all 80 comments

[–]Hard_headed_woman 42 insightful - 1 fun42 insightful - 0 fun43 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good. Children have no business hiding their faces. It's their parents who force them to do this, and while I'm generally supportive of parents' rights, we do give up some rights when our kids attend public school.

I don't like hijabs, either, but they don't impede reading facial expressions, and don't reduce little girls to a blob with no identity. If their muslim identity is important to them, they can wear a hijab.

[–][deleted] 31 insightful - 1 fun31 insightful - 0 fun32 insightful - 1 fun -  (13 children)

The thing that worries me is the parents who make their daughters wear those will just keep their daughters out of school and isolated. Idk how to navigate that.

[–]immersang 38 insightful - 1 fun38 insightful - 0 fun39 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

They might try, but then they break the law because school is compulsory in Germany (in case of the state of Baden-Württemberg it's 4 years of elementary school and at least 5 years of secondary school). We don't have homeschooling here (there might be exceptions, but only in very specific cases, and this is not one of them). So, no, technically they cannot just keep them out of school.

[–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Oh wow that's why we need international perspectives. In Canada they'd just take them out of society. Thank you!

[–]immersang 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

In Canada they'd just take them out of society.

The main reason why I'm against homeschooling on a broad scale, by the way. I do think there are cases where this might be the right approach, and those cases should be looked at very carefully. But giving fundamentalist people a carte blanche to essentially isolate their children from other opinions and influences than their own is dangerous. Case in point: I personally know one person who's all for homeschooling and she's a right wing "Christian" type. (I hate even calling this type of person a Christian but that's how they see themselves, I guess.)

[–]loq453 21 insightful - 1 fun21 insightful - 0 fun22 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

In Germany, and most of Europe, homeschooling is illegal. If you don't send your children to school they will be taken away. The only thing they can do is move to another state which doesn't have a burqa ban, or leave Germany completely.

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

That's better than it is here in Canada then. Thank you for explaining!

[–]SharpTomorrow 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The thing that worries me is the parents who make their daughters wear those will just keep their daughters out of school and isolated. Idk how to navigate that.

They would be violating the rights of their children for an education. Zero tolerance for these people.

[–]jkfinn 8 insightful - 7 fun8 insightful - 6 fun9 insightful - 7 fun -  (30 children)

Catholics have never been subject to dress bans, nor have various Protestant sects like the Amish, Shakers, and Quakers so why should Islamic persons, young or old. It just seems part of the long deep western prejudice toward Islam. I would definitely side with that wing of the Green Party that sees these bans as anti-Islam or racist in origin. (Dress traditions are not the same as those that involve physical mutilations, or those demanding the use of force to exact--there’s just no crying need to intervene with outright bans)

[–]weirdthorn 45 insightful - 4 fun45 insightful - 3 fun46 insightful - 4 fun -  (5 children)

Neither of the communities you listed obscures their face and the face is important for human interaction. Niqab and burqa make women faceless.

Btw, the concept behind that: awrah aka intimate parts. For men it's the area between navel and knee, for women everything except face and hands. Basically according to Islam women are walking genitals.

[–]sisterinsomnia 14 insightful - 1 fun14 insightful - 0 fun15 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

There's an inherent conflict between religious rights and women's rights when the religion itself is misogynist (and most are, I think). Religious rights argue that every woman belonging to a certain religion must be allowed to present as submissive etc. as she (or her family) desires, while the women's rights try to point out that the initial reason for some religious rule lies in pure misogyny, often in the idea that women's bodies are all about sex and that it is women who are responsible if men are attracted to those bodies. From the latter angle different religious dress codes for men and women can be sexist, and certainly are if the way women are expected to dress also handicaps them physically, makes it harder for them to communicate with others or to operate cars or machinery, makes it more likely that they die of heat exhaustion and so on.

[–]Lilith_Fair 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Religious rights argue that every woman belonging to a certain religion must be allowed to present as submissive etc. as she (or her family) desires,

This is the one of the biggest gaslighting of all time. Women: "We have the right to have our rights taken away."

[–]DimDroog 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I'm so tired of it.

I just left a cult, that calls itself Buddhist, and even there women are second tier.

[–]Killer_Danish 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

My eyes were really opened up to the nefarious side of Buddhism when I learned about the persecution of Rohingya Muslims in Myanmar by the Buddhist majority.

Really, ANY major religion hands girls and women the short end of the stick or more...

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Okay. Can’t keep them straight.

[–]immersang 38 insightful - 1 fun38 insightful - 0 fun39 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Catholics have never been subject to dress bans, nor have various Protestant sects like the Amish, Shakers, and Quakers

There are no Amish/Shakers/Quakers communities in Germany of a relevant size (or at all), so that's irrelevant for this decision. Don't mix this up with the situation in the US. Also, Catholics don't send their daughters to school covered from head to toe, so not sure why you would bring this up at all.

The ban is on burqas and niqabs, not on the "regular" hijab. The issue is with the face coverings. I find it worrying to say the least that someone would play the "Islamophobia" card in a radical feminist forum when it comes to a decision like this.

[–]jkfinn 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (6 children)

"Islamophobia" is a very modern term--and very false. Centuries of racism cannot be pathologized. And to focus on face covering when every kind of mask is being used and explored to fight a plague seems, at best, poor timing. Nuns and Amish farmers dress is what I had in mind, not Catholic school children. Both are criticized for being dangerous under some situations and unhealthy under others, but no one has ever suggested banning them. (Also, I'm not playing any card... I don't even know how to play cards, and as to this being a radical feminist forum so how dare I... anti-racism is very central to radical feminism and has been from day one)

[–]immersang 29 insightful - 1 fun29 insightful - 0 fun30 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nuns and Amish farmers dress is what I had in mind

Neither nuns nor Amish farmers goes to school, at least not here.

And even if we look at Catholic schools where nuns might teach: They are not covering their face, they are covering their hair. Islamic head coverings aren't prohibited either. So, what's your point?

anti-racism is very central to radical feminism and has been from day one

Yeah just, this has nothing to do with "anti racism". It's cultural relativism. Nice try though.

[–]sisterinsomnia 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I think what matters in this general context is that Muslim men are not required to wear any kind of face covering or even required to cover their hair. I would completely agree with you about this possibly being religious discrimination or even racism if there was no sex difference in who was required to cover their faces.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

But this is your or our valid reason. You can be sure these feminist insights are not moving the ban needle. And if so, why in this case, and not in others? A good example is the citing of the Taliban's sexist policy on women for the US war on Afghanistan when it was the very last consideration for it, if it existed at all in the minds of the war-mongers in the State Dept.

[–]sisterinsomnia 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I have no idea if feminists worked on that particular ban in Germany or not, though I suspect some did. You might be correct in assuming that the rights of the girls themselves did not play a big role in what actually created the ban, though as I said I don't know. But in general groups not caring about women's rights often use women's rights or women's dignity (often opposites) as a pawn in their games. This is true of the US under Bush, of many right-wingers, of the Salafis, of ISIS and so on.

I think the reasons for bans such as this one are probably different for different groups supporting them, ranging from the practical arguments that wearing, say, a burqa, will seriously hamper various normal activities that children should be able to participate in, such as play in the yard (I once observed what this does to a child when one girl stood alone in her long abaya while others, dressed in shorts and t-shirts, played in the climbing frames), to, as you state it, western prejudice of Islam, though these causes can interact in complicated ways if the way girls are supposed to play in the first place is religion-dependent.

[–]weirdthorn 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I sugest you look up Alice Schwarzer, who runs the feminist magazine "Emma" and has been "islamophobic" since the 70ies. Most german libfems despise her.

[–]Marsupial 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Not oppressing women and girls is very central to radical feminism and has been from day one. Cultural relativism is not an excuse to oppress. There is nothing racist about protecting the rights of children. There is also a difference between burqa/niquab and the hijab. The hijab is more debatable since it's merely a hair covering, but the sole intention of the burqa/niqab is to make the girl/woman invisible and don't even show her face. It's an attempt to erase and dehumanize a person simply because of their sex. Nothing that the amish/catholic wear come close to the burqa/niqab. Burqa/niqabs are purely oppressional. There is absolutely no reason they should be accepted.

[–]Realwoman 27 insightful - 1 fun27 insightful - 0 fun28 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Covering someone's face dehumanizes them. It also reduces women and girls to sex objects. A hijab is also very problematic but at least it doesn't dehumanize people.

And religion should be kept out of school. I don't agree with how the Amish are treating their children and I think that's child abuse.

[–]loq453 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

What mandatory clothing do Catholics have? Mentioning nuns is a strawman, nuns are not average women, they are women who willingly chose to join a monastic order. Monks also have rules about what clothes they can wear, so it is not a sex based rule, it is a monastic order rule.

[–]Complicated-Spirit 19 insightful - 2 fun19 insightful - 1 fun20 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

This. A nun is not a child. I don’t understand why sometimes I’ve seen children as young as toddlers in hijab. If the point is to make the female body less sexual to a man (the woman’s responsibility, of course, so she can take the blame if he assaults her), is that saying that even a child’s body is sexual, so long that it is female? It is that important to drive home to a girl child, from her earliest age, that she must cover her body to disallow men from seeing it - and if they do, it’s on her? That’s what’s fucked up.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

' I’ve seen children as young as toddlers in hijab '

That freaked me out, especially since I saw this in a tropical climate country. It's child abuse under such conditions.

' is that saying that even a child’s body is sexual '

Cue all those Islam and pedophilia jokes.

[–]MezozoicGay 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I read Quran and supportive books few times two decades ago, and there is legalized marriage on girls from age of 5-7, and sex is allowed after puberty is ended (in some communities after puberty has started), so it is around 12-16 (and 8-10 for other communities) years. And in some cases sex can be performed even with younger girls if "it will not injure wife". And there were something about that man must feel good first and then only woman, so FGM seems to come from here, even thought it is not mentioned in Quran and most likely even against it, yet FGM is used so "man will always feel good first". And yes, it is always "woman fault" if men are aroused by her presence. I may not remember details, but in broad case it is like that.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

The vast majority of nuns are not monastic. And why is up to Westerners to decide what's consensual or not consensual about Islamic dress traditions.

[–]sisterinsomnia 13 insightful - 1 fun13 insightful - 0 fun14 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

So do you regard such things as human rights, including women's rights as culture-specific rather than universal?

Perhaps the former?

But even if that were the case, it is difficult to define what is consensual about dress traditions which were explicitly created by male clerics over centuries and which have been enforced in, say, Iran, by a theocratic government interpreting those male-created texts.

There is a feminist movement in Iran against the compulsory hijab, by the way, which suggests, as one example, that even Islamic cultures can disagree about what is 'consensual.' Though of course the vast majority of people in most cultures tend not to question their own cultural traditions, in general.

[–]jkfinn 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

One main point of departure here is the way Islamic refugee or immigrant women in European countries have seen their feminist critiques of Islam exploited by their host country to further its own divisive racism toward Islam. And it's always the more radical voices (both feminists and the left) who oppose this position, and the more liberal voices in the controversy who support both the govt's phony feminist concerns and the rewards they hand out to Islamic feminists who go along with them. I hear and agree with the radical anti-racist position, who support the critique but not the way its being manipulated.

[–]SharpTomorrow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

All cultures are not equal. The cultures where women are forced to wear a burqa are certainly inferior to those who do not. Only cultural relativists think otherwise.

[–]Amareldys 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It becomes up to Westerners when it is happening in Western cultures. You can't say, "Well, German women will have equal rights here but Syrian ones will not".

[–][deleted] 11 insightful - 2 fun11 insightful - 1 fun12 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

Amish people in the US have their own schools.

I kind of wish hair coverings were considered acceptable as a non-religious type of clothing. I hate my hair with a passion, and I’d love to cover it with a scarf if I could without people making inferences. Cutting it short wouldn’t be a cure for my aggravation, either.

[–]Realwoman 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Go ahead and do whatever you want.

[–]DimDroog 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Scarf coverings can look really cool.

They used to be quite hip in the 60s and 70s.

It's a shame that people equate them with being religious now.

I rock a scarf b/c I pulled all my hair out.

[–]DimDroog 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It's a shit religion, one of the worse.

I don't give a fuck who practices it, it doesn't make it better just b/c the majority of it's practitioners are not white.

Die mad about it.

You know who really hates Islam?

Iranians.

Islam colonized their country, and is being used as an excuse to oppress them.

I'm also tired of people coming to a country, and expecting them to bow to their regressive customs.

[–]SharpTomorrow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Islam doesn't make the Burqa or Niqab mandatory, so it has absolutely nothing to do with religion at first place, it's a sexist and barbaric practice feminists are right to call out. Cultural relativists are wrong, some cultures are superior to others when it comes to human rights.

And what about islamic prejudice toward women hey? you don't care about that.

[–]SharpTomorrow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Catholics have no mandatory clothes to begin with.

[–]worried19 9 insightful - 1 fun9 insightful - 0 fun10 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good. It makes me sick what people get away with doing to children in the name of religion.

[–]Tortoise 4 insightful - 7 fun4 insightful - 6 fun5 insightful - 7 fun -  (21 children)

As much as I dislike the burqa, it is an infringement on religious freedom to ban it.

[–]Queen_Of_The_Roombas 16 insightful - 1 fun16 insightful - 0 fun17 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

Its not religious freedom to force children to cover head to toe because of your backward ass religion.

[–]Lilith_Fair 11 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 0 fun12 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is not religious freedom since women are forced to wear burqas or else face corporal punishment. Unless you think we shouldn't infringe on the religious freedom of men to control and physically punish women.

[–]Realwoman 7 insightful - 1 fun7 insightful - 0 fun8 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

They're not even womem, they're girls!

[–]Queen_Of_The_Roombas 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yep, and if it's not physical punishment it's intense social pressure.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Whose freedom? Surely not the girls'! It's their parents' freedom to force their daughters to adhere to whatever they wish against their daughters' will. Maybe let the girls decide once they are adults?

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, then we can apply that to a whole bunch of other things, and now we have crossed the line of the state parenting your children, which, in my opinion, goes too far.

[–]DimDroog 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

Fuck those religious customs!

I think it's an infringement on children's rights to force them to practice a religion frankly, any religion!

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

I agree, islam, and I mean all of islam, is bullshit.

But I think this is an overstep by the government. It is not the German governments job to dictate how your children are raised.

[–]immersang 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Right, so if there are people clearly mistreating their children in other ways, forcing them to work for example, then the government also shouldn't do anything, because that's just how these people decide to raise their children? No, we have child labor laws for that and for good reason. Just as we have laws around education to ensure that parents don't just, for example, take their daughters out of school and keep them from receiving an education because their worldview includes "women should just stay home and marry".

The idea that parents always know what's best and should be able to do with their kids however they please is a strange one at best and a highly dangerous one at worst.

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The government let's amish children work.

[–]immersang 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I wish US posters here would understand that not every discussion is focused on their country. Honestly, I love your country, but not everything is about you. This is clearly a discussion about the situation in Germany and we do neither have Amish nor homeschooling nor anything else connected to that (such as children apparently working full time).

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Fair enough, and you should not be running your government based off american opinions just as we should not be running our government off yours.

That being said though, as is the entire internet is filled with people outside of america giving their input on how to run things, so I think its only fair americans can do the same, we just shouls mutually agree we are not going to listen to eachother because America is for the americans and Germany is for the germans.

[–]immersang 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Eh? I’m not telling you you cannot have an opinion on the matter. The only thing I was saying is that you tried to argue based on facts that are not true for Germany, i.e. my comment on child labor laws is somehow not true because the US government allows Amish children to work.

I’m simply asking you to understand that not everything is the same in other countries as it is in yours.

[–]SharpTomorrow 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Feminists don't have to defend religious freedoms, just like they don't have to defend sex work or gender reassignment .

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

No one said you had to defend anything.

No one said I am going to agree with your beliefs fully though.

[–]SharpTomorrow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

No one said I am going to agree with your beliefs fully though.

it is an infringement on religious freedom to ban it.

Well you invoked "freedom of religion", feminists don't have to defend freedom of religion or Islam at first place, a misogynistic religion. Your silly argument could also be applied to FGM, which makes your point preposterous at first place. Islam doesn't mandate the burqa at first place.

I don't have beliefs I have principles. And complaining about "religious freedom" is the least of my worries. Nobody has prevented muslims from believing in Allah in Germany. No religious freedom has been violated.

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I mean, you can always take of a burqua, you cant undo FGM, its not the same.

And all principles are beliefs.

[–]SharpTomorrow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Principles aren't beliefs. Beliefs implies faith, principles do not. Both the burqa and FGM are barbaric and as a feminist I don't have to defend freedom of religion over the fight against misoginy. The Burqa isn't even a religious garment, it's misogynistic and barbaric and should be banned just like FGM.

[–]Tortoise 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

So you have the belief that your principals are more than beliefs.

[–]SharpTomorrow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

So you have the belief that your principals are more than beliefs.

Look up the definition of words, maybe it will help you in life, going forward, you'll sleep smarter.

[–]immersang 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Nobody has prevented muslims from believing in Allah in Germany. No religious freedom has been violated.

Exactly. Just when some religious custom is at odds with the law, that's where religious freedom ends. As it should. For example, shechita without sedating the animal first is prohibited under German animal welfare laws.

[–]Amareldys 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

They can get around it with facemasks.

[–]Coconaut 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

a fair bit of irony here.

[–]Amareldys 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ironic? Me? Never!

[–]SharpTomorrow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

You've never looked at a burqa. It has a grid which covers even the eyes of women. A facemask doesn't do that.

[–]Amareldys 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I was being snarky.

[–]Shesstealthy 2 insightful - 3 fun2 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 3 fun -  (5 children)

Well all that accomplishes is shutting girls and women out of education.

[–]weirdthorn 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, it doesn't. There is no homeschooling in Germany.

[–]MezozoicGay 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

It is illegal in Europe and kids would be taken forcibely to school and hospital if parents are refusing to give them education or healthcare. Children are not mature enough to make their own descisions, as they are not aware about a lot of things and can not do their own waged descisions. So parents refusing to give basic human rights to kids is considered as rights infridgement and child abuse.

[–]Amareldys 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

It isn't illegal in all of Europe.

[–]MezozoicGay 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Well, I meant EU, but sadly yes, not all countries are trying to protect vulnereable members of demographics. Some countries are abusing them instead.

[–]SharpTomorrow 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, the girls forced to wear burqas and niqabs were already shut out of any social life to begin with.

[–]DimDroog 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Good.

[–]SharpTomorrow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

good, fuck Islam.