Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:29 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Lucrece wrote:And wearing a Burqa isn't the effect of psychological bullying?

Not always. You're assuming that all women who dress modestly do so because they are coerced by men. This is demonstrably false.
Lucrece wrote:And you think telling someone to do something or else they'll face eternal torture after death isn't the most malignant method of coercion?

First, you're assuming it's deceptive. Second, you're assuming it's false. Even with these assumptions, why on Earth would you arrest women for wearing a burqa, instead of arresting the men who are coercing them? The government's role is to protect these women, not persecute them, and certainly not forbid them from going outside.

This is like trying to fight domestic violence by outlawing makeup.


Demonstrate it as false. Censorship of female sexual expression has originated from the patriarchy. It wasn't women who relegated themselves to the status of property.

And, yes, I find it deceptive and false. Pure bullshit, with all the sexual liberties Muslim men are allowed by comparison.

But let's get to these assumptions. The women don't need to be arrested. Fines and taking the burqas from those caught wearing burqas is preferable. Make it financially unsustainable. Fuck the men over with inventive penalties and investigations. Who says they can't legislate the wearing of burqas into domestic violence codes?

If they don't like it, they can go back to their own countries, where I'm sure French female tourists don't get to wear their bikinis. A society doesn't need to bend backwards to accommodate the oppressive religious practices of immigrants.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:31 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Demonstrate it as false. Censorship of female sexual expression has originated from the patriarchy. It wasn't women who relegated themselves to the status of property.
Quick side question- are there men who dress modestly, and censor their sexual expression? Are they / were they encouraged or discouraged by the patriarchy?
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:35 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Demonstrate it as false. Censorship of female sexual expression has originated from the patriarchy. It wasn't women who relegated themselves to the status of property.
Quick side question- are there men who dress modestly, and censor their sexual expression? Are they / were they encouraged or discouraged by the patriarchy?


They were pressured by religious institutions, which are patriarchal in nature. Men suffer from patriarchies as well.

But you don't see a man getting locked into his house by his wife. You don't see many men who rely on their wives to eat and have a home. Rarely will you see cases in Sharia courts where the man is being beaten for disobedience.

There's a whole degree of social dependence imposed upon women that makes adherence to disparate religious doctrine that does not take place with men.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:46 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:They were pressured by religious institutions, which are patriarchal in nature. Men suffer from patriarchies as well.
My experience is that sexual modesty, in men, is discouraged- and yet there are men who suffer through the discouragement. It seems likely, then, that there are women who would be sexually modest, even if it were discouraged- and that sexual modesty would take whatever culturally appropriate forms they have access to.

Lucrece wrote:But you don't see a man getting locked into his house by his wife. You don't see many men who rely on their wives to eat and have a home. Rarely will you see cases in Sharia courts where the man is being beaten for disobedience.

There's a whole degree of social dependence imposed upon women that makes adherence to disparate religious doctrine that does not take place with men.
Indeed- and one of the key moves to an individualist society is the liberation and education of women. But it's unclear that placing bans on activity that doesn't directly impact others liberates people.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Wed Jun 24, 2009 6:53 pm UTC

There's a well-written piece in the Financial Times on this. I really encourage people here of any opinion to give it a read:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/717f7e58-60e3 ... ck_check=1

I disagree with his ultimate conclusions (some of which are more optimistic than mine), but there is one thing he noted that ties very closely with the point I made in my previous post:
Simon Kuper wrote:In attacking the burka, Mr Sarkozy was careful not to attack all Islam. He noted that few Muslim theologians considered the garment compulsory. The CFCM agreed, saying burkas were “very rare and extremely marginal in France”. “This is the rejection of a minority, radical, ‘illegitimate’ Islam,” says Olivier Roy, a French social scientist and author of Secularism Confronts Islam.

In surveys French Muslims express strong suspicion of the burka, though few want it banned. So Mr Sarkozy’s speech targeted not the Muslim mainstream but the few thousand women in France who wear burkas: some of them younger radical Muslims, and some old ladies who immigrated from poor foreign villages. That he is picking on this esoteric detail shows how much of Muslim practice is now accepted in Europe.

Emphasis mine. As I said before, this is such a rare practice that I don't buy Sarkozy has in mind women's rights. Enacting legislation that will directly affect only a handful of people isn't going to make a strong impact on women's rights, and there's no reason to believe that whatever negligible positive impact could result (which I believe is nonexistent) is worth the cost of, basically, legislating what people can wear when it imposes no difficulty on other people.

And once more, to reiterate: the main result of this entire 'controversy' is to spread the false notion that the burqa is required, often encouraged, or even common among Muslims. KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:01 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:
Lucrece wrote:They were pressured by religious institutions, which are patriarchal in nature. Men suffer from patriarchies as well.
My experience is that sexual modesty, in men, is discouraged- and yet there are men who suffer through the discouragement. It seems likely, then, that there are women who would be sexually modest, even if it were discouraged- and that sexual modesty would take whatever culturally appropriate forms they have access to.

Lucrece wrote:But you don't see a man getting locked into his house by his wife. You don't see many men who rely on their wives to eat and have a home. Rarely will you see cases in Sharia courts where the man is being beaten for disobedience.

There's a whole degree of social dependence imposed upon women that makes adherence to disparate religious doctrine that does not take place with men.
Indeed- and one of the key moves to an individualist society is the liberation and education of women. But it's unclear that placing bans on activity that doesn't directly impact others liberates people.


Different types of sexual modesty in men are treated differently. Sexual hunting behavior, where the man is not the object of admiration, is encouraged. Sexual behavior where the man becomes the object is discouraged. Homosexual expression tends to fall in the latter category. But for women, neither sexual liberty is truly allowed in the Muslim world.

Sexual modesty is an ingrained social bias. I don't see its development in a society that doesn't stigmatize sexual expression.

In regards to individualism, how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:21 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:Demonstrate it as false.

Hey look, it's a woman who wears a burqa, sans oppression. Well, until she is forbidden to do so by an oppressive government, anyway.
Lucrece wrote:Fines and taking the burqas from those caught wearing burqas is preferable. Make it financially unsustainable. Fuck the men over with inventive penalties and investigations.?

While you're at it, will you physically assault the women, in hopes of making their husbands insolvent through medical bills? What other fundamental rights of theirs will you violate "for their own good"?
Lucrece wrote:A society doesn't need to bend backwards to accommodate the oppressive religious practices of immigrants.

No one is suggesting that they do. We rational people are only suggesting that you not violate their basic human rights in some moronic attempt to liberate them.
Lucrece wrote:...how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?

The same way many groups have liberated themselves, except that these women have the right of free speech, assembly, and press. Unless you'd like to violate those rights as well. I'm sure that would really stick it to the patriarchy.

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kulantan » Wed Jun 24, 2009 7:45 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:In regards to individualism, how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?


Umm, right and how will this be a sweeping social change allowing people to dissent (by placing more restrictions on people?).

I point you to the principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Your agument seems to be all fraternité (in the "nanny state" sense) without concern for liberté.

Lucrece wrote:But for women, neither sexual liberty is truly allowed in the Muslim world.


Yay generalisations are the best 'cause none of my Muslim friends wear make up or anything (also Syrian underwear ftw)...

While I personally don't like burkas (they not only obscure identity but also seem to say "if I weren't wearing a sack then you could not be trusted not to be overcome with lust") it is people's choice as to what they wear. This is especially true for those who want to wear it for religious (or philosophical) reasons (textually justified or not).

I repeat, it is people's choice as to what they wear. This also means that if people are saying that people must wear this, that is also wrong.

If you don't like the patriarchalness of the system then it might be better to say get the women who want to get out of it, out. Not by saying they can't do X, rather by saying France is rather big and that will accept all those who wish to be accepted (or less ramblingly, get those who want to, away from the evil men folk not the "evil fabric").

i wrote:Minorities: They're not children, and they don't need to be told what's good for them.


This. However do provide support for those who wish to get out.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Mega D
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Mega D » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

While I don't agree with Sarkozy's suggestion at all and feel it's a very thinly veiled expression of "foreigners go home", can we please stop equating being covered head to foot apart from an eye slit to "dressing modestly"? It's just ridiculous.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:05 pm UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Lucrece wrote:In regards to individualism, how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?


Umm, right and how will this be a sweeping social change allowing people to dissent (by placing more restrictions on people?).

I point you to the principles of liberté, égalité, fraternité. Your agument seems to be all fraternité (in the "nanny state" sense) without concern for liberté.

Lucrece wrote:But for women, neither sexual liberty is truly allowed in the Muslim world.


Yay generalisations are the best 'cause none of my Muslim friends wear make up or anything (also Syrian underwear ftw)...

While I personally don't like burkas (they not only obscure identity but also seem to say "if I weren't wearing a sack then you could not be trusted not to be overcome with lust") it is people's choice as to what they wear. This is especially true for those who want to wear it for religious (or philosophical) reasons (textually justified or not).

I repeat, it is people's choice as to what they wear. This also means that if people are saying that people must wear this, that is also wrong.

If you don't like the patriarchalness of the system then it might be better to say get the women who want to get out of it, out. Not by saying they can't do X, rather by saying France is rather big and that will accept all those who wish to be accepted (or less ramblingly, get those who want to, away from the evil men folk not the "evil fabric").

i wrote:Minorities: They're not children, and they don't need to be told what's good for them.


This. However do provide support for those who wish to get out.



You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

Heisenberg wrote:
Lucrece wrote:Demonstrate it as false.

Hey look, it's a woman who wears a burqa, sans oppression. Well, until she is forbidden to do so by an oppressive government, anyway.


I don't see how the satirical piece justifies wearing a burqa. In fact, it actually looks as if the person is mocking people who try to justify the burqa.
Last edited by Lucrece on Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:10 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Random832
Posts: 2525
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 4:38 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Random832 » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:09 pm UTC

Mega D wrote:While I don't agree with Sarkozy's suggestion at all and feel it's a very thinly veiled expression of "foreigners go home", can we please stop equating being covered head to foot apart from an eye slit to "dressing modestly"? It's just ridiculous.


But that could be just what it is. The point is, different people make different choices. Given the freedom to choose some people will reveal as much as they are culturally allowed to, while others may reveal as little as they are culturally allowed to - the fact that western culture does not permit clothes that reveal as little as this does not invalidate that principle.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone could freely choose to wear this yet so easy to believe that someone can freely choose a skirt or pants that ends below the knees rather than above them?

It's possible - even likely - that not all of them _are_ freely choosing it, but - then - it's also possible that not everyone who dresses modestly within western norms is freely choosing that.

And is it really better for them to be prevented from leaving their homes?

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kulantan » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:24 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

No I don't think they enjoy the same degree of freedom that the majority do, however this is personal opinion not informed by being in that situation my self. Given that what right do I have to go in and say that a way of life is wrong even for those who choose it (read Heisenberg's link or find your own example).

That said I would encourage steps designed to tackle the social system behind it (mandatory social studies, community outreach ect, ect) rather than attacking what is admittedly only a fecking symbol. When you start bashing at symbols and claiming it is a step to advancing the civil liberties of all Muslim women, it starts to be suspicious. That's why I'm not liking the rhetoric coming from Sarkozy. This is directed entirely at Sarkozy not at you Lucrece.

Even if it were not caught up in the retoric I would still say it is only a symbolic thing and if giving support to people isn't going to free them, then a War Against Fabric ain't gonna help much either. Boils down to agreeing with you in aims but not in means :)
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:29 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

I think that anyone who tries to restrict their freedoms in the name of freedom is irrational. I expect politicians to at least be mildly rational. Sarkozy is failing at that.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lucrece » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:31 pm UTC

Kulantan wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

No I don't think they enjoy the same degree of freedom that the majority do, however this is personal opinion not informed by being in that situation my self. Given that what right do I have to go in and say that a way of life is wrong even for those who choose it (read Heisenberg's link or find your own example).

That said I would encourage steps designed to tackle the social system behind it (mandatory social studies, community outreach ect, ect) rather than attacking what is admittedly only a fecking symbol. When you start bashing at symbols and claiming it is a step to advancing the civil liberties of all Muslim women, it starts to be suspicious. That's why I'm not liking the rhetoric coming from Sarkozy. This is directed entirely at Sarkozy not at you Lucrece.

Even if it were not caught up in the retoric I would still say it is only a symbolic thing and if giving support to people isn't going to free them, then a War Against Fabric ain't gonna help much either. Boils down to agreeing with you in aims but not in means :)


This "mandatory" education is hardly a challenge. It'll be disgustingly easy to keep these women from going to school, or simply indoctrinating them against the expected school teachings through religious sessions.

These women won't rebel because it would mean losing their families, their social circle, and their livelihood. You can give them all the tools to rebel intellectually, but it's nothing against the pressure of putting yourself in the streets, alone.

Heisenberg wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

I think that anyone who tries to restrict their freedoms in the name of freedom is irrational. I expect politicians to at least be mildly rational. Sarkozy is failing at that.


This is not freedom. Out of curiosity, what demographic do you belong to? Ethnicity, sex, particularly.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

Mega D
Posts: 104
Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2009 6:41 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Mega D » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:46 pm UTC

Random832 wrote:
Mega D wrote:While I don't agree with Sarkozy's suggestion at all and feel it's a very thinly veiled expression of "foreigners go home", can we please stop equating being covered head to foot apart from an eye slit to "dressing modestly"? It's just ridiculous.


But that could be just what it is. The point is, different people make different choices. Given the freedom to choose some people will reveal as much as they are culturally allowed to, while others may reveal as little as they are culturally allowed to - the fact that western culture does not permit clothes that reveal as little as this does not invalidate that principle.

Why is it so hard to believe that someone could freely choose to wear this yet so easy to believe that someone can freely choose a skirt or pants that ends below the knees rather than above them?

It's possible - even likely - that not all of them _are_ freely choosing it, but - then - it's also possible that not everyone who dresses modestly within western norms is freely choosing that.

And is it really better for them to be prevented from leaving their homes?


My objection here is that the term "modesty" is, in my opinion, being used disingenuously. Being opposed to women wearing burkas is not being opposed to modesty, which is how some here seem to be framing the argument.

I don't doubt that many women wear them of their own free will, have no desire to change, and would be very upset if this change was forced upon them. As I said, I think Sarkozy's proposal is a terrible idea. I'm not talking about that. I'm just saying that modesty != burka. Calling a burka "modest dress" is like calling sticking your hand down someone's pants "affectionate".

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:48 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:This is not freedom.

I don't know how much clearer I can be. Right now these women have freedom under the law to wear whatever they please. You are trying to deny them that freedom. You are not advancing the cause of freedom. Please stop pretending.

Also, cut the rhetoric. We all know that you believe some people are being oppressed. Can you come up with something that will actually help them, instead of oppressive legislation that will keep them from going outside ever again?

User avatar
Kulantan
Posts: 999
Joined: Mon May 04, 2009 9:24 pm UTC
Location: Somewhere witty

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kulantan » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:53 pm UTC

Lucrece wrote:These women won't rebel because it would mean losing their families, their social circle, and their livelihood. You can give them all the tools to rebel intellectually, but it's nothing against the pressure of putting yourself in the streets, alone.

And the War on Fabric? That is the problem the social system is deeply ingrained and very few measures are of sufficient strength to do anything. Sarkozy however is not trying to do anything rather is attacking a symbol.

I would really like to hear how exactly the burka ban is supposed to help the social problems.
TEAM SHIVAHN
Pretty much the best team ever

phlip wrote:(Scholars believe it is lost to time exactly which search engine Columbus preferred... though they are reasonably sure that he was an avid user of Apple Maps.)

Blog.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 8:59 pm UTC

Kulantan wrote:I would really like to hear how exactly the burka ban is supposed to help the social problems.
Didn't you hear?
Lucrece wrote:Fines and taking the burqas from those caught wearing burqas is preferable. Make it financially unsustainable. Fuck the men over with inventive penalties and investigations.
By stripping these women and fining them ridiculous amounts of money, he's going to change the minds of oppressive men. Magically they will start treating these women as equals, buy them miniskirts, and set up MySpace accounts for them.

Problem Solved. (And all it took was a small violation of civil liberties!)

Lycur
Posts: 470
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:06 pm UTC
Location: Nutopia

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Lycur » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Lucrece wrote:You really think these burqa-wearing women are in the positions to make decisions from themselves without terrible repercussions from their providers and emotional support? Do you really think these women are free to begin with?

I think that anyone who tries to restrict their freedoms in the name of freedom is irrational. I expect politicians to at least be mildly rational. Sarkozy is failing at that.


Not really. If you have a an established freedom (in this case, the freedom of women to wear the burqa) which you believe infringes strongly on a second freedom (in this case, the freedom of Muslim women in some ultra-conservative sects to not wear the burqa) then it's not hypocritical or unreasonable to limit the first to promote the second. It doesn't have to be oppression by government to be oppression.

That being said, it's not at all clear that a burqa ban will actually promote women's rights in these communities nor whether doing so is worth infringing on women's freedom to choose how to dress. That's where the argument lies, it's silly to deal in absolutes.

Heisenberg wrote:Hey look

It's traditional to at least look at the links you submit to support your cause before posting. There's a picture of this woman decidedly unburqa'd prominently displayed on the page.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Jun 24, 2009 9:21 pm UTC

Lycur wrote:Not really. If you have a an established freedom (in this case, the freedom of women to wear the burqa) which you believe infringes strongly on a second freedom (in this case, the freedom of Muslim women in some ultra-conservative sects to not wear the burqa) then it's not hypocritical or unreasonable to limit the first to promote the second.

You're seeing a conflict here where there is none. There is absolutely no reason why the government cannot protect both a women's right to do as she pleases and her right to not be coerced. In fact, those two go hand-in-hand. All you have to do is say "It is illegal to force a woman to wear something she doesn't want to wear." Then, no rights are infringed upon.

The choice of
(A) Adopt oppressive legislation which may or may not stop oppression, or
(B) Enforce existing law to protect women's rights
seems very clear to me.

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby i » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:34 am UTC

Clearly, the white man needs to save these poor women from their self-destructive culture like we did with the negros indians Australian aborigines they'll be the first.

Edit: It is our duty as good Christian secular white men.

Edit x2: As a conservative, I rarely get to be facetious in this manner. I admit it is quite enjoyable.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Grop » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:46 am UTC

We are yet to see a law; I suspect this is just the president doing some ape dance to impress his conservative voters.

However if such a ban of the burqa was done, I doubt there would be much opposition from the (non-Muslim) public. People here have little sympathy for blatant religious symbols. This is terribly unFrench, and this country is a bit obsessed with assimilation.

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby The Reaper » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:07 am UTC

Grop wrote:We are yet to see a law; I suspect this is just the president doing some ape dance to impress his conservative voters.

However if such a ban of the burqa was done, I doubt there would be much opposition from the (non-Muslim) public. People here have little sympathy for blatant religious symbols. This is terribly unFrench, and this country is a bit obsessed with assimilation.

Resistance is futile, VIVA LA RESISTANCE!

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 25, 2009 12:04 pm UTC

There's an extremely interesting piece here. Not only does she go into some depth, but her identity is kindof relevant: she's an ex-muslim, raised in saudi arabia and pakistan. So generally knows what the shit she's talking about.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Heisenberg » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:02 pm UTC

Belial wrote:There's an extremely interesting piece here. Not only does she go into some depth, but her identity is kindof relevant: she's an ex-muslim, raised in saudi arabia and pakistan. So generally knows what the shit she's talking about.

Very informative. Her argument doubles back on itself when she says that the institution of this law will allow Muslim women to claim they are "forced" into abandoning the burqa, but then admits that the law cannot be enforced without further persecution of these women, and so should not be enforced. How can you claim you are forced to submit when the law is clearly not enforced?
Some feminists were worried that the ban will confine women to their homes. For the women who belong to a minority of families that are that rigidly extremist, this will only be the last in a long list of abuses, and will not affect their quality of life much.

"Sure this will make their lives worse, but they're already pretty fucked anyway, so who cares?" I exaggerate, but this strikes me as insensitive.

Altogether, I agree with most of what she is saying. However, while she believes the vast amounts of good this law will do justifies its oppressive nature, I am opposed to putting oppressive and discriminatory laws on the books, regardless of the forecasted "good."

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Grop » Thu Jun 25, 2009 1:21 pm UTC

Regarding the problem of enforcement, I am a bit lost as to why these women couldn't be charged a fine. That should be enough enforcement to counter family pressure. I must be missing something.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:20 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Belial wrote:There's an extremely interesting piece here. Not only does she go into some depth, but her identity is kindof relevant: she's an ex-muslim, raised in saudi arabia and pakistan. So generally knows what the shit she's talking about.

Very informative. Her argument doubles back on itself when she says that the institution of this law will allow Muslim women to claim they are "forced" into abandoning the burqa, but then admits that the law cannot be enforced without further persecution of these women, and so should not be enforced. How can you claim you are forced to submit when the law is clearly not enforced?

I mostly take issue on her assertion that wearing the hijab/jilbab in Western countries is extremist. Mostly, because none of the women I know who wear hijab could be labeled "extremist". It may be accurate to make such an assertion about people who insist (or are impressed to) wear anything with a face-covering (niqab or burka). But then again, it's still making an assertion based on clothing.

Her arguments break down in a few points (the above, plus what Heisenberg pointed out, and plus the same point I made in my last post--"Enacting legislation that will directly affect only a handful of people isn't going to make a strong impact on women's rights, and there's no reason to believe that whatever negligible positive impact could result is worth the cost"). But otherwise the article is still rather informative. I still recommend folks read the Financial Times article I linked earlier, as that's similarly informative (although likewise, I still disagree with his ultimate conclusion).

EDIT: Is it just me, or does it seem that she also makes the presumption that opposing a ban = supporting (or encouraging) wearing burqas? KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:28 pm UTC

Grop wrote:Regarding the problem of enforcement, I am a bit lost as to why these women couldn't be charged a fine. That should be enough enforcement to counter family pressure. I must be missing something.
It turns it into a lose-lose situation; do you suffer from your family, or do you suffer from the mask and the fines? Before, it was lose-lose, but to a lesser degree- do you suffer from your family, or do you suffer from the mask?

I'm pretty sure Kizyr is looking at this the right way- this isn't about womens' rights, it's about pushback against immigrant culture, with all the accuracy that implies (making parallels between Mexicans smoking the reefer, and Arabs wearing the burqa, is amusing to say the least).
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1994
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Grop » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:49 pm UTC

Vaniver wrote:It turns it into a lose-lose situation; do you suffer from your family, or do you suffer from the mask and the fines? Before, it was lose-lose, but to a lesser degree- do you suffer from your family, or do you suffer from the mask?


This is assuming that, even though wearing the burqa is illegal, families would still bully women into wearing it and paying fines. And of course, there would be no help from the state to protect these women.

User avatar
Belial
A terrible sound heard from a distance
Posts: 30450
Joined: Sat Apr 15, 2006 4:04 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Belial » Thu Jun 25, 2009 2:52 pm UTC

And that the family wouldn't be the one paying the fine.
addams wrote:A drunk neighbor is better than a sober Belial.


They/them

User avatar
Terebrant
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Terebrant » Thu Jun 25, 2009 3:11 pm UTC

It seems many are missing necessary information to understand the situation. French muslims mostly come from Maghreb and live in urban setting (probably part of the reason why Kizyr experience doesn't translate for a number of subjects), some of which are ghettos, there is little social mobility in France and the population that emigrated had a number of specific caracteristics (there are first generation immigrants today but they are a minority now and quite different from the majority) and the CFCM is not relevant to the CMF. Due to how the infrastructure is set up, not going outside is not really an option. The french youth, both as individuals and as a group, has been excluded from public discourse and extremisms are on the rise, dramatically. The situation is somewhat similar to the german one but there still are many differences.

If you try to take the context into account, it would be closer to denying Scientology's Fair Game practice protection under the constitution.

In general, I would support the ban for a number of reasons (for example, that would help reduce the number of forced marriages, at least for a time). However, it seems to be the government taking the necessary (for them) step to prevent a hole (claiming religious exemption) in a law making it illegal to hide your identity during demonstrations and that is not something I can honestly support, even if there would be positive effects.

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Thu Jun 25, 2009 4:19 pm UTC

Belial wrote:And that the family wouldn't be the one paying the fine.
If the argument goes, as it has earlier in this thread, that the woman is financially dependent on the family, then fining the family is fining the woman.
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

i
Posts: 227
Joined: Sat Jan 13, 2007 11:31 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby i » Thu Jun 25, 2009 5:45 pm UTC

The French might think about these ideas before pandering to their xenophobic base:
Battered woman's outreach program.
Woman's shelters.
Emphasis female athletics in schools.
Enlisting clerics to decry the burka.

The thing about supporting woman's empowerment, is that you have to actually empower the women, and not just pass laws banning certain clothes, requiring them to get certain jobs, defining when they are required to receive abortions, and do all of this for them. Woman's movements constantly define the activities as an individual choice--not requiring by law that every person behave like a feminist archetype.

If she's being influenced toward a certain behavior, it is up to her to work against it. You can provide her with all the tools she needs to do it, but she needs to effing leave her abusive relationship herself. Otherwise she will be little child, and what the hell's the point to that? It isn't woman's liberation--it's just same-old same-old.

And even if the law was passed and women weren't trapped in their homes. What would happen? Their big, mean husbands would force them to wear some other oppressive, sexist garment. This is like a "beat-your-kids-at-home" law. It only serves to soothe French's Muslim detection alarms that they have blaring in their heads.

And if, "it serves no purpose" isn't enough to oppose the rule, then how about "this law is a dry-run for future social controls, like on ghetto kids who can't hold up their goddamn pants."?

I'll read replies, but I'm not going to post in this thread again.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Thu Jun 25, 2009 9:09 pm UTC

Terebrant wrote:It seems many are missing necessary information to understand the situation. French muslims mostly come from Maghreb and live in urban setting (probably part of the reason why Kizyr experience doesn't translate for a number of subjects), some of which are ghettos, there is little social mobility in France and the population that emigrated had a number of specific caracteristics (there are first generation immigrants today but they are a minority now and quite different from the majority) and the CFCM is not relevant to the CMF. Due to how the infrastructure is set up, not going outside is not really an option. The french youth, both as individuals and as a group, has been excluded from public discourse and extremisms are on the rise, dramatically. The situation is somewhat similar to the german one but there still are many differences.

Honest question: what part of my experience wouldn't translate? For that matter, what part of it is really relevant here? (I don't believe, at least on this forum, that I've gone into detail yet on the extent of my involvement in Muslim communities in my hometown or where I live now, or the extent to which the people I've associated with have been liberal/conservative/in between.) The only thing that's possibly relevant is that the burqa/niqab aren't as "alien" to me, and I have some different reasons for opposing their use. Neither of those are relevant issues in the context of why I oppose a legislative ban on the garments, since I've tried to establish that opposing the ban =/= encouraging people to cover their face.

Overall, however, the demographics of France are really inconsequential in this case. The burqa/niqab are in extremely rare use, by a few thousand in the entire country at best. So legislation that would affect such a small number of people being done in the name of women's rights comes across as rather disingenuous.

Terebrant wrote:If you try to take the context into account, it would be closer to denying Scientology's Fair Game practice protection under the constitution. In general, I would support the ban for a number of reasons (for example, that would help reduce the number of forced marriages, at least for a time).

Where does this follow? What's the connection between Fair Game and the burqa? And what's the connection between the burqa and forced marriages? (And if you want to reduce forced marriages, wouldn't it make more sense to, well, pass legislation regarding forced marriages? It'd be pretty easy to do that without running into issues of restricting freedoms.) KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Terebrant
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Terebrant » Thu Jun 25, 2009 10:05 pm UTC

For example :

Kizyr wrote:(Plus, I'd have to agree with Virtual_Aadvark's post on the likely outcome of such a law.) KF


Kizyr wrote:And once more, to reiterate: the main result of this entire 'controversy' is to spread the false notion that the burqa is (...) often encouraged (...) among [french] Muslims. KF


In another thread :

Kizyr wrote:
artimesia wrote:about the muslim marrying muslim part: seconded. However, I've also heard lots of stories (sorry here I go again) of muslim guys dating non-muslim girls but then refer to them as 'sluts' because they slept with them without getting married, and then fuck off to marry a muslim girl that they DO respect. I don't say all of them do it, but I know it happens. And considering the way I feel when I walk around my area in clothing that don't cover up my body, I think it is not THAT uncommon either.

I actually haven't known anyone that's like that. But, it's the kind of character trait (feigned piety, self-righteousness, and hypocrisy) that I really dislike, so that's not the kind of person I hang around. I've heard of that kind of behavior before, but nothing leads me to believe it's a common occurrence, only it's not unheard of. KF


I am not sure to what you are referring with "it" (experience seems the most probable).

Kizyr wrote:Overall, however, the demographics of France are really inconsequential in this case. The burqa/niqab are in extremely rare use, by a few thousand in the entire country at best. So legislation that would affect such a small number of people being done in the name of women's rights comes across as rather disingenuous.

The current number of persons wearing it is not that relevant, that it is increasing quickly and not by a conscionable choice is more relevant.

I suppose the real reason to be different but the organizations working for women's rights are at least in favor of establishing a commission when they don't want it banned now.

Kizyr wrote:Where does this follow? What's the connection between Fair Game and the burqa? And what's the connection between the burqa and forced marriages? (And if you want to reduce forced marriages, wouldn't it make more sense to, well, pass legislation regarding forced marriages? It'd be pretty easy to do that without running into issues of restricting freedoms.) KF

I will try to find the report were I learned about it if I have time, but at that point you appear, like i, to be at a point were you aren't interested in forming a knowledgeable opinion.

User avatar
Kizyr
Posts: 2070
Joined: Wed Nov 15, 2006 4:16 am UTC
Location: Virginia
Contact:

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Kizyr » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:41 am UTC

Terebrant wrote:For example :
...
In another thread :
...
I am not sure to what you are referring with "it" (experience seems the most probable).

I'm having a difficult time understanding what your point is. You're taking some things I said on another subject (in L/S/R, no less, which is entirely about personal, subjective experiences) and trying to apply it to what I say here? I actually didn't remember that that conversation took place on the XKCD forums, so, I suppose I have alluded in the past to whatever experiences I have; although I've never gone into much detail, and it's still not necessary to back any of the points I've made thus far here.

Regarding "it", what I was referring to is clear in the context of that thread and conversation. It's off-topic here. Though feel free to revive that thread if you'd like.

Terebrant wrote:The current number of persons wearing it is not that relevant, that it is increasing quickly and not by a conscionable choice is more relevant.
I suppose the real reason to be different but the organizations working for women's rights are at least in favor of establishing a commission when they don't want it banned now.

Where are you getting the indication that wearing the burqa is an increasing trend in France? Or anywhere else in the West for that matter? The number of people who wear it is very relevant, since as long as there's a tiny fraction wearing it, there's a tiny fraction that will be affected; moreover, there isn't anything indicating this is an increasingly common practice.

Terebrant wrote:
Kizyr wrote:Where does this follow? What's the connection between Fair Game and the burqa? And what's the connection between the burqa and forced marriages? (And if you want to reduce forced marriages, wouldn't it make more sense to, well, pass legislation regarding forced marriages? It'd be pretty easy to do that without running into issues of restricting freedoms.) KF

I will try to find the report were I learned about it if I have time, but at that point you appear, like i, to be at a point were you aren't interested in forming a knowledgeable opinion.

You're stating several things that don't immediately follow from one another, and I'm asking for clarification on what you believe those links to be (such as, between banning the burqa and decreasing forced marriages). Insulting my intelligence isn't necessary to clarify your position; please don't do that.

What is your point, precisely? What report are you referring to, and, if you don't have time to dig it up, what did it say or conclude (that's relevant to this topic)? KF
~Kizyr
Image

User avatar
Vaniver
Posts: 9422
Joined: Fri Oct 13, 2006 2:12 am UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Vaniver » Fri Jun 26, 2009 2:59 pm UTC

Kizyr wrote:Where are you getting the indication that wearing the burqa is an increasing trend in France? Or anywhere else in the West for that matter? The number of people who wear it is very relevant, since as long as there's a tiny fraction wearing it, there's a tiny fraction that will be affected; moreover, there isn't anything indicating this is an increasingly common practice.
Do you really want him or her to make a graph linking the percentage of Arabs in France with the incidence of burqas in France? I mean, I suppose it would tie in very well with the "it's anti-immigrant, not pro-women" argument :P
I mostly post over at LessWrong now.

Avatar from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic, owned by Hasbro.

User avatar
Terebrant
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2008 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Terebrant » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:31 pm UTC

I tried to put too much information for a post made past midnight. For example "it" referred to the one in the sentence "For that matter, what part of it is really relevant here? "...

Kizyr wrote:What is your point, precisely?


I am not interested in debating so I don't really have a point to make but if there is a debate I would like to see the debaters have correct information and so act as a (somewhat biased) source. I will probably not post again as it seems discussions ended.

Kizyr wrote:I'm having a difficult time understanding what your point is. You're taking some things I said on another subject (in L/S/R, no less, which is entirely about personal, subjective experiences) and trying to apply it to what I say here? I actually didn't remember that that conversation took place on the XKCD forums, so, I suppose I have alluded in the past to whatever experiences I have; although I've never gone into much detail, and it's still not necessary to back any of the points I've made thus far here.

What I quoted are examples of things that are not true in context (which is the reason why the LSR post was in my mind even though I read it months ago, here, that behaviour is the most common by a wide margin).

Kizyr wrote:Where are you getting the indication that wearing the burqa is an increasing trend in France?

Living there, having contacts with individuals there, having contacts with women's rights and anti-racism organizations where it happens, seeing the rise of salafism, local leaders discourse and probably others which don't come to my mind at the moment.

Kizyr wrote:The number of people who wear it is very relevant, since as long as there's a tiny fraction wearing it, there's a tiny fraction that will be affected

Currently, it is estimated there are a few tens of thousand when it was a few tens in the late 1990s.

Kizyr wrote:moreover, there isn't anything indicating this is an increasingly common practice.

Keep parroting that if you want but that is not factually true. Even religious leaders like Dalil Boubakeur, the rector of Paris' Mosque, admit it is happening.

Kizyr wrote: You're stating several things that don't immediately follow from one another

I am trying to give a panorama. For some things there are known links, the report I was thinking of is about forced marriage, I thought it was made by the interior ministry but don't find it, it described how the burqa is used to facilitate kidnapping/fooling administrations and what, mostly useless, steps would be taken considering the laws at that time.

Kizyr wrote:Insulting my intelligence isn't necessary to clarify your position; please don't do that.

I didn't mean to insult your intelligence, but you certainly don't seem to act with good faith and that is something that is problematic in debates and should be pointed out.

User avatar
aleflamedyud
wants your cookies
Posts: 3307
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2007 7:50 pm UTC
Location: The Central Bureaucracy

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby aleflamedyud » Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:10 pm UTC

In regards to individualism, how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?

Nobody is oppressed by their religious beliefs, since they can change them on a whim.
"With kindness comes naïveté. Courage becomes foolhardiness. And dedication has no reward. If you can't accept any of that, you are not fit to be a graduate student."

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5933
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Sarkozy's Foot/Mouth Intersect

Postby Angua » Sun Jun 28, 2009 5:28 pm UTC

aleflamedyud wrote:
In regards to individualism, how are these women going to liberate themselves if we allow them to be governed by religious doctrine which doesn't even allow for dissent?

Nobody is oppressed by their religious beliefs, since they can change them on a whim.

I think that for a lot of people, it takes a lot for them to change their religious beliefs.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 12 guests