Why are feminists not against hijab?

Post Reply New Topic

I thought your post was good and concise, and I totally agreed with it.

lol well said. And I totally agree - the fact that he twists people's words, asserts things baselessly, and pulls other such tricks shows either that he doesn't believe his positions are strong enough to stand up on their own, without such tricks, or that he doesn't believe in his own ability to advocate for his beliefs in a fair manner.

But muslims are a majority, christian arabs are just 4 %. what christian arabs are facing is genocide, muslims are not facing genocide in middle east by radical islamists. Nobody belives that its "us against them", its just a small precent dumb red-necks that have that mindset.

Bringing up that muslims are also opressed by radical islamists thats like bringing up that white liberal christians are opressed by radical white christian right wingers. And nobody does that.

If left-people dont support the genocide of arab-christians then why do they ignore the opression that is going on? And why do even so many in the left accusing the arab christians of oppressing arab muslims?

Feminists always say that islam is a religion that do not opress women, its all about "culture or extremists" not islam itself that is the problem. thats strange since feminists call out christianity as a whole for being anti-women.

But feminists do not blame Islam as the problem.

Uniquely discriminated in the US? Christians in Egypt have it much tougher than muslims have in the US.

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?