to change them without a great deal of pushing.

The women who want to show a bit less would be hassled less if they wore high fashion (or ersatz high fashion) on the beach, e.g.:









The French perception appears to be that the clothing has a religious component and I believe they use that argument to justify the ban. The "crime" of many of these women is that they are (gasp) UNFASHIONABLE. The easiest way to get around the law, and at the same time stay within the confines of it (at least until the courts overturn it) might be to adopt European styles and use clothing that will, at the end of the day, do the same damn thing--they'd have a harder time griping that way. I will repeat that I do not endorse the French approach to this issue, but I'm not the President or PM of France, so my opinion matters for nothing.

[redgreenandblue]

22. Maybe, but there is nothing progressive/liberal/enlightened about that.

The burquini thing may even be a human rights violation. From what I understand, this is currently being sorted out.

[MADem]

71. There's no simple way to explain this without sounding flippant, and that is not my intent,

but they could really give 2 stinky shits what we think on this issue, or any issue that concerns their "Frenchness" and their culture, about which they are (here's that word again) AGGRESSIVELY proprietary. They have a great deal of pride in their culture, they think they are the epitome of enlightenment and civilization, and there are aspects of their way of life that they are slow to want diluted. They feel as though they are giving something UP if they allow their way of life to be overrun by "outsiders."

The problem is, though, that many of those outsiders are not outsiders at all--they've been in the tent for many, many years.

The fact of the matter is that they brought all this on themselves--one can go all the way back to the Sykes - Picot Agreement and see the seeds of this clash being planted. The French, when they colonized, were very intent upon spreading the culture of Frenchness across the globe, and with that came full citizenship options, passports, and language indoctrination and French-style schooling in their colonies. There's a reason why they call Beyruth (Beirut) the "Paris of the Middle East" (at least when it's not being bombed)...it really does have a Parisian flair, with less dogshit and an ocean view.

They should not be surprised that their little chickens have. after all this time, come home to the "motherland" to roost. It has created a tension in the society. That tension resulted in a "hijab ban" (not a scarf ban, though--you can wear your stylish scarf, just so long as you don't fold the front like a 2nd century nun) and since the truck attack, this bathing costume ban.

The youth of Iran have this problem wired--they tossed those chadors in the eighties and, almost monolithically, evolved to the "manteau" which is a garment that looks a bit like what used to be called back in the day a "car coat." They are often belted and highly styled. The morality police still come after them every now and again, but they usually have enough material in their garments that they can loosen them to the satisfaction of some nosy parker and arrange their scarves in a different way to avoid arrest.

The French used to look down their noses at Americans, and suggest that our race issues were a consequence of our sloppy approach to issues of race and ethnicity (notwithstanding our shameful history of slavery, which Europe had a hand in as well, but never mind all that). They pointed out how they had no problem assimilating American blacks who left USA in disgust (and who were easily able to adapt to French mores, learning the language, understanding the culture, appreciating the food, etc.) but the movement across borders back in the day was nothing like it is now--and they aren't doing well at all with their "children" from their former colonies. They aren't assimilating terribly well. They keep their own languages, their own foods, their own faith, their own culture and habits. They want the passport, but they don't want to be ... FRENCH. There's a real disconnect.

We're kind of lucky in that what makes an American is not so strictly defined. Back in the middle of the last century, Ward and June Cleaver were "ideal" Americans....nowadays, "ideal" Americans are the US women's gymnastics team, or Mr. and Mrs. Khan, who appeared at the Democratic convention and offered to loan Donald Trump a paperback Constitution.

[eissa]

86. This right here sums it all up

"They aren't assimilating terribly well. They keep their own languages, their own foods, their own faith, their own culture and habits. They want the passport, but they don't want to be ... FRENCH."

That's the problem the French and other European nations are facing.

[MADem]

96. It's because the European nations place such stock in their particular cultures and histories.

As do other nations around the globe. They understand their roles in contributing to the betterment of humankind, they value the culture that fostered many of those contributions, and they don't want it kicked over or made to be regarded as less important--they're just not used to being "multi-ethnic" or seeing a lot of different shades and attitudes. It's a difficult transition for them. Some of them just believe that holding the line is the way to go--you want to join US? You have to BE like us. We don't adjust to you, you adjust to us, is the POV.


We are lucky duckies, over here on the other side of the pond, because OUR history is, in essence, the history of the world. Our roots go back to every nation on the earth--we get to take the best from ALL of them, and we don't need to feel proprietary about any one thing (save perhaps Mom, apple pie, and --shudder--NASCAR...ewww!) to "feel" American.

That Venezuelan beauty queen that Trump called "Miss Piggy" who just took her citizenship oath is every bit as American as the first or current head of the Daughters of the American Revolution. We don't go ballistic if people want to keep their customs, their foods, their costumes, their language, etc--in fact, if their foods are good, we'll "culturally appropriate" them and "fuse" them with other foods....and, the way you know you've made it America? That ethnic food will get breaded and deep fat fried at a state fair!!!! And served on a STICK! LOL!

We want our citizens to understand our form of government, in all its messiness and hectoring and disarray--but we really don't care if they can explain it better in their native language. We don't mind if they want to celebrate their ethnic histories and holidays--in fact, we want to join in, any excuse for a party--it's just how we roll.

Of course, you'll always have bigots who hate this group or that, but then their child marries one of "them" -- and they have to re-calibrate.

We're a swirly nation, and we get swirlier as the years go by!

[steve2470]

171. I sincerely appreciate your explanation of the French....

and I agree with the way you look at it: it's none of our business, they don't give a shit what we think, and they are going to do it "the French way". They are a very different country than we are, and they are entitled to keep their "Frenchness", just as we are entitled to keep our American-ness.

I personally don't have an issue with Muslim women wearing their garb anywhere, but, as we both agree, they don't give two craps about our opinion. Most of we Americans don't give two craps what the French think about us, also.

[MADem]

173. I have a personal and visceral dislike of the whole concept of hijab, particularly the aggressive

type that covers everything save hands, feet and the smallest possible area of the face.

The reason is that I KNOW, from up close and personal observation in Islamic cultures, that it is not voluntary--it is mandated, by men, and by a patriarchal culture. It's not choice, really, when you face a beating or worse for not complying--and that is the case in countries like Iran and KSA.

So, while I sit back and say "It's their country" I am also heartened that well over half of France agrees with limits on religious costumes, particularly outlandish and oppressive ones, and that most of the rest of the country just doesn't care. There's not a lot of support for forcing women to wear hot, uncomfortable clothes in the name of some faith, while their husbands and fathers sashay in front of them, cool and comfy, in tee shirts.

But yeah, they will do their thing, and it's not up to us--which is as it should be!

[eissa]

178. And those who have interacted with women in the mid-east

have the same reaction you do. It's NOT a choice for them, and for many, moving to western nations usually gives them hope that they can finally shed that oppressive gear, only to face the same pressures from within their community in their new country. In many cases across Europe, immigrant groups have simply recreated their abandoned homelands and willfully refused to integrate into their new societies. It can't be easy for the host country to both be tolerant, and drag people kicking and screaming into the new century.

Are there women who truly wish to wear this hideous garb? Sure. Just as there are women who defend FGM, child marriages and outlawing abortion. Maybe we should tolerate all that as well under the guise of "religious liberty."

[MADem]

180. Identification with the oppressor is quite common. It took Jimmy Carter pardoning Patty Hearst for

many Americans to "get" the concept of Stockholm Syndrome, and there are STILL people who will insist that she must have "liked" getting locked in a dark closet and raped repeatedly.

I roll my eyes and smh when I see these "Oh, I love the hijab" types who will insist that they can express themselves with jewelry and makeup and still be good with Allah PBUH (not according to the fundy clerics in KSA, they can't!) and never mind the fact that the morality police in beautiful downtown Teheran are fining women for nail polish--BY THE NAIL. I don't know if they check the toes as well!!!!

Any time half the population is constrained, put down, limited and dictated to, I'm just not having it. It's not "choice" when making the "choice" means banishment at a minimum, and death at the worst.

[closeupready]

18. Forget it. On DU, progressives OWN muslim women's bodies.

What progressives here choose, a priori, for muslim women is, for all intents and purposes, HER choice. See how that works?

When it comes to progressive women on DU, it's "her body, her choice." When it comes to muslim women, it's "her body, MY choice." Get it?

But K&R for the effort, thanks.

[Calculating]

23. Burkas are oppression

The women have merely been conditioned to accept this oppression and consider it 'normal'. Think about it logically. Who in the hell would actually WANT to cover up in hot clothing out at the beach? What If you conditioned women to think it was wrong to get an education and do anything other than raise children for their husbands? They might be "happy" with their choices to drop out of school and raise babies, but it wouldn't make it any less oppressive.

Islam has historically been extremely oppressive towards women. Just look at nations like Saudi Arabia. Any laws trying to break migrant women out of said oppression are for the greater good IMO.

[eissa]

28. Yes, they are

Women who say they willingly wear it by choice simply suffer from Stockholm Syndrome. Religious conservatives can spin it however they want, but the original intent of the covering is to prevent men from sinning by lusting after a woman. It's a degrading and oppressive garment, and were it not for family and societal pressures that have been ingrained since birth, most women would burn it, as those women who escaped ISIS bravely did.

[Calculating]

32. yup

It's actually an extremely sexist/misogynistic thought process. Comes from the belief that the beauty of a woman is inherently evil and drives men to sin. Therefor it's up to women to cover up and not tempt men. Of course it wouldn't be up to the men to simply have a little self control. It's just as bad as the "she must have wanted to get raped because she dressed like a slut" attitude. It's all linked back to the fundamental misogynistic belief that it's the duty of women to save men from temptation.

[Fresh_Start]

38. so are high heels, bras, tight fitting clothing, wearing lipstick etc.

women have merely been conditioned to accept that oppression and consider it normal.

We'd have 30 more minutes a day without the need to style our hair and add makeup.
We'd have less back and other problems if we eliminated high heels.

Why is one type of conditioned oppression okay and the other conditioned oppression evil?

[Calculating]

41. Those are also stupid and oppressive

Particularly high heels, makeup and the like. At least they're not religion based oppression though. Those are standard social pressures, and guys have their own as well. Just look at ties. Why do they even exist? The garment serves no purpose whatsoever other than to fit in with people who decided ties are necessary to look formal. What if you're a guy and don't wanna have short hair? You'll always have people think you're some kind of weird hippie or something. Lots of social pressures/stereotypes are bad, and we should work to eliminate them as time goes on. The Islamic dress code for women just makes for a convenient target and a good starting point.

[muriel_volestrangler]

46. So you'd like to ban ties in public, once it's possible?

[kwassa]

87. Men must wear burkinis. Now.

The only solution.

[davidn3600]

76. Women in America have CHOICE.... that's the difference

Women in Islamic cultures don't have a choice.

[muriel_volestrangler]

120. So women in France shouldn't have the choice, and that makes things better how?

[muriel_volestrangler]

40. Look at the picture in #6. The police get the choice of how much to cover up.

One is in (fairly long) shorts; another in full length trousers. Yes, some people do want to cover up on the beach; it stops them getting sunburnt. And people have different preferences of how much to show. Not many men wear skimpy speedos to the beach these days; there is a cultural expectation to wear shorts with a certain amount of legging, because it's more 'decorous'. Some women never wear a bikini, but always a one-piece suit.

Enforcing conformity with fines is authoritarian. It's also a good way of dividing Muslim women off from the rest of the population. If they spend their time on a beach with lots of people with uncovered hair and skin, they'll see that as part of normal life. It will make them less likely to try and tell their own daughters they have to cover their hair. It might even encourage them to do it themselves.

[treestar]

24. I think they are being very silly

What if someone wore an ankle-length dress to the beach?

Truly, it ought to be up to the woman and how she feels comfortable. Not every woman is a feminist leader for her society. Granted it is oppressive to women and westerners have now abandoned these and women can feel OK about wearing just about anything short of actual toplessness here. But to force it on these women for their own enlightenment is also paternalistic.

As for people who are scared seeing them, what idiots. Why make laws for bigots?

[MADem]

107. As I said elsewhere in this thread, they could easily achieve the goal of "modesty" without

appearing to be wearing an obviously religiously-related garment. The French are fond of style, and most Islamic clothing lacks that--it's like they design the stuff so it will look as ugly as possible. Of course, the goal of the clothing is to "erase" the woman from view as much as possible--with the chaderi/chador/burqa, the idea is to turn the woman into a shadow. Really.

This isn't about fear, though--it's about aggressively holding the line on a cultural imperative that the political leadership, at least for now, believes defines them as a nation (and the courts have backed them up on this). Religious clothing is an affront to their secular natures.

You want to live in France? You'd better behave like you are French--that's what they're saying.

[treestar]

146. What about nuns?

[MADem]

162. Apparently they're different. Maybe because that's their job or they can actually choose to not

wear those costumes, whereas it is a patriarchal system of oppression that mandates hijab (in order to make MEN more comfortable by not "tempting" them with "shameful" female flesh).

I don't know what justification they are using, or even how new these pictures are--but here's your very argument in pictorial form:

http://globalnews.ca/news/2903036/people-share-photos-of-nuns-on-the-beach-in-response-to-burkini-ban-in-france/


It's a hard job to even FIND a nun nowadays--they closed a lot of the convents and sold them off to pay for the child abuse of the priests. The few nuns I know these days wear ugly dresses in unfashionable patterns and cuts, equally ugly shoes, sensible cardigans, and crosses. They look like they asked a four year old to cut their hair, and then had it 'cleaned up' by a boot camp barber....I suppose the French could fine them, too, for being "unfashionable."

[treestar]

164. The Muslim women living in France are also choosing what to wear

It is not so simple as that they are forced to by the men. It's the way they feel comfortable. Some poster said it was religion, by that token, no nuns either. Nuns in bikinis!

[MADem]

167. No, no, no. Their husbands or fathers are choosing what they may wear.

They aren't living "Sex in the City" lives as single gals in their Parisian apartments. They are living in a conservative religious cultural bubble, answering to male patriarchs, where they do not have choice, within a larger and SECULAR society.

They feel comfortable "that way" because they've seen what happens to those who step outside the box.


Watch this and understand what is, and what is not, "choice:"

Just a few months ago, the Teheran police chief put thousands of "undercover" hijab police on the streets--this might have been in response to the new mobile phone app that enables people to warn others when they see morality police skulking about (e.g. Avoid Vanak Square--they're out in force today!!!).


I have to say, I love THIS movement:

Anyone who really believes that the whole "hijab" thing is--absent any pushing, prodding, or shaming--truly "voluntary" is whistling in the dark. The people who affect it unnecessarily, e.g. Americans new to Islam, are doing it for reasons of attention-seeking, IMO. They know full well they can always put it to the side--but for those raised in Muslim society and culture they do not have that option.

The whole atmosphere that surrounds the behavior of ritually covering those "shameful" women with their "tempting" bodies is pernicious.

I am not suggesting that women who are not comfortable exposing themselves be forced to do so--but there are better, cooler (in terms of weather, not fashion, necessarily) and more user-friendly ways to be "modest" without having to stick out and attract stares by wearing a costume (and in western society, it is a COSTUME, not clothing) that SCREAMS "I am a member of a patriarchal culture."

The idea behind/purpose of covering women is to turn them into SHADOWS--to make them disappear. In a western society, the opposite happens--they are turned into billboards for religious conservatism.

In France, they've decided they're not having it. Americans take issue with this because our culture (despite some here on DU affecting other viewpoints) allows us freedom of religion--we are free to proselytize, evangelize, wear stupid religious costumes, wave idiotic "God Hates ...." signs, and/or insist that God Is Dead or does not exist. We don't make demands of our citizens in terms of religion.

France, OTOH, is secular, and they insist that if you're going to do that shit, you keep it to yourself. Don't bring it into the public square, as a private citizen. It's how they roll.

[Photographer]

29. See Mormons.

[AlbertCat]

43. Since the very idea of a "Burkini" is utterly ridiculous...

..... let people where what they want.

[malaise]

44. +1,000

Superior we are not. We consistently demean to humiliate and feel empowered.

[underahedgerow]

47. Bottom line is that this woman is perfectly free to practice her religious beliefs in her home.

that is, if the males in her family let her. No one is forcing her to go to a public beach.

The origins of covering the hair and wearing long dresses and robes aren't even religious in nature. Nowhere in Islamic law is the complete hiding of the face and body required. Beyond a few admonitions to 'modesty', there are in fact very few specific recommendations either in the Qu’ran or any other Islamic scriptures about how a woman should dress.

The quran says that women are just 'half as intelligent as men', it requires two women in any case to testify in any litigation to be equal to that of one man, in a rape four male witnesses are required as witness to the event of rape to confirm the crime or else the woman in question is branded as an adulterer or of loose morals, to be stoned to death(in case of married woman) or given 200 lashes with a whip in public in other cases. What can be more barbaric than this? Burka, naqab, hijab are all symbols of humiliation of womanhood, nothing else. The Hijab is a tradition and it has nothing to do with Islam.

Mostly, it has no place in modern societies.

[MFM008]

52. its just crazy we care

when Americans wore this not long ago

[MADem]

109. About a CENTURY ago.....which was long enough, I'd venture!

By the roaring 20's, they were much skimpier:


By the 1930s, they were showing a lot more skin....

[lunatica]

53. Exactly what the Taliban do when they punish women who show any parts of their legs or hands

Running around forcing women to do anything is obvious misogyny.

[Calculating]

55. What if you're trying to save them

From socially/religion imposed misogyny that they've been conditioned to accept and embrace?

[lunatica]

61. You only make it worse

If an outsider forces a man's wife. sister or daughter to expose her hair what do you think they'll do to these women in the privacy of their home? It doesn't take a genius to see that laws like these just make it worse. Now women will be completely forbidden to leave the house.

Many Muslim women would love to take off the religiously mandated garb, but they don't dare because sooner or later they'll get caught. Now they can't win no matter what. The government is turning them into double victims. First with their religion and their families and then with the government.

I doubt this is hard to comprehend. By trying to 'save' them you just put their lives in more jeopardy.

[FXSTD]

54. Totally agree.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

57. American women don't go to work with their breast exposed because

it is either illegal or grounds for termination where they work, but most likely both. I would gladly walk around every place topless, nude even, if there weren't laws, rules, and policies against it. Where it is not illegal, you still can't do it because people will give you so much shit for it. Look at all these poor women getting hell simply trying breast feed in this country. My perspective as an American woman is that I don't choose to cover my breasts up, the choice has already been made for me. I must cover them up and if I don't comply, I'll have an lot of negative consequences to deal with. I'm sure it feels the same to some of the Muslim women too... except much worse. Sure it might be a personal preference for some, but I tend to doubt that is the case for most of them.

I am not for banning burkas, but I just don't think the analogy is correct. American women must cover breasts. You can't compare choosing to wear an burka to the mandatory covering up women's of breasts in the US.

[redgreenandblue]

115. I think the analogy is exactly right. Going topless is has rules against it, but many people have

internalized them, to a point where they feel exposed when being topless. The origin of the rules against going topless are in fact similar than the origin of the veil.

Imagine laws being passed that said you must go topless or face a fine, and male cops running around forcibly removing the covering.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

132. No, it is not right.

Women in the US are not free to decide to go topless. The original post talked about Muslim women in some places being free to decide to wear a burka or not and some still choosing to wear it. US is not there yet with toplessness and women.

I would not agree with a law that said you couldn't where a shirt either. I understand your point, but I don't think that comparison is right. It would be make more sense to compare to something women used to have to wear in US and now no longer have to, but instead choose to. I don't know about old US laws/rules, but maybe woman were required to wear long dresses and now they aren't any more. Some women belonging to certain religions in the US still choose to wear long skirts. No one is going to arrest them for their decision to wear a long skirt or not so that is a personal choice. Going topless can result in getting arrested in most places in the US.

[Lordquinton]

169. No it's exactly wrong

Going toppless doesn't have rules, it's illegal, women are forced into it, and any slight deviation is punished, bot socially and legally. Unless the rules are changed and women are actually free to dress however they want, then we can see how ingrained it actually is, but we're a long way from that. As it stands teenage girls who have a bra strap showing can get sent home because their adult male teacher got a boner. That's the issue here.

Imagine if there were no laws that said you had to wear a top or face a fine, and there weren't cops going around covering up women who choose to go toppless.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

59. I just cannot see finding common cause with fundamentalists as an expression of progressiveness

The cultural left is very good at being useful idiots, but being useful idiots for Islamic fundamentalists and their public displays is a whole new low.

[MicaelS]

75. Superb post, I agree 100%.

IMO, Fundamentalist Islam is incompatible with the ideas and ideals of Western Enlightment. How any Progressive can defend it is beyond me.

Lenin's phrase "The capitalists will sell us the rope to hang them with" comes to mind, if you get my meaning.

[eissa]

78. So well said

When one is on the same side as conservative, misogynist imams, something is wrong. Sometimes you have to drag people kicking and screaming away from primitive beliefs. No one said it would be easy.

[Marr]

79. +1

[MADem]

108. This isn't our fight, anyway. We don't ban those dumb costumes.

This is the French doing it, because they--unlike us--have a SECULAR society. We have "freedom of religion" and "No religious test for public office" but we don't care if people want to wear religious clothing. The French do--and they've won a case or two in the EU courts, who do recognize cultural peculiarities.

[Democat]

148. Many on DU love right wing extremists

As long as they aren't white and Christian.

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

63. I think this is wrong.

They've gone too far. These women should be able to dress in these swim outfits without fear of harassment.

I also think that covering the face goes too far.

How about a little common sense?

[Younemeen]

158. agreed with this but

I think that some of them really like this way... indeed, some of them might not like it but they are afraid, but some of them do like it...

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

159. I think face coverings should be against the law

Period.

For safety issues and to protect human rights. No religion should be allowed to "disappear" women.

If a woman's male relatives can see her face, then covering the face is not the same modesty issue as covering one's breasts. (A comparison I've read here.) Frankly, I never walked around topless in front of my brothers and dad. And I don't know any women who did, although I'm sure someone will pop up here shortly and tell me all about their family experience on a nudists' beach!

[Younemeen]

160. agreed

it should not force or forbid, especially to the level they are forbidding or forcing... and as I said... a woman should feel free doing whatever she's comfortable doing. If you're not feeling comfortable on a nudists' beach then don't go in there, but as long as a woman really wants to then I doubt that "whatever religion" should be against it.

[Warpy]

64. I agree in principle

especially since I've seen Muslim immigrants out shopping in my part of town moving from the full body veil to the simple hijab as time has gone on. Nobody stares at a hijab here any more but they do stare at the full body veil and that becomes uncomfortable. No one tells them what to wear. No one tells them what not to wear, either, and there are no religious police enforcing dress codes. For the first time, many of them get to choose.

However, I can see restrictions on the full body veil in many situations, especially around machinery. That would be up to an employer who wants to reduce workman's compensation costs, not the government's business.

France is going to have to come to grips with the fact that immigrants are there to stay and pushing pork at the kiddies and forbidding women to wear head scarves is not going to help them assimilate. In fact, it will cause the opposite to happen and they will have an antagonistic minority to deal with instead of people with strange customs who are slowly assimilating.

[Skittles]

81. technically, it is done for the comfort of muslim men

[davidn3600]

82. What's amazing is progressives supporting this form of religious oppression

It blows my mind to come into liberal forums such as this and see people who claim to be progressives support the religious oppression of women....as long as that oppression is done by Islam.

For whatever reason, the problems in that religion are given a free pass by liberals. Their radical violence against homosexuals and women is just completely and totally ignored. And it just blows my mind. Yet we give Christians a hard time for being against gay marriage and birth control? Why do we never criticize Islam for being against those things too?

With France, it's a western nation with its own culture....a culture of secularism. Is it right to tell the French people that they are the ones that have to change their culture and their beliefs and their ways in order to accommodate Muslims that immigrate there?
If you are immigrating to a country....you should not expect that country to change their ways for you. It doesn't work like that.

[Egnever]

83. Thanks I thought for a second I was losing my mind

You said it well..

Burkas are oppression and while outlawing them may be taking it a little too far for my comfort. The idea we should accept oppression of females in the US because Islam is ridiculous.

[eissa]

92. We're here!

Not all progressives buy into tolerance for the sake of "cultural acceptability." Many of us recognize oppression under the guise of "religious liberty."

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

90. The cultural left has a pathological hatred of the west

Fifty years ago these were the Soviet sympathizers and decolonizers who supported the Soviet Union and whatever third-world crackpot was giving the British and French the boot.

[Warren DeMontague]

105. Some alleged "progressives" really love to tell other people what to do.

Some want to make it illegal for consenting adults to fuck in front of a camera, some yammer about protecting teh children when they vote to put terminally ill cancer grannies in prison for smoking a joint.

And so it goes....

[muriel_volestrangler]

121. In what way does wearing a headscarf on a beach make someone else change their ways?

How do you think this beachwear is related to someone saying French people "have to change their culture and their beliefs and their ways"?

[kwassa]

88. I've seen burkinis at my local pool. Big deal.

Tolerance is tolerance. We live in a diverse world where we need to tolerate the choices in order to live together.

I would point out that those in the burkinis tolerate the majority of nearly nude women all around them.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

89. how nobel of them to tolerate the presence of their hosts in their homeland

There is a woman who lives near me, probably just about fifty. She jogs in a t-shirt that says "straight pride" with silhouettes of a blue male and pink female holding hands and some bible passage on the back I have never bothered to read. Other days she wears a Ted Cruz T-shirt.

I trust you would perceive her religious garb that is publicly expressing her conservative religious beliefs to be a similarly beautiful display of diversity.

[kwassa]

93. Yes, I would. You are correct.

without tolerance and freedom of speech there can be no dialogue and no possibility to change minds.

I defend her right to say that completely. I also totally disagree with her.

[davidn3600]

95. Not true everywhere....

In Sweden, for example, some public pools have been setting aside women-only hours to accommodate the Muslim population. In a country where gender equality is part of the national cultural goals, this represents a serious problem for many Swedes and feminists.

How far is western society expected to bend over for Muslim immigrants? Should France be forced to sacrifice their secularism? Should Sweden be forced to sacrifice their gender equality? When has multiculturalism been taken too far?

You are expecting these populations to intermingle and live together in harmony, WHILE each maintaining their own culture. I'm sorry, but that's not going to work. That's the biggest flaw in multiculturalism. Many politicians and voters in Europe are starting to realize this now. It's not going to work. And if Europe doesn't figure it out real soon, the EU is going to collapse.

And ultimately, this debate will spread over here in the US. And we will start to see the same problems. There are already progressives who have suggested we should make a crime to draw the Prophet Mohammad in a cartoon. They say it should be a "hate crime." That's how insane this is getting. We are talking about sacrificing the first amendment here.... Inanity. Pure fucking insanity.

[True Dough]

106. Canada is a bastion of multiculturalism

One in five people in my country is an immigrant and a whole lot more Canadian citizens are second generation Canadians. We have "Chinatowns" in several major cities, and "little Italy," and enclaves of Filipinos and Indians, and on and on. We have all of those people mixing and interacting, and they retain many aspects of their native cultures, and yet Canada is not going to collapse.

We're pretty damn liberal about welcoming and accepting people's cultures and adopting bits and pieces of them ourselves. Hell, sometimes we have days devoted to foreign cultures and celebrate the immigrants among us. Sometimes we hold parades in their honor.

That doesn't mean we "bend over" (to borrow your crude phrase) for anything and everything. If you come to Canada believing in Sharia law and figure you can beat your wife because she disobeys you, well, you're in for a rude awakening. Our laws don't permit that and there will be charges when you're found out. Same applies when an American gun owner crosses the border packing heat. You think you can conceal or open carry here? No chance, Jack!

So we're drawing arbitrary lines in these situations. We're picking and choosing what is acceptable and what's not. There's bound to be disagreement and debate. To me, having some women lying around on a beach wearing a "burkini" isn't worth bringing down a sledgehammer. How is it doing any harm to anyone else? Who gives a $% how much they decide to cover up their bodies while enjoying the sand, water and sunshine with their families? I don't think a "burkini" is progressive at all, but if a woman isn't being forced to wear it by her husband and she has a strong belief that her modesty is paramount, then that should be her choice.

Now where I would draw the line is if a group of Muslim beach-goers started insisting that everyone else at the beach must also cover their bodies, then I would say "Get bent!"

[True Dough]

110. Oh, and I should add...

I like this online commenter's take on the situation:

"Secularism is not about telling people what to do or think. It's about freedom of choice to say, think, and wear what you please. All religions are bad, however creating laws to combat religion is not how humanity will overcome and move beyond religion. Using legislation to ban religious practices will only create martyrs, further emboldening believers into the delusion of religion.
It will only result in more radicalism, fear, violence, and hate."

[Marr]

153. +1. The amazing thing is that, in Europe, at least,

their political class seems to think they can simply shut down opposition to these issues. But all that does is empower the far right, since they're the only ones willing to address it (and they come from a position of pure bigotry, often as not).

This was really at the heart of Brexit vote, imho.

[treestar]

165. In the US it might be a private pool

that a Muslim company built themselves.

And what serious problem? Just don't go to that pool.

It takes immigrants some time to assimilate. Why do they have to do it as soon as they get off the boat? Sweden is very understanding of people.

[kwassa]

177. I think your reasoning is flawed.

The US is very different than the European countries in the way immigrants are absorbed into the population. I live in the DC suburbs, and the suburb I live in has been ranked as the most diverse city in the US.

Here is the flaw:

You are expecting these populations to intermingle and live together in harmony, WHILE each maintaining their own culture. I'm sorry, but that's not going to work. That's the biggest flaw in multiculturalism.

They do intermingle and live together in harmony. Culture is maintained at home, and over the subsequent generations the children and grandchildren become Americanized, identify as Americans, and often marry out of their nationality and ethnicity. This has been true of American immigration throughout our history.

I know it works because I live it and see it every day all around me. I see interracial couples and inter-ethnic couples all the time, and their kids.

In the old days of immigration, immigrants would form ethnic enclaves where they all live together, but in modern suburbia they live all over the place, intermingled, and only gather together at family functions, or community celebrations. This school I teach in has kids from 90 different nations. Like I said, it works.

[Jeffersons Ghost]

91. K&R edible snails and frogs cost more than pork

Snails the "other white meat"

[mwrguy]

94. "systemic sexual assault" is 100% correct

What else would you call forcing women to disrobe?

This sounds like something Trump's brownshirts would do.

If women choose hijab then that it's their right!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

126. "If women choose hijab..."

If

The problem is: They're not permitted to speak for themselves.

[Rex]

101. You could have stopped at "I just cannot see forcing a woman". That in itself is wrong.

Forcing anyone to do anything against their will, is wrong. Over clothing and our flesh or lack of...stupid silly and dangerous.

[Warren DeMontague]

104. I think people should be free to choose what to wear and what to do with their bodies.

But that logic cuts all ways. I'm not in favor of this just like I also don't agree with the people who think the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue should be banned or the people who want to get all the sex off HBO.

[Sen. Walter Sobchak]

112. I have spent much of my life living around muslims

And they have pretty much told me the same thing for the last thirty years, be they Saudi or Gulf Sunni or Iranian Shiites. The most radical and or vocal family member sets the tune in terms of the family's personal adherence level and everyone else falls in line to keep the peace.

I live near some Saudis who attend UC Irvine. When it's just the "kids" at home they could be mistaken for the Arab spinoff of the Jersey Shore. They get piss in the front yard drunk, blare dubstep and hip-hop one of the young ladies has been seen stumbling down the street topless. When this old dude who has a motorized wheelchair is around they wear the full abaya or something similarly modest but in lighter colors. They do however drive their own luxury SUVs. That tells me all I really need to know. Similarly Iranian family albums where women in the 50's through 70's are in fashionable western clothing. I guess the Iranian revolution was a huge spiritual awakening for them.

[Lordquinton]

111. I agree with your point, but you bring up another problem in society

"Likewise, the Turkish Muslim women that I went to school with, who later earned college degrees and remained unmarried by choice, would just as soon go in public without a veil as non-Muslim American women would go to work with their breasts exposed."

You're comparing someone choosing to cover up to people who are forced to cover up. If a woman choose to not wear a shirt or bra, she would be arrested. There's an imbalance in these arguments that always gets left unsaid, so it would be nice to see it addressed.

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

133. Yes, that is what I was trying to say as well.

[Lordquinton]

168. I see now, and I agree

I skimmed the replies and they were all saying pretty much the same thing, so I jumped to the end.

The comparison falls apart completely, there is no saving it unless we talk about how we have a legally enforced dress code in America.

Another point in these discussions is that the people who choose are always used as the example, that they choose to dress this way. People who are forced to dress in a way are brushed aside for the examples that fit the narrative. That somehow France is miles worse for banning certain ways of dressing, where some countries will literally kill women who don't dress in a prescribed manner, because God told them to.

[Lunabell]

116. I am extremely antireligious

And I find these laws abhorrent. My body is mine. If I chose to cover it or not is my business. My only objection to any of these types of garbs are face coverings. No one should be able to cover their faces in public. It is for public safety I think. But banning modest dress? I have a big problem with that.

[DetlefK]

122. "Don't get raped."

That's the attitude the Burkini, the Burka and all these traditions where the woman has to hide herself are putting forth. It's the attitude that the woman has the responsibility to hide her body to keep the men's lust in check.

Are men staring at those women in bikinis? Are they making unwanted advances? Well, maybe the woman should have worn a Burkini.

The french ban isn't about the Burkini. The french ban is about combating a tradition and culture that shames the female body.

[redgreenandblue]

123. I doubt that Muslim women asked the "Aryan savior" to come save them from their traditions.

Point is, if they choose to cover up it is as much their right as choosing not to cover up.

Would you support a law requiring white Christian women to go topless in order to "combat a tradition that shames the female body"?

[DetlefK]

125. Depends. Does Christianity demand that women cover up because men are sex-hungry animals?

Oh, that wasn't me who called Muslim men "sex-hungry animals". I was merely paraphrasing a saudi-arabian scholar who said that young men and young women shouldn't go to mixed schools because young men are tomcats who can't control their urges.

1. France has been a country of radical secularism ever since the french revolution.

2. Banning the Burkini might be the wrong tool, but something has to be done to combat a whole tradition that treats the female body as inferior.



In the name of equality: Would you support a law that forces men to cover up in veils and Burkas at all times to keep women from lusting after them?

[redgreenandblue]

131. ...

In the name of equality: Would you support a law that forces men to cover up in veils and Burkas at all times to keep women from lusting after them?

No. But I would not support a law that requires a man to remove such clothing either.

[DetlefK]

134. If tradition does not generate equality, are we allowed to use laws to generate equality?

I assume, your answer will be Yes.



Then why are you against artificial equality when it comes to who wears what, and for artificial equality when it comes to other areas?
Who are we to take things from men which have always been the domain of men? Who are we take the position of power away from men and force them to share it with others?

[muriel_volestrangler]

137. "Banning the Burkini might be the wrong tool, but something has to be done"

OK, then, it's up to you to propose 'something' that isn't wrong. I presume you're not suggesting "a law that forces men to cover up" as "the right thing".

[DetlefK]

139. My suggestion would be so "not wrong", it would be "wrong" again.

Nobody may enforce any religious laws, demands, customs, exceptions and traditions whatsoever against the will of others. Punishable by jail.

You can wear whatever you want, you can eat or not eat whatever you want for whatever reasons. But if you try to make others adhere to any religious doctrine, you go to jail.

Is my suggestion extremist? Yes.
Does my suggestion guarantee your freedom to have and exercise whatever religious beliefs you want? Yes.

[Photographer]

128. Colour me backwards but I don't like the idea of ANYONE being forcrd to expose themselves.

[tymorial]

136. I agree wholeheartedly about the law

Snail salad, however,, is delicious. That is all.

[Odin2005]

141. Plenty of "secularists" are just as bigoted and authoritarian as any religious fundamentalist.

French "Laicite" is bigoted authoritarian ethnocentrism pretending to be secular liberalism, it is about making the State a god in place of people's own religious beliefs.

[alarimer]

144. Who cares what people wear at the beach?

I mean, unless they wear nothing and in some places that is perfectly okay as well.

As for the food, what's wrong with offering choices? Let the kids decide, based on whatever they want.

While I think Islam is a patriarchal and misogynist religion, so are almost all the others. I disagree with bans on these garments, with the sole exception of driver's licenses. In that case, you face MUST show, whatever your religion.

[WillowTree]

145. I'm apparently missing something here. Who's "forcing" anyone to do anything in this situation?

Don't get me wrong, I think the whole Muslim practice of body shaming the female form is totally sexist and oppressive.

Likewise, if a segment of the female Muslim population choose (or choose not to resist) these customs, that's their business. In the big scheme of things, I really don't care.

But I don't see that Muslim women are being "forced" to expose any part of their bodies by these rules that the French are imposing. Is there more to this that I'm not seeing?

[randome]

150. You're not missing anything. It's a rather hyperbolic interpretation of the issue.

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Birds are territorial creatures.
The lyrics to the songbird's melodious trill go something like this:
"Stay out of my territory or I'll PECK YOUR GODDAMNED EYES OUT!"[/center][/font][hr]

[LWolf]

152. I agree.

When it comes to the wearing of burkinis, or hats, or WHATEVER a woman is or isn't wearing.

That said, no man should be telling women what to wear. If women are happy in their burkinis, I'm happy with them. If they are wearing it because of patriarchal rules that men impose upon them, I'm not.

Choice over our own bodies, choice in what clothing we choose to put on those bodies.

[GOLGO 13]

161. Freedom for all! Bikinis for all!

Vive la France!

[backscatter712]

163. Both Saudi Arabia and France have become completely brain-damaged.

Granted, I'm no fan of the burka - it's historically a tool of repression of women.

BUT, On one side of the debate or the other, if you feel that you have the right to tell grown women what they can and can't wear, and have cops enforce your stupid fucking rules with fines and jail and use of force you have officially lost all my respect.

To Saudi Arabia and France: FUCK YOU! Fuck you France for prohibiting women from wearing the clothing of their choice. Fuck you Saudi Arabia, for forcing women to wear the clothing mandated by your assholes in stupid hats that claim to speak for mythological skydaddies. You both fucking belong in padded rooms.

[pampango]

166. In this DU poll today 80% of DUer's voted to leave burkina-wearing women alone.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028122710

[dilby]

170. I wonder if nuns are allowed at the beach. N/T

[eissa]

179. Again with the false equivalency

Nuns are part of the clergy. If a nun decides to shed her uniform, the Pope will not unleash a directive that she be stoned. Her family will not beat her, other Catholics will not shun her. And yes, I'd have no problem if the French decided to outlaw nuns from swimming in their habit. A secular society should be free to enforce its secular laws.

I can't believe progressives are choosing this issue as the topic they wish to die on a hill for. The "Being Liberal" page on FB is obsessed with this topic, as are others. I wish they cared this much about women who are actually forced to wear this hideous garb, instead of those who have the OPTION of either paying a fine for breaking the law, leaving the beach, or taking off the costume, as the woman in the picture CHOSE to do. And as would many, if they were truly free to make that decision.

[tirebiter]

176. France is legally an eclusively secular state. Atheist, really.

The Republic does not grant recognition nor pay nor subsidizes any church. There are many government buildings that used to be churches. The citizens are by and large Catholic and don't seem to have a problem with this. The dual personality of France does require some learning of French history to "get it." The prevailing attitude is any immigrants can learn to live this way, also.

[reorg]

182. If it's really that simple

I'm sure you will also defend my right to get completely undressed whenever I want on every public beach.

My grandparents were already roaming the forests in the twenties of the last century without clothes on. My father saw to it that we kids were not ashamed of our naked bodies. So, I am used to get naked on any beach, park, wherever, and I like it. Why do I have to take into account the 'feelings', wishes or prescriptions of others?

Yes, I am aware that in France and in other European countries, even in the US in some places, you can find beaches and on rare occasions even swimming pools where you can get completely undressed. In fact, if nudity is allowed it usually means ONLY nudity is allowed. Like in a sauna, you must not wear even the skimpiest little piece of cloth on your body.

The tradition so far seems to be that you either follow the common dress code which is OK on any beach, OR you refuse to bow to societal pressure and do it in private or in locations reserved for your whims. But why do you insist that *I* must leave the public beach if I want to bathe in the nude whereas those who absurdly wish to remain fully clothed when taking a bath (which in many instances may even constitute a security risk, IMO) should mingle with everybody else wherever they want?

[Rex]

184. See here, "forcing a woman" are the three words we should be most focused on in this situation.

All the other stuff are details imo.

[WillowTree]

185. As I asked earlier, who's forcing anyone to do anything in this situation?

[Rex]

186. Well in any situation, you should not force a women to do something against her will.

That is kinda common sense. People can argue about the details, the intent is all that matters.

[WillowTree]

187. I agree. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that no one should be forced.

I just don't see where "forcing" comes into the context of this story.