Gas Bandit's Political Thread V: The Vampire Likes Bats

[Eriol]

Women being forced to wear the hijab is oppression. Women choosing to wear it isn't

Because you see Jews everywhere wearing armbands too...

Oh wait, no you don't. And yet some people here think the hijab is merely about modesty? So all those Iranians trying to cast it off are whores? Yes I used that word. That's the argument used as to why women should WEAR it. And it's horrific.

And while there is definitely a valid point in that they are only choosing to wear it because of sexism inherent in Islam, why don't you get up in arms about the ultra-Christians here (well, in the US at least) that essentially force their women to dress modestly as well?

1. Because I'm not in the USA.
2. Because those "ultra-Christians" as you call them also aren't known for killing those who don't conform. Banish from their societies yes, but you don't really hear about them killing or beating those who don't conform. With the hijab, here's some cases in Canada alone where this happens. Asqa Parvez, Quebec Assault, and let's not forget the hockey-stick assault refugee.
3. Most of the groups with strict modest dress rules in Canada and the USA are isolationist groups, not proselytizing sects. Mennonites, Amish, etc. Islamists are pretty much exactly the opposite. Thus saying "look out for the spread of the Amish philosophy against women!" is kind of useless. But look out for this anti-woman philosophy spreading like crazy (for some reason)? Ya, it's different.
4. Related to 1, I speak out about it becoming more prevalent in Canada, primarily. It was just a good opportunity to remind everybody about it and how it relates to the situation in Iran from those living under it.

So no, it's not as big a deal as (usually isolationist) Christian groups doing it. Is it good? No, but it's not the same either.

 

[Bubble181]

on a somewhat similar but different topic, a Dutch rapper had his car break down on New Year's morning. Now, this is a rapper, but a supposedly "good" one with positive messages, songs kids can listen to and enjoy. He was helped out by the women returning from a party. Afterwards, he called them "kech" (Moroccan for whore or slut). When called out for this, his response was..."yes, I called them that, because they are. What are you doing, out in a club at 7 or 8 am, in short skirts, without a man?". He repeated that message a few times, declaring it's just a fact, man.
Since, several Dutch and Flemish radio stations have boycotted his songs, and he's issued a non-apology apology. Great role model, really. Completely integrated, with modern, western views of women and equality and all that.

 

[blotsfan]

So you've never heard of evangelical Christians? They make up like, 15% of the country.

 

[strawman]

You two are arguing about semantics.

Blotsfan: essentially force their women to dress modestly

Eriol: killing or beating those who don't conform

If you two can agree on a definition of the blanket term "oppression" then you would probably more closely agree on degree in the two societies.

 

[blotsfan]

I'm sorry, when did we decide that religious Christians don't beat and kill children who don't follow the rules?

 

[Terrik]

I'm sorry, when did we decide that religious Christians don't beat and kill children who don't follow the rules?

You have an extremely angry, warped view of the world.

 

[blotsfan]

But casting judgement on every Muslim in the world is fine?

 

[strawman]

I'm sorry, when did we decide that religious Christians don't beat and kill children who don't follow the rules?

Honestly I'm not sure it's worth engaging with you. You are attempting to shame Eriol for starting a discussion about government enforced clothing standards in Iran because of your experience with religious extremism in the US:

why don't you get up in arms about the ultra-Christians here (well, in the US at least) that essentially force their women

And now you're suggesting that the oppression faced by women and children in Iran is equivalent to the oppression faced by women in the US.

Eriol points out his reasoning in a cogent series of statements that show the two are different, then admits that he agrees with the fact that the US based oppression isn't good, but reasserts his point that it's not hte same, and thus he has valid reason not to be as up-in-arms as you are attempting to shame him into.

So no, it's not as big a deal as (usually isolationist) Christian groups doing it. Is it good? No, but it's not the same either.

So. The ball is in your court. You can prove equivalence by showing the quantity or quality of oppression is similar (for instance, modesty beatings/deaths per capita, or perhaps a tradeoff between severity and quantity). You might be able to make a case that the government mandates in Iran that cover 100% of citizen women are substantially similar to the congregations shaming members and covering (name your percentage here) of US citizen women.

If you can't establish equivalence, then why don't you just admit that your intention is to make Eriol feel bad for feeling bad about Iran when you believe he should be feeling bad about the US?

Also, you should try to figure out why you are shaming him for US actions - IIRC he's in Canada and a Canadian citizen - why should he care more about one country he's not part of than another country he's not part of? Can't he legitimately choose for himself what he cares about, or does he need to apply your set of beliefs and standards?

Out of curiosity, does your form of shaming meet your own definition of oppression? If not, hypothetically what actions would you have to take further to consider your forcing Eriol to adopt a point of view as a form of oppression? Beating and killing? Or are you just using words and shame to "oppress"? Again, I think you'd have a much more productive discussion if you'd just nail down the semantics, then you could both start using numbers to bolster your arguments.

 

[blotsfan]

Because choosing to use the term "Islamism" is deliberately loaded. It's about attacking the religion, not caring for the victims. He's done this plenty of times.

 

[Tress]

So, if I’m reading this right, blotsfan started out trying to defend the hijab as a concept by asserting it is only oppressive when women are forced to wear it. The problem is that no one was arguing the point with him, and now we’ve veered off into a vague “Christians are bad” argument.

It would probably help if we just focused on hijab-wearing, and whether or not allowing people to choose to wear them is oppressive.

 

[strawman]

Because choosing to use the term "Islamism" is deliberately loaded. It's about attacking the religion, not caring for the victims. He's done this plenty of times.

Ah, I think I understand your trajectory. I don't think, however, that setting up an example geared towards Christianity is going to be successful because the analogy, at least as you present it, doesn't hold.

 

[GasBandit]

Women being forced to wear the hijab is oppression. Women choosing to wear it isn't

And while there is definitely a valid point in that they are only choosing to wear it because of sexism inherent in Islam, why don't you get up in arms about the ultra-Christians here (well, in the US at least) that essentially force their women to dress modestly as well?

Because they don't stone the women to death who don't.

 

[PatrThom]

Because they don't stone the women to death who don't.

You also left out the acid-tossers.
"I don't want you dead, just ugly...but if you die then that's a bonus."

--Patrick

 

[Dave]

Because they don't stone the women to death who don't.

So what happens to women in ultra-conservative christian sects when they DON'T adhere to the dress code? Serious question. Are they ostracized? Beaten by their husbands? There are other kinds of abuse besides being stoned to death.

 

[PatrThom]

There are other kinds of abuse besides being stoned to death.

This is a fair question. If you deliberately choose not to commit murder but instead deride and bully someone into committing suicide, does that still count?

--Patrick

 

[GasBandit]

So what happens to women in ultra-conservative christian sects when they DON'T adhere to the dress code? Serious question. Are they ostracized? Beaten by their husbands? There are other kinds of abuse besides being stoned to death.

I think I'd take ostracization over death by stoning most days. But only most.

 

[strawman]

ultra-conservative christian sects

[definition needed]

But reaching some consensus around the definition of “religious extremism” could not be more important. Because whether the term can be precisely defined or not, there is no shortage of genuinely horrifying acts of religious extremism in the world. Bombing abortion clinics in the name of Jesus is extreme, as is forcing people to flee their homes if they don’t convert to Islam.

(source)

If you can name some sects which you believe meet your definition then finding information will be easier. As it is, though, it's hard to research.

 

[Dave]

I think I'd take ostracization over death by stoning most days. But only most.

You'd think that, but isolation and psychological abuse has lasting affects. I'm not saying that's what happens - I do NOT know what kind of response "immodest" women would endure - but psychological torture is a real thing and I'd argue it's just as bad.

About the only thing I was able to find was published either about Australian abuses by domestic partners or a study by religious scientists confused who state that religious men are LESS likely to abuse spouses.

 

[Hailey Knight]

So, if I’m reading this right, blotsfan started out trying to defend the hijab as a concept by asserting it is only oppressive when women are forced to wear it. The problem is that no one was arguing the point with him, and now we’ve veered off into a vague “Christians are bad” argument.

It would probably help if we just focused on hijab-wearing, and whether or not allowing people to choose to wear them is oppressive.

It's like everyone has Tress on ignore.[DOUBLEPOST=1514998546,1514998509][/DOUBLEPOST]

You'd think that, but isolation and psychological abuse has lasting affects. I'm not saying that's what happens - I do NOT know what kind of response "immodest" women would endure - but psychological torture is a real thing and I'd argue it's just as bad.

About the only thing I was able to find was published either about Australian abuses by domestic partners or a study by religious scientists confused who state that religious men are LESS likely to abuse spouses.

You're bizarrely happy about it.

 

[Eriol]

Because choosing to use the term "Islamism" is deliberately loaded. It's about attacking the religion, not caring for the victims. He's done this plenty of times.

Well, that is kind of hard to support that assertion, given the original article I linked, whom used that term in his title, is a fairly well-known Muslim reformer.

Interesting reading more about this in the opinion section: Iran reminds us of the dangers of Islamism.

So either he's attacking all of his own religion (he isn't), or maybe that term doesn't mean what YOU think it does. Hint: it means the political form of radical Islam, not the religion as a whole. He's endured multiple death threats (fatwas) for speaking out in India against Islamism there as well. So me repeating the term with the same meaning is NOT attacking the religion. Yes I have used the term a number of times. I'm glad you're reading at least some of what I'm writing, but apparently not understanding the meanings.

Secondly, about the hijab in general, given that the story from Iran is about how all these Muslim women pointing out how horrific it is, and imposed on them, opposing it doesn't seem to hold up very well as anti-Muslim either. A symbol AS OPPRESSIVE as the hijab doesn't suddenly become "non-political" in any way just because it's not in the middle east, it still carries the same baggage over here. 100 years ago without as much global communication maybe you could have had cultural symbols more isolated, but today? No way.


Btw, thanks @steinman for "getting" what I meant and explaining when I wasn't in the thread.

 

[strawman]

It's like everyone has Tress on ignore.

Nah, that argument isn't exciting enough. We want to argue about something personal, that gets our dander up!

 

[Dave]

[definition needed]

(source)

If you can name some sects which you believe meet your definition then finding information will be easier. As it is, though, it's hard to research.

Fair enough. Religious communities that force/require their women to dress a specific way. This could be the old-timey dresses or the Mormon "magic underwear" stuff. What punishments do THEY give when their women do not dress what they deem appropriately?

 

[Eriol]

Fair enough. Religious communities that force/require their women to dress a specific way. This could be the old-timey dresses or the Mormon "magic underwear" stuff. What punishments do THEY give when their women do not dress what they deem appropriately?

They don't beat them with hockey sticks for half an hour, last I heard. Nor kill them.

Basically, anything short of causing them to suicide (which is often hard to prove) is less bad than getting beaten to death, and thus less serious.

 

[Dave]

They don't beat them with hockey sticks for half an hour, last I heard. Nor kill them.

Basically, anything short of causing them to suicide (which is often hard to prove) is less bad than getting beaten to death, and thus less serious.

I disagree with you. Yes, being killed is irreversible, but psychological torture or forced isolation is, to me, more insidious and has longer-lasting effects that can and frequently does have generational ramifications. I'm not saying that these psychological tortures happen as I will reiterate that I have no knowledge of it. I'm just saying that you guys don't give it enough credence for how damaging it can be.

 

[strawman]

I disagree with you. Yes, being killed is irreversible, but psychological torture or forced isolation - you guys don't give it enough credence for how damaging it can be.

This asserts that psychological torture or forced isolation is possibly (and I'm sure you'd insert lots of caveats here) more damaging than death?

Here's where I think we probably diverge: The future cannot be known, and so a continuous torture still allows for the possibility that the torture will stop and life will not just be better, but great. I suspect we'd have to talk to survivors of the holocaust or particularly bad illnesses like cancer to find out what their opinion on this is, now that they're past the torture. Was their subsequent life worth the torture they endured to get to that point, or would they feel better off had they died prior to the torture?

As such I don't think I can subscribe to the idea that torture is worse than death, even without taking into account my belief in the afterlife.

 

[Dave]

Again, fair enough. And your points about holocaust survivors are well taken. I'll still say that it's more insidious and generationally damaging, however.

 

[Eriol]

Again, fair enough. And your points about holocaust survivors are well taken. I'll still say that it's more insidious and generationally damaging, however.

If you're dead, there's no more generations. So it's still WORSE than the rest of the horrors you mention. They are horrors, and bad, but it's versus DEAD, which is forever (with a few exceptions, depending on who/what you believe).

 

[Bubble181]

The idea that torture etc can be worse than death is the whole point of a lot of movies' arguments about "killing you would be too quick and painless, you need to suffer for what you did". Also used in favour and opposition to the death penalty. Just saying.

 

[GasBandit]

The idea that torture etc can be worse than death is the whole point of a lot of movies' arguments about "killing you would be too quick and painless, you need to suffer for what you did". Also used in favour and opposition to the death penalty. Just saying.

But that's the "pulling out fingernails with pliers, peeling off skin, blunt force trauma" kind of torture. Not the "we're giving you the silent treatment and cold shoulder" kind.

 

[GasBandit]

Everything they say about cops in mexico is true.

 

[DarkAudit]

The excuse of "feminism!" to try to rationalize one's prejudice is distasteful. To then tie oneself in knots with a religious version of "but her emails!" makes it worse.

I'm sorry, @Eriol, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm disappointed. And I'm going to bed now.

 

[Dave]

Everything they say about cops in mexico is true.

Mexico isn't the only place that happens. Remember this oldie but goodie?

 

[GasBandit]

Mexico isn't the only place that happens. Remember this oldie but goodie?

I do!

But I guarantee you, it happens WAY more often south of the border.

I've never had to bribe a traffic cop north of the Rio Grande.

 

[Eriol]

The excuse of "feminism!" to try to rationalize one's prejudice is distasteful. To then tie oneself in knots with a religious version of "but her emails!" makes it worse.

I'm sorry, @Eriol, but that's what it looks like to me. I'm disappointed. And I'm going to bed now.

Current events in Iran compared to "unnamed" evangelicals in the USA is the equivalent of something minor (but a felony IMO) in your system from years ago?

Dude, c'mon. I'm calling a spade a spade - the Hijab is a sign of submission to gender oppression. Blot's equivalence of that to stuff happening in the USA is the tying oneself in knots to NOT call out Islamism as bad.

 

[@Li3n]

Because they don't stone the women to death who don't.

And are thus guilty of disobeying God's law...