This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
The idea that the bikini is just as much a form of oppression as the burqa is crap
Scroll to see replies
Original post by Mentally
Also there are only 3 countries in the entire muslim world where a women may suffer from legal actions if they dont wear the hijab/burqa (which i completely disagree with) you seem to be assuming implicitly assuming that this is for the entire muslim world need i remind you that in the 5 largest muslim countries covering your head is completely optional and even banned in some areas (which i also completely disagree with).
Also there are only 3 countries in the entire muslim world where a women may suffer from legal actions if they dont wear the hijab/burqa (which i completely disagree with) you seem to be assuming implicitly assuming that this is for the entire muslim world need i remind you that in the 5 largest muslim countries covering your head is completely optional and even banned in some areas (which i also completely disagree with).
In many Muslim countries, not wearing the full veil leads to sexual harassment and rape, which are not prosecuted. It therefore makes the full veil compulsory without a law. The result is the same in the end.
Original post by KingBradly
Equally you don't seem to be able to grasp the simple concepts I keep trying to enlighten you about. First of all, it is not "simply untrue" that the burqa was created to help men keep women as their property. I am not referring to women as "chattel", I'm refering to the fact that women were literally considered chattle when the burqa was invented. How can you have the hubris to dispute this without any knowledge? Please watch a few minutes of this BBC documentary: [video]https://youtu.be/3C0QwnvtMik?t=21m28s[/video]
This shows you that the burqa would not have originated if men did not exist. Established historical facts back my argument up. Nothing backs up yours.
This shows you that the burqa would not have originated if men did not exist. Established historical facts back my argument up. Nothing backs up yours.
My supposed "hubris" stems from the fact that you have directed me to a documentary that has nothing to do with the Burqa and instead, seems to talk about the "hijab".
I now invite you to study the differences between the articles of clothing commonly associated with Muslim women.
Concluding, the documentary you have posted, is completely at odds with what you have written.
I urge you to go back and reconsider your stance, amending your arguments appropriately.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
But that is simply untrue. If we went with your thought experiment (no men), then there would still be women walking around with Burqas as it seems to fit another religious objective about not backbiting or mockery of others, concepts which would still exist if there were no men.
I do think you demonstrate a poor understanding of the topic at hand because you keep referring to women as chattel. By engaging in your thought experiment, we have proved that your assertions are simply not true.
So, regardless of whether there are men or no women, we have determined that women will still be wearing the Burqa for other reasons than the ones you have stated.
You don't, and will probably not be able to grasp, that simple concept.
I do think you demonstrate a poor understanding of the topic at hand because you keep referring to women as chattel. By engaging in your thought experiment, we have proved that your assertions are simply not true.
So, regardless of whether there are men or no women, we have determined that women will still be wearing the Burqa for other reasons than the ones you have stated.
You don't, and will probably not be able to grasp, that simple concept.
Lmaoo what
Original post by TheArtofProtest
My supposed "hubris" stems from the fact that you have directed me to a documentary that has nothing to do with the Burqa and instead, seems to talk about the "hijab".
I now invite you to study the differences between the articles of clothing commonly associated with Muslim women.
Concluding, the documentary you have posted, is completely at odds with what you have written.
I urge you to go back and reconsider your stance, amending your arguments appropriately.
I now invite you to study the differences between the articles of clothing commonly associated with Muslim women.
Concluding, the documentary you have posted, is completely at odds with what you have written.
I urge you to go back and reconsider your stance, amending your arguments appropriately.
Oh come on, are you really going to be this pedantic? The point is that the practice of women wearing veils in Islam, including the burqa, stems back before the religion from Byzantine and Assyrian times when it was used to help men keep women as their chattel. The various forms and names of different kinds of veils that evolved later are hardly relevant.
Original post by KingBradly
Oh come on, are you really going to be this pedantic? The point is that the practice of women wearing veils in Islam, including the burqa, stems back before the religion from Byzantine and Assyrian times when it was used to help men keep women as their chattel. The various forms and names of different kinds of veils that evolved later are hardly relevant.
The fact that you have chosen to lump them all in as one indicates that you are unable to appreciate the distinction between the articles of clothing and as such, unable to accept reasoning which runs contrary to yours.
If you wish to have a serious discussion about this, then I am willing to but a person choosing telling me that the Assyrian's imposing the hijab to signify women as their chattel and then equating this to the full Burqa hardly seems to have exercised rational thought.
If the hijab (i.e: headscarf) was enough to suggest that women are a men's chattel, why do people go further and wear the Niqaab or the Burqa?
Please, come back when you've had a serious think about this.
Original post by teenhorrorstory
Lmaoo what
According to the discussion I'm having with King Bradly, women have biologically evolved to scrutinize and criticize the appearance, attire and well-being of other women.
For example, you have women who say that other women should conform to a certain standard, which they perceive to be the standards that men hold. We have women who are naturally competitive in an effort, I think, to pursue men.
Not being well versed in Islamic literature and through my limited understanding, I can appreciate the guidelines that Islam has against backbiting, against the maligning of other people and against the general competitiveness that exists between women.
So perhaps the primary objective of the Burqa and other forms of veiling is not to dissuade men, but to keep women from engaging in activities, such as those listed above, which Islam considers as not befitting Islamic behaviour.
After all, if women wore the Burqa, then you wouldn't necessarily be able to make out the attire, appearance or the health of the "other" woman.
Perhaps the Burqa is there to serve as a self-reflection, as a kind of prevention is better than cure, as a means to make it easier for women to not engage in what some may consider "unIslamic behaviours"?
I'm not an expert on anything but I thought I would make the point that even in a society full of Muslim women, with no men in sight, I think the Burqa will still exist, to some degree.
Original post by Mentally
So the only way to not be oppressed is to go out decorate yourself infront of men to recieve attention?
Why are you leaping to that silly conclusion? So you assume if a woman does not wear a burka she must be decorating herself for male attention? You have a very low opinion of women then.
Original post by Mentally
I'm not deluded at all. Of course not all burka wearers are forced to wear it but a lot actually are, aren't they. Surely any unbrainwashed person, with all her intellectual faculties functioning healthily, would be appalled with the idea of keeping her face hidden from others in public. It is social isolation and exclusion. Is a human face so bad it has to be hidden from view? Is it so enticing to sin? Don't kid yourself. In Britain the burka should be banned absolutely. It is highly offensive.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
The fact that you have chosen to lump them all in as one indicates that you are unable to appreciate the distinction between the articles of clothing and as such, unable to accept reasoning which runs contrary to yours.
If you wish to have a serious discussion about this, then I am willing to but a person choosing telling me that the Assyrian's imposing the hijab to signify women as their chattel and then equating this to the full Burqa hardly seems to have exercised rational thought.
If the hijab (i.e: headscarf) was enough to suggest that women are a men's chattel, why do people go further and wear the Niqaab or the Burqa?
Please, come back when you've had a serious think about this.
If you wish to have a serious discussion about this, then I am willing to but a person choosing telling me that the Assyrian's imposing the hijab to signify women as their chattel and then equating this to the full Burqa hardly seems to have exercised rational thought.
If the hijab (i.e: headscarf) was enough to suggest that women are a men's chattel, why do people go further and wear the Niqaab or the Burqa?
Please, come back when you've had a serious think about this.
I can't even fathom the stupidity of this comment. The fact you think you are worthy of competing in "serious discussion" is laughable. I mean it's barely literate, but I'll try and work out what you're trying to say. No where in the Qu'ran does it say that women must veil themselves, so where else can it have evolved from other than pre-existing cultural customs? Moreover, even if it did, do you really believe that religious customs just suddenly appear out of a vacuum? Obviously they are adopted from existing cultures. Of course, all the veiling that you now see in Islamic cultures originates from the Assyrian and Byzantine society. This is fact. I am not "lumping them all as one", I'm saying the different forms evolved from something. They did not just suddenly appear in a vacuum, and as the Quranic God never mentioned them, if you so happen to believe in him, then they weren't invented by him out of the blue either. From wikipedia: Veiling, however, did not originate with the advent of Islam. Statuettes depicting veiled priestesses precede all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), dating back as far as 2500 BCE.[50] Some scholars postulate that the customs of veiling and seclusion of women in early Islam were assimilated from the conquered Persian and Byzantinesocieties and then later on they were viewed as appropriate expressions of Quranic norms and values.
If the hijab (i.e: headscarf) was enough to suggest that women are a men's chattel, why do people go further and wear the Niqaab or the Burqa?
Urm, what? Because often customs change over time? Things often become extreme? How does this disprove anything I've said?
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by QE2
The invisible spectrum is more important. Studies have shown that women who wear the burqa often suffer from vitamin D deficiency, which can cause rickets in their children when pregnant.
The incidence of rickets in the UK is at its highest for 50 years.
The incidence of rickets in the UK is at its highest for 50 years.
Yet another good reason for banning the disgusting thing>
Original post by MrKmas508
Burqinis... Types furiously away on keyboard. FA?
Fudge all
Original post by KingBradly
I can't even fathom the stupidity of this comment. The fact you think you are worthy of competing in "serious discussion" is laughable. I mean it's barely literate, but I'll try and work out what you're trying to say. No where in the Qu'ran does it say that women must veil themselves, so where else can it have evolved from other than pre-existing cultural customs? Moreover, even if it did, do you really believe that religious customs just suddenly appear out of a vacuum? Obviously they are adopted from existing cultures. Of course, all the veiling that you now see in Islamic cultures originates from the Assyrian and Byzantine society. This is fact. I am not "lumping them all as one", I'm saying the different forms evolved from something. They did not just suddenly appear in a vacuum, and as the Quranic God never mentioned them, if you so happen to believe in him, then they weren't invented by him out of the blue either. From wikipedia: Veiling, however, did not originate with the advent of Islam. Statuettes depicting veiled priestesses precede all three Abrahamic religions (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam), dating back as far as 2500 BCE.[50] Some scholars postulate that the customs of veiling and seclusion of women in early Islam were assimilated from the conquered Persian and Byzantinesocieties and then later on they were viewed as appropriate expressions of Quranic norms and values.
I have no idea which part of my post this is meant to address.
I don't think anyone is quibbling over where the Burqa originated from. In fact, we are discussing your assertion that in the Islamic context, it signifies an imposition of men over women which you have garnered from the practices of the Assyrians, some 5000 years ago.
Furthermore, this is simply your interpretation of the events and perhaps more importantly, bears no significance to the present situation, notwithstanding that trends may be indicative of a reason but are not conclusive.
If the hijab (i.e: headscarf) was enough to suggest that women are a men's chattel, why do people go further and wear the Niqaab or the Burqa?
Urm, what? Because often customs change over time? Things often become extreme? How does this disprove anything I've said?
Urm, what? Because often customs change over time? Things often become extreme? How does this disprove anything I've said?
So if things change and if customs evolve, why do you strenuously continue to insist that the Burqa is also an imposition of men over women?
Similar to how you state that customs change, can you not accept the possibility that the reasoning of adorning oneself with a particular garment will change over time?
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I have no idea which part of my post this is meant to address.
I don't think anyone is quibbling over where the Burqa originated from. In fact, we are discussing your assertion that in the Islamic context, it signifies an imposition of men over women which you have garnered from the practices of the Assyrians, some 5000 years ago.
Furthermore, this is simply your interpretation of the events and perhaps more importantly, bears no significance to the present situation, notwithstanding that trends may be indicative of a reason but are not conclusive.
Ahh, no, it is not simply my interpretation of events. This is the widely accepted version of events from scholars who know far more about the subject than you or I.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
So if things change and if customs evolve, why do you strenuously continue to insist that the Burqa is also an imposition of men over women?
Similar to how you state that customs change, can you not accept the possibility that the reasoning of adorning oneself with a particular garment will change over time?
So if things change and if customs evolve, why do you strenuously continue to insist that the Burqa is also an imposition of men over women?
Similar to how you state that customs change, can you not accept the possibility that the reasoning of adorning oneself with a particular garment will change over time?
I would accept this possibility if I could find a reason. But as the veil's function seems to still be primarily for hiding women from public sight, it doesn't seem that it's function has changed. Additionally, as the Quranic god never orders women to veil themselves, Islam has never actually given it any other reason for existence than it's original one. Even if it did, the psychology behind it would still be the same.
Original post by Mentally
So being raised to dress up modestly indicates women are opressed ?.
Go into any office building, factory, school, hospital, etc, and you will find everyone there with most of their body covered. Why are they dressed "immodestly"?
Using the bikini as a comparison to the burqa is a false dichotomy. The bikini is only deemed appropriate in a few, very specific situations. Even many hotels, restaurants, etc, in holiday resorts require people to wear more than just a bikini (or shorts for men). Those who "choose" to wear the burqa wear it in all public situations, not just when praying or at the mosque.
But if the women then tells you that she chooses to wear the burqah out of her own choice then she is brainwashed.... you really cant win here..
There is no similar doctrine in other societies that require women to wear bikinis, or any other specific form of dress - only that it be appropriate to the situation.
Ofcourse there is the social pressure in the muslim world for women to dress a certain way however you must be incredibly stupid to think this trend is only in the muslim world. Arguably one could claim in the U.K girls as young as 12 can't leave their house without headbutting a tub of makeup otherwise they dont get that much attention from guys? Now that i find opressive. This social pressure wear on the dress code of women is apparent in every community however is manifested in different ways.
However, there is no society or culture where wearing a bikini is the only acceptable mode of dress, for all women on every occasion, and definately none where you are punished for not wearing one.
Original post by KingBradly
Ahh, no, it is not simply my interpretation of events. This is the widely accepted version of events from scholars who know far more about the subject than you or I.
If you are asserting that this is the case, then yes, it is your interpretation of events although you derive your authority from scholars.
Whilst I respect the interpretation that some scholars have reached upon these events, it does not negate the fact that there could be an alternative explanation which is equally valid.
Need I remind you that appealing to authority (scholars) and appeal to numbers (widely accepted) are both logical fallacies. I would urge you to exercise your cognitive skills and make your own judgement from the facts presented.
The choosing of the veil suggests an imposition of women by men is not a fact, it is an opinion.
I would accept this possibility if I could find a reason. But as the veil's function seems to still be primarily for hiding women from public sight, it doesn't seem that it's function has changed. Additionally, as the Quranic god never orders women to veil themselves, Islam has never actually given it any other reason for existence than it's original one. Even if it did, the psychology behind it would still be the same.
If the veil (understood to be the hijab) is there to protect women from public sight, then why do Islamic scholars stress that women should not expose the aspects of their bodies which they would not expose even to their mahrams (i.e: those that have been forbidden from sexual relationships)?
If we were to go back to that little thought experiment of yours, then it seems as though women will remain as they are now. Just because there are no men, it doesn't mean that Muslim women will strip off to their bikini's.
To me, that suggests that the Burqa or any other aspect of a veil has less to do with men than you have originally made it out to be.
I. again, urge you to employ your critical thinking skills and form your own conclusions instead of doggedly claiming something which is looking less and less likely.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
If you are asserting that this is the case, then yes, it is your interpretation of events although you derive your authority from scholars.
It is not my "interpretation" of events, as I myself haven't personally "interpreted" anything. I have simply cited historical evidence.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Whilst I respect the interpretation that some scholars have reached upon these events, it does not negate the fact that there could be an alternative explanation which is equally valid.
Whilst I respect the interpretation that some scholars have reached upon these events, it does not negate the fact that there could be an alternative explanation which is equally valid.
But there isn't an alternative explanation that is backed up by any evidence. So why wouldn't you go with the accepted explanation? Regardless of this, even if, for the sake of argument, the current narrative of events isn't quite correct, it is still clearly true that religions generally adopt their customs from the cultures they inhabit (religions don't suddenly appear in a vacuum). This especially has to be true with the case of veiling in Islam, as veiling women is never mentioned in the Quran. Therefore veiling must have originated beyond the teachings of Islam for purposes that were not definitively Islamic. What other purpose could it be than to hide women from the prying eyes of men? And what other reason would a people want to do this other than to help keep women under their control? As I have stated, the game of sexual selection we play is one of the most vital parts of life. It has a huge influence on the paths we take. The veil acts to take out women's hand in this game. It means the game is left entirely to patriarchal control. Even if this weren't the intention of the veil, this effect of it is clearly immobilizing, and by that measure I would consider it oppressive.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
Need I remind you that appealing to authority (scholars) and appeal to numbers (widely accepted) are both logical fallacies. I would urge you to exercise your cognitive skills and make your own judgement from the facts presented.
Need I remind you that appealing to authority (scholars) and appeal to numbers (widely accepted) are both logical fallacies. I would urge you to exercise your cognitive skills and make your own judgement from the facts presented.
It would be a fallacy if I was attempting to use an argument from authority to dismiss evidence that runs contrary to my argument, but may I remind you that you have provided none? Regardless, the fact that I have provided historical evidence while you have not suffices to make my argument infinitely more credible. The added mention of the fact that the historical evidence is widely accepted by scholars far more learned on the subject than ourselves only serves to highlight the dizzying amount of hubris you must have to think you know better, despite the fact you have displayed no actual knowledge on the matter.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
The choosing of the veil suggests an imposition of women by men is not a fact, it is an opinion.
The choosing of the veil suggests an imposition of women by men is not a fact, it is an opinion.
It is an opinion based on factual evidence. Unlike yours.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
If the veil (understood to be the hijab) is there to protect women from public sight, then why do Islamic scholars stress that women should not expose the aspects of their bodies which they would not expose even to their mahrams (i.e: those that have been forbidden from sexual relationships)?
If the veil (understood to be the hijab) is there to protect women from public sight, then why do Islamic scholars stress that women should not expose the aspects of their bodies which they would not expose even to their mahrams (i.e: those that have been forbidden from sexual relationships)?
Because the woman's body is considered only for the one who marries her. A woman's body is considered to be for the man who marries her, long before it is known who the man will be.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
If we were to go back to that little thought experiment of yours, then it seems as though women will remain as they are now. Just because there are no men, it doesn't mean that Muslim women will strip off to their bikini's.
If we were to go back to that little thought experiment of yours, then it seems as though women will remain as they are now. Just because there are no men, it doesn't mean that Muslim women will strip off to their bikini's.
The main principle of the thought experiment was that men had never existed, not that they suddenly stopped existing. If man had never existed, then veiling would not have begun because it originates from patriarchal attempts to control women in Assyrian and Byzantine cultures. Equally, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, Islam is a patriarchal religion invented by men, with a male prophet, so if in your invention of the world Islam created the veiling of its women all on its own, then it would still be the case that women wouldn't have come up with the idea. Bathing naked, or with only delicate parts covered, however, is something they might do quite naturally.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
To me, that suggests that the Burqa or any other aspect of a veil has less to do with men than you have originally made it out to be.
To me, that suggests that the Burqa or any other aspect of a veil has less to do with men than you have originally made it out to be.
How? This is completely your own conjecture, based on zero evidence, that barely even makes sense. Everything I have said I have explained logically and used historical and scriptural evidence as my back up.
Original post by TheArtofProtest
I. again, urge you to employ your critical thinking skills and form your own conclusions instead of doggedly claiming something which is looking less and less likely.
I. again, urge you to employ your critical thinking skills and form your own conclusions instead of doggedly claiming something which is looking less and less likely.
I urge you to try to base your views on evidence, rather than just continuing to argue because you not self-effacing enough to admit you are clueless.
I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion.
(edited 8 years ago)
Women choose to wear a bikini.
Women are forced to wear burkas!
Women are forced to wear burkas!
Original post by Ambitious1999
Women choose to wear a bikini.
Women are forced to wear burkas!
Women are forced to wear burkas!
Many women choose to wear the burqa.
Original post by hoping4Astars
Many women choose to wear the burqa.
Because they are told from a young age that if they don't then they will burn in hell or be outcast.
Original post by KingBradly
It is not my "interpretation" of events, as I myself haven't personally "interpreted" anything. I have simply cited historical evidence.
You've cited an interpretation based on someone's understanding of a historical artifact, which is also a position that you personally believe in.
Own the interpretation that you have advocated.
But there isn't an alternative explanation that is backed up by any evidence. So why wouldn't you go with the accepted explanation? Regardless of this, even if, for the sake of argument, the current narrative of events isn't quite correct, it is still clearly true that religions generally adopt their customs from the cultures they inhabit (religions don't suddenly appear in a vacuum). This especially has to be true with the case of veiling in Islam, as veiling women is never mentioned in the Quran. Therefore veiling must have originated beyond the teachings of Islam for purposes that were not definitively Islamic. What other purpose could it be than to hide women from the prying eyes of men? And what other reason would a people want to do this other than to help keep women under their control? As I have stated, the game of sexual selection we play is one of the most vital parts of life. It has a huge influence on the paths we take. The veil acts to take out women's hand in this game. It means the game is left entirely to patriarchal control. Even if this weren't the intention of the veil, this effect of it is clearly immobilizing, and by that measure I would consider it oppressive.
Are we dealing with historical artifacts or speculation? Judging from your post, it seems to be the latter.
If that is the kind of discussion that you feel you are comfortable with, then I can also start speculating, hypothesizing and work out the probabilities.
It would be a fallacy if I was attempting to use an argument from authority to dismiss evidence that runs contrary to my argument, but may I remind you that you have provided none? Regardless, the fact that I have provided historical evidence while you have not suffices to make my argument infinitely more credible. The added mention of the fact that the historical evidence is widely accepted by scholars far more learned on the subject than ourselves only serves to highlight the dizzying amount of hubris you must have to think you know better, despite the fact you have displayed no actual knowledge on the matter.
You have not provided historical evidence.
You have provided an interpretation of historical evidence.
You claim that this interpretation is correct by resorting to logical fallacies, specifically argumentum ad populum ("widely accepted") and argumentum ad veracundiam ("historical scholars").
It is an opinion based on factual evidence. Unlike yours.
It is an opinion derived from an interpretation of a historical artifact. Opinions can be wrong, and many are.
Because the woman's body is considered only for the one who marries her. A woman's body is considered to be for the man who marries her, long before it is known who the man will be.
And if she doesn't marry? Who does her body belong to? Can she then strip off in front of all the other women?
The main principle of the thought experiment was that men had never existed, not that they suddenly stopped existing. If man had never existed, then veiling would not have begun because it originates from patriarchal attempts to control women in Assyrian and Byzantine cultures. Equally, if you continue to choose to ignore this fact, Islam is a patriarchal religion invented by men, with a male prophet, so if in your invention of the world Islam created the veiling of its women all on its own, then it would still be the case that women wouldn't have come up with the idea. Bathing naked, or with only delicate parts covered, however, is something they might do quite naturally.
To engage in such a thought experiment would be ludicrous so as to be devoid of all semblance of reality rendering any discussion meaningless.
I don't get why you keep on constantly bleating on about Islam not having "invented the veil". I, and I'm sure 99% of all people, would be of the same view.
How? This is completely your own conjecture, based on zero evidence, that barely even makes sense. Everything I have said I have explained logically and used historical and scriptural evidence as my back up.
I, unlike you, am exercising critical thought. In particular, applying to your dogmatic approach to the issue of the veil within Assyrian society.
I'm sure that you would accept critical thought as a vital and valid component in the development of arguments, casting aside views which have generally been accepted for several millenia.
I urge you to try to base your views on evidence, rather than just continuing to argue because you not self-effacing enough to admit you are clueless.
I strongly urge you to exercise critical thought, rational analysis and logical processes so that you may distinguish between a historical artifact, and the interpretation of Person X's understanding of the contents of the historical artifact, no matter how prevalent or preeminent the view expressed is.
I urge that you formulate your own arguments and rely on your own intellect to argue the case that is before you and not attack arguments which have not been made by anyone previously, and were denied to have been made previously.
I'm really not interested in continuing this discussion.
That is, of course, your prerogative.
[QUOTE=KingBradly;60512913]Because they are told from a young age that if they don't then they will burn in hell or be outcast.
Surely this is similar to how women are often pressured into wearing revealing clothing because their friends and everyone around them wear it, making them risk being seen as unfashionable if they don't wear this type of clothing.
Surely this is similar to how women are often pressured into wearing revealing clothing because their friends and everyone around them wear it, making them risk being seen as unfashionable if they don't wear this type of clothing.
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 1 day ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
