Explore the Debate: Bhurkas and Oppression

[Sorry!]

Potentially, yes. But that means it's a flaw in our ability to gather accurate data. It does not change the underlying principle that we should not be making any assumptions about the subjects.

Yeah, I feel the same way as well. Am I the only one who's posted here so far?

 

[DaveC426913]

Yeah, I feel the same way as well. Am I the only one who's posted here so far?

No, there's three pages of thread.

 

[rootX]

Potentially, yes. But that means it's a flaw in our ability to gather accurate data. It does not change the underlying principle that we should not be making any assumptions about the subjects.
That is a logistical issue though. It doesn't change the principle. "We can't know how they really feel" is not a rationale for assuming that we do know.

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Sooner religions go away, the better
2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so they should also accept the western culture when they come here.

 

[Sorry!]

No, there's three pages of thread.

Oh I was talking about your position if I was the only person to agree with you :P not the only person to post anything.

 

[Sorry!]

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Soon religions go away, the better
2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so they should also accept the western culture when they come here.

Arguments for religion staying or leaving both have strong points. As well western culture is more open and FREE. I'm pretty sure that's how things are now. They fit in perfectly fine; it's us that needs to stop being conservative and open up.

 

[DaveC426913]

We know that it might or might not be voluntarily, so what you suggest then?
1) Do nothing
2) Ban bhurkas
3) You don't know what to do

Well, that's why I'm asking.

One of my question is:
Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?

Sorry, I din't read the entire thread but only few posts so I am not clear on you position. As for my position, I strongly support number 2 for two reasons
1) Soon religions go away, the better

That is a ridiculous rationale. I'll presume you are not serious.

2) You need to accept their conservative culture when you go to their countries so theyshould also accept the western culture when they come here.

a] We do not need to dress in their culture when we go there.
b] I live in Canada. We embrace diverse cultures.

 

[russ_watters]

Western cultures also impose dress requirements and more so against women than men. Violating these dress laws can also land one in front of a judge. Is this anything more than a matter of degree?

No, because:

Are western women also oppressed because they are required to tops when swimming?

No. Such decency laws in western culture have no association with or alterior motive related to any actual oppression. They are a matter of decency only, and a judgement call. If wearing a Bhurka was strictly a matter of decency and in no way related to the general subjugation of women in Islamic culture, then it could be argued that it is a matter of degree. To be more specific, decency laws regarding women parallel decency laws regarding men in western culture. In Islamic culture, there is no parallel: decency laws target women almost exclusively. Why? Because there is more to these laws than just decency. These laws are part of the subjugation of women in Islamic society.

 

[russ_watters]

For a muslim, the anger and the terrorism cannot be divorced from each other because the anger is a component of the terrorism.

I don't see what that has to do with anything.

lol. Arguments like this try to fly everyday, all day. It's not Islam it's the people.

We see the same crackpottery day in and day out in the Relativity forum, but just because we see it over and over again, that doesn't mean it has any validity. People may use the arguments a lot, but that doesn't mean they have any validity.

I think however you should re-read the OP. I'm pretty sure he intended a discussion of whether if we see a person wearing garments like these is it OK for us to automatically assume they are being oppressed.

That is precisely the question I answered: the answer is yes.

You are just going on about how it's a symbol of oppression. Ok, true, it is.

Glad you acknowledge it, but it is more than just a "symbol", it is part of a lager whole (and I was explicit about that as well).

This however does not mean it is ok for us to assume that every female we see wearing a burqa is being oppressed.

Yes, as a matter of fact, it does. Again, it is logically the same as "separate but equal"...

As well your example of segregation and a black person doesn't really fit the situation of the OP. Imagine that the same black person came from a hypothetical country in Africa where whites ruled and segregated (in a negative opressive way, since segregation isn't ALWAYs oppressive...) whites vs blacks. So he migrates over to Canada into Toronto and attends a hypothetical segregated school here. Of his own free will... should we say he was oppressed? [emphasis added]

You are assuming the answer in the framing of the question. And, in fact, you are assuming it counter to the way the question has been decided by those who are charged with making the decision: the Supreme Court.

Your logic is flawd because you are starting with a false premise on which to derive your position. You are arguing against reality.

In other words, the two errors are:
1. There is no de jure segregation in Canada.
2. De jure segregation is a form of oppression.

But I believe my friends example a few posts back goes to show that some females do decide to wear garments like these of their own free will.

As you gave no reasoning behind the decision, your example demonstrates nothing at all.

 

[russ_watters]

There is a way. Ask the individual.

We absolutely must go froward under the assumption that the person we are speaking to is a fully-fledged human-being of sound mind and with their own thoughts.

If we do not enage in this study without that assumption then we are the ones eliminating the individuals from the equation, making generalizations and passing judgements as if we know better

This is the dilemma I am having. Surely the Gold Standard must be asking the person in question.

That is quite simply not a reality in the world in which we live. And it isn't just a matter of morality. This stance of yours has far reaching implications:

-You can't ask a convict if he thinks he was guilty.
-You can't ask a mentally ill person if he/she thinks he's mentally ill.
-You can't ask a building owner if he's followed the building codes (or just built a safe enough building).

All of these things absolutely must be decided by disinterested 3rd parties in order for society to be functional.

To get back to this specific issue, you have an issue with the concept of moral relativism vs moral absolutism. You don't like the idea that the collective "we" have developed a morality by which everyone in the world is to be judged. There are two ways around this:

1. Just plain accept that it is a reality of the world we live in. There is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights in place in the UN (it isn't necessarily enforced, but the intent is there).
2. Explore the logic of moral relativism. Test it. See if it works. See if you can find any examples in history where it has succeeded. You'll find that not only does it lead to logical contradictions and isn't internally consistent, but it has been shown throughout history that moral failures cause societal failures.

That is a logistical issue though. It doesn't change the principle. "We can't know how they really feel" is not a rationale for assuming that we do know.

You misunderstand: we aren't saying we know how they feel. We are judging the action and its implications. How the person feels about the action is irrelevant. I would have hoped by now that that was clear: it is precisely because one's own feelings on a subject they are in the middle of can't be trusted to be accurate that feelings have no bearing on the question of whether someone is being oppressed. Oppression is judged on larger principles, completely separate from what is going on in the head of the person in question.

 

[DaveC426913]

Jeez. Not again. Can someone stop by Russ' house and change his batteries?

[ EDIT: Ah. thanks.]

 

[protonchain]

Not trying to be rude by any means at all here, but I was born in India as a Hindu and lived in a neighborhood of Muslim people.

I moved here to the US when I was 7 so while I was detached from that environment for 14-15 years, I still go back and still am able to connect with the surroundings and whatnot fairly easily.

The Muslim women there are some of the happiest women in the world. I've never seen more benevolent yet disciplinary and very motherly women that take care of their families and do let their husbands know at times that they aren't their boss. A lot of these women wear the Burqa voluntarily.

At the very least this is within the neighborhood I grew up in, but if you extrapolate, you can make the assumption that those who choose to wear the Burqa voluntarily are doing so because of religious beliefs, because of traditions, and because of a sense of connection with their history and culture. It's the same reason why a Brahmin like me would be vegetarian (which I am) even though my job isn't being a priest in a temple (which is the original reason for the vegetarianism back in the good old days).

We (as in my family and others) really tend not to dwell on the topic and let them be. After all they are what they are and who they are because of the way they think, speak, act, and believe. And these small things are what makes us different. I'm sure the non-educated ones are wondering why the women in our household put on the red dot or wear saris.

 

[DaveC426913]

Not trying to be rude by any means at all here, but I was born in India as a Hindu and lived in a neighborhood of Muslim people.

I moved here to the US when I was 7 so while I was detached from that environment for 14-15 years, I still go back and still am able to connect with the surroundings and whatnot fairly easily.

The Muslim women there are some of the happiest women in the world. I've never seen more benevolent yet disciplinary and very motherly women that take care of their families and do let their husbands know at times that they aren't their boss. A lot of these women wear the Burqa voluntarily.

At the very least this is within the neighborhood I grew up in, but if you extrapolate, you can make the assumption that those who choose to wear the Burqa voluntarily are doing so because of religious beliefs, because of traditions, and because of a sense of connection with their history and culture. It's the same reason why a Brahmin like me would be vegetarian (which I am) even though my job isn't being a priest in a temple (which is the original reason for the vegetarianism back in the good old days).

We (as in my family and others) really tend not to dwell on the topic and let them be. After all they are what they are and who they are because of the way they think, speak, act, and believe. And these small things are what makes us different. I'm sure the non-educated ones are wondering why the women in our household put on the red dot or wear saris.

Thanks. It is good to have input from someone who is at least standing next to the horse's mouth.

 

[DaveC426913]

You misunderstand: we aren't saying we know how they feel. We are judging the action and its implications. How the person feels about the action is irrelevant. I would have hoped by now that that was clear: it is precisely because one's own feelings on a subject they are in the middle of can't be trusted to be accurate that feelings have no bearing on the question of whether someone is being oppressed. Oppression is judged on larger principles, completely separate from what is going on in the head of the person in question.

So, our judgement on what is best for this adult citizen overrules her own personal wishes?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

No, because: No. Such decency laws in western culture have no association with or alterior motive related to any actual oppression. They are a matter of decency only, and a judgement call. If wearing a Bhurka was strictly a matter of decency and in no way related to the general subjugation of women in Islamic culture, then it could be argued that it is a matter of degree. To be more specific, decency laws regarding women parallel decency laws regarding men in western culture. In Islamic culture, there is no parallel: decency laws target women almost exclusively. Why? Because there is more to these laws than just decency. These laws are part of the subjugation of women in Islamic society.

In western cultures women are still made to cover up more than men. Your cultural upbringing leads you to believe that it is only proper that a woman cover her breasts just as the upbringing of a muslim may lead them to feel it is only proper a woman cover up all of her body. You go to any number or tribal communities and you will find women with their breasts exposed regularly. It is IN FACT culture, and not mere propriety, which lead you to believe women ought to cover their breasts as a matter of decency.

Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

Lol... I meant non-veiled. I gues there is a different name for it if there is no veil.
I don't think I have ever seen a veiled woman around here.

 

[russ_watters]

In western cultures women are still made to cover up more than men.

Could you explain that a little more because it doesn't seem to me to be true. As was pointed out, the breasts are considered sexual. In additon, it is generally frowned upon for men to wear cut or tight fitting bottoms like womens' bathing suit bottoms. Overall, the difference is quite small and is technical in nature - in other words, it is an interpretation of an evenly applied standard of propriety. Such a blanket male/female standard does not exist for muslims.

Your cultural upbringing leads you to believe that it is only proper that a woman cover her breasts...

Ok...

just as the upbringing of a muslim may lead them to feel it is only proper a woman cover up all of her body.

As I pointed out before, that norm does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it come anywhere close to the norm for male propriety. The example fails twice!

You go to any number or tribal communities and you will find women with their breasts exposed regularly.

And men's penises too. That's an example of an evenly applied standard and an argument against your point, not for it.

 

[russ_watters]

So, our judgement on what is best for this adult citizen overrules her own personal wishes?

Yes! Dave, I'm not trying to be condescending here, but whether you believe the concept should apply to this case or not is one thing, but you don't even seem to accept that the concept even exists! This is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

I gave a number of examples, but the one most relevant is that people - even adults - are not always qualified to judge whether or not they have been victimized. And Islamic culture provides us with one of the most basic and common criteria for judging whether someone is able to make an informed decision about their own life: education. Women in Islamic cultures tend to be less educated than men, by design. As a result, they are less able to judge their own predicament. That is, of course, a well-known, age-old method for ensuring the status quo via repression!

 

[russ_watters]

Jeez. Not again. Can someone stop by Russ' house and change his batteries?

[ EDIT: Ah. thanks.]

Believe me, it's tiring for me too, Dave.

 

[rootX]

Well, that's why I'm asking.

One of my question is:
Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?

So, you ask "Is the burkha a generally-accepted sign of oppression?"
And then you admit that your method and the suggested ones are flawed. So, we can never answer this question?

That is a ridiculous rationale. I'll presume you are not serious.


a] We do not need to dress in their culture when we go there.
b] I live in Canada. We embrace diverse cultures.

Yes, I agree. I couldn't get enough time to elaborate my rationale.

 

[GeorginaS]

Can you even see the face through the Burqa, though - through that little bit of mesh?

Yes, there's some lack of definition going on in this thread, I think. The picture MIH linked is a burqa. Complete head-to-toe covering including the entire face and eyes. There's also a naqib that is head-to-toe covering but the eyes are visible. There's the hijab that we most commonly see in Western countries and that's simply a head scarf. There's a vast difference between the garments.

I'd guess and say, originally, given their geographical situation, a hijab, naqib, or even a burqa likely makes all kinds of sense if you're part of a nomadic tribe living in the desert. Your hair, eyes, and skin would be protected from the harsh elements of the sun and blowing sand. Makes sense. The way that women are compelled and/or brainwashed into wearing those garments in this day and age is a whole other scenario.

Lol... I meant non-veiled. I gues there is a different name for it if there is no veil.
I don't think I have ever seen a veiled woman around here.

It's interesting to me that a couple of people here, including Drakin, seem to think the idea of covering women up is funny. It's actually kind of frightening when you're confronted with it.

To answer MIH's question, no, you can't see a face, eyes, nothing, through that mesh. I've seen a woman wearing that very thing in a mall here in Alberta. She even had gloves on. You could not see one inch of a human being. All you could see was a moving hunk of blue cloth. That's it. What was walking about in front of me was nothing that was identifiable as human or as a human being. If the person under there was happy or sad no one would ever know.

And you see, that's one of the big things about the burqa -- not, you'll note, the other religious pieces of clothing those women wear -- that I object to immensely. First of all, the women who are wearing them come from countries such as Afghanistan where, yes, they are entirely oppressed. And if they leave their homes wearing anything but that entire covering, they risk imprisonment or death. You grow up with or live with that much fear for any length of time and tell me how willingly you'd let that piece of cloth go? It's a prison for their own self-preservation.

I'd also argue that, like inmates who become so institutionalised that they no longer are comfortable wandering loose and left to their own devices in society at large, I'd suggest that a lot of these women may feel the same way. They'd feel exposed without the covering and not because of any sense of moral propriety but because of a deeply embedded fear for their mortal safety without it.

And here's another thing to consider. I've often read about women being beaten or stoned to death on the streets of countries like Afghanistan and wondered how on Earth it's possible to stone another human being to death. Then you encounter a woman wearing a burqa and you better understand. If you threw rocks at that moving hunk of cloth, you'd not be harming a person. You don't see a person; you don't identify that thing as a human being. You wouldn't see it suffer; it would be fairly easy to kill, like shooting at a target paper.

So yes, I see the burqa as oppressive because it's dehumanising. You'll note I've not commented on the other pieces of Muslim religious-related clothing and focused my ideas exclusively the burqa/bhurka, which is the specific item of clothing being referred to by the OP.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Could you explain that a little more because it doesn't seem to me to be true. As was pointed out, the breasts are considered sexual. In additon, it is generally frowned upon for men to wear cut or tight fitting bottoms like womens' bathing suit bottoms. Overall, the difference is quite small and is technical in nature - in other words, it is an interpretation of an evenly applied standard of propriety. Such a blanket male/female standard does not exist for muslims. Ok... As I pointed out before, that norm does not exist in a vacuum, nor does it come anywhere close to the norm for male propriety. The example fails twice! And men's penises too. That's an example of an evenly applied standard and an argument against your point, not for it.

In the west men and women both have to cover their genitals. Only women have to cover their breasts. Women, by law, must wear about twice as much clothing as men at a minimum when in a public place. How do you come to the conclusion that this is an equitable standard? Note also that women in the US mostly wear bras regardless of necessity and most schools and employers, especially any that have uniforms, require females to wear bras regardless of necessity. Do you see this as an equitable standard aswell?

And yes, breasts are considered sexual on both men and women. Womens breasts are considered naughty primarily because they are most often hidden. Men though are quite welcome to display their chests as a sign of their virility (read: sexuality) and it is no problem what so ever. Once upon a time women were considered sluty if they showed ankle and men found ankles sexual. Have you read any literature from the time period? I've read some rather lusty descriptions of kissing wrists and arms myself. Would you not think that the reason for our society's continued preference for women keeping more of their bodies covered than men stems from those times when even western women were made to cover almost their entire body?

As for unevenness in application of propriety among muslims I am quite certain there are guidelines for proper dress for men as well as women. I doubt that men are allowed to go out in public wearing speedos if they feel like it. I looked and I found you a link for proper muslim dress for men. This is also apparently the common mode of dress for men. You may find that there is not quite the gap you believed. The major difference is in the manner in which they are treated regarding their dress.
The idea of the islamic dress code for women is to protect women from the lustful gazes of men. So women should be made to cover their breasts in public in the US why? I believe you said its because they are considered sexual? So we need to protect them from the lustful gazes of men right? Of course we don't worry about protecting men from the lustful gazes of women. They are welcome to display any part of their body they wish save for their genitals and I think you will find that we are primarily 'protecting' women here again (and children too). I doubt you'll find many women who have been arrested for sexual assault because they bared their naughty bits. Men though have been made to register as sex offenders for as little as urinating in public. This isn't sexist or reminicent of our cultures oppression of women in anyway? Regardless of the letter of the law it is pretty obvious that in practice US laws on public indecency are used to protect women (and children) from men because women are seen as weak and delicate. They obviously need big strong men in uniform to come save them from the drunk guy pissing in the bushes or to ask them what their parents would think if they knew their daughter was flashing her breasts or to lecture them about how those guys they flashed may have tried to rape them.


The oppression of muslim women comes in with the way that these women are treated. The manner in which they dress is only a minor facet. If these women decide to continue to dress in this fashion when they move to other countries it is not oppression. They are not made to dress this way. They will not be arrested, beaten, or stoned to death if they one day decide to go out without their head cover. If you believe that these women prefer their mode of dress and are uncomfortable with the idea of men looking at them while not fully covered because they have been brain washed are you really of the mind to take that from them? Would you make them go out dressed in jeans and a t-shirt no matter how they feel about it just because it makes you feel better? Would you make a woman wear a bikini because hey she can and she oughtn't allow herself to be so oppressed?


Proper Dress For Muslim Men

http://abcnews.go.com/International/WireStory?id=8188969&page=3 The last page refers to men being told to dress and act properly

http://www.csom.org/pubs/female_sex_offenders_brief.pdf A large part of this discusses the view society takes on women and how this may be partly responsible for their severe under representation in sex offender statistics.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

It's interesting to me that a couple of people here, including Drakin, seem to think the idea of covering women up is funny. It's actually kind of frightening when you're confronted with it.

I had not realized the difference. I have only seen women in the US wearing the hajib. My last post may give you a better idea of what I think. I am certainly appalled by the manner in which women are treated in some other countries. What I think is silly is the notion that such dress ought to be banned as a sybmol oppression or that the US and other western countries don't themselves show elements of oppression (though far far milder) in their standard mode of dress for females.

 

[DaveC426913]

Believe me, it's tiring for me too, Dave.

It was not a gibe. Your post ended in the middle of a sentence. For a short time, it looked for all the world like you had just ground to a halt in the middle of writing.

 

[DaveC426913]

Yes! Dave, I'm not trying to be condescending here,

Likewise, don't second-guess my reactions. I am not dismissing what you say in disbelief, I am carefully considering it.

but whether you believe the concept should apply to this case or not is one thing, but you don't even seem to accept that the concept even exists! This is not a very difficult concept to grasp.

I gave a number of examples, but the one most relevant is that people - even adults - are not always qualified to judge whether or not they have been victimized.

Yes, but is that a call that can be made unilaterally? You examine a criminal's case, a mentally-ill patient's condition, a building's condition.

The equivalent would be to judge each garb-wearing women on the merits of her specific situation.

And Islamic culture provides us with one of the most basic and common criteria for judging whether someone is able to make an informed decision about their own life: education. Women in Islamic cultures tend to be less educated than men, by design. As a result, they are less able to judge their own predicament. That is, of course, a well-known, age-old method for ensuring the status quo via repression!

But we cannot state unilaterally that any given woman is uneducated and therefore ignorant and therefore oppressed.

 

[ideasrule]

I simply don't agree that multiculturalism means that oppression is permissible. Slavery and segregation were once a part of American culture; now they're not. Foot binding and other forms of sexism were once part of Chinese culture; now they're not. If the activists who protested against these injustices simply decided to be "tolerant" or "multicultural", we'd still be lynching blacks and considering women as property.

 

[cristo]

Let's please all remember the PF rules on religious discussion, and try to adhere to them. Failure to do so will result in the thread being locked.I saw a programme once which was interviewing women wearing bhurkas and asking why they wore them in western society. Interestingly, some of the women stated that they didn't wear them "back home", but that in the western world they felt less safe, and that men were ogling at them so much that they felt it safer to cover up their bodies.

On a more practical note, I think there are times when a bhurka is pretty dangerous. I've been bumped into several times by women who effectively have no peripheral vision. One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

I simply don't agree that multiculturalism means that oppression is permissible. Slavery and segregation were once a part of American culture; now they're not. Foot binding and other forms of sexism were once part of Chinese culture; now they're not. If the activists who protested against these injustices simply decided to be "tolerant" or "multicultural", we'd still be lynching blacks and considering women as property.

Is a woman who chooses to wear a burqa or hajib oppressing herself?

I saw a programme once which was interviewing women wearing bhurkas and asking why they wore them in western society. Interestingly, some of the women stated that they didn't wear them "back home", but that in the western world they felt less safe, and that men were ogling at them so much that they felt it safer to cover up their bodies.

On a more practical note, I think there are times when a bhurka is pretty dangerous. I've been bumped into several times by women who effectively have no peripheral vision. One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!

Do they wear them while driving? That is certainly dangerous. No one should be allowed to operate a heavy piece of machinery while obviously hindering their ability to do so safely.

Another danger they may want to consider is that with their vision hindered they will be less likely to observe persons who are attempting to target them. Like an ostrich sticking their head in the sand to avoid the lion.

 

[drankin]

Any objections with letting someone wear a burqa in a bank? Federal building? Airport? Anywhere where positive identification is req'd for public safety?

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Any objections with letting someone wear a burqa in a bank? Federal building? Airport? Anywhere where positive identification is req'd for public safety?

This was something I had thought about. I remember a story maybe a couple of years ago about a muslim woman who refused to show her face for a DMV photo, which I thought was ridiculous. I believe that she eventually wound up agreeing to allow a female DMV worker to take the photo in an area where no one else could see her, but not after lodging complaints and threatening lawsuits and such.

I don't see any issue with allowing the person to speak only with a female employee/officer, or a single individual, with some level of privacy. In most cases this isn't going to put anyone out. If for what ever reason the particular situation does not allow for such niceties I do not believe that the womans feelings on the matter should trump legal and security issues.

 

[lisab]

Timely article today...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/12/generation.islam.hijab/index.html

The irony of wearing burqas, head scarves, etc. is that the intent is to be modest, to cover up. But when such clothing is worn in a non-Muslim country, it makes the wearer very conspicuous.

 

[robertm]

Here's Pat Condell's take:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48"

 

[DaveC426913]

Timely article today...

http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/08/12/generation.islam.hijab/index.html

The irony of wearing burqas, head scarves, etc. is that the intent is to be modest, to cover up. But when such clothing is worn in a non-Muslim country, it makes the wearer very conspicuous.

I don't really see this as ironic. Covering up is not diametrically opposite of conspicuousness. It's not like they're hoping it will act as camouflage.

 

[DaveC426913]

One time I was nearly squished crossing a road by a woman wearing a bhurka who turned into the side road and clearly didn't see me until the last second!

Do they wear them while driving?

Oh driving!

That makes more sense. I thought she was just very large.

 

[Smurf]

I think this discussion so far is somewhat disorganized, namely no one has yet tried to define what they mean by 'oppression'. Rather important if we're trying to decide wether the bhurka is oppressive, isn't it?

If your a liberal, then you believe that freedom is a good thing. But you can't just be pro-freedom because reality is a lot more complicated than that. Who's freedom? How much freedom? So you reason that freedom should be given to the person who is chiefly concerned with whatever issue is at hand. Say person X wants to kill person Y. Person Y, the one being killed, has a hell of a lot more at stake than person X, who just wants the pleasure of killing/money/whatever. And so you decide in his favor. Murder should be illegal.

Then you have to deal with things that aren't about two individuals, but one individual vs. society (This is when the burka thing comes up). Again, you can generally decide in favor of whoever has the most interest invested in the circumstances. So when you make speed limits and such, it's because the interest of society (not having random people die) surpasses the interest of individuals who are going to be late for work.

I think this is a very sound way of thinking about politics. It's not the kind of thinking that leads to statements about burkas as "signs of oppression" though. That kind of language stems from a different logic, the logic of moralism.

You take some kind of moral ideal and make it the highest good. You effectively raise to the level of metaphysical law. These ideals don't have any reasons for them, they just say, for example "Women should be liberated and independent". You can have all sorts of arguments for moralism: god, historical materialism, whatever. But these are just as lacking in justification as the moral ideals. And so you conjecture from this lofty premise what should be done to bring the world into alignment with your moral ideals. So you identify signs of oppression and oppressed individuals and you go about enacting laws and trying to convince people not to be oppressed anymore.

That's generally what I've seen in this thread so far. The question "Are burkas oppressive?" is presented as a yes/no question. Well, it only has to be a yes/no question if your trying to answer it by comparing burkas to your moral ideals. When you compare them like that it either fits or it doesn't and that's all there is to it. If you think about burkas in terms of who's interest it's in you get a lot more options. You can allow them generally but ban them in places where it's in societies interest to not allow them. i.e. while driving and at security checkpoints, etc,.

So, do I think burkas are oppressive? No, because I don't believe in moral ideals. "Oppressive" to me isn't a matter of weather an individuals behavior matches up to my pre-conceived notions about behavior, it's a matter of weather or not they are being guaranteed their liberties where they are most concerned. So as long as they are freely choosing to wear it (they're reasons are irrelevant) and it's not more in societies interest to ban them or take any other actions, I don't see a problem.

Explore the logic of moral relativism. Test it. See if it works. See if you can find any examples in history where it has succeeded. You'll find that not only does it lead to logical contradictions and isn't internally consistent, but it has been shown throughout history that moral failures cause societal failures.

I'm not entirely sure what "moral relativism" means to you, but I suspect it describes me and I've never had any problems with it.
EDIT: Well, that's not true. But I don't have any problems with it ANYMORE.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

SMURF! Where the Smurf have you been?!

 

[Smurf]

I've been around. I made a few posts a week or two ago. Even when I wasn't popping I'd occasionally drop by and peek around. I couldn't leave you all here all by yourselves without any supervision. That would just be... irresponsible.