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

If the burqa is a form of oppression, then so are bikinis? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    white SJWs be like

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    1) If the bikini is not oppressive because it's just a way for a woman to express her sexuality, then surely the burqa is not oppressive either because it's a way for the woman to not express her sexuality and be modest out of her own will?
    2) You say the burqa does not serve a practical purpose, surely the bikini doesn't either? A one piece swimsuit is actually more comfortable and more practical, which is why it's used by Olympic swimmers. As for getting a tan, that has serious health problems associated with it.
    The burqa can be practical since it provides a way for the woman to not be seen by men and not be sexualised. It provides modesty.
    Men wear t-shirts and shorts at the beach, if it's really hot they don't wear t-shirts either. I'm sure they're not oppressed.

    Whhy can't men wear burqas too?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    1) If the bikini is not oppressive because it's just a way for a woman to express her sexuality, then surely the burqa is not oppressive either because it's a way for the woman to not express her sexuality and be modest out of her own will?
    The suggestion that a woman wearing the burqa is being "modest" is very paradoxical. Think of it this way: A rich man driving a Ferrari is considered less modest than a rich man driving a Ford Fiesta. A rich man driving a Ford Fiesta may be considered an act of modesty. Modesty is to intentionally not flaunt something which you have which one believes is desirable. This may already seem paradoxical, but with a Ferrari (or any other thing which evidently is highly desirable) there is no paradox to this. Ferraris are clearly highly desirable, or they would not have such high prices. The owner is not being very immodest by treating his car as something desirable and trying to be modest by not flaunting it, because its price is firm evidence that it is very desirable. He is therefore not making any kind of vain assumtions about himself or (in this case) his property.

    To hide your body in-order to be modest is to believe that your body is highly desired. Without your body having a price, and without a large amount of people to see it and judge, this belief is left entirely to the woman who chooses to veil herself. Therefore, we have a paradox: in her attempt to be modest, she is self-evidently being immodest by judging that she would be being immodest to show her body, as the only way she could think that she was being immodest by doing so would be if she considered her body to be highly desirable.

    On the other hand, perhaps the woman is not making the decision to wear the burqa or niqab. Perhaps it is her family or community who are pushing her into it. If this is the case, then they are completely objectifying her, as they are treating her as something with an approximate value, much in the same way as people would with a Ferrari or a diamond ring which would be considered immodest to flaunt.

    (Original post by Ladbants)
    2) You say the burqa does not serve a practical purpose, surely the bikini doesn't either? A one piece swimsuit is actually more comfortable and more practical, which is why it's used by Olympic swimmers. As for getting a tan, that has serious health problems associated with it.
    The burqa can be practical since it provides a way for the woman to not be seen by men and not be sexualised. It provides modesty.
    A woman wearing a bikini is not necessarily sexualised. It is only in a society where every woman wears a burqa that men will get turned on by the slightest display of flesh. The very concept of the burqa objectifies and sexualises a woman's body, by suggesting that her body is something obscene, sexually explicit, which must be hidden, rather like the porno mags kept on the top shelves in corner shops. This creates a much greater desire in men for them to see women's bodies.

    In this country though, we're pretty used to it, so we don't letch over the slightest flash of ankle. We can even have a conversation with a woman in a bikini without thinking of her as just a sex object.

    The bikini is quite practical. It is light and easy to take on and off, which is useful when you need to change in and out of your clothes or go for a piss. It is really no different to men wearing Speedos.

    The burqa is literally designed for the single purpose of hiding women from the public. It serves to separate women from the rest of society. Pretty sexist if you ask me.


    Try to understand this: in our society, sex isn't a bad thing, so a woman having a sexuality, or showing off her sexuality, is not degrading.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The suggestion that a woman wearing the burqa is being "modest" is very paradoxical. Think of it this way: A rich man driving a Ferrari is considered less modest than a rich man driving a Ford Fiesta. A rich man driving a Ford Fiesta may be considered an act of modesty. Modesty is to intentionally not flaunt something which you have which one believes is desirable. This may already seem paradoxical, but with a Ferrari (or any other thing which evidently is highly desirable) there is no paradox to this. Ferraris are clearly highly desirable, or they would not have such high prices. The owner is not being very immodest by treating his car as something desirable and trying to be modest by not flaunting it, because its price is firm evidence that it is very desirable. He is therefore not making any kind of vain assumtions about himself or (in this case) his property.

    To hide your body in-order to be modest is to believe that your body is highly desired. Without your body having a price, and without a large amount of people to see it and judge, this belief is left entirely to the woman who chooses to veil herself. Therefore, we have a paradox: in her attempt to be modest, she is self-evidently being immodest by judging that she would be being immodest to show her body, as the only way she could think that she was being immodest by doing so would be if she considered her body to be highly desirable.

    On the other hand, perhaps the woman is not making the decision to wear the burqa or niqab. Perhaps it is her family or community who are pushing her into it. If this is the case, then they are completely objectifying her, as they are treating her as something with an approximate value, much in the same way as people would with a Ferrari or a diamond ring which would be considered immodest to flaunt.



    A woman wearing a bikini is not necessarily sexualised. It is only in a society where every woman wears a burqa that men will get turned on by the slightest display of flesh. The very concept of the burqa objectifies and sexualises a woman's body, by suggesting that her body is something obscene, sexually explicit, which must be hidden, rather like the porno mags kept on the top shelves in corner shops. This creates a much greater desire in men for them to see women's bodies.

    In this country though, we're pretty used to it, so we don't letch over the slightest flash of ankle. We can even have a conversation with a woman in a bikini without thinking of her as just a sex object.

    The bikini is quite practical. It is light and easy to take on and off, which is useful when you need to change in and out of your clothes or go for a piss. It is really no different to men wearing Speedos.

    The burqa is literally designed for the single purpose of hiding women from the public. It serves to separate women from the rest of society. Pretty sexist if you ask me.


    Try to understand this: in our society, sex isn't a bad thing, so a woman having a sexuality, or showing off her sexuality, is not degrading.
    👍🏼👍🏼
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samantham999)
    I agree! Burqa was introduced because god said he wanted women to look this way. There is a hijab for men.

    Lets make one thing clear.
    MUSLIM WOMEN DO NOT WEAR THE BURQA FOR MEN. THEY WEAR IT FOR GOD.
    They wear it for God even though he never mentions it in the Qu'ran?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    They wear it for God even though he never mentions it in the Qu'ran?
    by burqa I mean the headscarf and not the veil

    It doesn't have to be written in the quran, it could be in hadiths and yes you're correct somewhat because the quran says a woman should just cover herself and be modest more specifically cover her chest area
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samantham999)
    by burqa I mean the headscarf and not the veil

    It doesn't have to be written in the quran, it could be in hadiths and yes you're correct somewhat because the quran says a woman should just cover herself and be modest more specifically cover her chest area
    The hadiths also support murdering apostates, gays, beating women, enslaving women, and marrying children. You don't have to follow every word, as I'm sure you know.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Oppression doesn't have to be confined to law nor does it have to be manifest. 'I wear it for me, I wear it for my religion' well ok but why does your religion want you to wear it?

    So its the word of Allah, which is fine but that then raises the question why did Allah decree women have to wear full black polyester in the middle of the desert? Men have no such requirements and black polyester would make you warm in the arctic, its a hugely uncomfortable requirement and indeed in the countries where the effect is most prominent its illegal not to. Imagine being expected by your religion to wear a thick coat in the summer, that's about the equivalent, so when you look at it and say its for my religion the question remains then if that isn't a form of oppression then would you be inclined to wear the item without the religious implication ie would you wear a Burka if you were an athiest. If the answer is no then there is some obligation and this therefore needs unpacking as to whether that obligation itself is oppressive, primarily in its source.

    Also 'ignoring the places where it's likely to be considered oppressive is it as oppressive as x' is a bit of a pointless argument. No because there is no expectation of bikinis, you can wear whatever you want and if you choose a bikini fine - there is no greater deity suggesting you wear bikinis.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The hadiths also support murdering apostates, gays, beating women, enslaving women, and marrying children. You don't have to follow every word, as I'm sure you know.
    You clearly have a negative perception of Islam. The hadiths don't just let anyone kill apostates, gays without any proper trial and proof that they broke an Islamic law in an Islamic country.

    A Muslim should follow the Quran to the letter. Otherwise they are not a Muslim.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    You clearly have a negative perception of Islam. The hadiths don't just let anyone kill apostates, gays without any proper trial and proof that they broke an Islamic law in an Islamic country.

    Oh ok well guess that makes it ok then. /s


    The sickening thing is that you're clearly not at all aware of how utterly extreme your views are. Just how out of touch with our society are you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Oh ok well guess that makes it ok then. /s


    The sickening thing is that you're clearly not at all aware of how utterly extreme your views are. Just how out of touch with our society are you?
    I never said anything extreme? I would never kill or hurt an innocent person and neither should any Muslim. A person can only be sentenced to death if they broke an Islamic law in an Islamic nation which is punishable by death in the Quran and have been found guilty of that crime by an Islamic judge. A Muslim would believe in what the Quran says.

    A Muslim should not be afraid of what society thinks of them. They should only care what the Almighty thinks of them.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    I never said anything extreme? I would never kill or hurt an innocent person and neither should any Muslim. A person can only be sentenced to death if they broke an Islamic law in an Islamic nation which is punishable by death in the Quran and have been found guilty of that crime by an Islamic judge. A Muslim would believe in what the Quran says.
    Islamic laws would include having homosexual intercourse, adultery, and apostasy. Would you support people being killed for breaking those laws?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigTraderBoi)
    You clearly have a negative perception of Islam. The hadiths don't just let anyone kill apostates, gays without any proper trial and proof that they broke an Islamic law in an Islamic country.

    A Muslim should follow the Quran to the letter. Otherwise they are not a Muslim.
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Oh ok well guess that makes it ok then. /s


    The sickening thing is that you're clearly not at all aware of how utterly extreme your views are. Just how out of touch with our society are you?
    Guys I think we're deviating from the thread title a bit
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ladbants)
    Guys I think we're deviating from the thread title a bit
    True, sorry
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    The hadiths also support murdering apostates, gays, beating women, enslaving women, and marrying children. You don't have to follow every word, as I'm sure you know.
    Are you stupid? beating women? how and where?
    Did you even know if the husband or a man uses violence against the woman/wife then the angel curses him?

    marrying children? LOOOOL it isn't valid in this time. Women matured quickly in that time.

    You cannot kill anyone is Islam. The Quran doesn't say to kill every Gay we find. We still respect them as humans.

    Our prophet also attended various funerals of Christians and Jews and cared for them as friends. Some of his own kin were not Muslim you Muppet

    P.s the views in the Bible (old testament) are very similar to the Quran, aswell as the Torah so please stop taking the views of the majority and for once open up a Quran and read properly.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samantham999)
    Are you stupid? beating women? how and where?
    Did you even know if the husband or a man uses violence against the woman/wife then the angel curses him?

    marrying children? LOOOOL it isn't valid in this time. Women matured quickly in that time.

    You cannot kill anyone is Islam. The Quran doesn't say to kill every Gay we find. We still respect them as humans.

    Our prophet also attended various funerals of Christians and Jews and cared for them as friends. Some of his own kin were not Muslim you Muppet

    P.s the views in the Bible (old testament) are very similar to the Quran, aswell as the Torah so please stop taking the views of the majority and for once open up a Quran and read properly.
    Wife beating is in the Quran, read 4:34.

    And women did not mature faster back then, that's a total myth. The evidence suggests that they actually matured later than they do now.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plantagenet Crown)
    Wife beating is in the Quran, read 4:34.

    And women did not mature faster back then, that's a total myth. The evidence suggests that they actually matured later than they do now.
    I'm against wife beating, please understand that. Some say that wife beating is okay if its EXTREME circumstances i.e the wife leaves with the kids ect. Know that the husband cannot hit her on the face ever and that it must be a light touch

    by the way, if her husband oppresses her/treats her badly she too can do that and warn him/threaten him

    so its all pretty equal tbh
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samantham999)
    Are you stupid? beating women? how and where?
    Did you even know if the husband or a man uses violence against the woman/wife then the angel curses him?

    marrying children? LOOOOL it isn't valid in this time. Women matured quickly in that time.

    You cannot kill anyone is Islam. The Quran doesn't say to kill every Gay we find. We still respect them as humans.

    Our prophet also attended various funerals of Christians and Jews and cared for them as friends. Some of his own kin were not Muslim you Muppet

    P.s the views in the Bible (old testament) are very similar to the Quran, aswell as the Torah so please stop taking the views of the majority and for once open up a Quran and read properly.
    Poppycock and whataboutery, and I'm sure you know it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's pretty sad seeing the amount of people on here thinking the burqa is a religious requirement, lmao no it isn't. The women CHOOSE to wear it, I'm guessing because they feel like it's an easy way to cover their body shape etc.
    It's crazy how people respond to OP 's question with something along the lines of 'people wear bikini's because they want to, they aren't required to' yet the fact that this may also be the case for the burqa never crosses their mind.
    If these women want to cover up, who are we to tell them they can't or that by doing so they are being oppressed? Just like if someone wants to wear a bikini.
    And yes, I agree with you OP, both are parallels in the same argument.
    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KingBradly)
    Poppycock and whataboutery, and I'm sure you know it.
    I think you just hate Islam when you have hardly taken the time to educate your thick mind but whatever X
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
  • 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.