Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 08:15pm PT
|
Oooh, Bluey--those two humble women are sooo scary!
I'm sure that you would rather have these two in a public place...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 08:39pm PT
|
Don't get me started on that sh#t, Mojede!
They're mostly unthinking idiots who follow the 'rap-pack'. It's a whole different story. At least their faces (and asses) are showing.
Dingus is elaborating this issue better than me. I tend to get got up in the Islamasization from the Muslim Brotherhood stated goals more than he does. But we both seem to seek the same goal. An AMERICAN culture that frowns on women wearing burqas.
That seems to be the bottom line. Borders, Language, and Culture define a nation, someone said that once......
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
All Over.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 27, 2010 - 08:58pm PT
|
HEY!
This is my thread!
I think this is interesting news!
So, I haven't read the entire thread, but it seems to be growing legs of it's own.
I've pondered this topic for the last day and have to say;
1- Claiming terrorism is bullsh#t. Anyone can disguise themselves. F*#k off to anyone who claims that. (I read some of the thread, so especially you, cragman). Terrorism comes in many shapes, least of all a full face veil. I could wear baggy clothes and look perfectly Anglo and still do much harm. Stop playing ethnic games, it doesn't hold water in this discussion.
2- Forcing women to wear this attire is wrong, but our country has NO right to restrict religious freedom, however much I disagree with it.
3-It is WRONG to force women to act a certain way, to dress like you are told, to be the product of a man's whim.
All that said, it is clear that I have conflicting views on the topic.
My final answer, however, if you will, is to let them wear their veils, and enact change in a more secular way.
I hate the thought of Women being forced to endure this way of life and I would love to see a change. Legislation is not the answer, only the impetus for more hate on western governments.
The change can only come from within, and until that time comes, we need to get off of our high horses and take a deep breath.
Take the steps you can to encourage this change, get in fights if you feel the need (it seems like some of you need yer' asses kicked), but don't bring government into it.
Government is Government.
Religion is Religion.
Don't blend the two, EVER.
Again, I hate to agree with this, but it has no place in any government.
OK, Bye.
Brandon-
|
|
happiegrrrl
Trad climber
New York, NY
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:08pm PT
|
"But then again, i've seen some women w/o makeup, and hoh man, it wasn't pretty. "
That's a pretty bizarre statement. As if there are no men whose appearances might be *improved* by evening our the textures and tones, adding highlights and contours....
I haven't worn cosmetic makeup since the Sushi Fest at Snow Canyon(?), when I costumed as a Faerie Domme Mother.... Before that, I did have a short stint when I first got sober(trying out things I had missed in life). I always felt like it was a mask. I suppose people get used to it, but I found it pretty uncomfortable(at least using the foundation/powder part. oh yeah, and mascara - sticky. well, lipstick too, I suppose....not much left, hahaha)
But anyway - I don't like the banning of bhurkas on a government level. I do understand the idea of the identity being camouflaged, but wonder how realistic that is. If a woman is willing to strap bombs under her bhurka and blow herself up in a public building, she'll be willing to do the same under loose-fitting clothing with her face showing.
If they're worried men will wear the bhurka to be suicide bombers - now that I could see. But again - they can wear strap-ons under a flowing traditional middle eastern robe, or be a skinny guy with explosives strapped beneath a film-prop fat suit.
But the banning of this dress does infringe on the rights of the woman already living in a situation where she's *required* to don the dress to be in public. You think a domineering husband is going to allow her out of the house now? Doubt it.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:13pm PT
|
F*#k off to anyone who claims that. (I read some of the thread, so especially you, cragman).
Maybe you should read the whole thing YOU started before commenting.
Ricardo, you seem young and illusioned (as opposed to disillusioned).
|
|
Ricardo Cabeza
climber
All Over.
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 27, 2010 - 09:30pm PT
|
OK, I should read the entire thread, point taken.
However, my opinions still stand.
DMT, I know that our government holds the Bible in high regard, a benchmark of honesty, if you will. Where has that gotten us in regards to morality? I say nowhere, regarding legislators.
Bluey, I'm probably not as young as you think, but yes, younger than the majority.
As far as illusioned goes, no.
I feel what I feel, I read a multitude of media sources, both left and right. I feel strongly on many issues, and agree with both sides, depending on the topic.
I feel that denying religious freedom, no matter how much it seems right, will lead us towards an end that no one here would like to see.
It's all about the precedent that this sets, laws are much bigger than the rules that they enact.
|
|
pc
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:41pm PT
|
Well said Ricardo.
edit: DMT Just because they have and do mix religion and politics doesn't mean they should. I'd love someone to come along and say "I don't want to take the oath of office on that bible or any other religious object. They're too divisive. Give me a piece of Yosemite granite to swear on. That's a piece of America I can stand behind."
Any politicians here about? ;)
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:48pm PT
|
Timothy McVeigh didn't wear a burka or a niqab, but was nonetheless quite a 'successful' terrorist. He killed children, too. Something unusual in terrorists in the USA, apart from the school/family shooters, who probably can't be defined as terrorists anyway, at least not in the political sense.
As recent commentators have commentated, no modern technology would detect a bomb that someone had swallowed, or had inserted into his/her rectum. With remote detonator. A kilo or two of high explosive inside someone can do a lot of damage. There has been at least one case (in Saudi Arabia) where a male suicide bomber did this. And there haven't been that many female suicide bombers. So let's not get too worked about the possibility that overclad Islamic female terrorists are to be found beneath every robe.
I oppose any law, or religious or social custom (Islamic, Christian, Mormon, Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Mrs. Grundy...) that requires anyone to behave in a certain way - unless it's clear that public safety truly requires it, or after an open and informed debate, it's accepted/legislated. So requiring that women show their faces (at least) to vote, interact with government, obtain a passport or drivers' licence, travel, go to school, be treated in hospitals, and so on, isn't an issue for me. We live in an open society - that's our social contract. Like it or leave, or don't come in the first place.
Voluntary/customary behaviour is another thing. Determining whether someone is behaving voluntarily is rather a difficult challenge - informed, free consent and all. Not to mention cultural and religious differences. However, if the behaviour is truly voluntary (and it often doesn't seem to be, whatever the person involved may say), then I can tolerate it - subject to the above.
All that said, I'm quite uncomfortable with fully covered women. I saw some in birqas and niqabs at Heathrow a week ago, maybe for the first time ever live, and it was quite disconcerting. Leaving aside comfort zones, my difficulty with it is what it symbolizes about how some religions and cultures treat women generally.
And not forgetting that the treatment of and attitudes toward women of some US (and Canadian) religious, cultural, social and political groups isn't exactly positive either.
Somewhat off topic, it's always amusing to remember that the first wife of the Islamic prophet Muhammad, Khadijah, was an important merchant and businesswoman. She was older than Muhammad, and probably proposed to him. She was also the first convert to Islam. And that the Quran only enjoins women to be modest. Pretty hard to reconcile all that with the practices of certain modern Islamic sects. But then, the practices and customs of most religions are rather bizarre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khadijah_bint_Khuwaylid
|
|
habitat
climber
grass pass
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:51pm PT
|
I agree with whomever said change has to come from within.
When I travelled throughout Nepal in the late 80's I was careful to wear clothing that I thought would not be offensive. I hiked 230 miles in a long, ankle length skirt. This included many swollen river crossings and a trek to Anapurna base camp. I don't even think I owned a skirt at that point in my life but I bought one before I left that I thought would be suitable. I didn't question the why's and wherefore's of it, as I didn't feel that was appropriate. I just tried to fit in as best I could.
I was a little saddened to see many women (mostly Europeans) hiking in their short-shorts and tank tops. While no one complained outright, it clearly made the locals uncomfortable.
I feel that in a lot of ways, women are probably more liberated in a society that embraces modesty than in one (like ours) where women are expected to compete in a sexually suggestive way. When you look at the rest of the animal kingdom, the females are very drab looking and it is the males who must compete visually for their attention. So in a lot of ways, these more so-called "repressive" cultures are functioning more naturally than we are.
If, in the religions/cultures that require modest attire for women, it is objectionable for those who must abide by these things, then hopefully they will, at some point, be able to effect some change internally. But for someone outside their culture to try to impose it on them is not likely to be very effective and could even be counter-productive.
|
|
pc
climber
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 09:54pm PT
|
DMT, I'm with Ricardo on this one. Don't like them for their "anti women" history and purpose but REALLY don't want the gov't getting involved. It's a slippery frickin' slope that one.
Education for my kids, your kids, Bluey's kids, et al. Keep the money flowing in that direction please. That's the way IMO.
Cheers,
pc
|
|
Ghost
climber
A long way from where I started
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 10:08pm PT
|
Like a lot of you, I find myself on the fence here. Don't want anybody telling me what I can wear -- or am required to wear -- and don't want to tell anyone else what they should wear.
But something that seems to have been generally missed here is equality. Dingus alluded to it en passant, but then it disappeared. The point being, if they (the Islamic world) don't want the French or Americans or whoever to tell them what they can or cannot wear in France or America, then perhaps they should stop telling French and American women what to wear in Riyadh or Islamabad.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 10:42pm PT
|
Timothy McVeigh didn't wear a burka or a niqab, but was nonetheless quite a 'successful' terrorist. He killed children, too. Something unusual in terrorists in the USA, apart from the school/family shooters, who probably can't be defined as terrorists anyway, at least not in the political sense.
Hey, Anders, he didn;t kill in the name of Christianity. You Atheist f*#ks keep trying trying to bring him and the one or two abortion bombers into this crap.
It's really lame...
How many guys disguised as women have killed wearing burqas? Do you know? Have all your stats in order for that?
....I didn't think so....and as an aside, how many chix took their burqas off when they realized the Taliban were gone in Asscrapistan?
Wanna know?
|
|
mojede
Trad climber
Butte, America
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
|
"...he didn't kill in the name of Christianity."--Bluering
So?
Bombing a building doesn't need to be done in anyone's "name" to be terrorism--it's all the same.
And realistically speaking, the 9-11 "19" were the luckiest dudes on the planet to pull off what they did and get the results that they got. McVeigh knew exactly what damage he was would get from his act.
Comparisons are lame.
edit: the answer to your lastest question is "2"--tho ones in your pictures:-)
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
|
Jan 27, 2010 - 11:50pm PT
|
Thank you Pate !!!!! that is the very thing I was trying to get across many posting ago...!!!! sheesh.
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 12:00am PT
|
Seriously, how safe is it to drive a car around wearing a burka? seems it would kinda limit one's peripheral vision, there's another safety issue for ya.
|
|
Karen
Trad climber
So Cal urban sprawl Hell
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 12:43am PT
|
Well, those women in France strolling around in their burkas seem to want to drive, don't they? isn't that one of the issues? They want to do business as usual? Go into government buildings, obtain drivers license, ect., so..... via le' france and ban the SOB's
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 02:08am PT
|
" This isn't even a religious issue, not really. It's about everybody behaving the same in public."
Ah yes....in the same way that the law equally prohibits rich people and poor people from sleeping under bridges. Totally non-discriminatory.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
"Perhaps, but I bet a whole lot of others would rather not do so but have no say in the matter. What exactly would happen to some of these women in hardcore Muslim territory who might wake up one day and decide NOT to wear a veil. Suppose one such woman woke up one morning and decided to discard said veil and then walk into town wearing say a skirt perhaps 2 inches below the knee and short sleeved blouse. Add a little tasteful makeup - say some light eyeliner and a bit of subtle not too bright lipstick. Lets put on some low-heeled pumps maybe an inch or two in height. Say this outfit was her "choice" of clothing in which to go to the public market. How might this woman just so happen to fair that day?"
In those countries, the women would be, at the very least, arrested, because in those countries, the state mandates what women may wear. Make sure that you understand that you are advocating for EXACTLY the same form of gov't control of women's dress, differing only in the specifics. Not men, not menonites, only women, and only one religion's traditional dress. Is this really the power that you want a gov't to take on??
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 28, 2010 - 02:47am PT
|
Yep, those folks only believe in covering the body of women:
(but we don't believe in stereotypes)
DMT, I envy the day that you will not be allowed to see your daughters graduate in academic dress:
And these abused women will be arrested and imprisoned in concrete and steel, instead of cloth:
I don't know who, dressed in traditional body covering dress is more frightening:
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!