Philosophy Now Forum

thedoc wrote:

Belinda wrote: But there are Muslim women , and infidel women too, who genuinely want to adhere to ethnic traditional dress styles.

I find it hard to believe that burkas are anything but a male dominance issue, there are many Muslims living in the US and I don't remember seeing any burkas here.

its not unusual to see muslim women wearing hijab, and i know there are people who want to ban that too

have never seen a woman wear a burka in usa but i have seen it during my trips to Canada, my canadian friends tell me that the french canadians are all worked up about it but elsewhere no one really cares

there were some muslims in the school i went to and some of the girls wore hijabs and i did get to discuss it with them (me being a girl makes that easier)

it is sometimes a male dominance thing. in other cases the men could not are less but their wives and daughters and sisters wear hijab anyway. i know one muslim girl wore the hijab even though her parents did not see any need for it - no male dominance there --- my understanding is that the situation with burkas is similar.

but the 'burkini' is not really a burka-like thing anyway it does not cover the face

Kayla wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Belinda wrote: But there are Muslim women , and infidel women too, who genuinely want to adhere to ethnic traditional dress styles.

I find it hard to believe that burkas are anything but a male dominance issue, there are many Muslims living in the US and I don't remember seeing any burkas here.

its not unusual to see muslim women wearing hijab, and i know there are people who want to ban that too

have never seen a woman wear a burka in usa but i have seen it during my trips to Canada, my canadian friends tell me that the french canadians are all worked up about it but elsewhere no one really cares

there were some muslims in the school i went to and some of the girls wore hijabs and i did get to discuss it with them (me being a girl makes that easier)

it is sometimes a male dominance thing. in other cases the men could not are less but their wives and daughters and sisters wear hijab anyway. i know one muslim girl wore the hijab even though her parents did not see any need for it - no male dominance there --- my understanding is that the situation with burkas is similar.

but the 'burkini' is not really a burka-like thing anyway it does not cover the face

I see burkas all the time in Toronto. Not unusual, and its none of my business what a woman wears. I still say though, that the more clothes you wear swimming, the more likely you will drown. Also not my issue, as I'm not paid to be a lifeguard.

It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

'Empowerment'. Stupid yank buzzword.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

'Empowerment'. Stupid yank buzzword.

Your response is missing the point and missing a verb. Well done.

Fritz Langwedge wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

'Empowerment'. Stupid yank buzzword.

Your response is missing the point and missing a verb. Well done.

Grammar advice from a yank is like getting diet advice from Ronald McDonald.

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Grammar advice from a yank is like getting diet advice from Ronald McDonald.

A Stateside dietician would probably advise you to cut down on the surly and try bigger portions of witty, but with Obamacare and all, it might not be worth the co-pay.

Fritz Langwedge wrote:

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Grammar advice from a yank is like getting diet advice from Ronald McDonald.

A Stateside dietician would probably advise you to cut down on the surly and try bigger portions of witty, but with Obamacare and all, it might not be worth the co-pay.

Please translate.

It means that stuffed surly went the way of haggis with a side of cellar-stored roots.

Maybe they’re using that test-tube meat right now. Who’s buying stock in test tube meat? Whose funding that research which is poised to go commercial, if not already?

I wonder now that France's top administrative court has ruled against the ban, if one's respect for constitutional law overrules their own feelings about the ban. It seems that at least the courts feel that such bans are an infringement on individual rights, freedom of expression and yes freedom of religion. I would think that strong women's rights advocates would feel that true emancipation for women would consist in allowing them to decide what to wear by themselves (not their husbands, not public opinion and not even other women or radical feminists). The picture of police officials forcing women to partially disrobe on beaches in accordance with the ban was enough to convince many that the ban was more than just silly but a threat to personal rights.

prothero wrote:I wonder now that France's top administrative court has ruled against the ban, if one's respect for constitutional law overrules their own feelings about the ban. It seems that at least the courts feel that such bans are an infringement on individual rights, freedom of expression and yes freedom of religion. I would think that strong women's rights advocates would feel that true emancipation for women would consist in allowing them to decide what to wear by themselves (not their husbands, not public opinion and not even other women or radical feminists). The picture of police officials forcing women to partially disrobe on beaches in accordance with the ban was enough to convince many that the ban was more than just silly but a threat to personal rights.

I think it's more than just silly, and more than just a threat to the notion of personal rights. It's a law that basically harasses Muslim women.

Fritz Langwedge wrote:

prothero wrote:I wonder now that France's top administrative court has ruled against the ban, if one's respect for constitutional law overrules their own feelings about the ban. It seems that at least the courts feel that such bans are an infringement on individual rights, freedom of expression and yes freedom of religion. I would think that strong women's rights advocates would feel that true emancipation for women would consist in allowing them to decide what to wear by themselves (not their husbands, not public opinion and not even other women or radical feminists). The picture of police officials forcing women to partially disrobe on beaches in accordance with the ban was enough to convince many that the ban was more than just silly but a threat to personal rights.

I think it's more than just silly, and more than just a threat to the notion of personal rights. It's a law that basically harasses Muslim women.

When in Rome. Actually, wearing that crap is a slap in the face to the people of the country they are guests in. You are too PC and passionless to see that. Btw, what happens if you have another 11/9? The US has just about run out of innocent countries to attack and destroy. Perhaps Saudi Arabia next? Oh no, Iran will have to be before that, since Saudi Arabia is a long-standing oily anal-lube of America. Gotta keep those arms dealers happy.

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

I think you've got it wrong, for women's empowerment, women should decide what they will wear, individual by individual, and men will have nothing to say about it.

thedoc wrote:

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

I think you've got it wrong, for women's empowerment, women should decide what they will wear, individual by individual, and men will have nothing to say about it.

Yep.

A little irony-deficient today, are we, doc?

Fritz Langwedge wrote:

thedoc wrote:

Fritz Langwedge wrote:It's crucial for the future of women's empowerment that men should decide what they should be permitted to wear.

I think you've got it wrong, for women's empowerment, women should decide what they will wear, individual by individual, and men will have nothing to say about it.

Yep.

A little irony-deficient today, are we, doc?

It should be noted that Irony, sarcasm, and humor are extremely difficult on a forum, where the words on a screen are the only clues. I can't hear your tone of voice, and I can't tell how hard you are banging the keys when you are angry. I tend to read exactly what I see on the screen, and take everything at face value, till corrected. I have noted your use of Irony, and will try to take that into account in the future. I will also assume that not everything you post is meant to be Ironic.