To think that some types of 'western dress' e.g; high heels are as oppressive as the burka?

[malificent7]

Don't get me wrong; I have worn heels in the past in the dubious hope that they look 'sexy.' I have mostly ended up hobbling along at the end of the evening in pain and fed up, envious of those wearing trainers.
I do realise that women have a 'choice ' to wear garments such as heels, mini skirts and boob tubes but aibu to think that they are not garments of liberation but rather an over sexualised aesthetic imposed by the patriarchy.

I am not a massive fan of the burka and I do think that they have been enforced by the patriarchy for a different reason; to protect the modesty of the woman. I am very against the burka ban and I think Boris Johnson is a prick for his comments.

So both types of dress control women in different ways; the western dress to promote sexuality and the burka to hide it.

In short, women should wear what they want without government enforcement and comments from Boris and his ilk.

And before we talk about seeing women's faces when we talk to them and the obstruction to that that the burka causes; what about a full face of slap that many western girls embrace now?

*I still feel it's unfair for you to state the claim that that is the only reason women dress like that. Devotion to God, for some, merely means following all rules set out by religion
*
Erm...yes, showing devotion to God by not tempting a man to rape them. Because that is the point, as laid out in scripture.

We could try and argue that some women merely see it as a "symbol" and that it's evolved away from it's original intention....and this would have some validity were it not for the fact that it is still only women who wear them.

If it has nothing to do with tempting men and being modest, there's no reason at all why men can't wear them, right? But they don't. And that alone proves the inherent misogyny.

So, excuse me, if I feel appalled at any woman anywhere still wearing such a blatant symbol of misogynistic hatred 1500 years later.
I don't personally like such garments either, in that I wouldn't choose to wear them But don't you think that things might change meaning according to context? I can't think of good examples immediately, but pink used to be a colour that signified boy and blue girls, now it's the opposite way around. Timberland boots and DMs used to be workwear but then became fashion items in another context? Might not the meaning of wearing something mean one thing in one culture and something else in another? Similarly might not something that symbolises a particular kind of oppression for those outside the culture in which it's worn mean something different for those who wear it?

Whether there are some women who wear burkas - and I still don't believe that that's widespread - because they're forced to, there are clearly others who wear religious garbs like this who choose to as a form of faith. Isn't saying that we know better than they do oppressive and patronising. Things don't have fixed meanings they shift around over time and place, and mean different things for different people.

I agree...it's not widespread. My son went to a junior school with about 50% of the pupils from Muslim families. Think I only saw a couple of mums in burkas the whole time he was there.

The pink for a girl thing doesn't spring from sexism. In Victorian times, it used to be pink for a boy.

The use of colours and the expectation that girls/boys can be defined by colours at all and ought to be playing with certain toys is obviously sexist. But discussions are helping to raise conciousness. Imagine if we all just shut up about that on the grounds that it was nobody else's business?

I agree with your final paragraph...and that's precisely why I am not in favour of a ban. It would be patronising to tell an individual woman that she's only wearing a headscarf or burka because she's oppressed - because a) she might not be and b) she might agree and want to carry on wearing it anyway. Which is entirely her own business.

But the burka is a symbol of Islamic misogyny, whether the woman wearing it is a direct victim or not. And why should anyone shut up about that? We'r supposed to be against stuff like that on MN.

The context changed fir me when burqas were used as a tool of oppression by Islamic extremists.

Why any woman living in a western democracy would choose to wear it given its history is beyond me.

Exactly Tinycitrus!!!!!!!

Yes, ISIS forced people to wear them. The Taliban forced women to wear them. the Saudis force women to wear them (or did until recently) and the same in Iran even after Iran and Afghanistan had fairly liberal 1960s and 70s under the Sha of Iran etc where women could and often did wear mini skirts in the streets if they liked. Turkey is going backwards way too - it has a constitutional principle of secularism and yet more and more women are being forced into old fashioned religious clothing.

Most of us stand with those who would not ban it in the UK but that goes along with our right to say stop and think about what message you send out when you wear it and if you think it is all fine why not force your husband to wear a head covering or a full burka for a week or two - would he do that and if not why not?

I just read an interesting article about why Egypt phased out the face veil. An MP started the debate (in 2016), because she stated that the tradition came from the Jewish religion, and was adopted by Muslims. A sect in Judaism continue to wear the burka (and they came way before ISIS).

Anyway, I learnt that a fair few Muslim countries have phased out the face veil, such as Egypt.

My quick research went off on a tangent about brides and their face veils....

Banana your right re the brain washing. On the Boris thread I made a that point. We see this even in small things like how family's do father Christmas. They are entrenched into doing it like thier parents did. That's one event a year. Imagine being born into strict religious family, being around females who cover up, males who use language all the time to ensure modesty is kept. Then aside from this daily in the the house, you throw in actual religious education, isolation from western pupils, friends... And then wider family and community all set up to keep you in line... It's the norm in your family and everything you have ever known backs it up.

Then you say... Yes it's a choice

Also re Liberal scholars... I'm no expert but I remember something about hadiths which is what extremest draw on? Rather than Koran which seems to be open a wide range of interpretation based on which person is doing it.

*MrsAiden
*
Yes. A choice made as the result of brainwashing isn't much of a choice, I agree.

But what do we do about that? When you have an adult woman making it clear that she wants to wear a burka I don't think we have the right as a society to say "Well, you can't".

Like most things like this, I don't think we achieve much by targeting individuals. Change will happen when people are given the opportunity to access alternative information - which is already happening and can be seen to be working. Secularism & atheism is on the rise, especially amongst young people. So more and more people are rejecting the faith of their parents....or, at least, the more conservative, dogmatic aspects.

Regarding the Koran & Hadith.....basically, they're are a lot like the books of the bible. They can be manipulated to say whatever the preacher wants - there is no consensus amongst Islamic scholars about anything, just like there isn't amongst biblical ones. This is why no one can quite make up their minds which bits of women should be covered.

You see pictures of Cairo in the 1970s and the streets are full of women in bright clothes, their heads are not covered.
Very different today.

inycitrus

TinyCitrus "I’ve never seen a man in a burqa." How do you know?😄

I can think of two notable instances when men have worn burqas: In 1953 (to the best of my recollection) former Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mosaddegh tried to flee country wearing a chador. He was caught. Several years ago, a Somali man who was accused of a serious crime (I think it was terrorism-related but I could be wrong; again, I am going by memory) tried to flee the country wearing his sister's burqa. He was arrested at Heathrow.

I have heard anecdotally of men wearing burqas in order to be able to spend time in spaces that are limited to women.

So, excuse me, if I feel appalled at any woman anywhere still wearing such a blatant symbol of misogynistic hatred 1500 years later.

That's not entirely correct. While it may be a sympbol of misogyny now, the act of covering your face/hair/body in loose flowing clothes has nothing to do with misogyny and everything to do with the environment it stems from, which is hot and sandy.

We are having a horrible dusty, windy, hot summer here and I envy the women in abaya and the men in khandoura. I wish I could wear it as it's much cooler as you can wear nothing underneath it. I generally stick to long loose maxi dresses.

I do carry a scarf around that I often end up wrapping around my head and face to keep the blowing sand away.

While the religion appropriated the clothing for the wrong reasons, the fact of the matter is, it's actually quite sensible clothing for a desert environment.

I can think of two notable instances when men have worn burqas

Michael Jackson used to wear one when he was in Dubai & Bahrain. Got caught in the women's loo at Mall of the Emirates.

While the religion appropriated the clothing for the wrong reasons, the fact of the matter is, it's actually quite sensible clothing for a desert environment.

In addition, not many people are familiar with it, but in many of these regions there's a skin disease transmitted by the bite of a sand fly. It leaves a nasty scar. It's another, perhaps not so small reason, to cover the skin, including faces, outside the home

Thanks, hulk. I hadn't heard about that. Another to add to the list.

I can’t understand why anyone would cover thier face, if that’s what they want to do they can but I don’t understand that or how it can be compared to wearing high heels

It's not comparable, ivy.

If you google

Photographs of Kabul 1960s

You bring up photographs of woman in shirts and skirts without head coverings, twin set and pearl outfits.

I can understand why loose fitting clothing and head scarfs are ideal for nomadic people in the desert, the same as not eating pork as it rots in the heat far to quickly it’s nit practical.

It’s also the blinkered feeling -imagine if you heard footsteps running up behind you but could turn only at the speed the fabric allows. If you turned your head you’d be looking at the back fabric. It would be very restrictive. Can’t believe Ruth Davidson said it was the same as wearing a Christian cross. MSP falling over themselves to be inclusive -ridiculous.

ivykaty Sure you do, Kabul was a city and the women were emulating western dress. Outside Kabul the outfits would have been very different.

In the desert men wore turban like scarves which they could pull across their faces in a sandstorm. Women’s coverings were there all the time and couldn’t be pulled to the side to eat or converse. Not a justifiable excuse for a burka imv.

Don't agree. One is on the grounds of religion.

Women’s coverings were there all the time and couldn’t be pulled to the side to eat or converse.

What? They certainly could. Again the burkha is very rare and relatively new. In Gulf Arab Bedouin communities (the type of which Mohammed grew up in) women wore/wear shaylah, which is a loose scarf that can be tied around the head, and pulled over the face to shield from the sun/wind. It absolutely can be pulled aside to eat/converse, as can the niqab, and they generally wouldn't shield their face unless there were strange men about (as kidnappings were common in pre-Islamic Saudi Arabia).

@JellyBears and others who have not read the Boris Johnson article. Please read it before referring to it. Boris Johnson argues against a ban.