Veiling Islam's Sexism: What the BBC tells the kids

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Some say that just as England once colonized the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent, Central Asia, and the Far East that now, the favor is being returned; the Islamic world is giving the colonizing Mother Country a taste of its own well deserved medicine.

Tragically, this means that infidel women are sexual prey; that their rape, sexual harassment, and sexual slavery is being done quite openly, publicly--just as it is done in the Muslim world....

Will Britain, will all Europe, fight to remain Western countries? Or, hoisted on their own petard of political correctness, will they simply become vassal states of Islam?'
And in Britain no entity is more politically correct, more ready to bang the drum for Islam, than the national broadcaster, dear old "Auntie", the BBC.

Among the various non-broadcasting initiatives that the feather-bedded BBC provides with all the money it accrues from hapless licence-payers is a "service" called BBC Bitesize, in which it provides teenagers with information connected with exams.

Among these Bitsize portions are topics related to "Religious Studies". And within that range, the attitudes of Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, Sikhism, and Buddhism (in that order) towards "Prejudice and Discrimination" are described.


http://daphneanson.blogspot.co.uk/2016/03/veiling-islams-sexism-what-bbc-tells.html

Much more to read on the link

Didge wrote:

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Much more to read on the link

The niqab and burqa should be banned in any country that is not Islamic.   It's a ridiculous tradition as medieval as stoning and chopping off the hand of thieves.   It doesn't belong anywhere in the modern civilised world.   Human beings have faces for a reason.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Didge wrote:

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:






Much more to read on the link

The niqab and burqa should be banned in any country that is not Islamic.   It's a ridiculous tradition as medieval as stoning and chopping off the hand of thieves.   It doesn't belong anywhere in the modern civilised world.   Human beings have faces for a reason.

Agreed, as one thing we have in the west is communication also through facial expressions but the article it was how the bbc painted Islam as if it treated women well

Here :::


Under the heading "Inequality in the Christian Church", the British national broadcaster has absolutely no qualms about telling the kids (emphasis added):

Many people think that the Christian Church is sexist. It does not treat men and women equally.
The teaching of St Paul is often quoted to support the way some churches today treat women. From the extracts below, it would seem that he believed that the role of women was different to that of men, and secondary to it.
St Paul said:
Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says. If they want to enquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church. 1 Corinthians 14:34-35
Now I want you to realise that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God. Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonours his head. And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonours her head - it is just as though her head were shaved. If a woman does not cover her head, she should have her hair cut off; and if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head. A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 1 Corinthians 11:3-7
Jesus, however, always showed by his actions that he respected and valued women. He included them among his closest companions, and sometimes went against the conventions of his time which kept men and women apart. Jesus made it clear in the Parable of the Good Samaritan how his followers should treat people – he made no distinction between men and women.
Some Christian denominations have recently begun to allow women to be priests or ministers (eg, Church of England and the Methodist church). Some remain opposed to this (eg, the Roman Catholic Church). Some Christians believe that women are second to men, that men should lead and women should follow (see 1 Timothy 2:8–15).
So although Christianity teaches that everyone should be equal and should be treated the same, this doesn't always happen.

"Fair enough," I hear you say. "That's an accurate and objective summary."

How about this, regarding "Attitudes to women in Judaism" (emphasis added)?:

"The Tenakh (Jewish Bible) and the Talmud (Mishnah and Gemara collected together) describe different roles for men and women.
Traditionally women have a sacred role - they bear children, run the home and take responsibility for their children’s Jewish upbringing. The woman passes on Jewish values and it is because of the mother’s Jewish faith (not the father’s) that a child is born Jewish.
While Jewish law excuses women from some religious duties (eg, they don’t have to wear the tzizit and tefillin) there are some duties that women are obliged to carry out like the lighting the Shabbat candles. (Shabbat is the day of spiritual renewal and rest commencing at sunset on Friday, terminating at nightfall on Saturday.)
Some people say that Judaism is sexist. Men and women sit separately in Orthodox services and women cannot take an active part in this worship. Some Jewish women today accept these limitations, but they are as well-educated as men and choose to combine a career with family responsibilities.
Progressive Jews (which includes Jews of both liberal and reform traditions) think that this attitude is wrong and treat women equally in all respects, so they too can become rabbis (Jewish teacher) if they choose to do so."

Okay so far?

On the basis of the above, we are entitled to expect that BBC Bitesize will tell the kids a little of the sexism inherent in Islam.

However, in sections such as Marriage and Divorce it avoids the sexist bits, and this is what we find, in the section "Islam: prejudice and discrimination" under the heading "Attitudes towards women":

"Islam also teaches that men and women are equal in the sight of Allah. They are individually accountable for their actions, and will be judged equally by Allah.
However, although men and women are equal, they are not the same. They have different purposes. It is part of Allah’s design and purpose for men and women to have different physical characteristics; likewise it is the duty of a man to provide for the financial needs of his family, and for a woman to look after the home and family.
Some of these differences and responsibilities are mentioned in the following words from the Qur’an:
O Prophet, direct thy wives and daughters and the women of the believers that they should pull down their outer cloaks from their heads over their faces. This will make it possible for them to be distinguished so that they will not be molested. Surah 33:59
Wives have rights corresponding to those which the husbands have, in equitable reciprocity, though, in certain situations men would have the final word and would thus enjoy a preference. Surah 2:229
Men are appointed guardians over women, because of that in respect of which Allah has made some of them excel others, and because men spend of their wealth. Surah 4:35
Although the rights of women are different to those of men, they do have the right to choose whom they marry, to divorce, to study, to own property, to conduct business and to take part in politics.
The Prophet Muhammad stressed the importance of women and the respect that should be shown to them when he said: Paradise lies at the feet of your mother. (Sunan An-Nasa’i)"

Nice little bit of propaganda there, huh? Not one honest mention of Islam's sexism, let alone the misogyny that that infuses it and makes Saul of Tarsus/St Paul look like a Sensitive New Age guy in comparison.

In reality, this is what UK Islam's attitude to women looks like (as set out in this important British document of 2012, of which the BBC, if it's worth its salt the enormous amount of public money it gathers via a compulsory poll tax cannot be ignorant).

Note the testimony regarding the oppression of women in Islamic law as set out by female victims of sharia courts operating in Britain and by conultants including such scholars of Islam as the Australian Dr Mark Durie.


See, for instance, this:

"Women’s rights are compromised by the operation of Sharia law in the UK. Sharia Councils often permit polygamy. Men have multiple Nikahs (Muslim marriages) and have multiple wives to gain sex and/or money. Polygamy is not about protecting women.
If women marry through an Imam and they eventually have a problem with their marriage, they will be forced to go back to an Imam and discuss the problem; these women feel intimidated. Many women are unable to discuss their personal issues with an Imam; they feel embarrassed and do not feel comfortable talking to a total stranger about personal issues.
I am in contact with large numbers of women who have a language barrier. They are not in contact with the wider community and they have no understanding of the laws available to them. Instead they believe the lies that their husbands tell them. These women, unable to speak English, are tied to unhappy marriages and have no way of accessing their rights.
If a legal dispute arises they go to a Sharia Council and consult an Imam, they are not aware of the English legal system, nor are they ever informed of their rights under English laws.
Like me, many Muslim women are asylum seekers. They have fled their home country to live a safe life, they are running away from oppression and persecution that they suffered in their home country. They should not arrive in the UK to be met with further oppression through the operation of Sharia law. The Government should ensure that everyone in the UK abides by the English legal system.
For these reasons I am totally against Sharia law in the UK. The law should not be left to religious men to manipulate women in a democratic state. It is the responsibility of the Government to make sure that everyone in the UK submits to the law equally. I am worried because the Government and people outside the Muslim community are frightened to address sensitive issues like Sharia law, when the wellbeing of the majority is more important that the sensitivity of the minority....
Shaikh Haitham al-Haddad is a member of the Islamic Sharia Council and a Sharia Council ‘judge’ in London. In a speech entitled "Why Marriages Fail" Shaikh a-Haddad made the following observation: "A man should not be questioned why he hit his wife because this is something between them. Leave them alone. They can sort out their matters among themselves. Even the father of the daughter who is married to the man, he should not ask his daughter why you have been beaten or hit by your husband".

(Note also this statement: "People argue that Sharia Councils should be allowed to operate in Britain because Britain allows Beth Din systems, but Jewish Law does not affect mainstream life as much as Sharia Law which aims to control rather than simply affect mainstream life". Emphasis added)

As Professor Dennis MacEoin, another very respected expert, points out in "Sharia Law or One Law for All?", a paper for the Civitas thinktank in 2009:

"a Muslim woman may not marry a non-Muslim man unless he converts to Islam (such a woman's children will be separated from her until she marries a Muslim man); polygamous marriage (two to four wives) is legal: a man may divorce his wife without telling her about it, provided he does not seek to sleep with her; a husband has conjugal rights over his wife, and she should normally answer his summons to have sex (but she cannot summon him for that); a woman may not stay with her husband if he leaves Islam; non-Muslims may be deprived of their share in an inheritance; a divorce does not require witnesses (a man may divorce his wife and send her away even if no one else knows about it); re-marriage requires the wife to marry, have sex with, and be divorced by another man; a wife has no property rights in the event of divorce (which may be initiated arbitrarily by her husband); sharia law must override the judgements of British courts; rights of child custody may differ from those in UK law; taking up residence in a non-Muslim country except for limited reasons is forbidden; taking out insurance is prohibited, even if required by law; there is no requirement to register a marriage according to the law of the country; it is undesirable to rent an apartment belonging to a Christian church; a Muslim lawyer has to act contrary to UK law where it contradicts sharia; employment by driving a taxi is prohibited; it is allowable to be a police officer, provided one is not called upon to do anything contrary to the sharia; women are restricted in leaving their homes and driving cars; an adult woman may not marry anyone she chooses; sharia law of legitimacy contradicts the Legitimacy Act 1976; a woman may not leave her home without her husband's consent (a restriction that may constitute false imprisonment); legal adoption is forbidden; a man may coerce his wife to have sex; a woman may not retain custody of her child after seven (for a boy) or nine (for a girl); a civil marriage may be considered invalid; sharia law takes priority over secular law (for example, a wife may not divorce her husband in a civil court); fighting the Americans and British is a religious duty; recommendation of severe punishments for homosexuals; a woman's recourse to fertility treatment is discouraged; a woman cannot marry without the presence and permission of a male guardian (wali); if a woman's 'idda (three months, to determine whether or not she is pregnant) has expired and she no longer has marital relations with her husband, he is excused alimony payments; an illegitimate child may not inherit from his/her father."


It would be unreasonable to expect a megillah on the BBC Bitesize website regarding Islam's sexist attitude to women, but we are entitled to honesty, to at least some indication of how Islam disadvantages females.

Let me just put aside what I find funny: forcing women who you think are being forced to cover their face, to uncover their face and dress a certain way. A beutiful demonstration of irony.

Perhaps you should try opening your mind and tell me why covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

Let's see if any of you can demonstrate any lateral thinking.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Let me just put aside what I find funny: forcing women who you think are being forced to cover their face, to uncover their face and dress a certain way. A beutiful demonstration of irony.

Perhaps you should try opening your mind and tell me why covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

Let's see if any of you can demonstrate any lateral thinking.

First of to get past your ignorance on the way to dress, as its about communication more than anything.
In this country we communicate not just through talking but body language and this includes facial expressions, thus why it is consider extremely rude to cover the face when communicating with people. You cannot see their expressions and its like talking to a blanket. 
Its also rude to go naked in the streets. Do they have a democratic right to be naked in public?
So neither does a woman have a right to cover her face as its utterly rude with communication and identity

Also its been indoctrinated into them to believe they should.
You have heard of grooming right?
Or do you think its right to teach women they should be ashamed of their bodies and that they should cover up based on some backward belief that views the woman as wrong, to the sexual tendencies of men?
If a person has been coerced into doing something they would not normally do them they have been brainwashed as its not Islamic to wear this.
How is it democratic to fool people through a fear of punishment in an after life into doing things they do not have to do?
Are you saying its a democratic right to now have FGM based on your reasoning on the wishes of the parents?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Let me just put aside what I find funny: forcing women who you think are being forced to cover their face, to uncover their face and dress a certain way. A beutiful demonstration of irony.

Perhaps you should try opening your mind and tell me why covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

Let's see if any of you can demonstrate any lateral thinking.

I'm keen to be enlightened by you as to why women 'want' to wear the veil?

Neither of you were able to answer:

Why is covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

I'll give you a clue: try thinking about yourself and others and not just Muslim women in a burka. This is what I meant by lateral thinking.

Why is it sometimes necessary to hide your face, even (and perhaps especially) in a democracy?

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Neither of you were able to answer:

Why is covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

I'll give you a clue: try thinking about yourself and others and not just Muslim women in a burka. This is what I meant by lateral thinking.

Why is it sometimes necessary to hide your face, even (and perhaps especially) in a democracy?

Its not a democratic right, just as its not a democratic right to be naked in public

Actually I just told you some things are not allowed already

As you cannot go naked

So you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning of decency

Plus its grooming and using fear based off a mythical after life forcing people to thus wear through fear

And your view to privacy laws, is about as idiotic as it gets where the media try to take your picture, that people cover their faces from the media.

DOH

So your poor attempt to make it a democratic right, based on a set situation was hilariously poor

Seriously, what Islamic site did you get that bullshit off?

The Saudi beano?




We are talking about being out in public, where you cannot be naked and you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning

I'd like to see them banned, but I don't really have a valid reason other than that I think they're horrible.  They just scream "extremist" to me, and they're so sinister and depressing.

I don't think women are forced to wear them, but they do give the impression that they're ashamed of their faces or that they want people to stay away from them and not talk to them.

HoratioTarr wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Let me just put aside what I find funny: forcing women who you think are being forced to cover their face, to uncover their face and dress a certain way. A beutiful demonstration of irony.

Perhaps you should try opening your mind and tell me why covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

Let's see if any of you can demonstrate any lateral thinking.

I'm keen to be enlightened by you as to why women 'want' to wear the veil?

You know, that actually doesn't matter. We don't go around asking people why they want to wear jeans or tank tops (though in the case of the latter, maybe we should ...)

Not to get all geeky on the principles of freedom, but here goes -- in the absence of a compelling public counter interest, individuals should be able to do anything they want, for whatever reason.

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm keen to be enlightened by you as to why women 'want' to wear the veil?

You know, that actually doesn't matter. We don't go around asking people why they want to wear jeans or tank tops (though in the case of the latter, maybe we should ...)

Not to get all geeky on the principles of freedom, but here goes -- in the absence of a compelling public counter interest, individuals should be able to do anything they want, for whatever reason.

BUt we do tell them not to be naked because of how it would be rude

The same applied for covering up the face because it is not only rude but a fundamental part of understanding  communication.

Do not believe me?

How many times have been wrongly assumed something they have read and taken the wrong way?

Those jeans which show men's arses should be banned as well.

Women should wear Burka's because Muslim men cannot control their sexual urges.

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Neither of you were able to answer:

Why is covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

I'll give you a clue: try thinking about yourself and others and not just Muslim women in a burka. This is what I meant by lateral thinking.

Why is it sometimes necessary to hide your face, even (and perhaps especially) in a democracy?

What the fuck are you talking about?

nicko wrote:Women should wear Burka's because Muslim men cannot control their sexual urges.

Shouldn't that read...Women should not have to wear a burqa just because Muslim men cannot control their urges?

Perhaps it's the women who wear burkas who think men will leap on them if they don't - maybe they have a high opinion of themselves.

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:

I'm keen to be enlightened by you as to why women 'want' to wear the veil?

You know, that actually doesn't matter. We don't go around asking people why they want to wear jeans or tank tops (though in the case of the latter, maybe we should ...)

Not to get all geeky on the principles of freedom, but here goes -- in the absence of a compelling public counter interest, individuals should be able to do anything they want, for whatever reason.

BUt we do tell them not to be naked because of how it would be rude

The same applied for covering up the face because it is not only rude but a fundamental part of understanding  communication.

Do not believe me?

How many times have been wrongly assumed something they have read and taken the wrong way?

"No public nudity" is really based on two things -- community sensibilities and public safety (i.e., you see a naked person and get into a traffic accident).

I personally don't think "I can't read her expression" is compelling enough of a reason to tell someone what they can't wear.

To take that a bit further, don't you think women who habitually cover their faces in public have learned to compensate so that they'll be easier to understand?

Ben_Reilly wrote:

Didge wrote:


BUt we do tell them not to be naked because of how it would be rude

The same applied for covering up the face because it is not only rude but a fundamental part of understanding  communication.

Do not believe me?

How many times have been wrongly assumed something they have read and taken the wrong way?

"No public nudity" is really based on two things -- community sensibilities and public safety (i.e., you see a naked person and get into a traffic accident).

I personally don't think "I can't read her expression" is compelling enough of a reason to tell someone what they can't wear.

So is communication where body language accounts for a high proportion especially through facial expressions

Also its in the interest of security as well, for identification purposes

You could tell much by peoples expressions to what you also say yourself

Your opinion on what you can read is your own failing when it matters to most.

Not only is it rude as well it applies to community sensibilities as well

It also applies to safety, as how can you be certain its not a man dressed in this outfit, going into women changing rooms for example?

Didge wrote:

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:

'The country of William Wilberforce, who successfully fought to abolish the slave trade; the land of the bravest suffrage movement anywhere; Churchill's own country--that fair and glorious Kingdom is still there but it is also fraying, fading away.

....The streets are filled with women in heavy hijab, in Niqab, (face masks), and in black, burqa-like body bags. As I have written many times before: I have no quarrel with head coverings but suggest that the West must draw the line at face masks and sensory deprivation isolation chambers which burqas truly are. These "covered" women are flying the flag of Jihad, of a barbaric version of patriarchy--which is now increasingly ensconced within Britain's gates.

The West's dependence on Big Oil together with its own blind commitment to cultural sensitivity, an allegedly anti-racist tolerance for the barbarian "other," and fearfulness about the consequences of speaking out--have together brought this about.

Much more to read on the link

Customs - period pieces - and religious doctrines;

      16th Century                                      17th Century
      

See where I'm headed with this...

Had all those nations required their visitors or immigrants to dress
accordingly to the fashion trends of the host nation. 


 

And personally...on a really bad - bad hair day; a Burqa wouldn't be a horrible option for me.






While I appreciate "American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam"; personal insight about the attire for these women --- she wasn't raised in that faith - none of her ancestors/grand aunties/grand parents etc., have this style of clothing on daily! 

Why would she have issues with it if these women feel comfortable in their specific religious customs?

Seems really narrow minded and bizarre that we'd feel it 'OUR' right to tell anyone {unless their naked} what was acceptable and what wasn't going to be allowed in this or any other country.

aspca4ever wrote:

Didge wrote:

That true and outspoken feminist, the American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam, has recently returned from a visit to London.

 'England,' she writes inter alia:



Much more to read on the link

Customs - period pieces - and religious doctrines;

      16th Century                                      17th Century
      

See where I'm headed with this...

Had all those nations required their visitors or immigrants to dress
accordingly to the fashion trends of the host nation. 


 

And personally...on a really bad - bad hair day; a Burqa wouldn't be a horrible option for me.




While I appreciate "American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam"; personal insight about the attire for these women --- she wasn't raised in that faith - none of her ancestors/grand aunties/grand parents etc., have this style of clothing on daily! 

Why would she have issues with it if these women feel comfortable in their specific religious customs?

Seems really narrow minded and bizarre that we'd feel it 'OUR' right to tell anyone {unless their naked} what was acceptable and what wasn't going to be allowed in this or any other country.

Let's not confuse the hijab with the niqab.

Well, bat crap...that's why my computer went into snail pace.  While I was trying to get my other image to show you were posting!  Ok, 2nd image has been modified and put into place~~~

Didge wrote:

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Neither of you were able to answer:

Why is covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

I'll give you a clue: try thinking about yourself and others and not just Muslim women in a burka. This is what I meant by lateral thinking.

Why is it sometimes necessary to hide your face, even (and perhaps especially) in a democracy?

Its not a democratic right, just as its not a democratic right to be naked in public

Actually I just told you some things are not allowed already

As you cannot go naked

So you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning of decency

Plus its grooming and using fear based off a mythical after life forcing people to thus wear through fear

And your view to privacy laws, is about as idiotic as it gets where the media try to take your picture, that people cover their faces from the media.

DOH

So your poor attempt to make it a democratic right, based on a set situation was hilariously poor

Seriously, what Islamic site did you get that bullshit off?

The Saudi beano?




We are talking about being out in public, where you cannot be naked and you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning

Who gives a fuck about the media? Do you not think the police and other agencies track people from protest to protest? And then from protest to organisation meetings, etc. Even harass certain protestors.

Considering you've never been an activist, I'm not surprised you are so naive. But at least you now know why I think your views are that of a simpleton.

Didge wrote:

Ben_Reilly wrote:

"No public nudity" is really based on two things -- community sensibilities and public safety (i.e., you see a naked person and get into a traffic accident).

I personally don't think "I can't read her expression" is compelling enough of a reason to tell someone what they can't wear.

So is communication where body language accounts for a high proportion especially through facial expressions

Also its in the interest of security as well, for identification purposes

You could tell much by peoples expressions to what you also say yourself

Your opinion on what you can read is your own failing when it matters to most.

Not only is it rude as well it applies to community sensibilities as well

It also applies to safety, as how can you be certain its not a man dressed in this outfit, going into women changing rooms for example?

So you're demanding women dress a certain way to protect your precious sensibilities. HA!

Tell me, do you find it hard to communicate down the phone? You can't even see their body on the phone. D'UH! Lol!

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

So is communication where body language accounts for a high proportion especially through facial expressions

Also its in the interest of security as well, for identification purposes

You could tell much by peoples expressions to what you also say yourself

Your opinion on what you can read is your own failing when it matters to most.

Not only is it rude as well it applies to community sensibilities as well

It also applies to safety, as how can you be certain its not a man dressed in this outfit, going into women changing rooms for example?

So you're demanding women dress a certain way to protect your precious sensibilities. HA!

Tell me, do you find it hard to communicate down the phone? You can't even see their body on the phone. D'UH! Lol!

What an idiot, as we are talking about face to face communication, security, safety, common decency and you defend a barbaric practice, which forces many women to wear this by their husband, which its seems you care nothing about when its known many are forced to. Or through fear of an after lief punishment by backward men teaching this. When its not obligated to wear in Islam. So what is more important to you, is those women who believe they wanted to freely believe that its okay to be subjugated by men, who have groomed to them to wear something they do not need to wear through fear.

That speaks volumes about you and the kind of Islam  you follow

Fuzzy Zack wrote:

Didge wrote:

Its not a democratic right, just as its not a democratic right to be naked in public

Actually I just told you some things are not allowed already

As you cannot go naked

So you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning of decency

Plus its grooming and using fear based off a mythical after life forcing people to thus wear through fear

And your view to privacy laws, is about as idiotic as it gets where the media try to take your picture, that people cover their faces from the media.

DOH

So your poor attempt to make it a democratic right, based on a set situation was hilariously poor

Seriously, what Islamic site did you get that bullshit off?

The Saudi beano?




We are talking about being out in public, where you cannot be naked and you cannot cover your face based on the same reasoning

Who gives a fuck about the media? Do you not think the police and other agencies track people from protest to protest? And then from protest to organisation meetings, etc. Even harass certain protestors.

Considering you've never been an activist, I'm not surprised you are so naive. But at least you now know why I think your views are that of a simpleton.

 

So you are talking about hiding your identity from the Police showing how gutless you are based on wanting to commit criminal activity

wow that really proves what an extremist you are, as what have you to hide?

Plus you do not know the laws or the power of the Police

During the 2011 United Kingdom anti-austerity protests one of the temporary policies discussed in the COBRA meeting was to ban the covering of the face during the riots. Generally only enforced in areas in a riot stage, none were arrested solely for wearing masks, only ordered to take them off. However, many arrested who committed other crimes, such as looting and attacking police officers, were charged with failing to adhere to the mask ban as well as all the other infringements when placed before the court

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-mask_laws#United_Kingdom

Like I said did you get that info from the ISIS beano?


You walk into showing what a thick twat you are everytime

aspca4ever wrote:Well, bat crap...that's why my computer went into snail pace.  While I was trying to get my other image to show you were posting!  Ok, 2nd image has been modified and put into place~~~

What on earth were your last 3 posts about, when we are discussing face veils?
If you want to counter the argument in the article, which is more on the BBC teaching falsehoods how women are treated in Islam, so be my guest, but do keep up please, you are at cross purposes. Any view to make women think its wrong to cover themselves up, over the sexual views of men, thus demeaning women is wrong on every level based off a ridiculous belief system, so misogynistic

We were though debating the face veil

Do you also support this barbaric practice forced upon women through fear of by husbands?

aspca4ever wrote:While I appreciate "American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam"; personal insight about the attire for these women --- she wasn't raised in that faith - none of her ancestors/grand aunties/grand parents etc., have this style of clothing on daily! 

Why would she have issues with it if these women feel comfortable in their specific religious customs?

Seems really narrow minded and bizarre that we'd feel it 'OUR' right to tell anyone {unless their naked} what was acceptable and what wasn't going to be allowed in this or any other country.

Hmmm, well in my OPINION, I was keeping up!  Whether it be a full Burqa or just a face veil - you/me/we can't make generalizations about customs for what is 'NORMAL' dress attire within any certain group.  Just because 'we' aren't raised in the Islam faith or you weren't born into the Jewish faith where this is required and enforced > > >


If you were born into the Hasidic Jewish faith, would you expect to be dressed as what your families traditions dictated or be allowed to go rogue?

Religious Customs are part of the essential basis for what keeps them uniquely - just that.  Why do we western civilizations have to make such wide sweeping generalizations about Islamic faith '?' that all of the women raised in that type of dress are repressed by it? 

We Assume to much - IMHO

Yes i can make views on a concept which is based on the views of men, which seek to cover women as if to shame them, as if they are sexual objects which men are unable to control themselves. Thus laying blame wrongly on women. Its this age old bull, that has seen men blame women for being raped due to how they dress. So its basically using a fear of an afterlife to wear such an outfit, which even then is not mainstream islam.
You seem to fail to grasp that its a subjucation of women, based around sexuality, as if they are the problem. That is wrong on every level and any liberal minded person should see this garment as everything that stands against freedom for women.

I have no real issue with many religious garments, but we are talking about the reasoning behind them, and one that covers the face that denies as we are talking about face to face communication, security, safety, common decency. Religion is just a belief after all, and when it conflicts with a society in every aspect where it demeans women to a view they are somehow wrong for being beautiful,, then that garment is nothing more than one of shame, devised by men, to control women

aspca4ever wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:While I appreciate "American Professor Phyllis Chesler, who knows from personal experience the misogynist nature of Islam"; personal insight about the attire for these women --- she wasn't raised in that faith - none of her ancestors/grand aunties/grand parents etc., have this style of clothing on daily! 

Why would she have issues with it if these women feel comfortable in their specific religious customs?

Seems really narrow minded and bizarre that we'd feel it 'OUR' right to tell anyone {unless their naked} what was acceptable and what wasn't going to be allowed in this or any other country.

Hmmm, well in my OPINION, I was keeping up!  Whether it be a full Burqa or just a face veil - you/me/we can't make generalizations about customs for what is 'NORMAL' dress attire within any certain group.  Just because 'we' aren't raised in the Islam faith or you weren't born into the Jewish faith where this is required and enforced > > >


If you were born into the Hasidic Jewish faith, would you expect to be dressed as what your families traditions dictated or be allowed to go rogue?

Religious Customs are part of the essential basis for what keeps them uniquely - just that.  Why do we western civilizations have to make such wide sweeping generalizations about Islamic faith '?' that all of the women raised in that type of dress are repressed by it? 

We Assume to much - IMHO

So far as I'm concerned it's about choices.   But often choices are dictated by indoctrination, so are therefore not really choices at all.   In the Tuareg tribes, the men wear the veil, not the women.    It's their tradition, in their country.   But if generations born in say, the UK, wish to discard the veil, then they should be free to do so.   What they do in their own country is up to them.

And our choices to wear as we please, shouldn't be dictated by Muslims, either.  

Didge wrote:Yes i can make views on a concept which is based on the views of men, which seek to cover women as if to shame them, as if they are sexual objects which men are unable to control themselves. Thus laying blame wrongly on women. Its this age old bull, that has seen men blame women for being raped due to how they dress. So its basically using a fear of an afterlife to wear such an outfit, which even then is not mainstream islam.
You seem to fail to grasp that its a subjucation of women, based around sexuality, as if they are the problem. That is wrong on every level and any liberal minded person should see this garment as everything that stands against freedom for women.

I have no real issue with many religious garments, but we are talking about the reasoning behind them, and one that covers the face that denies as we are talking about face to face communication, security, safety, common decency. Religion is just a belief after all, and when it conflicts with a society in every aspect where it demeans women to a view they are somehow wrong for being beautiful,, then that garment is nothing more than one of shame, devised by men, to control women

As your 'USUAL' method of posting: I do not "fail to grasp" any of this, if anything it's YOU to whom the limited knowledge of Islamic history has got your undies in a knot!

This is highly subjective and generational as well; unless you know an Islamic family and their immediate grandparents you seriously are only using what you've read.  I have college friends {circa early 70's} and those women were content/happy/didn't rebel about the ways that their faith dictated what they presented when out in the public eye --- that isn't what they dress or wear within the privacy of their own homes!     And as my Islamic/Muslim aging grandmothers have complained; 'what to do about this younger generation?'...there's always a segment of young women wanting to be allowed to dress in the newest designer patterns - making a fashion statement is very much what we humans do! 

My very own grandmother/mother and older sisters used to admonish me and my generation about our 'SKANKY/SLUT' looking mini-skirts and bra-less form of dressing---and how we were just asking for a sexual assault to befall us!!! 

Horatio stated >  So far as I'm concerned it's about choices. But often choices are dictated by indoctrination, so are therefore not really choices at all.   In the Tuareg tribes, the men wear the veil, not the women.    It's their tradition, in their country.   But if generations born in say, the UK, wish to discard the veil, then they should be free to do so.   What they do in their own country is up to them. 

Clothing attire has always been 'dictated' by the current fashion; did that mean that Catholics/Buddhist/Quakers/Mennonites ever do as they please ???...absolutely not --- not when the head of that household is 'DICTATING' what they will allow their women/children to be dressed in to venture out into public!  That's not changed much all through the ages - IMHO   But 'MEN' usually don't have the pendulum swing over to such drastic differences - from 'viewed to non-visual' and that's not changed much over the centuries either!

Well, except for the Scottish --- and I do like a man in a Kilt



Have you ever caught a glimpse of the Romanian{gypsy} culture and the way that they expect their young females to dress and behave? It's not to far off from some of the Mexican culture in allowing their females to be a walking bill board for sexual advertisements!  And both of those cultures believe in marrying those young ladies off as early as possible!

In my opinion; terrorist and the graphic images that our media displays are all imbedding the horror - feeding the fear and just adding to the repugnant racial divide that already exists but just needs a spark to set the issue ablaze! 

Fuzzy Zack wrote:Let me just put aside what I find funny: forcing women who you think are being forced to cover their face, to uncover their face and dress a certain way. A beutiful demonstration of irony.

Perhaps you should try opening your mind and tell me why covering your face is not only a democratic right but a necessity?

Let's see if any of you can demonstrate any lateral thinking.

I think I may be the only person I know who doesn't think we should ban the burkha.
People should be able to wear what they want IMO

aspca4ever wrote:

Didge wrote:Yes i can make views on a concept which is based on the views of men, which seek to cover women as if to shame them, as if they are sexual objects which men are unable to control themselves. Thus laying blame wrongly on women. Its this age old bull, that has seen men blame women for being raped due to how they dress. So its basically using a fear of an afterlife to wear such an outfit, which even then is not mainstream islam.
You seem to fail to grasp that its a subjucation of women, based around sexuality, as if they are the problem. That is wrong on every level and any liberal minded person should see this garment as everything that stands against freedom for women.

I have no real issue with many religious garments, but we are talking about the reasoning behind them, and one that covers the face that denies as we are talking about face to face communication, security, safety, common decency. Religion is just a belief after all, and when it conflicts with a society in every aspect where it demeans women to a view they are somehow wrong for being beautiful,, then that garment is nothing more than one of shame, devised by men, to control women

As your 'USUAL' method of posting: I do not "fail to grasp" any of this, if anything it's YOU to whom the limited knowledge of Islamic history has got your undies in a knot!
Me with limited Islamic history? Based on what, something you cannot prove but say.
Its not something that is mainstream Islam and is only worn by certain Islamic sects the more hardline
So you want a lesson on Islam, I am happy to easily outdo the fact you know little and will have to do as you usual do and google and quite happily tell you from my own knowledge. This stems from the more hard line Islamic doctrines like Wahhabism.
So yeah, i can tie you up in knots even with google at your finger tips

This is highly subjective and generational as well; unless you know an Islamic family and their immediate grandparents you seriously are only using what you've read.  I have college friends {circa early 70's} and those women were content/happy/didn't rebel about the ways that their faith dictated what they presented when out in the public eye --- that isn't what they dress or wear within the privacy of their own homes!     And as my Islamic/Muslim aging grandmothers have complained; 'what to do about this younger generation?'...there's always a segment of young women wanting to be allowed to dress in the newest designer patterns - making a fashion statement is very much what we humans do!
So now because they are content, based on the indoctrination, that is fine eh?
So if Islamic women indoctrinated also to stone to death a female for adultery must also be fine by you
An Islamic women also indoctrinate its okay to mutilate her daughter is fine by you
Are you seriously backing the oppression of women here? 
The whole garment is a garment made of shame, that women's bodies are so sexualized, that men cannot resists them, and they are meant to be worn because men cannot resist them, that the women are fault and this is drummed into them, with the belief, they are at fault and now you try to defend this?
WTF
I doubt you have even met one, because most of them will tell you emphatically how you should cover up, because of the doctrine they are taught
My very own grandmother/mother and older sisters used to admonish me and my generation about our 'SKANKY/SLUT' looking mini-skirts and bra-less form of dressing---and how we were just asking for a sexual assault to befall us!!! 

You want to dress sexy, that is up to you, this is about religious indoctrination, to the view that makes a woman feel her body should be covered up fully, based on no part of the Quran but on interpretations of the hadith
Please do not even attempt to claim you know something when you cannot even reason first of all that it is Islamic, when most Muslims are against this

Didge to be fair, I haven't spoken to "most Muslims in the world" but I have spoken to quite a few Muslim women about this and all of them have said it is totally their choice.
They aren't these weak little frail birds, these are strong and independent women, who seemed to know their own minds.

eddie wrote:Didge to be fair, I haven't spoken to "most Muslims in the world" but I have spoken to quite a few Muslim women about this and all of them have said it is totally their choice.
They aren't these weak little frail birds, these are strong and independent women, who seemed to know their own minds.

How can it be a choice Eddie?
They follow a faith through fear.
That is not a choice.
They are left feeling that if they do not do what is claimed, they will be punished eternally

That is not a choice

Well,I was taking about the burkha tbh

eddie wrote:Well,I was taking about the burkha tbh

You still do not get it.
In the Abrahamic faiths, the main emphasis is placed on an eternal punishment, for not abiding by rules.
Where people have a literal belief, they they will obey the most idiotic beliefs, to the extent, mothers will back the stoning of their own daughters due to a claim of rape or adultery. This is the extent of brainwashing Eddie, that even mothers will condemn their own daughters to death for such crimes. That is they leave the faith, their punishment is death. You fail to grasp the problem of literal belief, which so indoctrinates people to believe the worst things possible and all because they believe if they do not, they will be punished in the after life.
Its the same with the Burka Eddie, they view this in the hard line Islamic sects as compulsory, so then how is it a choice?,
The only other choice is practically leaving Islam from that family
Which will mean their death also in many cases.

How is that a choice?

Absolutely agree Eddie, can you imagine the row if we said we would ban the mini skirt, or those jeans that fall down and end up showing their pants and bum.  It's their choice, and they don't have to explain to anyone why they are doing it.  Do we tell nuns they mustn't wear veils, or priests they mustn't wear frocks?

sassy wrote:Absolutely agree Eddie, can you imagine the row if we said we would ban the mini skirt, or those jeans that fall down and end up showing their pants and bum.  It's their choice, and they don't have to explain to anyone why they are doing it.  Do we tell nuns they mustn't wear veils, or priests they mustn't wear frocks?

No surprise you support a repressive outfit that deems women as wrong, to the sexual desires of men.

Same points to you

In the Abrahamic faiths, the main emphasis is placed on an eternal punishment, for not abiding by rules.
Where people have a literal belief, they they will obey the most idiotic beliefs, to the extent, mothers will back the stoning of their own daughters due to a claim of rape or adultery. This is the extent of brainwashing Eddie, that even mothers will condemn their own daughters to death for such crimes. That is they leave the faith, their punishment is death. You fail to grasp the problem of literal belief, which so indoctrinates people to believe the worst things possible and all because they believe if they do not, they will be punished in the after life.
Its the same with the Burka Eddie, they view this in the hard line Islamic sects as compulsory, so then how is it a choice?,
The only other choice is practically leaving Islam from that family
Which will mean their death also in many cases.

How is that a choice?

Didge wrote:

aspca4ever wrote:

As your 'USUAL' method of posting: I do not "fail to grasp" any of this, if anything it's YOU to whom the limited knowledge of Islamic history has got your undies in a knot!
Me with limited Islamic history? Based on what, something you cannot prove but say.
Its not something that is mainstream Islam and is only worn by certain Islamic sects the more hardline
So you want a lesson on Islam, I am happy to easily outdo the fact you know little and will have to do as you usual do and google and quite happily tell you from my own knowledge. This stems from the more hard line Islamic doctrines like Wahhabism.
So yeah, i can tie you up in knots even with google at your finger tips

This is highly subjective and generational as well; unless you know an Islamic family and their immediate grandparents you seriously are only using what you've read.  I have college friends {circa early 70's} and those women were content/happy/didn't rebel about the ways that their faith dictated what they presented when out in the public eye --- that isn't what they dress or wear within the privacy of their own homes!     And as my Islamic/Muslim aging grandmothers have complained; 'what to do about this younger generation?'...there's always a segment of young women wanting to be allowed to dress in the newest designer patterns - making a fashion statement is very much what we humans do!
So now because they are content, based on the indoctrination, that is fine eh?
So if Islamic women indoctrinated also to stone to death a female for adultery must also be fine by you
An Islamic women also indoctrinate its okay to mutilate her daughter is fine by you
Are you seriously backing the oppression of women here? 
The whole garment is a garment made of shame, that women's bodies are so sexualized, that men cannot resists them, and they are meant to be worn because men cannot resist them, that the women are fault and this is drummed into them, with the belief, they are at fault and now you try to defend this?
WTF
I doubt you have even met one, because most of them will tell you emphatically how you should cover up, because of the doctrine they are taught
My very own grandmother/mother and older sisters used to admonish me and my generation about our 'SKANKY/SLUT' looking mini-skirts and bra-less form of dressing---and how we were just asking for a sexual assault to befall us!!! 

You want to dress sexy, that is up to you, this is about religious indoctrination, to the view that makes a woman feel her body should be covered up fully, based on no part of the Quran but on interpretations of the hadith
Please do not even attempt to claim you know something when you cannot even reason first of all that it is Islamic, when most Muslims are against this

Please do NOT ASSUME that you have any more facts or data then I do just because you read a newspaper article {or 2} and now speak for all Islamic women---thats a HUGE STRETCH, even for you! This rather reminds me of the topic about a women's period and leave time--- Your gender can only make assumptions and you do that quite often too!

aspca4ever wrote:

Didge wrote:

You want to dress sexy, that is up to you, this is about religious indoctrination, to the view that makes a woman feel her body should be covered up fully, based on no part of the Quran but on interpretations of the hadith
Please do not even attempt to claim you know something when you cannot even reason first of all that it is Islamic, when most Muslims are against this

Please do NOT ASSUME that you have any more facts or data then I do just because you read a newspaper article {or 2} and now speak for all Islamic women---thats a HUGE STRETCH, even for you! This rather reminds me of the topic about a women's period and leave time---  Your gender can only make assumptions and you do that quite often too!  

I will assume when you claim to do so and then offer not of substance to back it up
I have extensive knowledge of history, so which renders you looking rather inept lo

So if you want to now just measure dicks instead, you will still lose lol

Like I say, same points to you


In the Abrahamic faiths, the main emphasis is placed on an eternal punishment, for not abiding by rules.
Where people have a literal belief, they they will obey the most idiotic beliefs, to the extent, mothers will back the stoning of their own daughters due to a claim of rape or adultery. This is the extent of brainwashing Eddie, that even mothers will condemn their own daughters to death for such crimes. That is they leave the faith, their punishment is death. You fail to grasp the problem of literal belief, which so indoctrinates people to believe the worst things possible and all because they believe if they do not, they will be punished in the after life.
Its the same with the Burka Eddie, they view this in the hard line Islamic sects as compulsory, so then how is it a choice?,
The only other choice is practically leaving Islam from that family
Which will mean their death also in many cases.

How is that a choice?

Didge it doesn't matter how you feel or think about what these women choose to do. It's their choice.

Whether you think they wear the burkha through fear or not, it's ultimately their decision.
You could say the same for Catholics who wear the cross or Jews who wear a kippah.

eddie wrote:Didge it doesn't matter how you feel or think about what these women choose to do. It's their choice.

Whether you think they wear the burkha through fear or not, it's ultimately their decision.
You could say the same for Catholics who wear the cross or Jews who wear a kippah.

Wrong again

Try again

In the Abrahamic faiths, the main emphasis is placed on an eternal punishment, for not abiding by rules.
Where people have a literal belief, they they will obey the most idiotic beliefs, to the extent, mothers will back the stoning of their own daughters due to a claim of rape or adultery. This is the extent of brainwashing Eddie, that even mothers will condemn their own daughters to death for such crimes. That is they leave the faith, their punishment is death. You fail to grasp the problem of literal belief, which so indoctrinates people to believe the worst things possible and all because they believe if they do not, they will be punished in the after life.
Its the same with the Burka Eddie, they view this in the hard line Islamic sects as compulsory, so then how is it a choice?,
The only other choice is practically leaving Islam from that family
Which will mean their death also in many cases.

How is that a choice?

Didge I get where you're coming from in that paragraph re the stoning etc but this is about wearing garments?

Perhaps these women actually feel more liberated by covering up?

It's not for me to judge what they choose to wear.

Also did you watch the video put up Eddie??

Are you telling me that woman was not brainwashed the way she spoke to the English girl


You know as well as I do grooming is wrong but this is exactly what happens to this women, how they are groomed and indoctrinated to falsely believe they are making a choice, when to them its compulsory.

I mean look at the countries where this is compulsory Eddie
Do they have a choice?
As what is the punishment for leaving Islam?
Death
How is that a choice?

eddie wrote:Didge I get where you're coming from in that paragraph re the stoning etc but this is about wearing garments?

Perhaps these women actually feel more liberated by covering up?

It's not for me to judge what they choose to wear.

Its still from the same view of indoctrination Eddie, where fear is played off on that they will be punished in an after life if they do not cover their bodies. They are thus left with a choice.
They then believe they either wear and believe they will not suffer or do not wear and believe they will suffer eternally

How is that then a choice to someone brainwashed through fear?

sassy wrote:Absolutely agree Eddie, can you imagine the row if we said we would ban the mini skirt, or those jeans that fall down and end up showing their pants and bum.  It's their choice, and they don't have to explain to anyone why they are doing it.  Do we tell nuns they mustn't wear veils, or priests they mustn't wear frocks?

Well as his usual method of 'chest thumping - I can preach but I'm going to drag every issue that I have about the Islamic faith into this clothing issue'---his Highness has now gone postal with rape/torture/stoning ...while dictating to me, "this is about the veils-move on with the discussion"
While he just keeps the hysteria and topic jumping into every fragment of the entire Islamic faith...because HE READ AN ARTICLE!!! LMAO

aspca4ever wrote:

sassy wrote:Absolutely agree Eddie, can you imagine the row if we said we would ban the mini skirt, or those jeans that fall down and end up showing their pants and bum.  It's their choice, and they don't have to explain to anyone why they are doing it.  Do we tell nuns they mustn't wear veils, or priests they mustn't wear frocks?

Well as his usual method of 'chest thumping - I can preach but I'm going to drag every issue that I have about the Islamic faith into this clothing issue'---his Highness has now gone postal with rape/torture/stoning ...while dictating to me, "this is about the veils-move on with the discussion"  
While he just keeps the hysteria and topic jumping into every fragment of the entire Islamic faith...because HE READ AN ARTICLE!!!     LMAO  

yes I am schooling you on something you are 100% ignorant on

You do not like it

Tough

If you have nothing to offer other than sucking up to other posters, it shows you are also gutless

Now you want to go head to head with me on this, please as I would love nothing more than showing you up on your ignorance

Yet another topic grinding into just another bulling / vitriolic filled rant by the community BULLY with far too much ego and ZERO honesty and facts---enjoy you self gratification! Your instant anger just proves your FEAR of being wrong ...yet again! WELL DONE