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?

The sexualised version is the default. You have to actively seek out an alternative

Huh? Any sports shop or supermarket will sell a speedo style swimsuit? It's not sexualised to wear a swimsuit withiut a high front and short style legs.

Struggling to think of the last time a woman was confined to her home for not wearing high heels.

I can think of several times when a woman was legally required to wear them to keep her job when a male colleague was not though.

NO woman should be forced to wear anything, especially nothing that physically disfigures her.

If it is legal, and a woman isn't being coerced I don't care what she wears. That doesn't mean we can't have discussions about why she choose it of course, but I don;t want to go down any route to ban what a woman might feel comfortable in.

The burka is incredibly rare.
Absolutely. And whether you support the freedom to wear it or not, the fact that a woman looks like a "postbox" is nothing to do with the argument. It's just an opportunity for BJ to jump on a popularist bandwagon as part of his leadership campaign, and indicate his misogyny at the same time.

I bought my frumpy Speedo at a large Sports Direct.

And overall frumpy is the very worst I will be labelled in my community.

Struggling to think of the last time a woman was confined to her home for not wearing high heels

I can think of several times when a woman was legally required to wear them to keep her job when a male colleague was not though

Not the same as being confined to her home though, is it?

OP - Have you read the article?

Boris was actually defending the burka ie saying that the UK should not ban the wearing of the burka as has happened in such places as France and Switzerland.

Didn't Boris Johnson raise it in light of the ban in Denmark?

DD1 was taught RE by a Muslim man and she asked him why some women cover up completely in his religion, he replied that it was to stop non relations who were men seeing them and possibly abusing them. She asked him why men couldn't IMAGINE the women unclothed?

He couldn't answer her.

Passport control is one situation where the face should be seen of course. But in day to day life people should have the choice. Unfortunately they will be judged as we all will by what we wear. I guess I am being a bit goady; playing devil's advocate but I am angered by the far right on both sides of the debate.

Heels are oppressive as they cause disfigurement of the foot and leg

Jesus, do some thinking. Heels aren't oppressive in their own right, only the attitudes/regulations/laws that accompany their wearing.

Have only read the OP and will catch up om the rest of discussion soon but I saw this cartoon a while back and found it thought-provoking for a few reasons - eg it turns some assumptions on its head and shows our perception of other cultures might be different from outside

I guess I am being a bit goady; playing devil's advocate but I am angered by the far right on both sides of the debate

1.Would have been marginally OK had you said this in your OP, though actually you appear to be losing whatever point you might have been making . Meh.

1. What do you mean by the far right on both sides of the debate. Surely you mean left and right,?

Well I don't, and never have worn heels, mini skirts and boob tubes. Ever.

Nor have I ever felt I should.

Burkas and niqabs literally efface women. Their very purpose is to prevent women from being present on public as much as possible. You really can't compare that to impractical footwear.

In the 1970s, women took to the streets to protest the implementation of a new law requiring them to wear head coverings/face coverings. I read many articles where the wearing of a hijab, niqab or burka is described as a woman's choice, it isn't. How many of us know about those protests? Not many, instead we are led to believe that women choose to wear these clothes of oppression. Here women wear high heels, tight clothing, these are also clothes of oppression which we have been conditioned to believe make us feel 'sexy','feminine', 'empowered' when really they just mean we can't run away from danger as easily as when we wear skirts &flats, jeans & trainers. So no YANBU.

Yes Racecard I agree. IMO they (have to be) in purdah when they go out.

That cartoon is ridiculous, women don't wear bikinis to walk down a street. If it was drawn on a beach then it wouldn't be thought provoking would it, the woman covered from head to toe would just look uncomfortable and oppressed. Which is what she is.

That cartoon is utter tripe.

How often do you see a British women walking up the high street in a fucking bikini in a pair of high heels?

Bikinis are for swimming. The women in all the Islamic gear isn't allowed to swim incase someone sees her legs ffs.

I'm sure the bikini woman puts on her coat boots and hat in the snow.

Generally agree with you... it's all relational to the male gaze. Whether that's to attract the male gaze or to avoid it. How about side-stepping the concept of the male gaze altogether and wearing clothes for comfort and practicality... that is the path to liberation, not being constricted or influenced by male control and desires.

There are some jobs where women have to wear a uniform such as heels and i think this is oppressive too, but theyre not forced outside of work

In my view women dress for other women's approval.

My swimming costume isn't. Its a speedo one piece with square cut legs. I had to order it off the internet.
If I had gone into a shop I could have chosen a bikini or a one piece with a low cut front and high cut legs that would have shown off half my arse.

My non-sexual swimming costume that is for swimming not looking pretty by the pool (I have one of those too!) is from the swim shop at the local pool. Before that I got a speado from Decathalon.

Who said most women don't dress for comfort and practicality?

Some people want to attract a mate that's why lots of young people dress up to go out.

There's nothing actually wrong with finding other humans aesthetically pleasing. Most humans are able to control themselves and not jump on every woman who has swishy long hair.

I don't think they are equally oppressive, no, because the woman's obligation and choice involved is so different.

What Boris said "letter box" and "bank robber" publically ridiculed the holy beliefs of Islam and its worshippers. If Boris had said that as an employee of many of the big companies operating in this country, he'd be leaving with his stuff in a cardboard box. I'm shocked that an ex major of multicultural London would use these words.
I don't understand why Boris is being protected. He should be chucked out.