Burqa time

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Ok, not so much movement lately so lets try something controversial to debate, namely the use of the burqa, hijab and chador. Any takers to defend its use?

[Swatopluk]

Since we are all going to wear MOPP IV suits all the time, if pollution increases unimpeded, women wearing those heavy garments will have a significant advantage.

[Griffin NoName]

Any takers to defend its use?

Even for the sake of debating, and an excellent topic, Nooooooooooooo !

[Pachyderm]

I find it very handy when sneaking around Mecca, drawing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed in crayon on the Masjid al-Haram. 

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I find it very handy when sneaking around Mecca, drawing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed in crayon on the Masjid al-Haram. 

OK, if there are no takers on defense I'll defend (and to put more spice on the topic): the use of these kind of garments is for the women's protection.

Fire away... 

[Swatopluk]

OK, if there are no takers on defense I'll defend (and to put more spice on the topic): the use of these kind of garments is for the women's protection.
Fire away... 

I think there are more practical bullet-proof vests for that purpose. And if it's for rape defense then an 18th century upper class outfit complete with fishbone corset would work better too.

http://www.glpetticoat.de/Reifrock/reif.gif

And there were patented versions with a built-in folding chair.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But those obviously would inflame the desires of the potential rapist population in the streets, waist and bosoms shape should be covered at all times...

[Swatopluk]

But ladies of negotiable affection wear black, so it must be the colour signaling sex. And (as any whore and related trade knows) the secret is not to show. The customer gets the more interested the less he sees.
And I have not yet begun to mention Troll strippers that put on extra clothes to inflame the passions of the male Trolls.

[Griffin NoName]

: the use of these kind of garments is for the women's protection.

Sanitary towels and tampax are sufficient protection.

And in any case, the origin is to do with men not women; they are actually for men's protection in case they get lewd thoughts and dismay their gods. I've always thought these feeble men should learn how to be the masters of their own minds without constant help.

[ivor]

I wanna see a video with that MC Hammer song that I can't think of the name of, but change the lyric to "Burqa time," performed by Osama bin Laden.

"Can't touch this!" Du du be du, Da Da.  "Can't touch this!"

[Aggie]

But ladies of negotiable affection wear black, so it must be the colour signaling sex. And (as any whore and related trade knows) the secret is not to show. The customer gets the more interested the less he sees.
And I have not yet begun to mention Troll strippers that put on extra clothes to inflame the passions of the male Trolls.

LOL, that's called a "Newfie Strip", I've seen it (dancer comes out nekkid and slowly gets dressed).


With regards to the topic at hand, I can't defend any mandatory (i.e. punishment-enforced) wearing, especially of the most restrictive forms that cover the face.  On the other hand, I would strongly defend a woman's right to wear reasonable symbols of her faith, and don't see much of an issue with a headscarf not covering the face.  I've seen everything except a full burqa around Calgary (up to including full veils exposing only the eyes).

[quote author=Sibling Zono (anon1mat0) link=topic=1972.msg92708#msg92708
And in any case, the origin is to do with men not women; they are actually for men's protection in case they get lewd thoughts and dismay their gods. I've always thought these feeble men should learn how to be the masters of their own minds without constant help.

Strong, strong rumble - this is a dangerous path which IMHO is intended to legitimize sexual assault on "improperly" dressed women. I can't imagine how these poor men survive when they immigrate to less restricted societies.

Really, the big issue is whether women are free to choose how to dress within the limits considered socially acceptable in restrictive societies, and who is making the choice when they are wearing these types of clothing in less restrictive societies (i.e. is it strictly a faith-based choice or is it imposed by their father/husband etc.).  I disagree with banning any type of clothing that a woman might choose to wear herself, BUT - I doubt that a full burqa is typically worn by free choice.

[Pachyderm]

If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

With regards to the topic at hand, I can't defend any mandatory (i.e. punishment-enforced) wearing, especially of the most restrictive forms that cover the face.  On the other hand, I would strongly defend a woman's right to wear reasonable symbols of her faith, and don't see much of an issue with a headscarf not covering the face.  I've seen everything except a full burqa around Calgary (up to including full veils exposing only the eyes).

And in any case, the origin is to do with men not women; they are actually for men's protection in case they get lewd thoughts and dismay their gods. I've always thought these feeble men should learn how to be the masters of their own minds without constant help.

Strong, strong rumble - this is a dangerous path which IMHO is intended to legitimize sexual assault on "improperly" dressed women. I can't imagine how these poor men survive when they immigrate to less restricted societies.

Really, the big issue is whether women are free to choose how to dress within the limits considered socially acceptable in restrictive societies, and who is making the choice when they are wearing these types of clothing in less restrictive societies (i.e. is it strictly a faith-based choice or is it imposed by their father/husband etc.).  I disagree with banning any type of clothing that a woman might choose to wear herself, BUT - I doubt that a full burqa is typically worn by free choice.

I'll go so far as to defending it's use, about enforcing the issue, I'll leave that to someone else.

I really do believe that at the beginning the use of such clothing was intended for the woman's protection, but there is a context for that, namely that the cultures that use it were originally nomads, where laws were enforced by custom rather than organized force (aka police). If you have a daughter, she is barely attractive, and any sex starved man happen to walk by in the middle of the desert, he could be inclined to rape and/or kidnap the woman and get away (literally) with it, without any chance of retribution. Add to that the fact that women are considered property and defensive measures to protect such property become mandatory.

Obviously in order to be successful implementing such practices adding a sin/[insert deity of choice] will punish you/etc would enhance the effect (which BTW, I consider as one of the biggest uses of religion in general up to the XX century), so adding lewd feelings and sin also helps to create a 'protective layer'.

The other side of the question is how safe a woman in skimpy clothes is and if having a more conservative attire protects her from sexual predators.

[Aggie]

I really do believe that at the beginning the use of such clothing was intended for the woman's protection, but there is a context for that, namely that the cultures that use it were originally nomads, where laws were enforced by custom rather than organized force (aka police). If you have a daughter, she is barely attractive, and any sex starved man happen to walk by in the middle of the desert, he could be inclined to rape and/or kidnap the woman and get away (literally) with it, without any chance of retribution. Add to that the fact that women are considered property and defensive measures to protect such property become mandatory.

I don't really buy this theory, as any female-specific clothing would be a marker for an indiscriminate predator.  OTOH, by obscuring the age/appearance of a woman, there would be some protection from singling out targets by appearance.  Also, I'm not sure that evidence exists that full-body coverage was traditionally used by nomadic tribes (check the photo from the article on the Bedouin in wikipedia; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bedouin).

I consider it more likely that very conservative dress may have been used to mark "property" (quick exerpt from wiki backs that up, but there's no citation:

The chadri was created by one of Afghanistan's rulers trying to stop anyone from seeing his wives' faces.

from the burqa article). It also serves to anonymize and therefore disempower women in the public sphere - face to face dealings are a necessity for establishing trust in most societies (before telecommunications, anyways).

The other side of the question is how safe a woman in skimpy clothes is and if having a more conservative attire protects her from sexual predators.

Given some of the atrocities on the part of certain Afghan warlords that Canadian soldiers have (reportedly) witnessed and been forced to condone and/or ignore in the name of "cultural sensitivity", it might be wise for the prettier preteen boys to burqa up (as per a CBC article - I won't repeat as it was graphic and horrible; don't have a reference handy). 

Not sure if this is actually a legitimate cultural tradition or a consequence of forcing invisibility on women.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

...as any female-specific clothing would be a marker for an indiscriminate predator.  OTOH, by obscuring the age/appearance of a woman, there would be some protection from singling out targets by appearance. 

My emphasis. The question is if the target for such practice is an indiscriminate predator, rather than an opportunistic one (which I would think far more plausible and common). The way I see it, with lower levels of self control and absence of law enforcement it is far easier for a man to attack given a so-called 'credible' excuse like "she was dressed like she wanted it" that many opportunistic rapists use.

Also given that honor is so important in such cultures it isn't surprising that 'protecting' that honor becomes paramount even if in the end it isn't the honor of the woman but the honor of the husband/father/family/clan/etc.

Note that I don't defend the enforcement of such rules, nor do I consider the strategy to be effective, but I still consider that the reasons for the code aren't intrinsically demeaning of women even if it ends up being so.

[Darlica]

Woha!

We have a discussion again, nice!

IMHO Prohibiting the use of the burqa, hijab or chador is as bad as forcing someone to wear one.

It's not the cloth it self that are discriminating it is the social context where women are forced wear them. If a women freely chose to cover herself, fine it's not any of my business, if someone force her, her human rights are violated and that's a crime that should be dealt with but honestly if she wants to wear for example a hijab and isn't allowed to do so by the government (like in French schools) her rights are violated in exactly the same way.

I think it's worth mentioning that even if most Islamic men doesn't cover their faces they have very strict rules about their clothing too and how much skin they can show in public (both men and women mixed) and it isn't much, that is one of the reasons women aren't allowed to watch football (soccer) in Saudi for example.

Both men and women are however freed from these rules in environments where only men or only women are present such as the public bath houses Haman and at home surrounded by the family.

I think we in the west have as much of a problem to wrap our heads around the cultural ideas and mindset of Islam as the Islamic world have a problem to understand our secularized society.
I think the idea of atheism is especially troublesome to grasp (I think we have a problem with most religious mindsets actually).



I have a friend, a former neighbour, who is aTurkish Syrian Orthodox Christian, she asked me one day when we were discussing religion amongst other things -how do you cope with the setbacks of life if you don't believe in God, who do you turn to with your sadness and anger and what thoughts comforts you?

That shut me up for quite a while.

[Aggie]

I have a friend, a former neighbour, who is aTurkish Syrian Orthodox Christian, she asked me one day when we were discussing religion amongst other things -how do you cope with the setbacks of life if you don't believe in God, who do you turn to with your sadness and anger and what thoughts comforts you?

That shut me up for quite a while.

Sounds like another discussion, a very Taddy one. I think the answer is "people"; the Monastery itself actually evolved fairly quickly in that direction.  The difference and the difficulty lies in the fact that people can much more easily let you down than God can (so long as you maintain your faith).

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

I find it very handy when sneaking around Mecca, drawing pictures of the Prophet Mohammed in crayon on the Masjid al-Haram. 

OK, if there are no takers on defense I'll defend (and to put more spice on the topic): the use of these kind of garments is for the women's protection.

Fire away... 

This is why a lady invented the penis=http://www.abc.net.au/wa/stories/s1455383.htm fly trap.
Also, I think it's quite obvious that it doesn't work. I doubt most of the rapes that happen in the Middle East and in other restrictive societies are ever, ever reported. We only hear about the ones that cause a big stir and I'm sure there are no small number of rape victims who are killed without any legal authority knowing about it.

: the use of these kind of garments is for the women's protection.

And in any case, the origin is to do with men not women; they are actually for men's protection in case they get lewd thoughts and dismay their gods. I've always thought these feeble men should learn how to be the masters of their own minds without constant help.

RUMBLE. It's the lazy route, with an added "out of sight, out of mind" attitude. I don't think the out-of-sight thing works, since I'm sure that there's a lot of fantasizing about what could be under that burqa. (*narrator voice over* He heard her voice only once, and it was soft and melodic. He began to dream of her...)

[quote author=Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)
I really do believe that at the beginning the use of such clothing was intended for the woman's protection, but there is a context for that, namely that the cultures that use it were originally nomads, where laws were enforced by custom rather than organized force (aka police). If you have a daughter, she is barely attractive, and any sex starved man happen to walk by in the middle of the desert, he could be inclined to rape and/or kidnap the woman and get away (literally) with it, without any chance of retribution. Add to that the fact that women are considered property and defensive measures to protect such property become mandatory.
[/quote]
The first evidence of a dress code like the burqa appears in Mesopotamia, well after they would have settled down. House maids and hookers weren't allowed to were a veil but every other female had to  (Agujjim's theory regarding the veil/burqa as a mark of ownership is more accurate, I think).
Also, I can't think of any nomadic people that have such a dress code.

[Swatopluk]

I might add that some Fathers of the Church (no nomads they, at least in the classical sense) would consider women in Iran and Saudi Arabia severely underdressed because it still possible to recognize the wearers as similar to human beings. St.Hieronymus (the translator of the Bible into Latin) even "rewrote" the text by proclaiming that a woman has to cover up because "she is not in the image of God". If we followed the logic, the human female has to be made invisible because the fact has to be hidden that God screwd up (why else should a visible woman be an abomination). Those are the same guys that, in effect, blaspheme against their God by claiming that humans in general should be ashamed of their body despite it being a creation of God.
Btw, some argue that there is significance in that there is no "And God saw it was good" after the verse about the creation of Man unlike after the earlier verses about God's other creations .

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

For those who haven't yet read the wiki article that Aggie mentioned before this is the bit about it's history (my emphasis):

This type of dress has its origins with desert times long before Islam arrived. It had two functions. Firstly as a sand mask in windy conditions. This would be worn by men and women and is still common today. For women only the masking of the face and body was used when one group was being raided by another. These raids often involved the taking of women of child bearing age. With all women hidden behind a veil, and the home team fighting back, the chances of being taken were substancially reduced as the women of child bearing age could not be quickly distinguished from the very young and the old.

Many Muslims believe that the Islamic holy book, the Qur'an, and the collected traditions of the life of Muhammed, or hadith, require both men and women to dress and behave modestly in public. However, this requirement, called hijab, has been interpreted in many different ways by Islamic scholars (ulema) and Muslim communities (see Women and Islam); the burqa is not specifically mentioned in the Quran.

What I believe has to be taken into account is that it's current [ab]use does not mean that there wasn't a good reason for it to exist (like many of the odd bits in Moses law like not eating shellfish). The other argument is one I heard in an interview in which the woman claimed that she would feel naked in the street without it.

In general terms, the fact that it's current use is definitively backwards and it's enforcement a nasty form of suppression, a woman could conceivable consider herself more protected using one, and I'm sure that while never reaching that extreme, western women occasionally find themselves in environments in which they would rather dress in a conservative way to avoid nasty glances*.

* my wife used to work for an auto parts company and she usually told me how uncomfortable she was when she had to go to the warehouse where the mechanics and machinists worked, or the not too subtle comments they made at times. 

[Aggie]

I plead guilty to article-scanning and selective reading!

Mind, in this context it makes sense (tribal wife-raiding); I still don't buy into the random attacker hypothesis.

* my wife used to work for an auto parts company and she usually told me how uncomfortable she was when she had to go to the warehouse where the mechanics and machinists worked, or the not too subtle comments they made at times. 

My women co-workers get enough unwanted attention in the field in full PPE, which would pass for modest clothing in most places (full neck to toe coveralls, steel-toed boots, hard hat, safety glasses and gloves). Most of the comments stay relatively subtle, but sometimes lines are crossed. 

[Griffin NoName]

Really, the big issue is whether women are free to choose how to dress .............

Some women who where burkas say it is by free choice. I don't believe them. IMHO they have been brainwashed into minding about having their sexual bits on display (like their nose!).

If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

IMHO they have been brainwashed into minding about having their sexual bits on display (like their nose!).

Hey, all the body is sexual, ever heard of foot fetish*?

*Actually that is the kind of deviation that could be traced to a society where only feet are visible...

[Swatopluk]

As opposed to the Chinese where genitals were at times depicted freely but not the female naked foot

[Aggie]

As opposed to the Chinese where genitals were at times depicted freely but not the female naked foot

ROFL, have you ever seen a picture of the bare foot that results from foot-binding?

Feng Xun is recorded as stating, "If you remove the shoes and bindings, the aesthetic feeling will be destroyed forever" -- an indication that men understood that the symbolic erotic fantasy of bound feet didn't correspond to its unpleasant physical reality, which was therefore to be kept hidden. For men, the primary erotic effect was a function of the lotus gait, the tiny steps and swaying walk of a woman whose feet had been bound. Women with such deformed feet avoided placing weight on the front of the foot and tended to walk predominantly on their heels. As a result, women who underwent foot binding walked in a careful, cautious and unsteady manner.[6] The very fact that the bound foot was concealed from men's eyes was, in and of itself, sexually appealing. On the other hand, an uncovered foot would also give off a foul odor, as various fungi would colonise the unwashable folds.

[Swatopluk]

Yes, I have. And what you quote is obviously the reason for the taboo (and not some specific rampant foot fetishism on the Chinese side). Btw, the Japanese didn't need that. The special cut of female clothing had about the same (intended) effect.

[Griffin NoName]

This type of dress has its origins with desert times long before Islam arrived. It had two functions. Firstly as a sand mask in windy conditions.

Oooh! Those nasty cracks and crevices! I'd be more convinced by this argument if the burqa had divided legs tied at the ankles: otherwise it is a case of "Carry on Up the Burqa" !!

<smack wrist mode>
what do ladies wear under their Burqas?
<end smack wrist mode>

I heard in an interview in which the woman claimed that she would feel naked in the street without it.

But so would I if I went out in my underwear. Most of us do wear "clothes" when out in the street and tend to feel not-naked. What a stange line of reasoning.

Feng Xun is recorded as stating, "If you remove the shoes and bindings, the aesthetic feeling will be destroyed forever" -- an indication that men understood that the symbolic erotic fantasy of bound feet didn't correspond to its unpleasant physical reality, which was therefore to be kept hidden. For men, the primary erotic effect was a function of the lotus gait, the tiny steps and swaying walk of a woman whose feet had been bound..........

Whereas in England, the required gait is obtained by walking around with books balanced on ones head ! 

[Tigger_the_Wing]

If the complete covering of women is supposed to prevent lewd thoughts in men, then surely they've got the cart before the horse?

I am of the firm belief that, if men really are as weak-willed as all that, they should only be allowed in public when blindfolded, manacled and accompanied by at least two adult female relations. Of course, they would not be allowed to drive but think of all the crime/sins which would be prevented!

Then women AND men could wear whatever they like and no-one would be in danger.

Or they could simply accept women as being fully human and equal to men, as in more equitable societies, and the previous sentence would still apply.

I feel that enforcing any dress code at all demeans BOTH genders. Rape is simply an aberration unrelated to the clothing worn by, or the age or sex of, the victim. Men are better than that, as can be seen in societies where, traditionally, little or no clothing is worn.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

I feel that enforcing any dress code at all demeans BOTH genders.

Mmm, thousands of offices would disagree, on one end it can be quite distracting if the subject is attractive and perturbing if (s)he isn't.

In a more open world people wouldn't mind* about how others are dressed but we do have some cultural baggage to get rid of first.

*and that might not even be possible considering that the way people dress has more to do with social conventions (how we are perceived by others and all that stuff) than practical ones (like the weather).
---
Perhaps the current use of the burqa has no justification to us westerners because we see it directly linked to chauvinism, religion and/or tradition but the problem is that for them those are valid reasons, and think that the enforcement was more cultural on the Kandahar region until the rise of the Taliban who made it mandatory.

[Aggie]

*and that might not even be possible considering that the way people dress has more to do with social conventions (how we are perceived by others and all that stuff) than practical ones (like the weather).

Oh, you've met my wife?

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

_{Shhh... she might be reading.}

[Opsa]

Burqas of a sort are worn everywhere, even in more "enlightened" areas of the world.

I wear overalls when I want to let my figure be nebulous. I feel much less self-conscious about my frontage when I'm wearing them.

A dress suit is another form of burqua. Covers the details.

These are self-enforced burquas, but definitely cover-ups to camouflage the physical differences between the genders. Sad, but true.

[Aggie]

_{Shhh... she might be reading.}

Put me down for male domination then, I ban miniskirts at -25 C and high heels for walks over 5 km.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Nonono, you don't ban her clothing, you chauvinist pig! You ban her complaints about the cold or how uncomfortable the walk is.

[Aggie]

That's unstoppable.

[Opsa]

Yeah, but the point I was trying to make is that we choose to wear things that are ugly and cover us up when we want to feel equal. We show cleavage, wear minis and high heels when we are comfortable enough to want to feel superior!



Unfortunately, there's always the threat of some slob feeling inferior when we do this, and he'll be the one making rude sucky noises, which will make us want to run back and climb into our safe, shapeless burquas.

I would like to take this time to thank all you gentlemen in the world for treating us like ladies, even when we're dressed like tramps. We love you guys the most!

[Scriblerus the Philosophe]

A dress suit is another form of burqua. Covers the details.

Covering the details doesn't make it a burqua...unless they're like Hillary Clinton's dress suits. A good dress suit is as sexy as a Little Black Dress on the right woman in the right suit (imo).
I think it's also part of how you feel wearing it. If you're a bit prim or feel like you're hiding something about it, I suppose it can be burqua-y. On the other hand, behaving like they owe you respect (I don't mean in a snotty-jerk kind of way) would change their behavior. People react to the way you act. If a girl acts like a slut and she'll be treated as such. If a girl acts like they owe her basic respect and she'll usually get it. _{The ones that don't give that to her, she then has permission to verbally skewer.}

I would like to take this time to thank all you gentlemen in the world for treating us like ladies, even when we're dressed like tramps. We love you guys the most!

This.

[Bluenose]

I've been thinking about this thread for a little while and I have mixed feelings.

First I think that any person should be able to wear (or indeed not wear) whatever they choose without feeling threatened by others around them or in fact actually being threatened.  I know that whilst I might for example exhibit surprise at someone walking down the street stark bollicky naked I hope I would not act in any way that would feel threatening to the individual concerned.  If someone is comfortable in their birthday suit then why should I be uncomfortable?  (Of course we are assuming here that the person is not acting in a lewd manner - and no, I do not consider nudity of itself to be lewd.)  Of course given the society that we live in and the mind set of many members, I understand why although I might consider this an ideal (not that people should go around undressed, but that they should be free to do so if they so choose), I recognise that it is not practical, given the likely reaction of most people.

However, given the above, surely all the more so then should prevail for less confronting forms of attire including burqas - why should it matter what someone else is wearing?  I don't really care what someone else is wearing, that's their business, not mine.

On the other hand, I do have a problem with people wearing items of clothing or other things, such as motor cycle helmets, that conceal the person's identity in non open space public areas, such as shops, service  stations and so on.  This is just a matter of public safety and like other areas where we accept an infringement on our personal liberty for the common good, for example not being free to yell "fire" in a cinema auditorium, this is one of those situations where I think it appropriate that we insist that such items not be worn.  Note, this has nothing to do with religious issues, it is as I said a matter of public safety. 

---

BTW, I personally have no desire to run around starkers - not least because I do not wish to scare the natives! 

[Opsa]

Egads, what a brilliant idea: burqua robberies! Of course, it wouldn't work in the States, as we are too Gooberesque to not stare at people in burquas, but wouldn't it be ab fab if some Iraquian feministas got together and decided to rob banks in burquas? Just to make a point about them?

It'd be a helluva story.

[Swatopluk]

And it's easy to hide bullet-proof vests and weapons under it.

[Aggie]

Egads, what a brilliant idea: burqua robberies! Of course, it wouldn't work in the States, as we are too Gooberesque to not stare at people in burquas, but wouldn't it be ab fab if some Iraquian feministas got together and decided to rob banks in burquas? Just to make a point about them?

It'd be a helluva story.

LOL, it'd work up here; Canadians would politely avoid staring so there'd be few witnesses.

(as previously stated, I haven't seen burqas around town, but have seen full veiling of everything besides the eyes on several occasions).

[Griffin NoName]

(as previously stated, I haven't seen burqas around town, but have seen full veiling of everything besides the eyes on several occasions).

Why don't they wear dark sunglasses?  Eyes can be very flirtatious and sexual, apart from being windows on the soul.

.....seriously.......why leave the eyes visible?