you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

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

[–]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.