Why are feminists not against hijab?

Post Reply New Topic

Prove me wrong then, show me where the left talks about opression against non-white christians.

I've had liberals react in disgust when I've taken what you purport to be the liberal line in that debate. I don't know what else to say other than that my experience has been the opposite of yours. This is perhaps a cultural difference between liberals in the US and the UK.

I think saying that arranged marriage is blanket good or bad is naive.

Of course, often the line between "arranged" and "forced" marriage can be blurry, and in those cases arranged marriage is bad. If you suddenly get taken on a "surprise holiday" to another country and pressured to marry your father's business partner's cousin, then you are having a forced marriage even if you technically have a choice. If you get told all your life that you will marry the person your parents pick for you, then that's also going to undermine the freedom of your choice.

On the other hand, if your parents introduce you to a nice young man in the hope that you'll fall in love and get married, but accept that you can also choose to say no and do things your way, then there's nothing wrong with that. I don't know how common that experience is, but it's definitely an experience that exists. There's nothing inherently wrong with parents playing matchmaker.

It's not a rare experience, and there's certainly nothing wrong with it, but such partnerships are happy accidents in the general practice of arranging marriages. Matchmaking happens informally all over the world, but these partnerships aren't usually thought of as 'arranged' because there's no pressure on the couple and it's all up to them.

Arranged marriage is usually contrasted with 'love marriage' in cultures where it's practised. The idea is that in a 'love marriage' the couple are already in love before they get married, no matter how they were introduced to each other. In an 'arranged marriage', the idea is that love might develop after the marriage, but that's a bonus, the marriage is primarily about duty.

I'm not saying that arranged marriages where the couple are already in love are not arranged marriages (that's up to people in the applicable cultures to label) but arranged marriage as an institution isn't set up with that outcome in mind.

I don't think it's proper to tell a woman what she can and can't wear; naturally this also extends to religious garb.

Exactly.

In Iran you hafta wear certain garb, but in France they forbid that garb. But here in the USA we neither forbid, nor require it by law. And that's how it should be.

There is a possible exception: wearing a total burka while going through airport with security. Something that covers your whole face except your eyes is like a bandit's mask-thus its a security issue. So in an airport its justified to ban burkas.

The hijab, burka, bee keeper outfits, etc. were all originally conceived as a mate guarding strategy by sexually jealous (and very, very patriarchal) men.
But as these men aren't exactly white it's totally not OK to criticize them no matter how much they stone women, throw gay men off roof tops, arrange marriages, and etc. So long as it's not white Christians doing that stuff it's all good.
So this is part of the reason a lot of feminists don't object to hijab.

The other reason is that if you're an unattractive woman it can be quite liberating to not have to see young, pretty girls monopolizing male attention.
For a woman to see men wrapped around another woman's finger but not HER finger is the true meaning of oppression.

(also, as this is an 'autism site' I should probably mention that this post is about 80% sarcasm)

I wonder if it's worth mentioning Tuareg men wearing a tagelmust.

imao....what does she have to say about the sex slaves detained by her prophet?

If a woman wants to wear a hijab for any reason, no one has a right to remove it but I think this is ignoring that women who claim they want to wear a hijab are acting under coercion from their fathers or husbands.

Imagine how those men would they would react if their wives or daughters said she didn't want to wear the hijab?

^I agree with this too. Where i live lots of women are forced to wear it but that's no excuse to demonize hijabis in general or to claim that it's oppression.

This is what I have learned. A lot of feminists tend to be culturally segregated. There is usually separate branches of Black feminism or Feminism for Indian women etc. and the white women tend to stay within their own realm as well.

Even though many say they're ''for all women'' this is usually not the case. I have seen a feminist rally before - the women were all white and marching topless holding up signs (I think that was ''the slut walk'')- that was in in Kitchener Ontario. If you go to one in Toronto (a more diverse city) you will see much of the same thing.

They don't seem to bother too much with women from another culture also I feel they're intimidated (even though they won't admit it) to insult Islam. You know how it is.

The current state of feminism and Islam ironically share a lot of the same traits, which completely go against the rights Western women take for granted.

(Oh..now I've done it. Well looks like I'll have to change profiles and move countries a few times).

Yeah, I can see that. Some of the white feminists say they're for all women but really they're for middle class women. When they say they want to get equal salaries for male and female doctors. How does that help working class women? Sure they might be upset that male doctors are getting $200,000 per year and female doctors are only getting $150,000 per year but if the increase female doctor's salaries, that won't help the working class woman who's struggling to live on $30,000 per year.

The middle class white feminists also talk about how there are more male executives. Sure, they could get a few female senior managers promoted to executive level but that won't help all the working class women who are waiting tables.

These middle class feminists act as though everyone is a doctor or a lawyer or a manager. They act as though everyone is just one promotion away from being an executive. That may be true for them but that's not true for the majority of the population.

Then you've got the black feminists, or intersection feminists as they are now known. These black women are the intersection of being black and being female. Intersectional means they only help people who are a member or two or more marginalised groups.

The intersectional feminists will indignantly tell you that the average woman gets paid 77% as much as the average man, but the average black woman only gets paid 59% as much as the average man. How sexist! What they don't mention is that the average black man is also paid less than the average man.

In other words the intersectional feminists try to turn problems black people face into problems only black women face. Typically their term for black is "of color". There's an article on Everyday Feminism (a website so nutty even other feminists hate it) written by an intersectional feminist that says "women of color" are disproportionately represented in the American prison system. Believe me there are more black men than black women in prison (more men in general). The article also says that transwomen of color are overrepresented in the American prison system. They're not represented very much at all. Less than half a percent. Several orders of magnitude less than the number of cisgendered black dudes in prison.

Ironic that with men making up most of the prison population that this intersectional feminist would say that women are overrepresented in the prison system. Intersectional feminism isn't about helping black men because while black men are in a marginalised group, they are not in the intersection between two or more marginalised groups. If you're in three marginalised groups, such as black and female and lesbian, you could become the queen of the intersectional feminists.

Intersectional feminism is the nexus of the oppression olympics because they compete to see who can be in the intersection of the most oppressed groups at the same time.

You are right in a way. They have much in common including obsessing dogma and dehumanising people who disagree with them. Someone even wrote a song about it.