Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Look, I'm all for kitchy cultural symbolism in the name of getting along. But when it comes to symbols of women's opprsession, I think it's the wrong message for the first female secretary of state of the USA to don a hijab. She was visiting a shrine when she wore the head scarf. When one visits shrines/temples/mosques/what-have-you, one wears the proper attire or one generally isn't granted admission, whether the country is Muslim, Buddist, what-have-you. As I already pointed out, she didn't wear it at other times, but that either escaped you or you purposely chose to ignore it since it doesn't fit in with your 'agenda.' If you take your Obama-coloured glasses off for just a minute and see the clarity that there are countries full of people who believe they are the stronger horse and that we are the weak ones ready to surrender, then you might see Hillary's attire in a different light.That is an obvious symbol of weakness. FYI, Laura Bush wore a hijab, too, when visiting a mosque in Saudi Arabia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Those who will try to find any chance to chastise 'the other party' to promote their bigotry seem to want to make it an issue. I wonder what happens to their brains when they see a Conservative (gasp!) minister of the Crown wearing a head scarf at Khalsa Day... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 FYI, Laura Bush wore a hijab, too, when visiting a mosque in Saudi Arabia. You just made my point even stronger. If you wish to make an attempt to contradict my statement about multiculturalism being unicultural, perhaps you can google me a picture of Ahmedinejad waving an american flag when he vistited Columbia university a couple of years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You just made my point even stronger.If you wish to make an attempt to contradict my statement about multiculturalism being unicultural, perhaps you can google me a picture of Ahmedinejad waving an american flag when he vistited Columbia university a couple of years ago. You really do skip over the facts that contradict your 'agenda,' don't you? First you skip over the fact that Hillary Clinton only wore the jihab when visiting a shrine, then you overlook the fact that Laura Bush wore one when visiting a mosque, as you overlook the fact that-- and I'll repeat my earlier post for you now -- When one visits shrines/temples/mosques/what-have-you, one wears the proper attire or one generally isn't granted admission, whether the country is Muslim, Buddist, what-have-you. Now if you can show me that the proper protocol when visiting Columbia University is to wave an American flag, you may have a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You just made my point even stronger. Won't answer my question, will you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 If you wish to make an attempt to contradict my statement about multiculturalism being unicultural, perhaps you can google me a picture of Ahmedinejad waving an american flag when he vistited Columbia university a couple of years ago. Pretty keen observation that much of the rest of the world doesn't espouse multiculutralism as we do. But it's a pretty weak argument that we should be more like them. I would rather fight for the right to wear short-shorts in Kabul than fight to prevent people from wearing whatever they want here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) Look, I'm all for kitchy cultural symbolism in the name of getting along. But when it comes to symbols of women's opprsession, I think it's the wrong message for the first female secretary of state of the USA to don a hijab. I'm not sold on the argument that this garment is oppressive to women. If we were talking about clothing designed to cover the wearer's face or turn her into a tent, that's different. If that was what she was wearing, I'd be disgusted if she wore it. But is what she's wearing actually a symbol of the oppression of women? I don't think the garment itself is oppressive... What she's wearing is no different from stuff that Western women have worn at some points for purposes of fashion. A number of Christian sects also have a tradition of women covering their hair. If what she's wearing is oppressive to women... is a yarmulke or a turban oppressive to men? Arguing that by wearing this garment she is being complicit in Muslim oppression of women requires a chain of logic that goes something like this.... the garment itself isn't oppressive, but it's a Muslim traditional garment, and some Muslims make women wear oppressive garments, so Hilary is giving those oppressive garments the thumbs-up by extension. But that's pretty shoddy. The Muslims who do that stuff would probably flog women for wearing the sexy little number Hilary has on. And the additional photos provided by AW make the argument irrelevant. If she's complicit in Muslim oppression of women by wearing a sheer, bright blue scarf that doesn't cover her face or even all of her hair during a visit to a shrine... what message is she sending when she stands face to face with Pakistan's prime-minster with head uncovered and shakes his hand? -k Edited October 31, 2009 by kimmy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Secretary of what????? Sexy. She looks fetching in it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 I don't understand why Hillary Clinton wore a Hijab in Pakistan.Can someone please explain this to me? because our crazed liberal do gooding politicians always like kowtowing to non western (ie superior) customs in culture... although its a fact that third worlders in our nation as are never expected to show us the same courtesy... even if they chose to reside in our nation permanently... diversity is a mighty tricky business eh... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Pretty keen observation that much of the rest of the world doesn't espouse multiculutralism as we do. But it's a pretty weak argument that we should be more like them. I would rather fight for the right to wear short-shorts in Kabul than fight to prevent people from wearing whatever they want here. Which is one reason why we are there fighting, my friend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 (edited) I'm not sold on the argument that this garment is oppressive to women.If we were talking about clothing designed to cover the wearer's face or turn her into a tent, that's different. If that was what she was wearing, I'd be disgusted if she wore it. But is what she's wearing actually a symbol of the oppression of women? I don't think the garment itself is oppressive... What she's wearing is no different from stuff that Western women have worn at some points for purposes of fashion. A number of Christian sects also have a tradition of women covering their hair. If what she's wearing is oppressive to women... is a yarmulke or a turban oppressive to men? Arguing that by wearing this garment she is being complicit in Muslim oppression of women requires a chain of logic that goes something like this.... the garment itself isn't oppressive, but it's a Muslim traditional garment, and some Muslims make women wear oppressive garments, so Hilary is giving those oppressive garments the thumbs-up by extension. But that's pretty shoddy. The Muslims who do that stuff would probably flog women for wearing the sexy little number Hilary has on. And the additional photos provided by AW make the argument irrelevant. If she's complicit in Muslim oppression of women by wearing a sheer, bright blue scarf that doesn't cover her face or even all of her hair during a visit to a shrine... what message is she sending when she stands face to face with Pakistan's prime-minster with head uncovered and shakes his hand? -k I don't know, Kimmy. You're a pretty reasonable person with an easygoing demeanor so you may be OK with it. But I've seen enough of the bra burning feminism around to know that there are plenty of women out there who don't at all like the fact that society "expects" them to behave or dress in a certain way simply because they are a woman. That is essentially what the hijab is, in that part of the world, so in that vain, it is oppressive. Maybe only mildly, but can you be a little bit pregnant? And Kimmy, don't play dumb. She's not wearing that scarf as a fashion statement. Haven't you noticed all the women reporters in public over there wearing the same thing? Christian Amanpour comes to mind. Here's a question: The RCMP is an institution in Canada. Many would say a cultural one as well as a government one, given that red uniform's consistent representation of Canada on the international stage. Wouldn't you expect that, out of respect for the cultural institution, people of varying religions would adapt the dress respectful of that institution as opposed to imposing their own dress code? Edited October 31, 2009 by JerrySeinfeld Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 And Kimmy, don't play dumb. She's not wearing that scarf as a fashion statement. I agree with everything Kimmy said, including this: ....the argument [is] irrelevant How many times does it have to be pointed out to you?? Are you purposely being obtuse? She was wearing the hijab at a shrine. It's the proper attire for visiting a shrine, and this is the proper/expected thing to do, whether it's a Muslim/Buddhist/whatever country. She was not wearing it when she met dignitaries. You are desperately trying to make something out of nothing; and you're not succeeding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JerrySeinfeld Posted October 31, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 You are desperately trying to make something out of nothing; and you're not succeeding. Something out of nothing? I dare you...dare you to go to the Hindu Kush wearing a skirt. And yet I saw this walking down Robson Street in Vancouver last week. Your point that Hillary wore different clothing at different times in Pakistan is heard. But the symbolism still exists. The larger point still sits out there exposed like a gay man in Tehran: obvious, yet somehow unacknowledged. Respect goes both ways - or at least it should. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weareone Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Something out of nothing?I dare you...dare you to go to the Hindu Kush wearing a skirt. And yet I saw this walking down Robson Street in Vancouver last week. Your point that Hillary wore different clothing at different times in Pakistan is heard. But the symbolism still exists. The larger point still sits out there exposed like a gay man in Tehran: obvious, yet somehow unacknowledged. Respect goes both ways - or at least it should. When you are visiting another country, you should respect their culture. That is so simple. Remember "when in Rome"? If you are Catholic, you may remember that there was a time when women could not go into a Catholic Church without covering their head. Catholic Church finally got over it, maybe so will Islam. Hillary did the right thing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Something out of nothing?I dare you...dare you to go to the Hindu Kush wearing a skirt. What does that have to do with Hillary wearing a head scarf to a shrine? I didn't try to enter a Wat in Thailand barefoot, or wearing a short skirt, or with bare arms; and I couldn't enter the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City because I was wearing short shorts. And yet I saw this walking down Robson Street in Vancouver last week. Again, what does that have to do with Hillary wearing the proper attire at a shrine, as one would be expected to do in any country? Your point that Hillary wore different clothing at different times in Pakistan is heard. But the symbolism still exists. No, the symbolism does not exist as Hillary did nothing different in Pakistan than she would have done in any other country. Respect goes both ways - or at least it should. When has a visiting dignitary from the Middle East not respected our countries in similar circumstances? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted October 31, 2009 Report Share Posted October 31, 2009 Which is one reason why we are there fighting, my friend. Actually we're not fighting there. We're hanging out at home talking on the Internet. But if you are in favour of people's freedom in Kabul to dress as they please, why are you opposed to people dressing as they please here in our superior, free country? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 OK, so when westerners go to Islamic countries, we have to abide by their customs, laws, etc, but when THEY come to western countries, we have to respect THEIR customs, traditions, etc, and welcome them in name of diversity?? Is this a double standard or what? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Is this a double standard or what? Actually, as westerners, we don't have to do anything. Hillary didn't have to wear the scarf, but she chose to. We don't have to accept any other races or nations into Canada either, but we choose to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Actually, as westerners, we don't have to do anything. Hillary didn't have to wear the scarf, but she chose to. We don't have to accept any other races or nations into Canada either, but we choose to. Speak ill and discriminate an Arab immigrant wearing burka - you're called a bigot, and is comdemned and punished for being racist. Go to an arab country, walk around in skirts and tank-top - you're called as being ignorant and disrespectful, and injuries may or may not occur (well, islamic laws guarantee punishment ). If you do get hurt as a result for continuing western tradition in Arab, it's your fault. Seems like a double standard to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Aern't women not allowed into the vatican unless there wearing a skirt that covers there legs? I know they have to cover there legs but aren't they also not allowed to wear pants? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Kwon Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 Aern't women not allowed into the vatican unless there wearing a skirt that covers there legs? I know they have to cover there legs but aren't they also not allowed to wear pants? That may be true, but I doubt they will kill you or physically harm you or kidnap you for that, as opposed to other nations... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest TrueMetis Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 That may be true, but I doubt they will kill you or physically harm you or kidnap you for that, as opposed to other nations... They used to though. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lictor616 Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 They used to though. yes, 700 years ago... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 That may be true, but I doubt they will kill you or physically harm you or kidnap you for that, as opposed to other nations... I think we can all agree that they wouldn't have killed, physically harmed, or kidnapped Hillary if she hadn't worn a hijab to the shrine. And that's what this thread is about; Hillary Clinton wearing a hijab to a shrine, showing the same respect she would have shown in her own country, or any other country in the world. People really need to focus on the fact that she wore the hijab to a shrine; she didn't otherwise wear it. She didn't wear it when she met the dignitaries, as I've already shown. So if that doesn't send 'a message' to the people, I don't know what she could have done to please some of you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted November 1, 2009 Report Share Posted November 1, 2009 How many times does it have to be pointed out to you?? Are you purposely being obtuse? He can't do it; he simply cannot address the point. It must cause some short-circuit in his brain wiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.