Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Its incredibly ironic that in the west women have finally been freed from oppression and they can finally wear whatever they want.And yet you're now essentially arguing for a womans right to be oppressed if she chooses it.To use an analogy its as though we abolished slavery and then have some slaves of a certain culture saying actually we quite liked being slaves.How dare you take away our choice of being slaves? Its just ironic and stupid.

    If we're making silly comparison, let's play Harriet Harman. How dare women choose a lower paying, less hours job and oppress themselves, it doesn't match my narrative.
    Or Facebook, how dare women don't choose computer science and oppress themselves, meaning we can't get 50/50 in tech jobs and show off. So oppressive...

    Burkini =/= Burka

    There is a case for oppression in an enforced culture of the niqab (and hijab), and where women are told to be segregated and to stay away from non-muslims and non-women etc, but not whilst they are at a beach surrounded by non-muslims enjoying themselves under the warm french sun in a glorified wet suit (yes it is just a glorified wet suit, nothing more, nothing less). If there were cases where there are women who want to wear a swimsuit but told (maybe forcefully) to wear this instead, then you have a case...

    Spoiler:
    Show
    admittedly the term burkini is a misleading and awful term. Whoever coined it should be hung, stoned and quartered
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    If we're making silly comparison, let's play Harriet Harman. How dare women choose a lower paying, less hours job and oppress themselves, it doesn't match my narrative.
    Or Facebook, how dare women don't choose computer science and oppress themselves, meaning we can't get 50/50 in tech jobs and show off. So oppressive...

    Burkini =/= Burka

    There is a case for oppression in an enforced culture of the niqab (and hijab), and where women are told to be segregated and to stay away from non-muslims and non-women etc, but not whilst they are at a beach surrounded by non-muslims enjoying themselves under the warm french sun in a glorified wet suit (yes it is just a glorified wet suit, nothing more, nothing less). If there were cases where there are women who want to wear a swimsuit but told (maybe forcefully) to wear this instead, then you have a case...
    Spoiler:
    Show
    admittedly the term burkini is a misleading and awful term. Whoever coined it should be hung, stoned and quartered
    Well we agree on the last point at least.I'd argue personally that not many women actually cover up out of free choice.They either believe that they must cover up due to their belief in Islam which stems from sexism within the religion.Or they believe that to not cover up would draw dissaproval from family or their community.The vast majority of muslim women dont cover up out of free choice.Its only in the west that women actually have the choice in any middle eastern state they wouldnt have the choice.Maybe we are taking away their right to wear the burkini.But we're also protecting the right of women not to be forced to cover up while swimming.So we're protecting the majoritys rights not to cover up at the expense of the minority of muslim women who do it out of free choice.Id say that that is a fair compromise tbh.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Well we agree on the last point at least.I'd argue personally that not many women actually cover up out of free choice.They either believe that they must cover up due to their belief in Islam which stems from sexism within the religion.Or they believe that to not cover up would draw dissaproval from family or their community.The vast majority of muslim women dont cover up out of free choice.Its only in the west that women actually have the choice in any middle eastern state they wouldnt have the choice.Maybe we are taking away their right to wear the burkini.But we're also protecting the right of women not to be forced to cover up while swimming.So we're protecting the majoritys rights not to cover up at the expense of the minority of muslim women who do it out of free choice.Id say that that is a fair compromise tbh.
    Whilst I completely agree with what you're saying about societal and religious pressure, I just think outright banning the burkini (which is different from the burka), would be counterproductive and won't necessarily solve the initial problem. People who are that deep into the rabbit hole to actually enforce covering up in their society won't just stop covering up because a silly town decides to ban this... they can just wear wetsuits (unless that's banned too) or not go swimming (which, after all, is just a hobby and not an essential part of life). I do believe that it is better to challenge such mentality in the society and I don't agree with nonsensical notions of "hijab solidarity day", but this, I feel, is too authoritarian and counter-productive.


    Edit: also, we can go back and forth on this all day, as it is a complex philosophical issue. But that's not why the burkini was banned according to the mayor, it was banned because it is apparently showing support for Daeesh... which I think is, to quote the OP, "frankly ridiculous"
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    The vast majority of muslim women dont cover up out of free choice. Maybe we are taking away their right to wear the burkini.But we're also protecting the right of women not to be forced to cover up while swimming.So we're protecting the majoritys rights not to cover up at the expense of the minority of muslim women who do it out of free choice.Id say that that is a fair compromise tbh.
    Assuming husbands or family members forced women to wear the Hijab or Niqab, then I think a ban such as this would only result in these women being forced to stay in the house. Surely this would be even worse for these women?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Assuming husbands or family members forced women to wear the Hijab or Niqab, then I think a ban such as this would only result in these women being forced to stay in the house. Surely this would be even worse for these women?
    I don't think it would happen. Muslim men don't go to the supermarket for a start ().

    (Original post by chemting)
    they can just wear wetsuits (unless that's banned too)
    Perhaps they should do that. In the current context, displaying so blatantly their faith is a pure provocation. Anybody sensible would adopt a low profile -- or simply keep the clothes they were using 5 years ago.

    They behave like a child who does something wrong just to test his mother.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    I don't think it would happen. Muslim men don't go to the supermarket for a start ().
    Tesco home delivery :ninja: You order online and they deliver to your house
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Tesco home delivery :ninja: You order online and they deliver to your house
    And you pay extra
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Tesco home delivery :ninja: You order online and they deliver to your house
    Not in France
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BaconandSauce)
    Not in France
    Do supermarkets not do home delivery in France?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Epicurean)
    Do supermarkets not do home delivery in France?
    Not LIDL.

    And you have to pay more anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Robby2312)
    Well we agree on the last point at least.I'd argue personally that not many women actually cover up out of free choice.They either believe that they must cover up due to their belief in Islam which stems from sexism within the religion.Or they believe that to not cover up would draw dissaproval from family or their community.The vast majority of muslim women dont cover up out of free choice.Its only in the west that women actually have the choice in any middle eastern state they wouldnt have the choice.Maybe we are taking away their right to wear the burkini.But we're also protecting the right of women not to be forced to cover up while swimming.So we're protecting the majoritys rights not to cover up at the expense of the minority of muslim women who do it out of free choice.Id say that that is a fair compromise tbh.
    Do you have any statistics to back this claim up? Have you gone round to every single muslim woman and had the majority of them tell you that they are wearing hijab by force?

    Forget that, have you even MET one muslim woman who has told you she is wearing hijab by force?

    It's funny how you disagree with other males dictating what a woman wears, but it's okay for YOU, a male, to stop a woman wearing what she wants.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Djoudee)

    Forget that, have you even MET one muslim woman who has told you she is wearing hijab by force?

    You wouldn't as they wouldn't openly admit it and tell nonmuslims etc because they'll be exiled from their community, and in some Muslim countries, executed.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MeYou2Night)
    You wouldn't as they wouldn't openly admit it and tell nonmuslims etc because they'll be exiled from their community, and in some Muslim countries, executed.
    In other words, you are unable to support the claim on which your entire argument is based.
    Online

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Djoudee)
    Do you have any statistics to back this claim up? Have you gone round to every single muslim woman and had the majority of them tell you that they are wearing hijab by force?

    Forget that, have you even MET one muslim woman who has told you she is wearing hijab by force?

    It's funny how you disagree with other males dictating what a woman wears, but it's okay for YOU, a male, to stop a woman wearing what she wants.

    Its perfectly obvious that most muslim women dont wear it out of free choice.They wear it because in their religion it says they must dress modestly.Why do they have to dress modestly? Because back when the religion was invented fathers and husbands viewed women as their property.This means they didnt want other men looking at their property so they said to the women that they must cover up.They reinforced it by making them feel guilty if they didnt comply.Over time this turned into tradition but it all stems from the origional sexist notion that women are property.It stikes me that you wouldnt be defending it if these were strict white christians like the amish.But since these people are a different race you dont hold them to the same moral standard.Y ou say thats just their culture.And that is the racism of lower expectations.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by teenhorrorstory)
    In other words, you are unable to support the claim on which your entire argument is based.
    I never said women are forced, and my reason for supporting the ban has nothing to do with that anyway. If you come and live in the west, you conform to our culture, as anyone moving to a Muslim country should do.

    It does seem to be a Muslim problem (that's analysis btw, not racism before you play that card), with conforming. We have never had a problem with the Chinese have we? They don't try and force their culture on us, they integrate to ours without a problem, unlike most Muslims.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol where do i begin? So when the religion was "invented" as you say (which implicates that it was created by men, which regardless of what you or I think, Muslims believe it to have been ordained by God - so when a woman chooses to follow Islam and so observe hijab, they are choosing to follow what they believe to be the will of God and not for the sake of men), yes you are right, women were treated as property. Hence why their prophet Muhammed has been historically noted to have OPPOSED this culture and called for women to be treated as EQUALS via equity. This has been demonstrated in his strive to allow women in his time to seek education, choose who she wants to marry, get a divorce at her will, have a job (his own wife Khadijah was a successful business woman (in fact SHE employed HIM and that was how they met)) etc. etc. many of the basic human rights only recently embraced by secular governments. Equity means to give everyone what they need to attain the same amount of respect and success in life. So Islam has the ruling of hijab is so a woman can be judged based on her character and not be her looks or figure by men. So that she can be valued as MORE than property. As a HUMAN with a voice and opinion and personality. The fact that you may think wearing a hijab suppresses a woman's personality goes to show that you hold the value of a woman in her looks and not her voice.

    With regards to other religious sects such as the amish, unlike you, I'm not going to formulate an opinion or judge an entire group of people because I acknowledge that I don't have sufficient knowledge to the context or reasoning in their dress. If women want to be amish, that's their own freewill and they have a right to be entitled to that choice. I only hope that you can come to accept the choice of all women in time and not impose your ideals on others because THAT is oppression.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Josb)
    Perhaps they should do that. In the current context, displaying so blatantly their faith is a pure provocation. Anybody sensible would adopt a low profile -- or simply keep the clothes they were using 5 years ago.

    They behave like a child who does something wrong just to test his mother.
    I really don't see the difference between a wetsuit and a burkini...

    Maybe someone modified a wetsuit by a tiny bit and called it "burkini" as a marketing ploy to sell to unsuspecting, holier-than-thou Muslims: like Islamic nuts, Islamic honey, Islamic water bottles, halal student loans, halal credit cards and stuff for dem eye lashes. So Islam is already being commercialized in very stupid ways (but ironically it doesn't stop Muslims telling me how bad capitalism is ).

    Anyway, I really don't see the difference and the ban isn't justified for simply just this reason imo.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Don't worry a Muslim majority will impose far worse

    Exactly why multiculturalism is destructive and doomed to end in disaster

    How any European can support this, you gain nothing and lose everything do you understand this? your leaders are traitors who are destroying your heritage and your homeland.

    But keep on calling us racists to oppose it, it's all you're good at doing.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chemting)
    I really don't see the difference between a wetsuit and a burkini...
    You have a skirt on the top of the wetsuit, because, you know, you can still see the shape of the thighs and ass in a wetsuit. The beasts men could get horny.

    (Original post by chemting)
    Maybe someone modified a wetsuit by a tiny bit and called it "burkini" as a marketing ploy to sell to unsuspecting, holier-than-thou Muslims: like Islamic nuts, Islamic honey, Islamic water bottles, halal student loans, halal credit cards and stuff for dem eye lashes. So Islam is already being commercialized in very stupid ways (but ironically it doesn't stop Muslims telling me how bad capitalism is ).

    Anyway, I really don't see the difference and the ban isn't justified for simply just this reason imo.
    I wouldn't be against burkini if we didn't have laws banning nudity, or nazi and KKK suits, etc. Since it is deemed acceptable for government/mayors to make laws on clothing, I don't get why it would be unacceptable to continue to do that now, especially in the current context of growing Islamic extremism. You have said it yourself, some covering clothes already existed for the beach, why some Muslims need to wear a clothing that they know offensive to the overwhelming rest of the population and that didn't even exist 5 years ago?

    Imo, the only acceptable argument against the ban is that now those who think they are waging a holy war will wear it just to make a point. The mayor of Cannes admitted that no burkini was spotted on the beach before the ban, but said today that 10 women have been asked to leave the beach since (three agreed to pay the fine of €38).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    French people are moving ever closing to taking back their homeland

    Good, I just wish British people weren't so spineless and do the same
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 18, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.