Asa feminist what do you think about the burkha/niqab, liberating or oppressive?

The religious view of this thread is a moot point. The only thing that will make the world go around is the same thing that has always made it go around.....money and power (usually in that order).

That individuals chose a religious standpoint is one thing, but ultimately, it's going to be the bankers that write the laws behind everything. Do you really think for one second that they care? It's all about the powerful keeping groups of people divided to sell more munitions so they can control the world population (and divisions based on "sex" have been the really "in" thing for the last 75 years. It's also about keeping those on the bottom rungs of society placated with flashy lights and "self help" devices. All snake oil.

Why not make an issue out of every little thing along the way? They want you to do that.

Organized religions have almost always been used by those in power as a means of control.

While this argument does not disprove the existence of a deity, it certainly sheds light in the dark corners.

I'm not so sure that feminism is not compatible with world economies. Unless by economy you mean 10%.

KRITIQ - From your last post, I get the impression that you misunderstood what I was saying re "evolutionary viewpoint".

I didn't say that women try to remain attractive for evolutionary reasons, which is what you are arguing against with examples from animal species.

I said men find youthful characteristics like pink cheeks, toned bodies, hair without gray etc attractive and that their attraction to young women in their peak years of fertility is understandable from an evolutionary viewpoint.

It is not a controversial statement, and I suspect you are arguing against because you misunderstood my previous post.

messy - I understand where you are coming from re women dependent on men, but what about a large percentage of women who are economically independent in the Western world? Why are they dying their hair, wearing heels, putting on make-up, and some even smoothing out their wrinkles with Botox?

I am talking about these women who have a choice in the matter when I say that men don't make women bend over backwards to cheat time and look younger, it is us women who want to remain in the game, as it were.

Anorexia is a disorder, not normal or rational behavior. It has been diagnosed since 19th Century, way before it became fashionable to be very thin.

Ha ha ha, by the way

Regardless who runs the fashion/beauty industries, they advance themselves by playing to the deepest insecurities that have been drummed into females since birth- the fear of being unattractive.

That insecurity comes from the patriarchal set up that made a woman dependent on a man for her livelihood and therefore she'd better be pretty if she wanted to live well.... no doubt there s a male "evolutionary" preference for a bit of young skirt, but the fact that women have traditionally pandered to it for so long is down to economic survival in an unfair system, not nature.

It's interesting that in this day and age, when women have made strides in many areas, the whole "thou-shalt-be-pretty" crap is shoved down our throat harder than it ever was. A world full of happy feminist women wouldn't be good for the economy that's for sure.

Oh dear. Yes, I'm sure women starve themselves so thin they couldn't possible have periods .... for 'evolutionary' reasons.

They'll be dead fertile at a size zero, I'm sure.

Okay, I guess that means that I fundamentally disagree with you as to why women do those things. In many countries and cultures, it's more common for the men to "dress to impress" the women, not the other way round. Even amongst animals and birds, it's the males that have the most colourful and elaborate appearance / displays to attract females.

Imho, the fact that it's reversed in Western societies (i.e. that femininity and female identity is bound up in appearance and being appealing to men,) says to me that this is socialised, not innate.

I am talking about why we put on make-up & heels, go on endless diets, and squeeze into little dresses on nights on, rather. Stupid auto-correct.

I am talking about why we out on make-up, heels, go on endless diets, and squeeze into little dressed on nights on.

You are talking about clothing details - exact height of shoes (Kitten heel? Platform?), colors of the season, hair styles (fringe?) etc are indeed determined by the fashion industry including magazines who have a vested interest in all of us continuing to buy different clothes/shoes. EVEN THIS is not "male ideology". Fashion industry is overwhelmingly female dominated, with a high percentage of gays among the male minority. So no, it makes no sense whatsoever to point at fashion as evidence of male ideology.

So marketing counts for nothing then. All those millions spent trying to make people buy things they don't actually need, completely wasted because we're just doing what evolution dictates.

You should be sorry, because you clearly don't understand what evolutionary viewpoint means. It is not about herd behavior.

I was obviously referring to men finding youthful physical characteristics attractive (because those indicate higher fertility) and us women using make-up, creams, diets, hair dye, Botox etc to prolong/pretend them because we want to remain attractive.

My point was that "male ideology" isn't making us do any of this. In fact, if we just let our face get pale and our hair grey, I suspect that men would have no problem with turning their attention to younger women.

Evolutionary viewpoint? Sorry Cote, I seriously don't think we all behave like troops of baboons or flocks of geese. Do you genuinely think it's all about biological determinism that women choose to dress and appear a certain way?

"The choice to wear what you like is the same. Each is pre conceived by the male ideology"

I thought about this for a bit and came to the conclusion that us women are imposing make-up, clothing, and heels on ourselves because we want to continue to look attractive to men. We also diet and try to stay slim like we naturally were in our late teens and early twenties for this very reason.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, it is entirely reasonable for men to be attracted the most fertile women/girls who have the best chance of a healthy offspring. That would be late teens and 20s, where girls have rosy cheeks, slim bodies, perky breasts, etc. This is what men find most attractive, and this is what we try to imitate with make-up, diets, etc.

This is not "male ideology" dictating us how to dress and be. We could stop trying to look younger, and let our age show with gray hair (no hair dye), pale skin and lips (no make-up), wear comfy track suits to go with our figure that naturally gets rounder as years go by. But then we would have no hope of competing with younger women, and most of us just can't let that happen.

A woman in a hijab is not necessarily a "good Muslim" either.

Well Cuntry, my point (quite clear I thought) was the regarding the constant comparison between heels and hijab. One makes you a good Muslim the other doesn't have such weight attached.

I was referring to your confused comment of religion and nationality;

"...High heels don't make someone a good Muslim, Brit, whatever".

Erm, I don't wear heels. And noone is saying that heels aren't part of the objectifying women crap, are they?

Despite WHO wears the heels, the point is they are an oppressive item of clothing.

Your conditioning? By the fashion industry?

And often I mean sometimes!!

KRITIQ Mon 24-Oct-11 23:06:31
Norman, alot of marketing bucks go into convincing Western women that they "need" expensive, constrictive products and services to be "acceptably feminine," whether it's waxing, crippling footwear, toxic lotions and potions or cosmetic surgery. In my great gran's day, it was corsets laced so tight they cause internal organ damage and restricted breathing and movement.

Basically, just because something is spun and hard sold to us as prettifying and feminising and a "free choice," doesn't mean it's any of the above.

AGAIN, this is not WEstern, maybe women in the East don't get waxed they get threaded, crippling heels are often worn by Muslim young women with a hijab. The difference is that high heels don't make someone a good ? Muslim, Brit, whatever.

I neither wear skimpy clothing, high heels nor a hijab. (never leave the house without make up though, but that is my conditioning that I cannot age EVER)

Of course it's equivalent.

It's either a choice or it's not.

I didn't say it wasn't oppressive. You can CHOOSE to wear high heels and think it's a decision made all by yourself and not by the patriarchy or you can CHOOSE to cover your head/face/neck down/elbow up and think it's a decision made all by yourself and not by the patriarchy.

I sit on the fence because while I don't bother with a hijab (I'm not a Muslim) in the UK, I also refuse to walk around half naked or in tight fitting clothes.

Yyes thanks for that guys

What I am surprised at is that you see some sort of equivalency between make up , mini skirts rtc and the burka. Maybe in some undergraduate social sciences essay, but in real life?

I get the western oppression of women thing, you are not telling me anything I don't know but you cannot pretend this is equivalent to wearing a burka. It's ridiculous.

They do or at least some do. I just find it strange to see women get their knickers in a twist over women covering up but give no thought to women feeling they have to look like Jordan lookalikes to be attractive. They say that Muslim women really have no choice even when they think they do - seems just as apt with the pressure many women feel to look attractive and conform with using make-up and heels etc.

But women who cover still buy in to all that, expensive potions and potions, waxing, facials hair straightening, anti wrinkle stuff