Fighting for the ‘Soul of France,’ More Towns Ban a Bathing Suit: The Burkini

[ken]

There's a few great white whales who ideally would cover up on the beaches in the interests of aesthetics but I'm okay with banning of either burqa or burkini.

There is no need to pander to those who sold out for the patriarchal bargain, or who cynically pushed it in the first place in the pursuit of power. These are cultures where the support of men has been bought by powerbrokers with the promise of dominion over women. Let them adapt to more modern and progressive values. It's not as though the west asked them to come. When in Rome ...

Would you be instantly willingly and happily volunteering to adapt to more modern and progressive values, in another country in which you wanted to or had to move to, even if that included the removal of all your clothes?

The culture you are in now is where the support of "leaders" has been bought by powerbrokers with the promise dominion over its citizens. How quickly would you, could you adjust to another more modern and progressive value culture?

Belinda was exactly right. No problem. I would do as needed to fit in, just as western women are forced to cover up in fundamentalist countries. I didn't want to dress up for work - I prefer t-shirts and shorts and playing with the garden, compost, dogs and drums. About twenty years ago I was dragged along to a nude beach by an ex boyfriend. When I first arrived I thought we'd landed on a Planet of the Apes movie set, but you get used to it quickly enough. My world did not fall in.

There appears to be a temptation on the part of some western men to buy peace with Islamic men by sacrificing women's rights, exactly the same process that saw Muslim women shift from being equal citizens for a thousand years to being oppressed minions - for the sake of an oppressive new "culture" that is decades old. The new Islam has as much depth as western reality TV - cheap and nasty.

I respect the old Islam - the real Islam - which allowed the middle east to lead the world in science and philosophy, and made adherents famous for their generosity. This new perversion of Islam barely even qualifies as "culture" and deserves neither latitude nor respect. It's simply a violent political movement. Bringing the symbols of its oppression into the heart of the west is one way of extending its reach. It's no doubt amusing and satisfying for clerics to watch the west continually wilt in the face of the unbending strength of their iron will, despite the host nations having all the ostensible power.

"Fundamentalist Islam" today is largely political bastardry using the cover of "culture" to allow the continued manipulation of the many by the few (fundamentalist clerics). Not too many have problems with legitimate Islamic requirements like observances during Ramadan.

All that is fair enough.

But I did not see any judgemental views on the oppressors of the "west" and their oppressive ways and wrong teachings of its citizens. Is that because the "western world" does no wrong in your view or is it because you see it as if it is not as bad as the "others", in my view, then it is acceptable?

[prothero]

All that is fair enough.

But I did not see any judgemental views on the oppressors of the "west" and their oppressive ways and wrong teachings of its citizens. Is that because the "western world" does no wrong in your view or is it because you see it as if it is not as bad as the "others", in my view, then it is acceptable?

Whatever happened to those Western values of diversity, tolerance, freedom of choice, individual expression and freedom of religion. It seems to me that banning the Burkini is a violation of Western values not an enforcement of them.

[Greta]

All that is fair enough.

But I did not see any judgemental views on the oppressors of the "west" and their oppressive ways and wrong teachings of its citizens. Is that because the "western world" does no wrong in your view or is it because you see it as if it is not as bad as the "others", in my view, then it is acceptable?

Whatever happened to those Western values of diversity, tolerance, freedom of choice, individual expression and freedom of religion. It seems to me that banning the Burkini is a violation of Western values not an enforcement of them.

A good example of the patriarchal bargain. Religious rights are given primacy over women's rights. That way the malcontents are appeased and the only losers are women. SNAFU.

[prothero]

A good example of the patriarchal bargain. Religious rights are given primacy over women's rights. That way the malcontents are appeased and the only losers are women. SNAFU.

What are you talking about? These women, not all of whom are Muslims, freely choose, to wear the burkini to the beach, as an expression of either their modesty or their religious faith or desire for sun protection, and their choice of values. You wish to deny them their freedoms because of your notion that they do not know their own minds and are being coerced? That is coercion by another name and by a different value system (namely yours), which is not even the Western value system (which accords individuals freedom of speech, expression and religion and values diversity and individual rights).

[ken]

All that is fair enough.

But I did not see any judgemental views on the oppressors of the "west" and their oppressive ways and wrong teachings of its citizens. Is that because the "western world" does no wrong in your view or is it because you see it as if it is not as bad as the "others", in my view, then it is acceptable?

Whatever happened to those Western values of diversity, tolerance, freedom of choice, individual expression and freedom of religion.

Is there anything wrong with those?

If not, then they are great things.

Personally, I do not see anything wrong with those, except for the last one; I find 'freedom of religion' in which people are "taught" to idealize and believe in some "thing/s", other than in their own Self and in their own capabilities, not the best nor right thing to do, but who am I to make judgments? I also find the teaching of and the idealizing and believing in some "thing", which may or may not actually be real and true, a rather very stupid thing to do. But it is also actually rather fun to "sit back" and witness. I find it very amusing and hilarious to watch.

It seems to me that banning the Burkini is a violation of Western values not an enforcement of them.

I like the point you are making here, but what about the enforcement of having to wear clothes at all, is that a violation of so called "western" values also? Is that a true 'freedom of choice' or an enforced/oppressed "western" law.

From My perspective, the values we each have, hold, and want to live by are NOT really like the "western" and "eastern" "values" forced upon us are. We all grew up in one, or the other, or both and we all were in a way "forced" or "oppressed" to accept and uphold some of those "values". I think our real and true values were, although not lost but are hidden, and have been replaced and superseded by our cultural/governmental "values".

This has happened in an unconscious way, like for example when people think that we all MUST wear clothes. This is just a societal/cultural "value" that has been so forced upon so many people for so long and so much that some people nowadays actually believe that this, freedom of not being exposed to nudity, "value" is right and correct, and therefore must be upheld by law and enforced. Oppressed "values" can slowly creep unconsciously into us individually and into society collectively that we do not even recognize that we ourselves are following and enforcing the new values, and we even start believing in wrong values as being what is right and/or correct values.

But this is yet to be shown and proven.

[Greta]

A good example of the patriarchal bargain. Religious rights are given primacy over women's rights. That way the malcontents are appeased and the only losers are women. SNAFU.

What are you talking about? These women, not all of whom are Muslims, freely choose, to wear the burkini to the beach, as an expression of either their modesty or their religious faith or desire for sun protection, and their choice of values. You wish to deny them their freedoms because of your notion that they do not know their own minds and are being coerced? That is coercion by another name and by a different value system (namely yours), which is not even the Western value system (which accords individuals freedom of speech, expression and religion and values diversity and individual rights).

If the burkini is so great, why don't the men HAVE to wear it or fear ostracism, threats and violence? Why don't western women adopt it? Ditto the burqa. You are just apologising for oppressors. Why not allow female genital mutilation in respect of others' cultures too? After all, it's the elder women who tend to perform the practice, so one could say it's a female's choice to have it done.

Anthropologist Eric Silverman wrote in 2004 that FGM had "emerged as one of the central moral topics of contemporary anthropology." Anthropologists have accused FGM eradicationists of cultural colonialism. In turn, anthropologists have been criticized for their moral relativism and failure to defend the idea of universal human rights.

According to the opposition's critics, the biological reductionism of the opposition to FGM, and the failure to appreciate FGM's cultural context, serves to "other" the people who practice it and undermines their agency – in particular when African parents are referred to as "mutilators." Africans who object to the tone of the opposition to FGM risk appearing to defend the practice.

Why distinguish between the right to force women to wear burkinis and the right to force women to have their clitoris cut off? The latter, you no doubt agree, is an abhorrent practice, not stemming from Islam but co-opted by especially oppressive Islamic subcultures.

PS. Look up "patriarchal bargain".

[ken]

Why not allow female genital mutilation in respect of others' cultures too?

I do not want this to be seen as a male/female issue at all, but I have wondered for a while now why male genital mutilation seems to be acceptable in some cultures, by some people?

And, why some of those same people would say that female genital mutilation is totally unacceptable?

Some may say that it is "only" the skin that is be mutilated on the male's genitals, and not the actual genitals themselves, therefore it is acceptable, but try explaining that to the screaming male child at the time, especially when it is NOT necessary and only a cosmetic procedure.

Whatever any responsible adult wants to do to their own body is totally their choice, and they are free to choose whatever they want to do. However, I find any circumcision when done unnecessarily to any child's body abhorrent, but that is just Me.

While we are at it, why do some people think and say that it is perfectly acceptable to mutilate the ears of children's bodies, of any gender, by putting holes in them?

Are some things, so unconsciously entrenched into some people's psyche, that they are seen as totally acceptable things to do, and just "part of the custom" and "must" be done, without any recognition nor consideration at all for the actual mutilation and harm that is taking place to children?

What is totally abhorrent to some is totally acceptable to others, and vice-versa.

Actually, I totally understand WHY (all) adults do abhorrent things to children, but what I find most abhorrent is the excuses all adults give for doing these things.

[Greta]

I agree that circumcision is cruel and pointless, aside from maybe for those living in very humid and readily infectious conditions. However, FGM is the female equivalent of cutting the entire head of a male's penis off. Rather a different issue.

Of course a piece of clothing is less of an issue again, but if we are to be flexible to some and not other religious practices of Muslims, we need to appreciate the expediency involved and always consider - who wins and who loses, if anyone?

[Belinda]

A good example of the patriarchal bargain. Religious rights are given primacy over women's rights. That way the malcontents are appeased and the only losers are women. SNAFU.

What are you talking about? These women, not all of whom are Muslims, freely choose, to wear the burkini to the beach, as an expression of either their modesty or their religious faith or desire for sun protection, and their choice of values. You wish to deny them their freedoms because of your notion that they do not know their own minds and are being coerced? That is coercion by another name and by a different value system (namely yours), which is not even the Western value system (which accords individuals freedom of speech, expression and religion and values diversity and individual rights).

Of course you are right Prothero. Banning religious coverups on the beach won't make Muslimas insightful, and is making martyrs of them. The modernising and de-politicising of misogynistic religions has to evolve slowly with the help of liberal education and empowerment of women together with laws that uphold the rights of individuals. Many women and girls are already oppressed by the male Muslim establishment, and need sympathetic understanding not stupid cops on bathing beaches.

In short, Prothero, your post- modern attitude has limited use. I recommend that some cultures of belief simply are better than other cultures of belief. Given that we want individuals to be as free and as happy as is compatible with the universalisability principle we need to apply reason to problems that involve politicised religions which lack universalisability.

(The precise meaning of universalizability is contentious, but the most common interpretation is that the categorical imperative asks whether the maxim of your action could become one that everyone could act upon in similar circumstances.)

[Kayla]

It's not as though the west asked them to come. When in Rome ...

so there should be separate standards for muslims who are immigrants, and muslims who are born citizens of a country

are you american

americans who complain about immigrants not assimilating are assholes unless they have taken the effort to learn a native american language or two

[Greta]

It's not as though the west asked them to come. When in Rome ...

so there should be separate standards for muslims who are immigrants, and muslims who are born citizens of a country

are you american

americans who complain about immigrants not assimilating are assholes unless they have taken the effort to learn a native american language or two

What a defensive post. Racist too. No, I'm not American and I'm a progressive liberal. However, I am not blindly and reflexively liberal, so I cannot ignore the obvious conflict of interest between two competing goods - the good of cultural tolerance and the good of women's rights. I choose to favour women's rights and you choose to favour cultural tolerance.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's not as though the west asked them to come. When in Rome ...

so there should be separate standards for muslims who are immigrants, and muslims who are born citizens of a country

are you american

americans who complain about immigrants not assimilating are assholes unless they have taken the effort to learn a native american language or two

What a defensive post. Racist too. No, I'm not American and I'm a progressive liberal. However, I am not blindly and reflexively liberal, so I cannot ignore the obvious conflict of interest between two competing goods - the good of cultural tolerance and the good of women's rights. I choose to favour women's rights and you choose to favour cultural tolerance.

Hear hear. But be careful about labelling yourself. The Americans have made 'liberal' a dirty word, and don't have a clue what it means, and weirdly, in Australia, the 'liberal' party is the right-wing fascist one. I have no idea what 'progressives' are, but I think it's a euphemism for 'politically correct toss-buckets'.

[prothero]

="Greta ]If the burkini is so great, why don't the men HAVE to wear it or fear ostracism, threats and violence? Why don't western women adopt it? Ditto the burqa. You are just apologising for oppressors. Why not allow female genital mutilation in respect of others' cultures too? After all, it's the elder women who tend to perform the practice, so one could say it's a female's choice to have it done.

According to the opposition's critics, the biological reductionism of the opposition to FGM, and the failure to appreciate FGM's cultural context, serves to "other" the people who practice it and undermines their agency – in particular when African parents are referred to as "mutilators." Africans who object to the tone of the opposition to FGM risk appearing to defend the practice.

Why distinguish between the right to force women to wear burkinis and the right to force women to have their clitoris cut off? The latter, you no doubt agree, is an abhorrent practice, not stemming from Islam but co-opted by especially oppressive Islamic subcultures.
PS. Look up "patriarchal bargain".

I am talking about the right of women to wear a covering bathing suit to the beach and you are talking about the genital mutilation of adolescents at the hands of others. I do not see the connection and it is not because I am dense. Freedom and individual choice are Western values and we do allow adults to modify their bodies if they so choose, anyway it does not seem like a reasonable comparison. Men can in fact wear women's clothes if they so choose, there is no law that I know of although there are cultural norms but we allow people to choose. I am not exactly a postmodern cultural relativist when it comes to murder, mutilation, rape or other such actions, but when it comes to beach attire, I suppose I am.

[Belinda]

I agree with Ken that genital mutilation is horrible whatever the sex that is being cut off. I include the old practice of deliberately creating castrati for singing that too is horrible. Even so, male castration and male circumcision are generally less intrusive and less painful than female circumcision. Medical ethics alone are sufficient reason to ban all deliberate genital mutilation except when done for ethical reasons such as the presence of cancer, or phimosis.

Specialist clothing for UV or jellyfish protection is unrelated to the problem of religious clothing. Women don't wear burkinis for physical protection, but they do wear them for perceived social protection.

Some women welcome a full face veil as protection against intrusive judgements of their faces, other women tolerate intrusive glances . It seems that Muslimas are often subservient such that they are not permitted or are unwilling to show their faces in public. This is a matter of fact. We can respect the Muslimas' feelings while deploring the male bossiness.

The problem of sorting male bossiness is not addressed by making the women feel worse than they did.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Even so, male castration and male circumcision are generally less intrusive and less painful than female circumcision.

Really?