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.