Accommodating male/female segregation for Muslims?

[Scott Mayers]

This forum ... a bunch of stuffed shirt men trying to tell women what clothes they will 'allow' them to wear ...

.

More women are welcome. But....where are they?

The same 'type' of women who go to forums are the same 'type' of men who do. What bothers me is to the fact that the 'voluntary' lack of presence of women in this relatively 'equal' state suggests that women, not men, are opting to favor some stereotyping status in actuality and less so only in words. How and why does this occur if it doesn't suggest that both men and women foster the same kind of behavior? The only reason women are less frequent in forums relates to the fact that the same 'majority' of men who supposedly OWNS the causes of discrimination are also of the same quantity of those women who FAVORS those same 'majorities' in practice.

So the more likely nature of the men here are more likely your friends in similar thought than not. But that we ALL are more vocal about controversial issues, makes those of us more likely to be relative 'victims' of some injustices we are trying to combat. Those NOT concerned are not present.

"We are more alike, my friend, then we are different." [from a recent Apple and their supporting communication company ad: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztMfBZvZF_Y (an "integration" favoring commercial versus the "segregationist" view fostering distinctive differences between people)]

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Scott Mayers]

I am also 100% against hijabs being added to our Mountie uniforms.

There should be no religious affiliations prominently displayed with a police uniform. How safe will a Jewish person feel when pulled over by a clearly adorned Muslim Mountie? How supported will a female domestic violence victim feel with a Mountie who's wearing something that symbolizes her acceptance of women's subjugation to men? What happens if she has to arrest (or even deal with) a Muslim man...will he respect her authority at all when she is clearly communicating with the hijab that she is subservient to him?

The uniform and the hijab are at odds with each other.

I agree. There is a distortion between the difference of when or where one is free to dress as they like to those places where one must be as neutral as possible in their occupation. It is relevant to be 'uniformed' (UNI- means to wear in one form common to all) in positions where service is universally applied. Certainly, government should do this.

As to public areas, we all at least require to wear clothes, which seems at odds with the freedom to be naked should we choose. We even arrest those who opt to do so as unusual miscreants more universally. So how or why should this not apply to some degree with regards to other forms of unusual dress where there is controversy to the average expected norms of the community? It doesn't mean that it is or is not 'correct' to dress as one opts to. But to those NOT familiar to the average acceptance of the community, they require doing the adjustment voluntarily when noticed or risk the consequences, even if no one is intending dissent of others.

The hijab doesn't simply represent one's style or preference alone, but advertises their particular 'private' views as a clear sign would. Would it be allowable for say, a teetotaler to frequent bars carrying big signs dictating the evils of drinking? Would it be 'appropriate' to defend that they are just there for the coca cola and so should not be considered being offensive of others in that public establishment?

The extent of concern to those wearing hijabs in certain public non-governmental places is due to their very real nature of them as acting as 'signs' that insult others for their actual beliefs, not simply because it is of some accidental style one might opt to wear. As such, while perhaps unintentional, the hijab is no different than observing a gang who comes by wearing their colors. To those outside, the clear intent is for them to announce who they are and what they believe, especially when they appear as a group and not as mere individuals. They as individuals may actually have no distaste of others but their choice to BE distinctively different serves SOME cause. The lack of clarity to which their 'cause' serves is what is suspect, just as if I were to 'opt' to go to a bank wearing a nylon stocking over my head.

Imagine that last example was something to which some novel cultural group joined the community where they believed in wearing such nylons over their heads as some religious or cultural meme. While not intrinsically threatening, are we to simply default to NOT using ANY means of identifying others with zero stereotyping? The hijab is hard to determine whether one is trying to hide something as this WOULD eventually be used as a trojan horse to actually do harm should we dismiss its significance by someone eventually.

The same goes with how many perceive those speaking in different languages in public places. It acts as no different than the form of behavior we also find repulsive in immature high-school children who whisper to each other in the presence of someone they don't approve of. If you cannot speak the language of the local population, this is understandable. But often the 'cultural' argument is used to defend those to do so in direct defiance of their actual capacity to speak the language in common with their surroundings. And it is this kind of similar situation that people are upset about when different cultures come along with unusual behaviors.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[cybercoma]

Jewish pool segregation costs 69 year old man a $50 fine for swimming with his wife. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Jewish-Swimming-Pool-Gender-Segregated-Hours-Lakewood-New-Jersey-391600861.html

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this barely gets a peep out of people and is hardly covered by the media.

Edited August 30, 2016 by cybercoma

[Bonam]

Jewish pool segregation costs 69 year old man a $50 fine for swimming with his wife. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Jewish-Swimming-Pool-Gender-Segregated-Hours-Lakewood-New-Jersey-391600861.html

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that this barely gets a peep out of people and is hardly covered by the media.

Difference isn't Jews vs Muslims. Difference is a privately owned condo vs a public university.

You'll note your own link states that city pools with similar schedules to accommodate orthodox Jews came under fire (meaning it got plenty of coverage), and changed the rules as a result.

Edited August 30, 2016 by Bonam

[jacee]

More women are welcome. But....where are they?

They can't be bothered dealing with moronic males who think they have a right to tell women what to wear.

.

Edited August 30, 2016 by jacee

[Scott Mayers]

They can't be bothered dealing with moronic males who think they have a right to tell women what to wear.

.

Okay. Can men wear or not wear what they want by your own standards too?

I think this is what many people (male AND females) who take issue with this find confusing:

To take one of my personal musician favorites, Katy Perry: I Kissed a Girl

But, while she finds it alright for her to digress from expected norms because, well, ... she's just being her innocent girl-self,

she also appears to be certain that men who act in kind are certain to be 'gay' because she can't believe that a male-self would, nor should, act with a similar standard:

Ur So Gay

(Note that I'm using this as an example and don't commit Katy Perry [Kate Hudson] of actually speaking of some guy in this video, but by context, it is generally assumed so.)

Edit: Okay, update,... I knew the song but didn't notice that the "Ur So Gay" video WAS about some past boyfriend who "wore more makeup than she" and why she felt justified in leaving him. It proves how she appears to find justice in BEING most 'free' to be herself without assumed bias should SHE kiss a girl but that HE sins merely for something with even less validity: that he wears more makeup than she AND even vocally assures her that he is NOT gay. Its a double standard of how she represents an icon of concern to defeat bias against women but finds it still alright to oppose men WITH clear bias.

I think it would have been most interesting had the "I kissed a girl" video be sung by her ex in drag to mock his own transgression in being 'free' to appear effeminate but actually still (shockingly!) prefer women still!

Edited August 30, 2016 by Scott Mayers

[Argus]

While certainly it *can* be a symbol of oppression, for some women it's become a symbol of their strength, their feminism, their sexual agency, their power.

That's really quite hilarious. A symbol of strength and power? It's a symbol of deference to men, a symbol that she will do as she's told or be beaten, a symbol she is worth less than a man by law, and has few rights. Their sexual agency?! Religious Muslim women have sex on command, only with those who they have been given to in marriage by their family. There are no Muslim countries where husbands can be charged with a crime for raping their wives.

[Argus]

This forum ... a bunch of stuffed shirt men trying to tell women what clothes they will 'allow' them to wear ...

.

I'm sure no one would mind if YOU wore a burka. In fact, I'm sure you and other progressive feminists would be much happier living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, where you'd be hidden from the evil male gaze. And of course, you'd have so much power and rights and freedom!

Edited August 30, 2016 by Argus

[CITIZEN_2015]

Women's choice is first and foremost above everything else. Banning women from wearing hejab if she freely chooses to do so is as bad as forcing a woman to wear a hejab. If we impose our way on any woman (banning her from wearing a hejab) we are no better than those fascist fanatics who force a woman to wear a hejab. A hejab wearing police officer is no different than a hejab wearing doctor who is sworn to save lives regardless of the race or religion of that person and same for a police officer who is sworn to uphold the law. The example given about a Jewish driver or whatever being stopped by a hejab wearing police officer and hence fearing for his or her life is so primitive and childish. Is it the piece of cloth on head that makes a person or woman hateful or murderer? No it is the heart.

[Goddess]

Having trouble with the quote feature on this forum, sorry.

"I would hope that she would see a woman making a choice, as I am assured some women do when it comes to the hijab." ~~bcsapper

"Some" women do.....because they've been conditioned to accept their subservient role. Or they want to make a political/religious statement. Many more are forced into it. Aqsa Parvez refused to wear it and was murdered by her father. This is the reality, even in Canada, but much more so in Middle Eastern countries. Is that really a choice? In either case, I feel it is forced on them.

Taxme said he will start up a conversation with a hijab wearing woman in front of her husband.....Wasn't there just an incident like that in the news....a woman's co-worker spoke to her and her husband in a mall and he ended up going to the job and killing someone over it.....

I hate that women are again being told what they can and can't wear, but I also feel that our right to live in a society that is not openly hostile to women trumps their right to wear a garment that represents women's second-class citizenship. The principle should be that discrimination based on your innate characteristics (sex, race, etc) trumps protection from discrimination based on your affiliated ones (political party, sports, religion, etc.)

Maybe it's the wording surrounding it that I don't care for.... "modest". It's not modest, it's fetishizing some parts of a woman's body that have nothing to do with sex and extending the sexual area inappropriately. And the overt inference is that you are not "modest" if you don't wear it, like you fail some minimum standard.

But that's just my 2 cents.

[WestCoastRunner]

I'm sure no one would mind if YOU wore a burka. In fact, I'm sure you and other progressive feminists would be much happier living in Saudi Arabia or Egypt, where you'd be hidden from the evil male gaze.

Yes, because 'progressive feminists' are man hating lesbian feminist nazis.

[Guest]

Having trouble with the quote feature on this forum, sorry.

"I would hope that she would see a woman making a choice, as I am assured some women do when it comes to the hijab." ~~bcsapper

"Some" women do.....because they've been conditioned to accept their subservient role. Or they want to make a political/religious statement. Many more are forced into it. Aqsa Parvez refused to wear it and was murdered by her father. This is the reality, even in Canada, but much more so in Middle Eastern countries. Is that really a choice? In either case, I feel it is forced on them.

Taxme said he will start up a conversation with a hijab wearing woman in front of her husband.....Wasn't there just an incident like that in the news....a woman's co-worker spoke to her and her husband in a mall and he ended up going to the job and killing someone over it.....

I hate that women are again being told what they can and can't wear, but I also feel that our right to live in a society that is not openly hostile to women trumps their right to wear a garment that represents women's second-class citizenship. The principle should be that discrimination based on your innate characteristics (sex, race, etc) trumps protection from discrimination based on your affiliated ones (political party, sports, religion, etc.)

Maybe it's the wording surrounding it that I don't care for.... "modest". It's not modest, it's fetishizing some parts of a woman's body that have nothing to do with sex and extending the sexual area inappropriately. And the overt inference is that you are not "modest" if you don't wear it, like you fail some minimum standard.

But that's just my 2 cents.

Everything you say is true, but I can't agree with telling people what they can and cannot wear because you (or I) "think" we know their minds. I know that, in some parts of the world, the vast majority of women who cover themselves up do so because they are afraid of what will happen to them if they don't.

I'm sure there are many women in the west who have the same problem. But as I can't say for sure, I have to default to their stated choice. I'm pro choice on everything else. I can hardly be anti choice on that.

I think women should be allowed to dance naked on that big black thing in Mecca. Men too. I know that's not likely to happen soon, but maybe letting people wear what they want over here is a start.

BTW, with the quotes feature, I always had bother with IE, so I went to Firefox for this site, and it quotes just fine.

Edited August 31, 2016 by bcsapper

[Goddess]

I understand your thinking about the "choice" part of it. I'll give that a bit more thought.

I've researched the subject a lot though and coupled with my experiences with the culture, I will stand by thoughts for now.

Thanks for the quoting tip, too

[dialamah]

I hate that women are again being told what they can and can't wear, but I also feel that our right to live in a society that is not openly hostile to women trumps their right to wear a garment that represents women's second-class citizenship. The principle should be that discrimination based on your innate characteristics (sex, race, etc) trumps protection from discrimination based on your affiliated ones (political party, sports, religion, etc.)

If a woman is living within a family or community that insists she wear certain clothing, and then we as a society tell her she cannot wear that clothing in public, what is her position? She is firstly oppressed by her family, then oppressed again by the laws which conflict with her family rules. How is that helping her understand her own rights/freedoms in Canada? How would Canada look any different, to her, than her family who dictates what she may or may not do? Not only is she considered a second class citizen in her family, Canada considers her 2nd class as well, not even allowed to be seen because she's not dressed properly.

Even if she wanted to escape the confines of her family and community, how could she do so if she's not allowed to leave the house without her traditional clothing, and she is not allowed to appear in public in her traditional clothing? It seems to me that you would punish the woman for being a victim of misogyny. How does this make any sense?

I also feel that our right to live in a society that is not openly hostile to women trumps their right to wear a garment that represents women's second-class citizenship

Our society is not openly hostile to women, and some women in hijabs or burkas will not make it so, so this 'right' is not being infringed in any way. In any case, I suspect this noble-sounding phrase is merely a rationalization of your discomfort at seeing this form of dress. It makes me uncomfortable as well, especially the long black things that cover everything, including the eyes; I much prefer the outfits that have color. But I don't think my desire not to be uncomfortable trumps another woman's choice of dress, whether that choice is freely-made, influenced or imposed.

[Guest]

It's not a choice if it's imposed, is it?

[dialamah]

It's not a choice if it's imposed, is it?

Nope, but she should still be allowed to come out. Perhaps I'll take a writing course, so I can be more clear.

[Goddess]

It's a choice like when you are being mugged and someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Your money or your life."

Dialamah, thank you for the thoughtful response. Perhaps an answer, in Canada at least, is to have support networks set up so that women can report this kind of coercion and abuse and be safe from the repercussions of their men. And have the men go to some kind of classes where they are taught to view women differently. Education. I think this should be done as soon as they arrive in Canada.

I don't believe in Canada should be allowing this kind of abuse of women just because it's THEIR culture. It's not our culture. Women have fought hard to have the same rights as men and it would be a shame and a detriment to Canada if we backslide or allow the normalizing of women as second-class citizens. Will a few women in burka destroy Canada? Likely not, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. A wedge Muslims have been adept at using.

"Questioning the Veil" is an excellent read in this regard. To me, hijabs and burkas are either religious abuse of women or domestic abuse of women. With a few wearing it to make a political statement.

[Goddess]

Dialamah, I was born and raised and lived most of my life in a religion where women were second-class and taught to "know their place". I was able to get out, with my children,and without support of any kind. I left with no money, no job, no friends, no family. I well know how hard it would be for a woman to take a stand against this kind of abuse. And I understand why some do not have the strength to do it. Support networks would be key. But I don't believe changing our laws to normalize their abuse of women would be helpful to these women. Nor to the rest of women in Canada.

[dialamah]

It's a choice like when you are being mugged and someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Your money or your life."

Dialamah, thank you for the thoughtful response. Perhaps an answer, in Canada at least, is to have support networks set up so that women can report this kind of coercion and abuse and be safe from the repercussions of their men. And have the men go to some kind of classes where they are taught to view women differently. Education. I think this should be done as soon as they arrive in Canada.

I don't believe in Canada should be allowing this kind of abuse of women just because it's THEIR culture. It's not our culture. Women have fought hard to have the same rights as men and it would be a shame and a detriment to Canada if we backslide or allow the normalizing of women as second-class citizens. Will a few women in burka destroy Canada? Likely not, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. A wedge Muslims have been adept at using.

Yes, a support network for abused women. We already have such in Canada, and it's surprising how many women do not use it when they need it - even though they've lived here all their life, they're very aware of what abuse is and they they understand our culture completely. Imagine how likely it is a woman from another country, who doesn't understand our customs at that instinctual level that those born and raised in Canada do, isn't clear on her rights and freedoms and who isn't allowed to be in public in a hijab/burka will be to access such a support network? Not going to happen. Even if she's given a pamphlet that says "You have rights; if you are being forced to wear a burka, come to us - we'll help". Why would she trust 'us' to help her, when we're telling her she can't be seen in public in her burka?

"Questioning the Veil" is an excellent read in this regard. To me, hijabs and burkas are either religious abuse of women or domestic abuse of women. With a few wearing it to make a political statement.

I've heard of Questionning the Veil, but haven't read it. I agree for the most part that women who wear the burka/hijab are probably doing it due to cultural/family or religious imposition. I agree that only the minority would be doing so completely out of choice. I think the mistake here is thinking that because to you hijabs and burkas are abusive, the women who wear it must think so as well, at some level. I don't think they do; I think they see it as a symbol of their faith, a sign of their exceptionalism, a testament to their family values.

In any case, I fail to see how denying them even more freedom will give them the confidence or impetus to throw off their shackles, so to speak. I think it would have the opposite effect: make them more compliant to their family/religion/culture, and perhaps even encourage other women to also wear it, in solidarity to their sisters who are suffering greatly for their faith.

[dialamah]

Dialamah, I was born and raised and lived most of my life in a religion where women were second-class and taught to "know their place". I was able to get out, with my children,and without support of any kind. I left with no money, no job, no friends, no family. I well know how hard it would be for a woman to take a stand against this kind of abuse. And I understand why some do not have the strength to do it. Support networks would be key. But I don't believe changing our laws to normalize their abuse of women would be helpful to these women. Nor to the rest of women in Canada.

I was also part of a religion in which women were second class citizens, but I wasn't prevented, by law, from going out into the world because what my religion/family thought appropriate to wear was considered unacceptable in public.

I'm a little confused here, though. I thought you were arguing that the law should be changed to forbid the wearing of hijabs/burkas? If I've misunderstood, I apologize.

[Goddess]

I haven't given much thought until recently about how to handle this in Canada. It's only since France has taken a stand that I have researched their issues with the Muslim population, which go back many years.

I "get" what you are saying about not making a law that would make it more difficult for women to come forward. Definitely an issue. But how do we educate the men that this is not allowed in Canada? We can't allow Muslim men to dot his to women in this country. How do the women feel when they finally get to a "free" country and it supports their husbands/family in abusing them?

And where are the support networks for women? They didn't work well for Aqsa Parvez.

[Goddess]

Also, I don't believe any amount of education or evidence can make a man (or woman) give up cherished religious beliefs until they are ready.

[?Impact]

I thought women burned their bras in the 70's, why are they still wearing them?

[taxme]

This makes no sense. Why would anyone other than a devoted Muslim where it, unless forced to.

So anyone in Canada who wears it is either a devoted Muslim woman, or a Muslim woman browbeaten into wearing it by her family and community.

In the first case, she is expressing her 'otherness' to Canada, her determination to retain her old cultural values and to ignore ours, her determination to remain separate. Why would I approve that?

In the second case, it is her family and community which is expressing this determination. Why would I approve that?

More importantly, even if I agree that it is not up to the state to forbid such a thing, why would I believe the state should be bringing in hundreds of thousands more with this same backward, primitive social view?

Say hello to the new Canada. A Canada where our politically correct multicultural politician masters tries to tell Canadians that they should try to understand new cultures, and even bend over backwards to please them, even assimilate into their cultures if need be, to try and make them feel like they are back home from whence they came. We are told that our culture should not take precedence over all others and not be pushed on them and their cultures and traditions. It's just not the Canadian way to be like that. The Canadian way is to accomodate and assimilate if need be so as to not offend or insult others of different cultures and beliefs. We Canadians are such wonderful, nice and accomodating sheeple who always like to aim and please. If Canadian culture and traditions has to take a back seat to all others, than that is how it will be.

[taxme]

It's a choice like when you are being mugged and someone puts a gun to your head and says, "Your money or your life."

Dialamah, thank you for the thoughtful response. Perhaps an answer, in Canada at least, is to have support networks set up so that women can report this kind of coercion and abuse and be safe from the repercussions of their men. And have the men go to some kind of classes where they are taught to view women differently. Education. I think this should be done as soon as they arrive in Canada.

I don't believe in Canada should be allowing this kind of abuse of women just because it's THEIR culture. It's not our culture. Women have fought hard to have the same rights as men and it would be a shame and a detriment to Canada if we backslide or allow the normalizing of women as second-class citizens. Will a few women in burka destroy Canada? Likely not, but it is the thin edge of the wedge. A wedge Muslims have been adept at using.

"Questioning the Veil" is an excellent read in this regard. To me, hijabs and burkas are either religious abuse of women or domestic abuse of women. With a few wearing it to make a political statement.

And these so-called feminists groups out there should be fighting for those women who are being forced to wear that Halloween costume which covers those muslim women from head to ankle. I wonder why they are allowed to show their feet? So muslim men can look at their sexy looking toes? Hey, you never know.

Edited August 31, 2016 by taxme