Burqas are a bad idea. I find them to be a running away from personal responsibility by running from identity--what with my inability to tell apart two similarly-shaped women wearing burqas of the same color. The crude interchangeability with other women that its use sorta provides to its wearers is just as irrational as the "God is #1; I'm nothing without His love." proclamations by Jesus-freaks.
Has it occurred to you that the reason there may be so many discussions happening on this issue is because it's an issue of concern in people's minds?
I think that you are being extremely arbitrary here by making an issue out of repeat posts on this topic and I suspect your motivation is that you have some objection which you don't want to raise honestly and discuss openly.
1. The nature of this site is such that it is inevitable that duplicate postings are going to occur in numerous groups and numerous journals on a topic that a lot of people are talking about simply because not everyone is a member of every single group and not everyone reads every single journal.
To even expect the members to do this type of checking in light of the above fact is ludicrous in the extreme.
2. It's also inevitable that there will multiple threads in the same groups simply because on a popular topic people are going to want to approach it from different angles.
To object to this is nothing more than an effort to suppress free speech.
As a Moderator and/or Owner of several Google Groups I'm not a Newbie and I'm very well aware of Spam concerns.
Repeat postings, in and of themselves, do not necessarily constitute Spam nor are they necessarily Trolling, particularly when you're talking about ON TOPIC Posts, Threads, and Journal articles.
Your behaviour on this issue has been nothing short of arbitrary, petty, and I believe is based on your prejudices on this particular topic which you haven't aired.
What is your problem with this topic being discussed by people on this site?
I hope you were just having a bad day, because your character assassination was unnecessary. You posted another topic on the issue in this group, when one had already been started. I was pointing that out, not as a slam at you, but in case you had missed it and wanted to see what people in the same discussion previously posted had to say.
Disagreeing with a persons assessment of a situation and providing another assessment, which is what I did above, does not constitute character assassination.
It's patently obvious to me that you have an issue regarding this topic and that it has nothing to do with multiple postings.
And one of the responsibilities of a Moderator that you might consider is the requirement to be objective and non-discriminatory when dealing with issues such as this, not petty, mean-spirited, taking things personally, and holding personal grudges.
It's also patently obvious that you've chosen to take my comments personally and have restarted this discussion after 2 Months in an attempt to intimidate me and throw your weight around now that you are a Moderator.
The comment you're responding to was made on July 21 and you are responding to it on September 24 with your new Moderator badge and accusing me of engaging in character assassination. Something which is quite obvious to anyone who can read that I did not do.
That kind of bullying rarely works with me and is a really good way to piss me off.
You would be well advised to drop this issue and stop this harassment.
I see a woman in a bur-qua in the same light as I would see a black man walking around in rags and chains: I don't understand why anyone would want to, but fucking hell, if one likes it, have at it.
For schools, if there's a uniform code; too bad, take it off or don't go to school.
In public, there should be no regulation of who can wear what and where.
To me, a woman in a bur-qua screams, 'I am a slave and treated as sub-human.' But if it's the most empowering thing in the world to her, then fine. Go ahead, have fun. I don't expect a woman in a bur-qua to change her opinion of it on my account; I expect the same courtesy extended to me.
As a supporter of the proposed burqa ban in France, I wonder how many participants here are opposed to France's (and most civilized nations) ban on polygamy or India's outlawing of Sati (the Hindi ceremony of Hindu widows immolating themselves in their dead husbands funeral pyre). In principle are there situations where it's ok to tell a person "We don't care what your religion requires or allows, you cannot do that in this country"; or should a woman be allowed to be a man's 50th wife in your nation, because it's her choice?
What if this weren't a feminist issue but rather a race issue? What if instead of it being disgraceful for a Muslim woman to show any portion of her body it was instead disgraceful for a Christian person of African decent to show any portion of their body; would this still be viewed as tolerable in a progressive nation? What if some of the people of African descent agreed and were complicit?
Nice, the same argument used against gay marriage used against burqas. Polygamy is illegal because the law can't deal with divorces, not because it's immoral.
It kind of is a race issue. It's a bunch of white people (Mostly old and mostly men) telling the savages how to live to make themselves feel better. Making them more civilized, of course. They're not going to bother with treating any of the underlying social problems that actually make these women miserable. Education and trying to level the playing field is way too much work and doesn't really make the (old white guys) feel all that much better in the end than being pushy does. So we get bans that get it out of the sight of the people that are offended by it and they'll all pat themselves on the back. The left leaning ones for being so progressive and the right leaning ones for pissing on a minority and smashing something that offended them.
Your analogy is way off, but to answer your question: Yeah, we'd still support the ones that wanted to cover themselves covering up. You know, instead of telling minorities and women what to do in the name of empowering them. You know they don't want to ban women being forced to wear burqas, they just want to ban burqas being where they are forced to look at them. There's a huge difference between the two: One empowers women, the other just subjugates an even larger number of them.
Supporting a woman's right to choose what she puts on her body apparently = sexist and racist.
you said "Nice, the same argument used against gay marriage used against burqas. Polygamy is illegal because the law can't deal with divorces, not because it's immoral".
I say - Really? I've never heard that before-where did you read this? Ultimately even if your claim is correct (which I doubt at this moment) it doesn't matter. I asked you supporters of the burqa also support the ban on polygamy. I can see little consistency in supporting one and opposing the other.
you said "It's a bunch of white people (Mostly old and mostly men) telling the savages how to live to make themselves feel better'.
I say - Big fan of ad hominids I see. France is merely considering whether or not to ban the burqa as many French men and women and Muslims agree that it's overtly sexist and oppressive. Many French men and women believe that the beliefs that encourage and/or force a women to wear a burqa are 100% counter to French values and that while Muslims are welcome in France such attitudes towards women are not. I agree with them on this. Believe it or not, there are many feminists in France who are very much in favor of the proposed ban, in fact the movement enjoy significant support amount French progressives (the French Communist Party endorses it overwhelmingly). The French Muslim feminist organization 'Ni Putes, Ni Soumises - Not Prostitutes, Not Submissive ' endorses a ban and is a leader in this movement.
Your response seems to be extraordinarily uninformed, as it turns out that you are completely wrong- the proposed burqa ban in not something only supported by "old white men" who hate muslims and it is in fact about preserving France's principles regarding the humane treatment of women.
I respect all disagreement with me on this issue (to be honest I'm really conflicted on this one), but please educate yourself as to the nature of the movement in France (and about those endorsing it) before you resort to spouting off the same old tired rhetoric. However, it's quite possible that I might end up changing my mind on this issue...it really is a tough one.
BTW-my analogy was 100% spot on IMHO.
p.s. I am willing to say that a culture that considers it necessary to require their women to wear a burqa is a bit savage IMO.
I want to know why everyone is upset about France "telling women what to wear", but no one cares about places like Saudi Arabia doing the same. It's just as "racist" to make non-Muslim women cover up in an Arab country as it is to make Muslim women show their face in an European country. Or do only Western countries have to be multicultural? And as far as "savages", yes, people who stone women to death for being raped ARE savages. It's racist to say it's OK for someone to oppress others b/c they're from another culture, and it's also condescending.
The only thing I care about in relation to burqas is that it makes it extremely easy to commit a crime, and that is why it needs to be removed for certain situations. I would not want someone to do a bank transaction, or get on a plane, without ever demonstrating that they are who they say they are. If they are unwilling to ever show their face, then they won't be able to do everything that others can do--which is how it is for women in Muslim countries, anyway.
I wonder how many participants here are opposed to France's (and most civilized nations) ban on polygamy or India's outlawing of Sati (the Hindi ceremony of Hindu widows immolating themselves in their dead husbands funeral pyre). In principle are there situations where it's ok to tell a person "We don't care what your religion requires or allows, you cannot do that in this country"; or should a woman be allowed to be a man's 50th wife in your nation, because it's her choice?
Exactly. And this is the reason why female circumcision, another religious practice used against women, is illegal in Canada.
I was thinking about that recently, too, Fred. When I was a girl growing up in 1950s/60s England, women always wore hats or headscarves when they went out (not just to church). But then again men also wore hats, so maybe it was just a fashion thing.
All the same, in those days women wouldn't have gone to church without wearing a hat or scarf (that would have been seen as disrespectful), whereas it would have been disrespectful for a man to keep his hat on in church.
Where does all this shit come from? It might stem from the days when men wore helmets rather than hats, so a bare head was seen as a sign of non-threatening meekness, like leaving your weapons at the door.
I agree that ideas about clothing could change within Islam too - and there are plenty of muslim girls and women in the UK who don't wear any kind of head-covering and even show their arms and legs without thinking twice about it. If only it weren't all tied up with political notions of 'identity' - ie, 'covering yourself from head to foot is a statement of identity' (illogical as that is) - I think more women would abandon their burqas and niqabs.