Burkini ban in France, sexist or liberating?

[Hugor Hill]

1 hour ago, shadowgoon said:

Purely from a devil's advocate point of view:

 

1. A wetsuit is a functional piece of equipment used when scuba diving, it serves a specific purpose not an ideological one

2. A burkini is an ideologically imposed outfit who's sole purpose is nothing more than an attempt to cover as much skin as possible, again for ideological purposes and beliefs

3. A wetsuit is body conforming, and is a one piece design which leaves no ability for concealment

4. A burkini is a two piece outfit, appears to be generally loose fitting and as such could be used in such a way to conceal weaponry

 

Saying nothing of the choice of a Muslim (or any) woman to wear this or not, France is well within their rights to do this if they feel what the Burkini symbolizes clashes with France's own ideals and values; moreover when you look at the optics of terrorism abroad (which we are very much sheltered from here in Canada), this is another valid reason.

 

France and the surrounding region has endured terrible things in recent history due to terrorism and it's appropriation of Islamic faith in the process. This is not an indictment that any woman who chooses to wear a Burkini is a terrorist, so much as it is a precaution against those who would use women indoctrinated by the terrible appropriation of Islam and propaganda of terrorism to commit acts against innocent populations of civilians.

Keep in mind this is not a knee jerk precaution, France has recent precedent for being concerned by these possibilities. If the same were to be proposed in Canada or the USA, I would definitely have second thoughts about the motivations behind such a decision.

Don't hide behind 'Devil's advocate' to be ignorant. Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'.

 

 

 

[elvis15]

38 minutes ago, HerrDrFunk said:

Oh, Lord. That argument has so many holes in it's logic it's sadly hilarious. If they're that worried about it, why not just make all of France's beaches nude only then? I could smuggle a weapon in surf shorts and a tank top. 

Because unless they can clearly identify you as Muslim (more specifically the ones with a burka/burkini/hijab/etc.), then clearly you couldn't be a terrorist. Too bad all the terrorist men don't wear them as it's be pretty practical for hiding all the weapons, as shadowgoon pointed out in his devil's advocate post, under the guise of religious freedom...

[Nucker 67]

Okay, so the French are paranoid that women lounging at the beach in this outfit might conceal a weapon and use that weapon, and so not to offend anyone they're saying "it's to protect women's rights". LOL So ridiculous. What's the difference between that outfit and Grandma in her moo moo and a huge sun hat? What's next? Jackets not allowed in France? Sorry you're cold ma'am, but we want to make sure you're not concealing a rocket launcher.

 

What a world

 

 

[Justdean10]

So are they allowed to wear full clothing to the beach? I was on the way to the ski hill, when I decided to hit up the beach first, in my snow pants, jacket and a toque.. is that cool?

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, nuckin_futz said:

Saudi Arabia has zero to do with the argument.

 

If the French women in question all showed up in wet suits I get the feeling you'd still flip your sh*t.

Wrong. I hope you do realize a wet suit is quite different from the burkini. If you are as liberal as you try to appear in this forum, why would you not be concerned about why "regular western swim wear" is banned in many "Muslim" countries? Do you only care when only non western values are questioned?

[elvis15]

51 minutes ago, Justdean10 said:

So are they allowed to wear full clothing to the beach? I was on the way to the ski hill, when I decided to hit up the beach first, in my snow pants, jacket and a toque.. is that cool?

They could pretty much just wear their head scarf with a sporty long sleeved shirt then also some leggings or pants that could get wet and it'd be the same thing.

[elvis15]

1 hour ago, cabinessence said:

Wrong. I hope you do realize a wet suit is quite different from the burkini. If you are as liberal as you try to appear in this forum, why would you not be concerned about why "regular western swim wear" is banned in many "Muslim" countries? Do you only care when only non western values are questioned?

I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm concerned over seemingly liberal countries (or at least those that are intelligent and advanced socially) taking steps backwards that have little to no effect on the areas they claim they've made the changes for. What I am not concerned over is what kind of swim wear is banned in countries like Saudi Arabia, but rather that those specific countries hold to an outdated and frankly dangerous religious viewpoint as reasons to dictate laws which result in punishment far exceeding the 'crime'.

 

Oh, and most countries with Muslims as the major religious population do not follow the extreme view you're talking about with a country like Saudi Arabia. You're not only focusing on the wrong point, you're in danger of exposing your bias.

[VanGnome]

2 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Don't hide behind 'Devil's advocate' to be ignorant. Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'.

 

 

 

The opinion is not mine. Hence "Devil's advocate". It's entirely possible to objectively understand a point of view without making it your own.

 

Saying that "Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'" is just as ignorant as your assumption is that I'm hiding behind "Devil's advocate" to be ignorant.

I believe, and it has been proven, that "Terrorists" will go to any lengths in order to achieve whatever objective they have set for themselves, and are not above using women as either willing or unwilling combatants to achieve those objectives.

In fact, I also very plainly stated in my post which you so conveniently left out: "This is not an indictment that any woman who chooses to wear a Burkini is a terrorist, so much as it is a precaution against those who would use women indoctrinated by the terrible appropriation of Islam and propaganda of terrorism to commit acts against innocent populations of civilians."

 

So, kindly step down off your soap box and please read posts in full so you understand the entire context of what is being said.

[GLASSJAW]

I don't know where I stand on the issue, but I do find it funny how so many Muslim men or Muslim patriarchal apologists keep harping on about: "a woman's freedom to choose also includes the choice to cover up" - I mean, yes, I guess it does, but when many Muslim women in these communities have been raised being told (directly or indirectly) to cover up, based on an offering of absurd reasons, then there's very little reason to believe she would suddenly shake off her outfit at first opportunity. I think this highlights the bizarre relationship between feminism and Islam: on the one hand, a western woman has the right to choose to be oppressed, on the other hand, it is simultaneously feminist and anti-feminist to discuss how a woman SHOULD interpret her choices. Is she making the choices because she's a free-thinking, independent Muslim woman? Or is she making the choices because she's been indoctrinated by the absurd religion that is incompatible with so many Western ideals? Who decides?

 

The last question is important to me because the freedom to choose is contingent on the available choices. The available choices are defined by government intervention to best defend the moral or ideological standards the government is chosen to hold. E.g. I can't walk around naked downtown even though I could very well choose to believe in a naturalist lifestyle. I have to accept the culture that pre-dates me: from barbarism to religion to reformation to victorian to present: modesty is what it is. Islam is unique to this in that it is rarely challenged, rarely reformed, and many (if not most) of its followers believe they exist outside of, if not supreme to, the developing (and developed) western world--despite wishing so deeply to be part of it. 

 

This creates, like, a Mobius strip of condescension. France, in this sense, almost seems like it's trying to force progress (or development) on a community that stands against the ideas of progress - and yet, the opposition to progress is being discussed as if that is progressive: they are choosing to believe their absurd beliefs, and because it's a choice it's okay. Talk about ideology! You can interpret this junk any which way you choose. 

 

For me, I support the right to choose, but I'm 100% against what female-oppressing attire represents. So idk what to believe. 

[Dekey Pete]

16 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

Wrong. I hope you do realize a wet suit is quite different from the burkini. If you are as liberal as you try to appear in this forum, why would you not be concerned about why "regular western swim wear" is banned in many "Muslim" countries? Do you only care when only non western values are questioned?

Can't beat them so let's just become them?  Idiot logic right here

[HerrDrFunk]

24 minutes ago, shadowgoon said:

The opinion is not mine. Hence "Devil's advocate". It's entirely possible to objectively understand a point of view without making it your own.

 

Saying that "Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'" is just as ignorant as your assumption is that I'm hiding behind "Devil's advocate" to be ignorant.

I believe, and it has been proven, that "Terrorists" will go to any lengths in order to achieve whatever objective they have set for themselves, and are not above using women as either willing or unwilling combatants to achieve those objectives.

In fact, I also very plainly stated in my post which you so conveniently left out: "This is not an indictment that any woman who chooses to wear a Burkini is a terrorist, so much as it is a precaution against those who would use women indoctrinated by the terrible appropriation of Islam and propaganda of terrorism to commit acts against innocent populations of civilians."

 

So, kindly step down off your soap box and please read posts in full so you understand the entire context of what is being said.

Well, hell, if that's the case, why don't we just make Muslim women go naked everywhere? Hard to hide a weapon when you're in the buff....but ah crap, that wouldn't work because they would have a couple of orifices that could hide something in! Better give them all random cavity searches too!

[Mustapha]

4 hours ago, shadowgoon said:

Purely from a devil's advocate point of view:

 

1. A wetsuit is a functional piece of equipment used when scuba diving, it serves a specific purpose not an ideological one

2. A burkini is an ideologically imposed outfit who's sole purpose is nothing more than an attempt to cover as much skin as possible, again for ideological purposes and beliefs

3. A wetsuit is body conforming, and is a one piece design which leaves no ability for concealment

4. A burkini is a two piece outfit, appears to be generally loose fitting and as such could be used in such a way to conceal weaponry

 

Saying nothing of the choice of a Muslim (or any) woman to wear this or not, France is well within their rights to do this if they feel what the Burkini symbolizes clashes with France's own ideals and values; moreover when you look at the optics of terrorism abroad (which we are very much sheltered from here in Canada), this is another valid reason.

 

France and the surrounding region has endured terrible things in recent history due to terrorism and it's appropriation of Islamic faith in the process. This is not an indictment that any woman who chooses to wear a Burkini is a terrorist, so much as it is a precaution against those who would use women indoctrinated by the terrible appropriation of Islam and propaganda of terrorism to commit acts against innocent populations of civilians.

Keep in mind this is not a knee jerk precaution, France has recent precedent for being concerned by these possibilities. If the same were to be proposed in Canada or the USA, I would definitely have second thoughts about the motivations behind such a decision.

@Toews

 

This is pretty much how I feel about it.

[cabinessence]

1 hour ago, elvis15 said:

I won't speak for anyone else, but I'm concerned over seemingly liberal countries (or at least those that are intelligent and advanced socially) taking steps backwards that have little to no effect on the areas they claim they've made the changes for. What I am not concerned over is what kind of swim wear is banned in countries like Saudi Arabia, but rather that those specific countries hold to an outdated and frankly dangerous religious viewpoint as reasons to dictate laws which result in punishment far exceeding the 'crime'.

 

Oh, and most countries with Muslims as the major religious population do not follow the extreme view you're talking about with a country like Saudi Arabia. You're not only focusing on the wrong point, you're in danger of exposing your bias.

No bias at all, just an educated opinion. To think everyone who might agree with France's decision is wrong might show a  bit of a bias though.

[cabinessence]

53 minutes ago, The Sedge said:

Can't beat them so let's just become them?  Idiot logic right here

Lazy comment. There is much more to my comment to ponder than just a simple conclusion, such as the one you drew. Cue bass solo, but not for you!

[elvis15]

1 minute ago, cabinessence said:

No bias at all, just an educated opinion. To think everyone who might agree with France's decision is wrong might show a  bit of a bias though.

What you just said made very little sense. It's not your opinion showing bias, but rather the way you've worded your opinion and focused on the wrong things. And someone else agreeing with France's decision does nothing to show bias either, only their reasoning for doing so if it's slanted for reasons not logical to the debate.

[Hugor Hill]

1 hour ago, shadowgoon said:

The opinion is not mine. Hence "Devil's advocate". It's entirely possible to objectively understand a point of view without making it your own.

 

Saying that "Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'" is just as ignorant as your assumption is that I'm hiding behind "Devil's advocate" to be ignorant.

I believe, and it has been proven, that "Terrorists" will go to any lengths in order to achieve whatever objective they have set for themselves, and are not above using women as either willing or unwilling combatants to achieve those objectives.

In fact, I also very plainly stated in my post which you so conveniently left out: "This is not an indictment that any woman who chooses to wear a Burkini is a terrorist, so much as it is a precaution against those who would use women indoctrinated by the terrible appropriation of Islam and propaganda of terrorism to commit acts against innocent populations of civilians."

 

So, kindly step down off your soap box and please read posts in full so you understand the entire context of what is being said.

You are still hiding your opinion, now behind 'someone else's opinion' and 'objectivity'. If you agree with it, which you clearly do, then it doesn't matter if it is yours or not.

 

And your bolded part, is just rationale they are teaching you to feed us for their propaganda.

 

If the burkini becomes a regular tool in terrorist acts, then we can talk. 

 

[Hugor Hill]

6 minutes ago, cabinessence said:

No bias at all, just an educated opinion. To think everyone who might agree with France's decision is wrong might show a  bit of a bias though.

In order for an opinion to be educated, it actually has to be educated, which yours clearly isn't.

 

 

[GLASSJAW]

3 hours ago, Hugor Hill said:

Don't hide behind 'Devil's advocate' to be ignorant.

Someone is responding to a political question using a common rhetorical device and you're accusing him of hiding his opinion and being ignorant.

 

lol..

 

Quote

Terrorists wear t-shirts and jeans, not 'burkini'.

Female terrorists, rare as they are, do not commit crimes wearing jeans and t-shirts. I would be surprised if this has happened even once. 

 

 

[elvis15]

12 minutes ago, GLASSJAW said:

...

Female terrorists, rare as they are, do not commit crimes wearing jeans and t-shirts. I would be surprised if this has happened even once. 

I wouldn't be. Certainly not all terrorists are Muslim and it's highly conceivable that a non-Muslim female terrorist would wear everyday clothes to commit a crime so as not to draw undue attention to herself.

[GLASSJAW]

1 minute ago, elvis15 said:

I wouldn't be. Certainly not all terrorists are Muslim and it's highly conceivable that a non-Muslim female terrorist would wear everyday clothes to commit a crime so as not to draw undue attention to herself.

I agree, I do not think there is a Terrorist Outfitters shop somewhere that is suiting up both IRA and Buddhists with the same t-shirts OR burkas. Within the context of the conversation, it seemed to me we were discussing Islamic (based) terrorism