• French PM suggests naked breasts represent France better than a headscarf
    161 replies, posted
I think the main reason peoples are upset is because everything surrounding the thing is ridiculous by French standards. That portmanteau is gross and the contradict itself, and bathing in loose clothes is the worst feeling. I mean, if I were to hide most of my skin while on the beach, I'd invest in a surf suit, it would be more enjoyable. If you intentionally hinder your experience when better alternative exist, then you should question yourself about what you really want.
Ban bikini tops, now this is something I can get behind.
[QUOTE=Tools;50977575][url]https://quran.com/24/30-31[/url] It's literally in the Quran dude, that all women are to wear it whenever they're not alone with their loved ones.[/QUOTE] That says nothing about the Burka. It's just modesty. The burka isn't an Islamic garment, it's a 10th century Persian garment that just happened to catch on in that part of the world; Pakistani and African Muslims don't wear them, but in the Middle East they do. The burka itself is a cultural fulfilment of the general Islamic maxim of 'be modest', in the same way that headscarves, niqab, and hijab are. Men are equally bound by that rule (they aren't allowed to wear jewellery, and most don't shave for that reason). [QUOTE=Tools;50977612] And I'm mostly worried about the safety concerns that a burka can cause a risk to. In example, a woman wearing a burka entered a prison here in Denmark, and gave it to her imprisoned husband - and nobody dared to check "her" on the way out, so the prisoner walked free. Nobody would be allowed in places like this if they were wearing a full-on munk suit with their entire person covered, they'd be asked to take it off.[/QUOTE] So because someone didn't do their job we should ban burkas?
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977622]Hijabs arent banned in france though... so i fail to see the issues.[/QUOTE] I know, but the title and article was implying that people thought the Hijab and other headscarfs should represent France. [QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977628]What is the relevance? can you explain it to me?[/QUOTE] That women are equal to men. Forcing women to wear clothing would be considered harsh, the quote says to not treat them with harshness. The point is the Quran contradicts itself a lot. Take one verse and chances are there will be another in the Quran that contradicts it.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50977628]What is the relevance? can you explain it to me?[/QUOTE] Women aren't restrained and restricted to be objectified in the Quran, they're told to be modest and wear modest clothes to prevent society from systematically turning them into whores and objects. At the time it made sense because society in that region was very aggressive towards women. Marriage was believed to be a safe and happy outcome that would teach men to not enslave women and would allow women to not have to be scared for their lives and dignity every passing second. Same reason the Quran orders to be benevolent towards the poor and the homeless, because those who were the most fucked over by society were women, orphans and poor people. Quite ironic that nowadays extremists are trying to establish a society which corresponds to pre-Islam society, with women being sex things first and not much else. Of course the relevancy of that logic has but dwindled over the centuries, but the Quran was [I]not[/I] written to enslave or oppress women.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;50977648]That says nothing about the Burka. It's just modesty. The burka isn't an Islamic garment, it's a 10th century Persian garment that just happened to catch on in that part of the world; Pakistani and African Muslims don't wear them, but in the Middle East they do. The burka itself is a cultural fulfilment of the general Islamic maxim of 'be modest', in the same way that headscarves, niqab, and hijab are. Men are equally bound by that rule (they aren't allowed to wear jewellery, and most don't shave for that reason). So because someone didn't do their job we should ban burkas?[/QUOTE] Oh, Hijabs were also something european women wore before the large plague outbreak, think of mother mary statues, she wears a hijab. In the aftermath people preferred to see peoples skin properly, so they were sure that people weren't affected and dress code changed. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Ganerumo;50977657]Women aren't restrained and restricted to be objectified in the Quran, they're told to be modest and wear modest clothes to prevent society from systematically turning them into whores and objects. At the time it made sense because society in that region was very aggressive towards women. Marriage was believed to be a safe and happy outcome that would teach men to not enslave women and would allow women to not have to be scared for their lives and dignity every passing second. Same reason the Quran orders to be benevolent towards the poor and the homeless, because those who were the most fucked over by society were women, orphans and poor people. Quite ironic that nowadays extremists are trying to establish a society which corresponds to pre-Islam society, with women being sex things first and not much else. Of course the relevancy of that logic has but dwindled over the centuries, but the Quran was [I]not[/I] written to enslave or oppress women.[/QUOTE] Can you post some sources on that, it does not conform with my knowledge of history or humanity.
I'll point out that painting was not entirely sincere in what it represented and in it's symbolism it's implied the people with the guns have more power than the woman with the flag. Besides, considering how bloody awful and eventually insanely extremist the French Revolution was, I would have concerns about referring to the symbolism of those times.
Topless women represents freedom more than headscarves, so to prove how free you are, ban specific garments purely for their religious connotations and enforce that ban at gunpoint. Such freedom. While you're at it, ban Hasidic Jewish women from shaving their hair and wearing wigs, because that very similar hair taboo also represents institutional misogyny and oppression in a religion, except it doesn't.
[QUOTE=Tools;50977466]Good, French traditions is something good - especially when boobies are involved. The burkini is an idiotic idea and should be banned, just like the burka and other extremist accessories in general.[/QUOTE] Way I see it, it's a thing women are forced to wear, rather than something they choose to wear of their own volition. If they wore it because they genuinely wanted to look like that, then that's just fashion. A peculiar fashion more suited to harsh unforgiving deserts, but fashion nonetheless. But no, it's an archaic and oppressive practice from primitive times, that in the 21st century should be a mere option or a vestment to be worn in the holy places, rather than something they have to wear or else their husband will start beating them because of fanatical jealousy and perceived infidelity.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50977752]Way I see it, it's a thing women are forced to wear, rather than something they choose to wear of their own volition. If they wore it because they genuinely wanted to look like that, then that's just fashion. But no, it's an archaic and oppressive practice from primitive times, that should be a mere option or a vestment to be worn in the holy places, rather than something they have to wear or else their husband will start beating them because of fanatical jealousy and perceived infidelity.[/QUOTE] You're right and wrong. It's forced for some but not for all. It's way more likely for women to be forced to wear it in say, Pakistan or Afghanistan than in France or the UK.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50977752]Way I see it, it's a thing women are forced to wear, rather than something they choose to wear of their own volition. If they wore it because they genuinely wanted to look like that, then that's just fashion. But no, it's an archaic and oppressive practice from primitive times, that should be a mere option or a vestment to be worn in the holy places, rather than something they have to wear or else their husband will start beating them because of fanatical jealousy and perceived infidelity.[/QUOTE] Forced in the same way women are forced here in the UK to cover their breasts. It's a taboo that doesn't make any sense, that's archaic, and that only effects women, but that those women are okay with it because its how they're raised. Why is any nudity taboo? It's stupid. That doesn't make it okay to force them to remove them by gunpoint, or even ban them at all in a free country.
Still, I can understand that one should be allowed to "cover-up" their lady-parts if they [U]choose[/U] to do so, but what's wrong with a bra and pants? (that's "panties" or "underwear" for the rest of you) Last time I looked, the face isn't an exotic erogenous zone, unless your name happens to be Mister Fuckface or Cunty McCuntlips.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50977775]Last time I looked, the face isn't an exotic erogenous zone, unless your name happens to be Mister Fuckface or Cunty McCuntlips.[/QUOTE] Not every headscarf covers the face though.
[QUOTE=ironman17;50977775]Still, I can understand that one should be allowed to "cover-up" their lady-parts if they [U]choose[/U] to do so, but what's wrong with a bra and pants? (that's "panties" or "underwear" for the rest of you) Last time I looked, the face isn't an exotic erogenous zone, unless your name happens to be Mister Fuckface or Cunty McCuntlips.[/QUOTE] Covering of the face has long (since ancient assyrian law codes) been a sign of virtue and purity, to contrast with "impure" or "women of less value" like slaves and prostitutes who could be killed for wearing a veil. The christian Bride wearing a veil came from the same origin.
[QUOTE=Tools;50977612]It's also illegal to stone people, thus nobody does it and everyone's happy it is that way. And I'm mostly worried about the safety concerns that a burka can cause a risk to. In example, a woman wearing a burka entered a prison here in Denmark, and gave it to her imprisoned husband - and nobody dared to check "her" on the way out, so the prisoner walked free. Nobody would be allowed in places like this if they were wearing a full-on munk suit with their entire person covered, they'd be asked to take it off.[/QUOTE] stoning is illegal because people have a right to their lives. it is illegal to kill people. until somebody gets strangled in a burqa attack than whining about it is retarded. and you know the answer to this? just have prisons check. woooww!!!
Again, a practice that should be stomped out, along with the notion of the sacred and the profane. The universe does not care about the sacred and the profane, for while its birth led to our creation, it cannot physically give a toss.
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50977488]Actually, no. [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity[/url] [url]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_nudity#Public_social_nude_events[/url] It's probably ok to walk around topless in the middle of the streets in France/Germany, but a massive no-no in 'murica.[/QUOTE] Not [I]quite[/I]. People aren't going to freak out over that in Germany, but it still would raise at least some eyebrows. That said, I don't think the likelihood of someone calling the police over that is high (and it's indeed not illegal here).
[QUOTE=ironman17;50977799]Again, a practice that should be stomped out, along with the notion of the sacred and the profane. The universe does not care about the sacred and the profane, for while its birth led to our creation, it cannot physically give a toss.[/QUOTE] Stomped out? So you take an already authoritarian stance (state mandating culture and belief) and attach some pretty evocative language to it. Has that (state trying to force culture) ever worked?
[QUOTE=Pretiacruento;50977397]France is world famous for their topless and nudist beaches. French people take great pride in being so progressive that they don't bat an eye when surrounded by naked people... I can definitely see why they'd consider it an offense having someone dressed up as a scuba diver, under religious pretenses.[/QUOTE] The Icon of a bourgeois revolution has little to do with how you should and shouldn't dress at the beach, who the fuck bathes with a phrygian bonnet on anyways? To me it just sounds like somebody got assmad they couldn't peep at scantly clad beurrettes and threw an tantrum out of entitlement. I do not think there is that big of a market tap into when it comes to Islamic nudist beaches either, I wouldn't have heard of them anyways. Valls intends on running for president by the way. He's going to need signatures from mayors when he does.
Its funny how people continue supporting this ban, despite me and MANY others already explaining why its a dumb idea. No, just do what ever screws the muslims right? History has shown that the best way to deal with a population with issues is to oppress them. Nope, not a single historical example of THAT mentality going wrong, right? Burkas allowed muslims come to the beach and have more opportunity to integrate with west, something that is STRONGLY NEEDED. But then you people say they can't do that since they are not integrated fast enough? The Olympics are over, no need to continue this trial of mental gymnastics
Just to be clear, you all arguing against burkinis [I]are[/I] aware that they aren't burkas, correct? [img]http://i.imgur.com/VNywyfe.jpg[/img] This is a burkini. "Burkini" is just a silly, tongue-in-cheek name they gave it. It's not a burka. It's a looser-fitting wetsuit. Muslim women draw the line for modesty at a certain point, but they still want to be able to enjoy the beach. If anything the burkini is indicative and permissive of integration, because it shows that traditions are loosening up among Muslims in Western countries. Integration isn't just about accepting the host's culture and throwing away your own - that's assimilation. Integration involves cultural exchange and acceptance. And guess what, different cultures can coexist! Wow! France cannot call itself a secular state while passing laws which unfairly target certain religions for practices that would not be illegal if done by a member of any other religion. This is spite and hatred toward Muslims, not some effort to help them integrate.
[quote]“Marianne has a naked breast because she is feeding the people! She is not veiled, because she is free! That is the republic!” [/quote] Yeah, Marianne clearly made a conscious choice to wear tattered clothing. She is a strong, sexually liberated, independent woman who don't need no man. Fun fact, Delacroix, the artist who painted the iconic "Liberty Leading the People" also made this during the Greek War of Independence, a personification of Greece standing over the ruins of Messolonghi: [img]http://i.imgur.com/vKNdG59.jpg[/img] Headdress aside (lol), do you think that Greece was an egalitarian, secular state where women walked around bare-breasted? Do you think that this image represents Greece at any time of its history? Other than the time when women were in such distress and fought to survive in such conditions where they could not even cover their body? Fucking MC Hammer pants can represent France for all I care. You spread all that zouave pant craze anyhow. It's inane to pick and choose what kind of clothing is patriotic or representative of France. Muslims are a part of France, just as much as Valls is, and there would probably be less of them if France didn't fuck around in Muslim countries. Respect their beliefs and stop trying to fashion police everyone into your narrow view of how people should express themselves, which is going to change in a couple of decades again anyhow.
[QUOTE=da space core;50977888]Its funny how people continue supporting this ban, despite me and MANY others already explaining why its a dumb idea. No, just do what ever screws the muslims right? History has shown that the best way to deal with a population with issues is to oppress them. Nope, not a single historical example of THAT mentality going wrong, right? Burkas allowed muslims come to the beach and have more opportunity to integrate with west, something that is STRONGLY NEEDED. But then you people say they can't do that since they are not integrated fast enough? The Olympics are over, no need to continue this trial of mental gymnastics[/QUOTE] I just don't understand the logic that in order to combat oppression that has yet to be proven, you have to oppress women yourself. Because private citizens are supposedly forcing each other to wear clothes they don't want to wear, the state now has to force people not to wear clothes that otherwise do no harm to the public good. Seeing some of the most zealous anti-social justice posters employ the exact same logic to support banning articles of clothing that offend them is amusing though.
I'm finding it real hard to see the prime minister's statement as anything other than a thinly-veiled appeal to the growing anti-Muslim sentiment in his country. It sound rather eerily like the comments a lot of people are making here in the states, about how Muslims "don't share American values and our culture," "don't respect the constitution" etc. And it certainly doesn't strike me as progressive to quantify the core tenant of "letting people do what they want to do as long as they don't hurt anyone else" with targeted policies based largely on fear. Because that's what this is ultimately about, isn't it: people feel fearful or at least uncomfortable around other people because of what they're wearing - because in their heads they feel they've connected the supposed dots between an article of clothing, oppression, and "endangerment" of their lives.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;50978047][b]I just don't understand the logic that in order to combat oppression that has yet to be proven, you have to oppress women yourself.[/b] Because private citizens are supposedly forcing each other to wear clothes they don't want to wear, the state now has to force people not to wear clothes that otherwise do no harm to the public good. Seeing some of the most zealous anti-social justice posters employ the exact same logic to support banning articles of clothing that offend them is amusing though.[/QUOTE] I think that at least partially, the attitude behind this implies an assumed moral or intellectual superiority. Ranging from "oh you poor uneducated simpleton, worry not, I'll save you from your backwards ways." to "we've culturally evolved past your silly superstitions, they have no place here". And this causes some people to have the illusion that they are a moral authority and that they can express themselves in absolute terms, without much justification. [editline]31st August 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50977819]Has that (state trying to force culture) ever worked?[/QUOTE] I don't think that regional dialects/languages have been doing too well in France... so yeah, I am afraid that it can work.
If this creates a more forced step towards integration, I don't see an issue. If clothing like this steps into the next generation born in countries, we have a huge issue. It would mean that integration has failed, and everything will just get worse.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50978491]If this creates a more forced step towards integration, I don't see an issue. If clothing like this steps into the next generation born in countries, we have a huge issue. It would mean that integration has failed, and everything will just get worse.[/QUOTE] It's not going to. If anything it's just going to make the people willfully want to wear clothes like these more insular. What is historical precedence.
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50978491]If this creates a more forced step towards integration, I don't see an issue. If clothing like this steps into the next generation born in countries, we have a huge issue. It would mean that integration has failed, and everything will just get worse.[/QUOTE] It is not integration to tell people "sorry but you can wear that, it's against the rules" the burkini means than the "extreme, hateful, violent culture of these barbarians" is trying to compromise with our society without outright abandoning their own culture it doesnt have to be "our way or bust"
[QUOTE=Boilrig;50978491]If this creates a more forced step towards integration, I don't see an issue. If clothing like this steps into the next generation born in countries, we have a huge issue. It would mean that integration has failed, and everything will just get worse.[/QUOTE] pieces of clothing wont help, we need bigger guns at this point... im starting to play with the idea that immigrants should not be allowed to choose where they settle down and sprinkle them around the country depending on muslim representation and forcefully break up ghettoes... Muslims should be forced to participate into western society and forced to have a stake in its succes, preferably in a way that is the least fascistic as possible but at this point im very unsure we can still pull this straight with freedom and democracy.
[QUOTE=SebiWarrior;50978593]It is not integration to tell people "sorry but you can wear that, it's against the rules" the burkini means than the "extreme, hateful, violent culture of these barbarians" is trying to compromise with our society without outright abandoning their own culture it doesnt have to be "our way or bust"[/QUOTE] It kind of does have to be "our way or bust" considering if there is no integration, they end up re-creating their own country, the country they escaped from, inside their new country, defeating the point of them leaving. Thus, when generations are born, the loyalty to such a country they were born in, doesn't exist like it does currently. There are some simple rules, immigrants and refugees, must integrate with our society and culture, not the other way around, this is important as the countries they are coming to, which most facepunch users are from, first world countries, typically in alliance with each other have a system that has no reason to change, or step backwards. If we don't meet integration status, we begin to see their own laws attempting to be enforced, or even made legal though our system via making political parties for those purposes in the future. Our systems are built on trust, our systems are built on rights. We don't have a system to handle people not integrating, we've built ourselves rights that are granted to everyone which eventually get turned against us, like we are seeing right here. It is dangerous times when we get new generations following exactly along the old without integration.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.