Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Leafsnail]

I really doubt she was wearing a full burqa to school, but if she was, then I apologise for being wrong.

Interesting fact: France banned the wearing of burqas.  Number of women in France who wore burqas before the legislation: 0.

And I've told them,much to their disgust, that this "pride" is Stockholm Syndrome. I get it, I really do. They are proud of something in their heritage. That's fine except they don't really seem to get it. That thing in their heritage is the result of oppression and Saudi Arabia's modern laws reflect the ancient trends of that oppression. After all, Saudi Arabia is where Islam began with Mecca and Medina as Holy Cities (I'm not even going to touch Jerusalem).

Where do you think those laws came from? Where do you think the garment came from? It is a direct link?

It doesn't need to be heritage based.  Some people might just, y'know, like to cover themselves up.

[Kay12]

I don't really get the point of school uniforms. Is there actually a reason the hypothetical girl here shouldn't be allowed to wear whatever she damn well pleases?

I don't live in America, but I've heard stories of people getting kicked out of schools for any religious symbols. Including rings with hardly noticeable symbols.

For the sake of the rules, not for the sake of good.

Yeah, I've heard rumours of that. I'm not sure if I actually believe them. It sounds fairly silly. Here in Finland, trying to stop students from sporting religious symbols would probably clash with the whole freedom-of-religion thing. Honestly, I thought America had something like that going on as well. Isn't there something in the constitution about not banning religions?

Religious freedom is bound to clash with the laws. It's not like you can go and murder your neighbor and get away with it because some musty old tome or the voices in your head says so. Religion CANNOT give you exceptions or special treatment. Everyone has to be treated equal.

And someone asked why there are school uniforms; I think it's because of bullying. Which is okay reason for me, because kids are likely to judge each other by their clothes. Which is stupid. Whether school uniforms are good or bad is another topic.

Just a couple of questions: If a Muslim girl goes to a school, and wants to wear the bhurka, she should be able to wear one but only in the colours of the school. That sound right? And if that girl can wear a bhurka, shouldn't another girl be allowed to wear her cross?

In my opinion, in a free country, a person should be able to express him/herself with clothing freely (as long as said clothing covers the "naughty areas" of the culture in question). On the other hand, clothing that covers the face has a problem in functionality, as ID checks, for example, require one's face to be visible.

In any case, while I'm not a religious type myself, I never understood why forcing people to not wear religious symbols promotes religious harmony. By that logic, painting everyone blue promotes racial harmony.

Why are suddenly "naughty areas" supposed to be covered? Aren't you just saying that people should be able to wear whatever they want, as long as they wear what you say? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?

Why do you say so? Do you dispute the existence of "naughty areas"? If they don't exist in various cultures, how come every culture has some kind of dress code?

[scriver]

I doubt he's disputing their "existence". More he's asking you why it matters.

[Bauglir]

Why do you say so? Do you dispute the existence of "naughty areas"? If they don't exist in various cultures, how come every culture has some kind of dress code?

But they vary from culture to culture. If you require that all culture's "naughty areas" be covered, then you essentially mandate a burqa. If you mandate that only those areas considered "naughty" in all cultures be covered, then at best you mandate only thongs and, I suspect, you actually require nothing at all.

[Kay12]

Why do you say so? Do you dispute the existence of "naughty areas"? If they don't exist in various cultures, how come every culture has some kind of dress code?

But they vary from culture to culture. If you require that all culture's "naughty areas" be covered, then you essentially mandate a burqa. If you mandate that only those areas considered "naughty" in all cultures be covered, then at best you mandate only thongs and, I suspect, you actually require nothing at all.

That's why it's good most areas have a dominant culture that determines the acceptable dress (and behavior) in a certain area. My first post about the "naughty areas" said as long as said clothing covers the "naughty areas" of the culture in question.

[Bauglir]

Point. Maaaan, I suck.

[Hiiri]

Why do you say so? Do you dispute the existence of "naughty areas"? If they don't exist in various cultures, how come every culture has some kind of dress code?

But they vary from culture to culture. If you require that all culture's "naughty areas" be covered, then you essentially mandate a burqa. If you mandate that only those areas considered "naughty" in all cultures be covered, then at best you mandate only thongs and, I suspect, you actually require nothing at all.

That's why it's good most areas have a dominant culture that determines the acceptable dress (and behavior) in a certain area. My first post about the "naughty areas" said as long as said clothing covers the "naughty areas" of the culture in question.

In the modern world, there is no such thing as "culture in question" as people mix more and more. And even if there was, there are as many interpretations of the culture as there are people.

All I was saying, is that if we're supposed to have the freedom to wear what we want, we have the freedom to choose what not to wear also. You have to be consistent, if you want to treat people equally.

I'm all in for freedom to wear what you want on your own time; but not in a school or a workplace, if it gives some greater advantages (like anti-bullying).

[Kay12]

I disagree. If anything is becoming more common, it's Western culture. And Western culture, while permissive, had the biggest freak-out ever a few years ago when a pop singer's nipple flashed in a show accidentally.

Yes, naughty bits still exist, like it or not.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

They only exist to the people who get worked up about them, being that they are a mental construct.

I do not care about other people's state of dress/undress. Absolutely no effect on my life, I have far more important things to spend my days worrying about.

[Hiiri]

I disagree. If anything is becoming more common, it's Western culture. And Western culture, while permissive, had the biggest freak-out ever a few years ago when a pop singer's nipple flashed in a show accidentally.

Yes, naughty bits still exist, like it or not.

Yup, they do, and it's relative. But it's not my place to tell them to cover it up if they don't want to in a public area. I don't have to like it, but it's still not up to me.

[G-Flex]

In the modern world, there is no such thing as "culture in question" as people mix more and more. And even if there was, there are as many interpretations of the culture as there are people.

All I was saying, is that if we're supposed to have the freedom to wear what we want, we have the freedom to choose what not to wear also. You have to be consistent, if you want to treat people equally.

I understand the sentiment here, but it's slightly misguided. The fact remains that any society will in fact have some level of culturally normative trends to it that people are expected to follow. Multiculturalism is a good thing, but any coherent society (e.g. a nation) needs some level of unifying culture to function, along with the standards of behavior reflecting them.

This isn't to say I entirely agree with how much the US seems to freak out over someone seeing a boob now and then, but cultural relativism only goes so far.

They only exist to the people who get worked up about them, being that they are a mental construct.

The entirety of culture is only a "mental construct". Mental constructs are pretty important!

[MetalSlimeHunt]

any coherent society (e.g. a nation) needs some level of unifying culture to function, along with the standards of behavior reflecting them.

I want some proof of this, actually. I see absolutely no reason why you need a "unifying culture" for a society.

They only exist to the people who get worked up about them, being that they are a mental construct.

The entirety of culture is only a "mental construct". Mental constructs are pretty important!

Culture isn't always a good thing, and it can be a very bad thing indeed. It was part of the Confederate States of America's culture to buy and keep slaves, but that didn't make it alright. The Nazis were a culture, and there's virtually nothing good about them.

[G-Flex]

any coherent society (e.g. a nation) needs some level of unifying culture to function, along with the standards of behavior reflecting them.

I want some proof of this, actually. I see absolutely no reason why you need a "unifying culture" for a society.

You don't think laws, government, or standards of behavior at all are part of a unifying culture?

What we consider legal or illegal, how we decide to run our schools or economy, what regulations we have, etc., are all part of culture. The entire social and economic and legal system that we have, including the assumptions that it relies upon (be they arbitrary or not), our language(s) and how we use it (or them), are a part of a unifying culture. A society without a unifying culture is completely anarchistic.

Culture isn't always a good thing, and it can be a very bad thing indeed. It was part of the Confederate States of America's culture to buy and keep slaves, but that didn't make it alright. The Nazis were a culture, and there's virtually nothing good about them.

I didn't imply otherwise. Of course a given culture can be improved (although "improvement" can be rather subjective in most cases), and should be over time.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

any coherent society (e.g. a nation) needs some level of unifying culture to function, along with the standards of behavior reflecting them.

I want some proof of this, actually. I see absolutely no reason why you need a "unifying culture" for a society.

You don't think laws, government, or standards of behavior at all are part of a unifying culture?

It's the standards of behavior part that gets me. There are very few behaviors that I'd seek to have our society try and standardize (don't kill, don't steal, the usual stuff, etc.). Whenever you say "unifying culture", the image that immediately enters my mind is a million mindless uniformed citizens marching in lockstep and making sure no one ever rocks the boat. Perhaps I'm just biased. 

[Virex]

You're probably biased towards the anti-cultural culture that's been all the rage amongst some groups lately