BB guestblogger Aman Ali's post about a modest bathing suit designed by Muslim women for Muslim women has sparked debate. At the time of this post, I'm also seeing that an anonymous Muslim woman has voiced her thoughts in the thread, and I encourage you to go read. She ends: "I own a burqini and LOVE IT."
Still, some non-Muslim commenters in the related thread take the position that "modest swimsuits" such as the burqini are a form of Muslim oppression against women. I think that's a silly, narrow, and factually inaccurate position.
I thought it might be helpful to point out a few related Western apparel websites:
* Stitchin' Times Women's Swimsuits
* Lilies of the Field: Modest Women's Apparel
* Simply Modest Swimwear Solutions
...and, I want to point out this series of posts about Victorian Bathing Machines, contraptions that allowed 18th century folks in England to bathe in the sea while adhering to the cultural norms of the era. Above, one proponent of modest sea-bathing in that era.
My point, such as it is: why must our first reaction to stuff like a Boing Boing post about burqinis be to judge or condemn? You may or may not choose to wear one, but the world doesn't revolve around you. I believe it is more fruitful to try and learn about and appreciate cultural differences than to get all flustered about whether or not you approve.
The commenter who loves her burqini (or any one of the smiling American customers on this "modesty swimsuit" website) does not care what you think about her garments or her beliefs. Nor should she.
Let all forms of happy mutancy prevail. (Thanks, Clayton Cubitt)
A welcome addition to the discussion already underway. Thanks for adding another perspective to the topic.
Exactly! Let a thousand swimsuits bloom!
yay happy mutants!
Thank you : )
Would muslim women wear a bikini right on the spot if they had the chance to do so?
I don't think so.
A burquini might not be a bikini bit it is definitely not a burqua either.
Try to see it this way for a second:
Every journey begins with a single step
Gereon
I think there's a lot of mix up about thoughts on the matter as social issue and one of individual choice. On a global basis? Purdahs/burquas/chadors are nothing short of obscene, in my view. On an individual level? Rock on, girl, if that's what you want. I was shooting the Philly Women's Triathlon a couple of years ago, and remember a few women coming across the line in burqinis. You know what? They had the biggest fucking smiles on their faces, and so did their cheering families. And that's all good.
I forgot to add to the post that I just left the airport, and saw a lady in full head-to-toe black covering, only the eyes showing, walking with a group of men from the international terminal to the parking lot. I thought about Aman's blog post.
As a woman who does not shave her legs or armpits in Canada, I am very aware of the ridiculous cultural expectations of our society. What's even stranger to me is the perception that the unmodified human body is somehow 'gross'
In the previous thread, the ridicule about the politician wearing sneakers instead of brogues, even minor details of fashion are required for any participation in society -- you couldn't wear a seventies suit today either.
Think about the ridicule, too, attached to socks-and-sandals! It just goes on and on...
The problem that has so many up in arms, I believe is that we (the people who look at the Burqini with condemnation) don't want this to be come the norm. The muslim world would love nothing more than sharia law to be imposed across the planet and people are afraid they will get their wish. Personally I go out to beaches and check out chicks all the time, those chicks and my wife who points them out seem to have no problem with this. Really a lot of enjoyment of the human body would be lost of these puritanical christian, muslim, religious what have you rules came back. Not to mention as you can see a lot of people believe, as I do, that this is one more thing that holds a woman down. The believe that she MUST follow this rule of dress as if she isn't her own person.
Please point out how many beaches youve been to in your life and seen the Modesty Swimsuits in the site you posted on any woman. For the record the Europeans are laughing at us as it is because of the level of shame Americans have of the human body.
Thanks :)
Thank you Xeni, for saying so well what I was thinking.
I am sexually aroused by the mere thought of women in burqinis.
I don't mind if people dress modestly to swim at the beach. I hope they don't mind if I show up to skinny dip. To each his own.
The author of this post misses an important point: non-fundamentalist women of all religious persuations have a real choice. When they choose modest apparel, they do so because they prefer it, not because their religion dictates they must wear it or face dire earthly consequences. In fundamentalist versions of many religions, there is almost always an enforced dress code (to be fair, in several of them it is for both sexes). The "choice" fundamentalist women have is to wear modest apparel or stay home. However, if they love it, they should have a right to wear the burkini, just like in our western society we can wear or not wear what we decide.
The problem I would have with it: a fundamentalist majority deciding that this is the dress code I must follow if I want to leave my house. This is already the case in many countries where there is a fudamentalist majority. I believe in a God that does not let me impose my religious beliefs on others.
I actually thought the debate was relatively civil and thought provoking, for the most part.
Big props to Aman for stoking the fire, so to speak.
The fact that we can have a (mostly) adult conversation about social norms is one of the reasons I love this place.
I would just add this:
An individual, making an individual choice? Fine.
An individual being made to "choose" based on threat of violence, shunning, or worse from her community? Not fine.
Problem is you can never know which is which just by looking at someone, especially in the U.S. where there is relatively high personal freedom. If we were in Saudi Arabia, you could say with 100% certainty that at least *some* of those women are completely miserable, being made to live constricted lives. Others are probably as happy as clams.
Simultaneously and for reasons I can not fathom, the cultures that inhabit this land seemed to have developed an andro-centrism that rivaled the most misogynistic cultures in the world.
Time passed. Centuries. Nothing much changed.
Having arrived at the twenty first century the question is not "Is the hijab a matter of choice for any particular woman." but "Who own the right to make decisions about apparel for a woman in general." It matters not that Madam X is happier wearing a burqini in Hawaii, it matters that Madame Y may not wear a Target swim suit in Kuwait.
Why? To put a very fine point on it, it is because while every every other culture in the world has come to the realization that god, or the gods, are not necessarily real, do not cause skin cancer, sun poisoning, heat stroke, and all other maladies that afflict humanity, for some reason the peoples of the middle east have not figured this out. Further more, because god is not right there, enforcing his "law" they use social coercion from the mild to the brutal, to keep people, women, in their place.
So, don't tell me that you, individual A, are perfectly happy in your burqini and feel liberated wearing it, until your sister can tell me she feels the same way about wearing her bikini in the UAE.
Ok, I've gone this far; let me add insult to injury. I said above that "nothing much changed." but one thing did. One tribe of these desert people migrated in large numbers to Europe, changed their calendar to a Solar cycle, studied Maths, science, music & literature and helped create the enlightenment. The Jews will never be forgiven for this transgression, they removed the burqini of the mind.
Um, sorry I seemed to have cut off my first paragraph (post no. 13)
A long time ago, when the deserts of norther Africa and the Mid or Near East were populated by nomadic tribes the toxicity of solar radiation was quickly realized. The nature of the danger, however, was not understood, because covered people seemed to do better than those exposed to the elements issues of modesty and sexuality quickly became bound up in the beliefs about appropriate clothing.
I read through the comments in the original post and got to Xeni's comment that the previous posts were "vitriolic" and "hysteric." I didn't find them that way. I've been reading boingboing for several years, and typically enjoy it because respectful discussions are allowed and encouraged. Freaking out because does not share your same degree of cultural relativism is not consistent with what I had thought of as the BB community vibe.
Full disclosure, I am a white male from the USA. I am left leaning in my political and social beliefs. But I'm also bugged by environments wherein levelheaded discussion of some issues is verboten.
Marya@13, I am not sure you are saying what you mean to be saying.
1) I'm not a Jew, but I'm pretty sure there are a lot of Jews who have not "come to the realization that god, or the gods, are not necessarily real".
2) Some of those Jews require special clothing, which by and large means women must dress modestly, e.g. http://www.biblicalgarden.com/modesty.html
3) The Middle East did pretty well holding up their end of intellectual advancement while Europe was floundering around in the Dark Ages, what with algebra and astronomy and arabic numerals and all.
4) Don't be a craptacular bigot — be cool.
@19
darn beat me too it. v good points. I'll be flippant instead and mention Abdul Alhazred, though I doubt he was concerned much with burqinis.
Also, since it does not appear to have been said:
In referencing 18th century England, there is the implication that the cultural norms of those times were oppressive. And, accordingly, since "we" have at one point in our history had similarly restrictive rules on women's swimwear, we are in no position to criticize Muslim law.
The thing that this overlooks is the fact that western society has changed since 18th c. England. Just as we shouldn't use other peoples' worst behavior as a justification for our own retaliation ("they destroyed the twin towers, let's bomb them into the stone age" etc), we shouldn't use our own low points as a standard above which critical commentary of other cultures/nations/etc is not allowed.
rossmcd,
Did you just describe Xeni's use of 'vitriolic' as 'freaking out'?
Here is a cool website on dress - this link is specifically religious dress but it's an awesome reference for the history of dress and all sorts of things costume related! http://www.costumes.org/history/100pages/religious_costume.htm
From the OP: "You may or may not choose to wear one, but the world doesn't revolve around you."
I think this is the point. I may or may not choose to wear one. I have this choice.
To champion THIS as a defender of choice and freedom is ridiculous.
Wearing something deemed immodest in conservative Muslim parts of the world could result in severe punishment or violent death. Were a man to wear something equally immodest, he may be repremanded, but five'll get you ten he ain't going to be hit, much less stoned to death.
The world doesn't revolve around me, or around anyone who objects to these specific outfits, but the world, the full lifetime of experiences, does in fact revolve around sexist, violent, oppressive rules for many women in the world.
This is the objection many have. It's an objection to a systemic oppression of which this is simply a single, seemingly benign expression, the tip of a very large iceberg.
You may certainly be able to find happy Muslim women satisfied with their lot in life. You can also find dead women, killed because of some infraction such as being raped.
@21:
As I said in the other article, in the 20th and 21st century, it is the male population of the western world that is facing restrictive rules.
Not much has changed.
Ahhhhh... Xeni, thank-you. I had to stop reading the comments in the original thread. They were very one-sided, close minded and, quite frankly, ignorant. Not that all of them were... however I was surprised at how many were. It was actually uncomfortable to read them... like watching the first 10 minutes of Crash (2004).
People need to get out and explore more of the world, yo!
JTegnell@24, if I understand you correctly, you're saying that because there are places in America where I could get beat up for wearing this T-shirt —
http://www.zazzle.com/funny_jesus_loves_you_t_shirt-235627481381282299
— then nobody should ever wear that T-shirt?
There are women in this country whose husbands would beat them if they wore a slinky red dress out with their girlfriends. Should no women wear slinky red dresses until all husbands stop beating their wives?
@25
>the male population of the western world that is facing restrictive rules.
hmm. you still have male privilege, and if you're straight and white, you have those too. so boo hoo, I am so in tears.
@Marya
A long time ago, when the deserts of norther{sic} Africa and the Mid or Near East were populated by nomadic tribes the toxicity of solar radiation was quickly realized. The nature of the danger, however, was not understood, because covered people seemed to do better than those exposed to the elements...
An interesting theory of the evolution of clothing, but how would you explain the far less modest dress of other cultures exposed to strong sunlight. Surely the pressures that would drive modest dress would be the same in similar environments?
As for andro-centrism...we are minutes away from a time when the person in charge was usually the biggest meanest person around. Since we are a sexually dimorphic species this was usually a man. As sad and stupid as that is, I think it is that simple.
Well said, #24 @JTegnell: choice is good, coercion is not.
"It's an objection to a systemic oppression of which this is simply a single, seemingly benign expression, the tip of a very large iceberg."
I understand. But is that not itself a possible iceberg-tip ? How often in arguments (often on feminist issues) do I hear "Yes, you should have a choice, but the choice you've made isn't a valid free choice because you are a tool of patriarchy, brainwashed, etc."?
Like free speech, we should, while watchful for hidden agendas, be willing to defend those choices we specifically don't like. Or else we wind up becoming the oppressors. Well meaning, but oppressors.
My choice, even if it IS stupid or not in my best interests should still be MY choice and defended as such.
@22
I am referring to two things. First was accusing previous commenters in the other post of hysteria and vitriol. Second is writing this follow-up post essentially telling people why their opinions don't count. However whether or not you would consider that to be "freaking out" is immaterial to the points that I was trying to make.
Back in the 17th Century, naked lady-breasts in the streets of Europe were a sign of class and virtue:
http://web.archive.org/web/20050925082515/http://dsc.discovery.com/news/briefs/20040517/breasts.html
The Long Now is so full of this crazy mixture of repression and expression in the form of clothes, I can't wait to see what us mad monkeys will stick on next.
So, yeah, personal choice is good, oppression is bad, and what constitutes either is part of the Conversation of the Ages, and we all have to maintain a lot more about respect for each other as we sort these great questions out.
Marya @# 16: So, don't tell me that you, individual A, are perfectly happy in your burqini and feel liberated wearing it, until your sister can tell me she feels the same way about wearing her bikini in the UAE.
By the way, Marya, you have to follow your own logic now: Put down the internet until you have physically freed a family of slaves. Plenty of those still around, because the practice has never yet gone away. Or does your just feeling bad about it count for more? You might want to clarify that, if only to yourself.
...and, I want to point out this series of posts about Victorian Bathing Machines, contraptions that allowed 18th [sic] century folks in England to bathe in the sea while adhering to the cultural norms of the era.
Would this be the same *19th* century Victorian culture that considered a woman's place to be in the home, and which didn't allow the fairer sex either suffrage or full inheritance rights?
My point, such as it is: why must our first reaction to stuff like a Boing Boing post about burqinis be to judge or condemn?
Probably because of the *other* baggage that goes with the culture that produces such ideas as the burqini. You know, like child/forced marriage, or stoning for adultery, or a woman's testimony in court only having half the worth of a man's.
"Cover thyself woman!" generally has a lot of other negative attitudes to women riding alongside it.
Interesting to hear what a few women think of this, since it effects them more than it does men like me.
It seems (to me) that the burquini is a metaphor for religion itself.
Should one choose to abide by its strictures of one's own accord, all is as it should be.
Conversely, should one have no (or superficial) choice in how one must abide out of fear of punishment for transgression - not so much.
Yes?
american versions for the steam punk set are here:
http://www.ladiesemporium.com/store/ladies_swimwear.php?from=leftnav&__utma=1.798120970.1254017240.1254017240.1254017240.1&__utmb=1.1.10.1254017240&__utmc=1&__utmx=-&__utmz=1.1254017240.1.1.utmcsr=google|utmccn=(organic)|utmcmd=organic|utmctr=gentleman%27s%20emporium&__utmv=-&__utmk=227201693
at the gentlemens emporium
not to mention the men's one peice suit (boater hat and handlebar moustache optional_)
@14:
The fact that we can have a (mostly) adult conversation about social norms is one of the reasons I love this place.
Without a doubt, bb has one of the most sophisticated audiences on the internet. Used to be that you had to go to some kind of bottleneck place nobody knew about (I'm thinking of GEnie's old sci-fi roundtables) to keep things at a higher level. Somehow, bb self-selects.
I know I come here for the audience: does bb have stats on how many viewers become commenters?
Seriously, just an awesome post.
At a guess, I'd presume the real reason for having women in your culture cover themselves is the notion that a lustful man is approximately as dangerous as a loaded gun.
This isn't so much a problem in far western society since sex is fairly easy to come by even outside of marriage-- lust is safe. Stigmatize extramarital sex, and make marriage relatively difficult, and it's not necessarily a good idea to keep waving the meat in front of the hungry bear.
Horny men do stupid, violent things. Covering the women isn't a fair solution to them, but it's a solution that adds societal stability.
Just for comparison, I used to drive a limo and passengers would scold me because I held the steering wheel with two hands instead of one.
High school students are ejected from the grounds for wearing their shirt tails outside their pants.
I have met people who would refuse to do business with a man whose heels were worn, even slightly.
There is very little choice in fashion, and almost no tolerance.
rossmcd,
Just pointing out that the Hyperbole Sword has two edges.
At a guess, I'd presume the real reason for having women in your culture cover themselves is the notion that a lustful man is approximately as dangerous as a loaded gun.
Yeah, but an unloaded gun is...
Say, why haven't we tried more castration lately? It was all rage once.
Heh heh. All the rage.
I kill me.
You hit the nail on the head Xeni-- the norms of the 18th century exactly...
Fun times for women-- virtually no birth control, little or no control over your own money or property after marriage, and lets not forget norms of modesty that gave any "out of control male' carte blanche to just go for it using the reasoning that he was "driven mad".
I remember reading an article about fashion in Bagdad, a woman interviewed bragged that under their burkas local women were sporting cutting edge designs...
No thanks.
I'm kind of disappointed in the lack of clarity of thought in this post. As other commenters have noted, if you want to CHOOSE to wear a burqua, go nuts, enjoy yourself, and the burquini is an interesting little curiosity. But the vast majority of women who wear burquas are OBLIGED to wear them by men, on threat of violent punishment and social exclusion. And I'm frankly offended by the concurrent assumption that men like myself are uncontrollable rape machines that can only be stopped by restricting the freedoms of others. This seems extremely unhealthy (at the least), same as, for example, the abstinence education that American conservative Christians advocate and that has probably at some point been mocked on BoingBoing. I would expect it to be only fair for Islam to get the same secular stink-eye that fundamentalist Christians get (and deserve).
This is indeed an interesting discussion...I do find statements like this "Unaffected modesty is
the sweetest charm of female excellence,
the richest gem in the diadem of her honor." a bit offensive (or more just annoying) on these sites - pushing the idea that this somehow makes you better or more female. At least pushing specific standards of "femininity". That said, I'm sure there are lots of women out there who don't make their way to the beach or the pool because they don't feel comfortable baring most of their body in public. That makes more modest bathing suits liberating in my book - being able to go swimming and be comfortable do it.
@45- PJK- There's no assumption that men like yourself are uncontrollable rape machines. Men unlike yourself, however, can be. I forget where the poll was about how many men admitted that if they had the opportunity to rape an unconscious woman (Sorority girl passed out on the pool table at the frat house, say) they'd take it.
Bear in mind, it's not just rapin' and pillagin' here, too. Tribal cultures can get into some fairly severe bloodshed over adultery and parentage issues.
"You screwed my wife...I guess we'll either work through it or get a divorce" is a view much more tolerant of sexual frolicking and temptation than "You screwed my wife. I'm going to kill her, kill you, and probably any of your family that get in my way. They in turn will seek revenge, as perhaps will my wife's family."
In any case, safe outlets for sexual desire can probably undercut the problem...but aren't compatible with a moral system that suggests that "free love" is a bad thing.
I'm not sure bringing up that 18th century European dress was as conservative as modern day Muslim garb is exactly the argument you want to make. I think most of us recognize the 18th century was quite repressive towards women and encouraged a level of shame towards oneself and one's body that is now considered extremely harmful.
So unless you were trying to make the point that Muslims are 3 centuries behind and we should shun them just like we would if somehow 18th century England suddenly reappeared, I suggest you take a different tact.
Woops, that should be a different tack.
When you are talking about a free and open society such as the US or (supposedly) France, then there is no excuse to criticize or restrict by law the choice anyone might make to wear clothing that is more modest than the mainstream standard. If a person is pressured into exposure they are not comfortable with (FOR WHATEVER REASON) then this is no different than being forced to wear a burqa in the Arab world. In fact, I would say worse--because exposure of the female body is connected with sexual titillation, and if a person is not a willing participant in this exchange, it's abhorrent--much worse than a simple repression of individual expression. If we are at all serious about believing in freedom, then we should not care in the least what people wear to the beach or the pool, beyond basic considerations of safety and whether it affects others. If you enjoy looking at others' bodies, then you should support people having a choice about exposure, so that you can look at people who are willing to be looked at.
I myself practice a form of yoga where it is common to wear very little clothing. However, there is a great variation in how comfortable people are with exposure, and it is very common that some people will sacrifice physical comfort for modesty, whereas others are very comfortable with their bodies and do not care or even notice if others are looking. I am sure that if some of the modest swimwear linked above were more commercially available, that many western women would love to wear it. Buying a swimsuit, even a one-piece, can be rather traumatizing, and many women would feel more "liberated" if they did not have to think about other people checking out their upper thighs or whatever. Many people are also choosing swim shirts and pants for sun protection, so there is no reason to read any oppression into the existence of these garments. Rather, I would say they are a long time coming. (And my own tendencies are rather more to the exhibitionist side of things, actually. I just like people to have choices.)
@Cicada
Prior to the (beginning of) acceptance of women's rights and the widespread availability of female contraceptives, were there any moral systems that suggested "free love" was a good thing?
But the vast majority of women who wear burquas are OBLIGED to wear them by men, on threat of violent punishment and social exclusion.
Link?
The constant advancement of this idea that ALL Muslim women are subject to fundamentalist interpretation of Islam is starting to move from annoying to intellectually insulting.
Do a large number of women in the Islamic world suffer from oppressive religious control? Sure. Is it to a degree where we can just assume it's fact? That there are basically no educated, liberated Muslim women that choose a burqa or hijab out of personal modesty?
Puh-lease.
As a bleeding-heart, secular liberal, it's this kind of "OMG U RNT EVEN FREE ENUF TO KNO U R BEING OPPRESSIVIZED" that allows the principle of tolerance to be mocked and delegitimized.
@49- Danlalan- Good question. However, given that we now have contraception some of the underlying assumptions of the stigma can be reexamined. If you don't have to worry as much about raising a cuckoo in your nest, the worry about infidelity is lessened.
Okay, I am totally disturbed by the Lillies of the Field link. The front picture looks like those poor brainwashed fundamental Mormon women from that ranch from a while back.
"It's not.. a compound! It's our ranch and it's our home!"
But, on the topic, I think it's totally okay to wear whatever you want. As long as it is equally okay to be totally naked. :)
I'm very grateful for this post. I had to stop reading the comments on the previous burkini post because they were making me ill.
It's nuts how many people seem to think that if a woman is 'liberated' she would *obviously* find it acceptable to appear almost naked in public. There are plenty of us who fight against the kyriarchy while also refusing, for any of a variety of reasons, to put our bodies on display. For many of us, it does not demonstrate body 'shame', but rather, love and appreciation of our bodies and selves, as well as respect for others who are trying to reduce their lustful thoughts about others so that they may better see all people as manifestations of the divine.
jere7my@19,
Read carefully and you might be more sure of what I said. Did I really say anywhere:
Jews...have..."come to the realization that god, or the gods, are not necessarily real".
Nope, I didn't think so.
In re your point number 3, The Middle East did have a rather developed civilization, alas, before Islam. Say what you like, but the west really did do a rather nice job with the Enlightenment.
Finally, you're the one casting aspersions, and you're telling me to be cool? Riiiight.
@danlalan,
I would surmise that the amount of protection one would have to wear as protection from UV light would correlate directly to the amount of melanin in ones skin.
I agree about H. sapiens sexual dimorphism, it has caused us no end of trouble as we try to reconcile the world as it is with power relations between ourselves. This used to really bother me as a girl, which is how I got into the study of anthropology in the first place. Then it stopped bothering me for a while, now it bothers me again, alot, go figure.
@Yamara, I really haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about.
I have to personally liberate slaves because I happen to have noticed that sharia law, where it is practiced, provides no alternative to the local interpretation of the theocracy. How's that work?
Ciao,
Marya
#50 - When I write this, I'm thinking of my experiences growing up around fundamentalist Christians who had the same "values" regarding modesty. It's never really a choice, as you'll get booted from the community if you make the wrong one. I'm sure there are plenty of enlightened Muslim women out there who wear burquas or head coverings because they want to. Good for them. But based on my understanding of the way coercive religious communities work (and the fact that entire countries make it illegal for women to dress "immodestly"), I don't think it's at all a stretch to generalize that most women who dress according to strictly-enforced community standards (Muslim, Hasidic Jew, Menonite Christian, whatever) are not really choosing. Is that a good or a bad thing? I don't know, it's complicated. But while it's tough to make a sweeping judgment, I will say that I wouldn't wish anything forced on anyone else that I wouldn't want forced on myself or my family. That doesn't mean that I agree with France banning certain kinds of dress, but it does mean that I tend to look askance at the men in conservative religious communities who dominate, control, and coerce the women.
I would SO wear this, just sayin.
and this is an awesome blog.
That anyone associated with a modern western blog would act as an apologist for Islam is simply stunning.
I also find those who repeatedly state that a liberated women has no need of modesty as putting forward a false arguement.
This is not about modesty, but institutionalized shame, dysfunctional sexuality, misogyny and control, in other words theocratic dictatorships.
Lets listen to another muslim woman, Ayaan Hirsi Ali. One who is not anonymous. One who is in fact under protection because of death threats due to her beliefs and her insistence in speaking out for real freedom of choice for all muslim women. This security is mentioned around 7:30.
http://www.theahafoundation.org/
http://fora.tv/2007/07/06/Is_Islam_Compatible_with_Liberal_Democracy#fullprogram
So, what have we learned after all those discussions? Because, isn't learning the only useful point of discussing? Otherwise, if we make
convincing the point of the discussion it has the very same effect as refusing to discuss, only noisier.
The burqini lover loves her burqini because it suits her religion, which is a way of life built on myth and set of life rules rationalized by a combination of magic and nonsense.
She says her religion gives her the option to wear a burqini, but anyone can wear a burqini. Anyone can also not wear a burqini without feeling like they're violating the tenents of their centuries-old made-up magical rules.
If she didn't believe that the FSM or equivalent fictional magical entity would reward the end of her existence because she wore an impractical pantsuit while she was in water, she would hate her burqini, because it makes swimming difficult and it's uncomfortable.
She is clearly not a weak, pitiful invalid incapable of making her own decisions, but that doesn't mean she isn't irrational because of her religion, just like the cited modern "modest" swimwear fans and 18th-century Victorian bathers aren't irrational because of their blind adherence to irrational moral standards.
"Why must our first reaction to stuff like a Boing Boing post about burqinis be to judge or condemn?" Well, why must every post Cory makes about DRM be to judge or condemn it? Because it's clearly irrational, and the only people who don't agree either stand to benefit from it or honestly believe - in their strong, capable, thoughtful minds - that they own a burqini, and they LOVE it.
I had a long rant but what's the point. Women in a free society can wear what they want as long as it is their own decision.
What this truly shows is the hypocrisy and final death throws of the Feminist movement in America. You excuse and praise the repression of women in Islam but damn it in all other aspects of society. If it was a Christian bathing suit, you would damn it, want it burned, complaining that it sets back women 100 years.
Allah Akbar! I understand you want to prepare us for our eventual overlords when we are forced to covert to Islam or die, but jeez, not yet.
I'm done here. You're over the edge.
Do what you want, be who you are.
@IAMINNOCENT
Sometimes I learn the most about the weaknesses of my thoughts (and am therefore able to improve and refine my ideas) when arguing strenuously for a position. And watching others argue their points is almost always instructive, IMO, even if it isn't always pleasant.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574398290365247498.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Nail,
Pick a thread. You can't post identical comments in two current threads.
Ayaan Hirsi Ali a muslim woman speaks out despite death threats.
http://fora.tv/2007/07/06/Is_Islam_Compatible_with_Liberal_Democracy#fullprogram
Sorry, I pick this one, please unpublish the other comment and republish my comment here. Thanks!
You do know I love and respect you.
What this truly shows is the hypocrisy and final death throws of the Feminist movement in America. You excuse and praise the repression of women in Islam but damn it in all other aspects of society. If it was a Christian bathing suit, you would damn it, want it burned, complaining that it sets back women 100 years.
Sometimes I am shocked to my toes at how different a conclusion a person can come to than I do from the same information.
I guess where you end up depends a great deal on where you start.
Holy shit, Cicada up above actually brings out the infamous "men are ravening slobbering beasts and women are some kind of super-delectable raw meat dish" argument.
I have nothing to add to that except a giant dose of W.T.f.f (oh, and, please let me never ever ever be in a situation where I have to be in a swimsuit anywhere even remotely in your vicinity, because that argument says only extremely creepy things about you).
Burquinis mean that women who would not otherwise get to swim, get to swim. That is A Good Thing. I really can't see how it can be anything other than A Good Thing. Muslim women feeling comfortable swimming= A Good Thing. Forcible participation in the insane body fascism and mutual judgment of Western beach culture should NOT be a prerequisite for wanting to swim, ever.
What this truly shows is the hypocrisy and final death throws of the Feminist movement in America. You excuse and praise the repression of women in Islam but damn it in all other aspects of society.
I'm unclear what's hypocritical about understanding that societies have to progress on their own terms. It would seem to me that most feminists would condemn ANY law that tells a woman what she has to wear in public. Did you want to chase women down the street, ripping off their headscarves in order to liberate them? Would that be feministical enough?
"If she didn't believe that the FSM or equivalent fictional magical entity would reward the end of her existence because she wore an impractical pantsuit while she was in water, she would hate her burqini, because it makes swimming difficult and it's uncomfortable."
This wins my prize for the most clueless etic representation of religious faith on this thread yet, with an added dollop of feigning personal experience with the comfort-level of swimming in a burkini. No wonder the commentator is 'anonymous'.
The whole "this clothing is because she feels shame" shpiel, is the same thing as the "she wanted it because she was wearing next to nothing" crap.
I'm sorry, but out of all of the issues of real oppression of women, we have to worry about her *clothes*?
Damn, people get a grip. Is she getting an education. Can she vote? How are her economic opportunities compared to men? Is she living in a culture where she's safe from rape, and if she is attacked, is she given respect in court?
THOSE are real issues.
"The only good thing to come out of religion was the music" - George Carlin
There is a distinct double standard here, because if the absurd concept of the burquini was a modern American Christian convention, it would be laughed and derided (as it would deserve to be) by all.
But being uber politically correct, one has to be "close minded" to call a different culture out on it's bullshit? C'mon, even if it lets Muslim woman who would otherwise not get to swim go swimming, it is still without a doubt a sign of oppression and the lack of women's rights in fundamentalist nations. It's something that honestly invokes a feeling of pity that THAT is what some women would have to go through to take a dip.
It has nothing to do with imposing western concepts of beach wear on them, but rather that there is NO CHOICE, it's this or nothing, and serves as little more than a reminder that fundamentalism, no matter it's flavor, is a bad thing.
Marya@56, you say The Middle East did have a rather developed civilization, alas, before Islam, apparently unaware that all of the advances I listed (and many more) occurred during the Islamic Golden Age (link to Wikipedia). The rise of Islam occurred in the 7th century; obviously, that's well before the so-called Dark Ages in Europe, when the Islamic Middle East was making astounding advances in physics, agriculture, mathematics, astronomy, medicine, and so on. Somehow, I suppose, they saw through the blinding cloud of stupidity that the religious typically wander about in. Do read that article — it's illuminating.
It is true that you didn't say all Jews were atheists, but I took your final paragraph (about them moving to Europe and becoming enlightened and therefore being targeted by Islam) to be drawing a contrast between Judaism and Islam. I was merely pointing out that both believe in a god — much the same God, in fact — so criticizing Islam and not Judaism for that, or for forcing women to dress modestly (which you didn't address), seems hypocritical, or at least nonsensical.
OH! Stitchin' Times. I get it now. Um... nine what?
Sam1148,
As mentioned above, please pick a thread to post in, or post different comments in each.
Is there a modest bathing suit website available that DOESN'T support creepy, extreme religious beliefs?
I mean, I totally believe in people's right to have their own creepy, extreme religion. But, I don't want to give a single penny to support that cause. Where can I find an atheist (or at least agnostic) modest bathing suit?
Or are all modest bathing suit websites also creepy and religious, like they go hand in hand? If that is so, then what does that say about modest bathing attire?
Here is a link to a much 'whiter' version of burkinis. Enjoy! http://www.modestswimwearsolutions.com/
I think it's all about choice. I would guess many muslim women can't really chose to wear less at the beach because of societal pressure, but then many western women feel they can't chose to where more.
I want the right to cover or uncover as much as I would like. I would be furious if an officer made me take off my top - for any reason - and muslim ladies - or anyone for that matter should be allowed to cover up if they want. I also feel that I should have the right to wander about topless if I'd like. I want that choice.
The slabs of meat in front of hungry animal thing is really really lame. We can't let ourselves give any credence to this concept - it excuses rape. Rape isn't about sexual desire - it's about power. Look what she was wearing she wanted it - not cool.
Anyway I think the burkini is cool - if it lets women feel good about going swimming - awesome - I just think they need a choice.
@73
>Is she getting an education. Can she vote? How are her economic opportunities compared to men? Is she living in a culture where she's safe from rape, and if she is attacked, is she given respect in court?
she lives in canada.
Razz,
http://www.limericki.com/
(can't see any mention of god)
http://www.diviinemodestee.com/divinitasole/
(the name suggests god, but I can't find mention of it on the website)
AGF,
Dunno if you were replying to Razzabeth, but the site you linked has a specific religious message.
"We wanted to be able to enjoy water sports unhindered, and still be dressed in a way that would be honoring to the Lord and the men around us."
http://www.modestswimwearsolutions.com/aboutus.htm
"The Bible encourages women to dress in "modest apparel" and also says that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman". We all know that men are stimulated by sight, and women by touch. I believe that these guidelines are given to us by God for our own protection. "
http://www.modestswimwearsolutions.com/whyipromotemodesty.htm
Sam1148,
As mentioned above, please pick a thread to post in, or post different comments in each.
---
Apology. Feel free to delete the one post in the which I thought was the 'dead' thread.
After all "rules are rules"...and we're guests to those that enforce those rules and their interpretation of those rules.
On another note; the major point of issue here was not following the rules "Wearing Clothing" in a pool. Is a swim suit clothing? Etc.
I'm reminded of a story about a woman breast feeding a child in a pool and was asked to leave.
She inquired what the rules were and the lifeguard pointed to the sign saying "No Food in the Pool".
I find it rather strange to see Victorian swimsuits brought up in defense of the burqini. As if in these times women - all women - hadn't bern forced to wear them.
And if women today like to wear this, they
are mostly playacting. Like most SCA members they would probably run away screaming if they were to uphold and endure all the standards of the time they reenact.
About the body issues: the vast majority of people ashamed of their body are because they are fat. That they are ridiculed because of their weight is the problem - not that they "aren't allowed" to wear a form-fitting full body suit. In which they still would look fat.
Opps - modest swim wear was already posted - sorry. I also that I relate a little story. I was in brazil with a couple of swedish girls. They couldn't believe some of the clothes these older brazilian women were performing in (at a rotary women's night) Basically glitzy bikinis with transparent dresses over top. And these were middle aged women who had a few children! Not supermodels by any standard - but beautiful because of it. The girls (very young and supermodel built!) were really uncomfortable because the brazilian exchange moms made them wear black leggings with tshirts - the felt the leggings needed to be worn with dresses.
The girls told me they couldn't believe how the older women had no shame about their bodies and would wear those outfits on stage - and yet wouldn't let the girls go swimming naked. They wanted to go swimming Naked! yet felt underdressed in opaque black leggings. Yeah cultures! I just thought it was cool.
I'll go to the grocery store in brazil wearing what I see as nipple covers - and wouldn't wear in public in canada. Outside prague - I swim naked. It's all good.
Repression is bad, duh!
Outlawing the oppressed *person* by giving her a choice between staying inside or seeking some sort of secular asylum is nuts.
If I understand the French law correctly, no headscarves or yarmulkes are allowed in government buildings. So if you must appear in court, as a witness, you can't wear either?
Ark - I hadn't seen his post I had taken a while writing. I was just responding to the idea that this was a purely muslim thing.
@71 Glittertrash- Oops, my error-- men are lovely, enlightened beings who would never, ever consider degrading or molesting a woman due to sexual urges.
Why, if the ravening beast theory were true, you'd see people in court suggesting that rape victims had it coming due to wearing short skirts or similarly causing arousal in the accused.
Such nonsense! Isn't it nice our species doesn't work that way?
I've already voiced my opinions on the Burqini on www.everything2.com, so I'll do a quick review.
I don't see the burkini (my spelling for the generic, as opposed to the brand name) as being "swimsuits for Muslim women", anymore than O'Douls is "what beer drinkers drink when they're not drinking beer". I see the suit as The Swimsuit For the Rest of Us.
Throughout the 20th century, the battle has raged between swimsuit designers touting a 'less is more' design philosophy and actual women, who have 'beach-ready' bodies for about five years. (The Girl from Ipanema was 15.) If you're so unlucky as to be bigger than a size 14, have noticeable scars, are pregnant, have been pregnant, are older than about 25 and don't work out, and so on, you're stuck with having to shoehorn yourself into a tight-fitting garment that, no matter how the fashion magazines will have you think makes you look good, just shows off every flaw you have. Worse, if you're over 40, like me, or are actually fat, people look at you as if you should just disappear -- just when a little gentle exercise, like being in the water, would do you some good.
Enter the Burkini. It doesn't bind or chafe, it covers everything you wish it would, protects against sun, rocks and jellyfish, looks stylish and fun, and doesn't impede you in the water, the way 'old-time' swimming costumes do. The hoodnik/veil looks designed, not like a bathing cap, for women with actual hair. Would I wear one? Durn tootin'! Do I think there ought to be some law that everyone should wear one? No! Is it Muslim culture making its way into ours? Only in a good way -- after all, here in the Northeast, we've managed to assimilate a lot of Jews (their closest relatives) without banning the sale of pork or shellfish. At the same time, having them around has given us innumerable benefits, from The Classic American Songbook to math and physics, to a more tolerant and kindly attitude.
Let some of that attitude prevail.
Some Orthodox Jewish women honour a similar edict to cover their hair by wearing wigs, sometimes identical to their actual hairstyle! I'm still not sure what that accomplishes, other than following the letter of the law.
Colour this agnostic puzzled.
Xeni and Aman are just plain wrong.
(1) Let's look at the fundamentalist Mennonite and Amish groups. They make their women dress in a culturally atypical manner. But then, so do their men. As an American living in Europe, I have seen plenty of women in headscarves or burqas, and some fully veiled. What I never see is men accompanying them whose clothing is culturally different from other men on the street. Why is that? Why can the men blend with the rest of society, but not the women?
(2) Why is this form of dress mandated? My fundamentalist mother & sisters dress modestly. Fundamentalists such as old-order Mennonites and Amish dress modestly. Yet they don't dress in shapeless all-encompassing sacks. Why is the burqa mandated for many Moslem women? Why is it immodest or dangerous to show a sliver of ankle or wrist? Why is it immoral or immodest to display that women have arms, even if they are fully clothed in a sleeve? This is really about the men. To avoid responsibility over their own sexuality and thoughts, *Men* forced this dress on women, and over the centuries, women come to accept and expect this as their lot in life.
(3) Comment #76 - Ernunnos on Aman's post is right on: to say that women chose this dress ignores all of the communal coercion that demands this dress.
(4) The reason why this is a point of discussion is because the Victorian-era Brits (and Europeans of similar eras) grew (mostly) out of their superstitions and oppressive views towards women. Through a centuries-long process the western world has come to see them as the form of oppression that they are.
One can certainly be Moslem and not take a superstitious and oppressive view towards women, just as one can be Christian and not. However, the burqa--and the burqini--would have to go.
As a teenager, I had some major body image issues. I loved swimming, but hated wearing a bathing suit (even a relatively full-coverage one-piece one) that showed the shape of my body. I would have loved to have the option of wearing one of these modest bathing suits. I'm sure they existed back then, but without the Internet, they were largely unheard of by the general public.
I can support neither modesty nor dignity for women if it means I can't see some nipples.
Cheers, Xeni. Great post.
Xeni
"My point, such as it is: why must our first reaction to stuff like a Boing Boing post about burqinis be to judge or condemn? You may or may not choose to wear one, but the world doesn't revolve around you. I believe it is more fruitful to try and learn about and appreciate cultural differences than to get all flustered about whether or not you approve."
There is no doubt that the "Burqini" has positive and negative connotations. Why chastise posters for discussing either aspect?
The point of critiquing the "Burqini" is that while it may be a choice for free western women, for a lot of women elsewhere in the world, it is a religiously imposed mandate that they have no choice over.
Furthermore, in these other places, if the woman does not wear a hijab or a burqa, she faces shame and isolation from her friends and family, or even death due to dishonoring the family. Not to mention the threat of sin and eternal damnation, as other posters have mentioned.
More to the point, why even mention the Burqini? To give it space on BoingBoing is an implicit approval of the oppression of women that is well-documented.
Finally, the Burqini is the result of a religious mandate. Religion is a possible theory of the world, and as a theory it is open to critique and discussion. Why should Islam be exempt from critique? After all, we frequently criticize the Catholic Church for its deplorable position of forbidding birth control among its votaries. What makes Islam so special?
As long as you don't support legislation to restrict my 'natural' bathing style, I don't mind what you wear.
"The commenter who loves her burqini (or any one of the smiling American customers on this "modesty swimsuit" website) does not care what you think about her garments or her beliefs. Nor should she."
If however you support legislation to require some attire of your choosing to cover my inherent human state, then I condemn you and your beliefs. Why do religious zealouts specify garments specifically for females? No mention of modest swim suits for men? no burquettes? (oh, no word for male swimsuits.... hmmmm... why?)
Bret
Is this the first time BoingBoing has given a series of articles to someone just because they subscribe to a particular set of metaphysical propositions?
Hey, it's the anonymous Muslim woman, no longer anonymous.
@ 17
"One tribe of these desert people migrated in large numbers to Europe, changed their calendar to a Solar cycle, studied Maths, science, music & literature and helped create the enlightenment. The Jews will never be forgiven for this transgression, they removed the burqini of the mind"
You are definately adding insult here. More so, however, you are displaying your complete ignorance of that Arabic culture. These "desert people" are credited with teaching the Greeks of the Archaic Age the first, purely consonantal alphabet and their architectural methods that spawned the Greek Temples.
@ 39
"Without a doubt, bb has one of the most sophisticated audiences on the internet"
I honestly used to believe that to be true. I usually will skim over the comments and think about what I would like to write but I never do. The reason I did comment on the burqini post was because of the extreme leaning of the comments. I truly felt like the commentators were one minute away from denouncing Islam, in fact all religions, and grabbing their pitchforks.
@ 41
"At a guess, I'd presume the real reason for having women in your culture cover themselves is the notion that a lustful man is approximately as dangerous as a loaded gun"
While some people may think that this is the
reason Muslim women dress modestly, it isn't. By this logic Muslim women think themselves so irresistable that they must cover up their bodies to prevent men from lunging. The reasons that some Muslim women cover up are wide and varied. Some do so to preserve their modesty and some believe that their body should only be viewed by their husbands. Some women do so to prevent attracting other men, everyone's reasons are different. I chose to wear a hijab mainly for one reason. I found that when most people looked at me they assumed I was spanish but once they realized my background they began asking me questions about my religion. Once I realized this I wore the scarf because I wanted to be able to answer questions about my religion, I wanted people to know that there were sources other than the internet or going to the local mosque (if they were nervous about doing that.
@ 59
" It's never really a choice, as you'll get booted from the community if you make the wrong one. I'm sure there are plenty of enlightened Muslim women out there who wear burquas or head coverings because they want to. Good for them. But based on my understanding of the way coercive religious communities work (and the fact that entire countries make it illegal for women to dress "immodestly"), I don't think it's at all a stretch to generalize that most women who dress according to strictly-enforced community standards (Muslim, Hasidic Jew, Menonite Christian, whatever) are not really choosing"
Get booted from the community? Have you ever been to Jordan? To Palestine? To Lebanon or Syria or Egypt? When you have actually gone to these places and experienced the day to day life then you can say whether a women would get booted from their community for not going with the norm. To put things into perspective my own mother does not wear a headscarf, I'm sure that tomorrow her family will wake up and realize what a dishonor she is.
@ 63
"If she didn't believe that the FSM or equivalent fictional magical entity would reward the end of her existence because she wore an impractical pantsuit while she was in water, she would hate her burqini, because it makes swimming difficult and it's uncomfortable"
I'm going to completely ignore most of your comment, obviously you've gotten mixed up somewhere. The important point to make here is that I do not, under any circumstance, believe that wearing a hijab gives me a pass into heaven. In fact, I don't believe that the hijab is mandatory for a Muslim woman to wear, nor do I appreciate having words put into my mouth.
Also, when was the last time you swam in a burqini?
@ 73
"Is she getting an education. Can she vote? How are her economic opportunities compared to men? Is she living in a culture where she's safe from rape, and if she is attacked, is she given respect in court?"
Yes. Yes. Excellent actually. Yes. The same applies to Muslim women living outside of Canada as well. However, I will acquiese, Muslim women don't always have the same economic oppurtunities as men. The same can be said for American businesswoman compared to men.
The problem here seems to be that people are only good at pointing out the extremes as examples to prove their point. Some people may think that I'm another example of extreme Muslim liberalism, they need only open their eyes and look around to see that they are wrong.
Xeni, thanks for commenting on my comment, it made me feel fuzzy inside.
2 words:
Irshad Manji.
My two cents?
I think some people may resent what they see the burkini as an unwelcome incursion into their culture.
Also, think about what it represents as a symbol.
This isn't a religious issue -- the Koran says nothing specific about how one should dress, and, women in the muslim world never used to dress this way until recently.
Symbols are highly subjective, but, I think there is a valid case to be made that "modest" muslim garb is just a political symbol, like a swastika arm-band.
I don't think we should ban swastika arm-bands.
But, are you expressing support for an ideology that murders people?
Women are stoned to death every day for failing to be sufficiently modest.
Often, women are blamed for being raped if they attract a male's attention.
These are exactly the type of regressive values that should be absolutely unwelcome in our society.
By dressing this way they may appear to be condoning such backward cultures.
Anyway, whatever.
LS1900: "The reason I did comment on the burqini post was because of the extreme leaning of the comments. I truly felt like the commentators were one minute away from denouncing Islam, in fact all religions, and grabbing their pitchforks."
No, I don't believe that's correct. I believe we've been critiquing the Burqini in the context of the Islamic religion, just as we would discuss any other religion, or any other theory. In fact, I found the discussion to be healthy, informative, and open (thanks moderators!).
Besides, by saying that we're "grabbing the pitchforks" aren't you "going to extremes to prove your point?" (which you decried in your previous post:
LS1900: "The problem here seems to be that people are only good at pointing out the extremes as examples to prove their point."
Any religion, Islam or Christianity or Judaism or even FSM, is a theory, open to discussion and verification. Again, I'll ask my question: in discussing the negative connotations of the Burqini, why do Muslims take exception to the critiques? What makes Islam any more or less valid a theory than other religions?
The majority of Muslim women outside certain countries would never dream of wearing these items of swimwear. A Kosovan Muslim would probably just laugh in your face, for example - as would many Turkish women too!
The issue here really is coercion. If the woman is happy with it individually - then absolutely go for it. When she is wearing it because of a misinterpretation of the Koranic meaning of 'modesty' (be it by their husbands or their community) then it becomes rather more suspect.
It seems to me that for every Muslim woman who finds the burqa liberating there is one who hates the concept - watch the movie Persepolis for an easy on the eye introduction to female opposition to imposed dress codes (only one of many issues in it, truth be told).
At the heart of this issue is of course the concept of freedom of speech, thought and action for the individual and dress is central to those(in a way albeit that many of us in the west take for granted). Where strictures are imposed on these three things there can never be enlightenment for that society which does so - that of course is the intention.
good on you, xeni, for giving those xenophobes & racists a good kick in the arse!
@ 100
I wasn't going to any extremes by saying I felt like people were ready to grab the pitchforks. Re-read the first few comments in the previous post and tell me again that they don't come across as hateful.
What I meant when I said people are using extremes to prove their point was that there are certain commentators that will only choose the worst examples to talk about. For example, those who are saying that when a Muslim woman gets raped all the blame is put on her. That is only true in extreme cases. It would be like me saying that all Christains take the word of the bible literally. The fact of the matter is that their are Christians who believe that the Bible is the word of God, some that believe that it contains the word of God and some that believe that it becomes the word of God. Just like there are varying degrees of Christianity in a believer the same goes for Islam and how it is practiced.
While many have taken this opportunity to continue the same debate as in the other burqini post, let me instead address this post.
Xeni, I'm confused by some of your statements. How do modest swim suites, designed with only personal desires to cover up, relate to a swim suite that is designed to follow a religious dictate? While they both do the same thing, ie cover up more skin, they arise from completely different backgrounds, and for that reason become apples and oranges in this context. My mom used to wear scarves on her head, but it's not a hijab, they're completely different articles of clothing worn for completely different reasons. Those reasons DO matter.
And how do Victorian norms relate to this debate either? Just because they were more modest? Again, this has nothing to do with simple modesty, but modesty rules that arise from some crazy places. Victorian social norms arose from some pretty nutty ideas as well, that's why WE DON'T FOLLOW THEM ANYMORE. They're hardly relevant as a defense for Muslim modesty ideas in today's world, but in fact act better as examples of some of the silly things we humans do when we get carried away with odd social ideas.
"You may or may not choose to wear one, but the world doesn't revolve around you. I believe it is more fruitful to try and learn about and appreciate cultural differences than to get all flustered about whether or not you approve." This bothers me. This is not the issue. You imply that this is just simply personal choice, but often the choice is made for women. Not always, some women like the one you quote are perfectly happy to cover up, but that doesn't change the fact that the ideas behind these "cultural norms" are nutty. And yes, they are nutty, by the definition that they defy logic and reason.
I understand that we live in a time where the concept of absolute subjectivity rules supreme ("it's my opinion, and since it's my opinion it can't be wrong", which is completely false) but objectivity really does exist. Not everything can be chalked up to a "cultural difference" that just needs to be appreciated. Eating bugs is a cultural difference that we shouldn't judge. No one is hurt if they don't eat the bug correctly. Asking women to cover themselves up, lest they tempt men who would be unable to restrain themselves, and doing bodily harm to them if they don't follow the rules, that's not a "cultural difference" I want to get used to in any way.
Opinions can be wrong, for very rational reasons. Cultural norms can be wrong for very rational reasons. I don't see this burqini as any sort of "happy mutancy". It arises from oppressive and harmful ideas, and I see nothing happy about that.
@103
Could you please point out the "hateful" comments? I'm having a hard time finding what you are referring to. I re-read them and I found them skeptical and reasonable (again, thanks moderators!).
I've noticed that devout votaries often react to any criticism of their faith in this manner and label the critique as "hateful." If one expresses skepticism or dislike of oppressive practices, is that considered "hateful"? Absolutely not.
Calling legitimate criticism "hatefulness" is an attempt to stifle discussion, and is antithetical to a health debate. Just sayin'
You can at least see that the Burqini evokes connotations of female oppression?
Something that really impresses me in this kind of discussion (burquini was a huge news in EU few months ago) is that people from both sides are integralists and basically got a monotheistic background so you can only be with them or against them...
Do women should have the right to wear burkini?
Do women are discriminated in Muslim societies?
Do women got the right to swimm naked?
I can imagine that the only question boths sides would respond with strong "NO" is the third.
As an atheist and nudist it puzzles me why both sides of this discussion would consider normal bikinis and burkini (it depends on which side they are and on who they belive in) but wouldn't allow girls swimming naked in a public pool... (and as far as I know even "topless" is illegal in many States)...
Adults can not accept other culture/races/beliefs/sexuality and forget that reality is not BLACK and WHITE...
For me any girl should be allowed to wear a bikini a burkini or be naked,
I respect religion? No. I respect the right of all "believers" to dress/cosplay as they like? YES.
But that's probably because I don't have any "god" telling me what to think/feel/love/hate...
"Monotheism is the primitive religion which centers human consciousness on Hive Authority. There is One God and His Name is ___ (substitute Hive-Label). If there is only One God then there is no choice, no option, no selection of reality. There is only Submission or Heresy. The word Islam means "submission". The basic posture of Christianity is kneeling. Thy will be done." Timothy Leary
Daily, in Western society, women submit themselves to a similar torture for the sake of appearance; the wearing of high heels causes damage to the foot, but results in a beautifully shapely calf which all the men simply adore.
Of course, women who refuse to play ball and go with the sexy leg thang don't get stoned, but that's really the crux of the matter here, and the pro-burquini crowd seem to have missed it completely.
I've been reading this facinating post and its comments, and what I can derive from it is this:
This issue is about acceptance. To be more specific, acceptance of difference.
A lot of us claim that we like diversity, but if you take a closer look, you will find that most of us experience 'difference' as something threatening.
We find comfort, re-assurance and acceptance in 'sameness'.
At the basis of this lies the conviction that acceptance of self is being achieved when acceptance is given to you by your environment.
This can be your family, your social backround, your religeous commmunity, the neighbourhood you live in.
We have a strong tendency to conform and to adapt in order to gain acceptance.
Now, when an element enters this environment which is contrary or deviant or different, this will often be perceived by us as threatening, because it undermines this position of acceptance that has been cultivated so carefully.
So we tend to be quick in our condemnation of it, and our initial desire is for it to be removed.
But if our acceptance of self were to be depending less on the acceptance of our environment, and more from a genuine appreciation of who we are as a person, than any 'strange' element entering that environment would not be considered as 'threatening' as it would now.
Now, notice, that this explanation is equally valid for a western culture which finds expressions of fundamental islam appearing, as it is for an Islamic culture which finds expressions of liberal western culture appearing.
The thing is, we don't really follow Victorian rules anymore, in my case, I don't have Kaiser Wilhelm any more (and I don't want him back).
The past is a foreign country.
In the 1920ies, people in Germany started to bathe naked, we more or less went directly from bathhouses and full cover suits to *nothing*.
And if you think about it, this is the best thing to do - clothes only interfere with movement while swimming.
I totally understand the wish to cover up because you feel old, fat, ugly, full of scars but guess what: Just look around. Everybody is old, fat and ugly and full of scars. Going swimming (modestly covered up in a bikini, mind you) cured me of the Fashion Magazine view that I would be the only one who is not sufficiently beautiful to be allowed in a bikini - because nobody is.
I find that strangely liberating.
If you feel liberated swimming in your modest whatevers, please do, but don't be ashamed of your body if it isn't "perfect". Whatever that is.
Whie 18th century England did have segregated bathing machines and head to ankle bathing suits, that wasn't the whole story. Anyone who has read Francis Kilvert's diary will remember that in the beginning of the book he bathed naked in the sea, and no-one thought that strange, although by his death in 1879 he was wearing aforesaid costume.
In any case, I don't remember there being any dire punishments for failing to adhere to the regulations, or for choosing differently. As many other respondents have said, what's missing in the case of the Burkhini is the assurance that there is a choice.
While I have no problem in believing that come women are making a free choice to wear the Burkha, believing it is right to wear it, there is some doubt about how much freedom of intellect those women have had. That's an insurmountable problem currently, as it would not be thought any righter to impose a world view from the European or American christian standpoint upon them than the view they have grown up with and adhere to.
It is wrong to try to tell other people what it is right for them to believe: all you can do is to stand up for what you believe, and your right to continue doing so. Thus if women in Muslim countries are going to continue wearing clothes which we view as oppressive, we cannot tell them it is wrong to do so, we can only refuse to wear them ourselves.
"To give [the burquini] space on BoingBoing is an implicit approval of the oppression of women that is well-documented." Oh, put a sock in it.
I don't think anyone should be forced by law or social pressure to wear a burquini. I also don't think women should be forced to wear tops at all if they want to go topless, but in most places in North America, if they try the latter in public they're likely to get in trouble with somebody or other. That being the case, one could claim with equally harebrained logic that if BoingBoing discusses a T-shirt, they're expressing "implicit approval of the oppression of women."
The point being that everybody's culture has its shibboleths, some of which are nutty and some of which can be oppressive, and while it's good to push for greater freedom and tolerance on all fronts, the fact that the tribe over on the next hill has some arguably foolish rules shouldn't be used an an excuse for self-righteous chauvinism about one's own.
Some keyboard warrior upthread asserted that "The muslim world would love nothing more than sharia law to be imposed across the planet." In fact, Islam is a billion and a half people, very few of whom are obsessed with imposing anything. The notion that "the Muslim world" is a unitary totalitarianism made up entirely of mentally-enslaved jihadist drones is provincial drivel. Oppressed Muslim women deserve our support. Oppressed women in Topeka deserve our support, too. Apocalyptic clash-of-civilizations generalizations don't help anybody.
I've been enjoying the recent posts about Muslim life on Boing Boing because I think that one of the necessary first steps to making a better world is getting to know the one we've got.
#13 (JFRANCIS) said all there is to be said on the subject: "I don't mind if people dress modestly to swim at the beach. I hope they don't mind if I show up to skinny dip."
Thank you, madam/sir.
Can't comment. MT again >
And I was trying to post:
As for me, forbidden in my democratic country, thank you. But I want to be able to go on saying that I find the fashion quite ridiculous. And as ugly as the Victorian horrors that our great-grandmothers had to contend with!
Oh, it works on small amounts of text? Let's see.
Oh, hum. Burqinis are an invention of a modern Muslim woman living in a Western country (Australia) who saw that other Muslim women in this same country couldn't (or didn't want) to go swimming like everbody else, because they couldn't cover their body from head to toe, because they (and their families, and their imams...) believed they couldn't be good Muslim women unless they hid nearly all their skin and all their hair under opaque fabric.
So, yes, it's progress, of a kind... But everyday life in the comunity where burqini was invented doesn't look very liberal for women, doesn't it?
Now, of course, with all the media brouhaha, it's become an actual fashion. Like the hidjab, niqab and burqa, which were regional traditions in *some* Muslim countries and are now publicised all over the world as *the* way to dress if you are Muslim and female.
Meanwhile, religious nutters in Iran, Pakistan and other not-very-democratic countries, use the same garments as a means of oppression. Weird, huh?
(Argh, hyperlinks make MT comments swoon!) Last part:
Recently, Tunisian writer and philosopher Abdelwahab Meddeb (whose lucid article "Islam and Enlightenment" of 2006 should be required reading before *any* debate about religion and modernity in the Muslim world http://www.logosjournal.com/issue_5.3/meddeb.htm ) was asked by a French scholarly journal what he thought of the burqini proponents and the sport competitions in Islamic regimes where women must do athletics with a hidjab. After a reminder that the Quran prescriptions on dress were ambiguous and could be interpreted as a purely spiritual attitude (humility before God), he went on to say that these modern inventions weren't grounded in any tradition and had more to do with the XXth Century anti-modernist movement in fundamentalist Islam. They reflect a political program (to be as different as possible from a Western world perceived as immoral) and give new respectability to the puritanical trends of a patriarchal society.
So, I believe that not all modern Muslim women who live in liberal societies and advertize the wonders of the burqini may realize why exactly they feel uncomfortable in even the more modest of Western bathsuits, and why other women (Muslim or not, by the way) may feel slapped in the face when they read and hear such publicity. It's as plain a way of sending the message: "I'm righteous, you're a slut", without putting in words...
Get a life, people! Read a book! Take a trip! Read the Koran-maybe then you can speak to Islam with something more than ignorance. I am a white, middle aged Roman Catholic American woman who cannot believe the ignorance of Americans. We are the only nation on earth who finds pride in that fact that most of us speak only one language, give creedence to so few belief systems, and make myopic social judgments with no guilt. Don't comment on what you do not know.
If Kilvert was bathing in the 18th century and in 1879, it's no wonder he wore a full body bathing suit - he was at least 80.
This is the 21st century, not the 20th. The 18th century ended 31 Dec 1800, not 31 Dec 1899.
On the burqini: as long as a woman has at least the same opportunities as men in her culture - as long as her family, friends, religious community, neighbors, and government don't punish her for ideas or actions they would permit to men - and as long as she has basic human rights, if she chooses to wear a burqini as an expression of her ideals, more power to her. But we have to be careful not to assume that the fact that a Canadian woman choses to wear a burqini also implies that an Afghan woman in Taliban-controlled areas consents to have acid poured on her face for going to school. I'm more than willing to accept that the behavior of a woman-hating Talib, or of a Saudi judge who punishes a woman for driving, derives from their own idiocentric twisting and distorting of Islam; I've seen some incredible distortions of other Western traditions in my day - murdering doctors, bombing the Olympics, burning crosses. So long as the arguments to support the burqini as an expression of individual choice are also used *against* the pathological expressions of Islam, or of Christianity, or of atheism to limit personal freedom, that's just great.
I'm a atheist plus size women who loves to swim. I also live in a widely diverse neighbourhood that includes both orthodox Jews and Muslims.
The public pool that I do most of my swimming at offers a twice a week women's only swim at which they promise female only staff and require at least a t-shirt over a traditional swim suit for modesty. I'm sure they'd be fine with a burqini or any of the mostest suits shown on those site.
Like most women, I HATE shopping for swim suits. I hated it when I was still size 12 and I hate it now. What the world needs is a greater diversity is swim suit styles not less. Then perhaps everyone could find something that suited their beliefs, body shape and/or comfort easily. Swimming is a fantastic form of recreation and exercise and I support anything that encourages more women to get into the water.
Isn't this exactly the point that the complainers (like me) were making in the other thread.
We've being trying to get AWAY from crap like this victorian english hatred and fear of women. We have been trying to get equal rights for men and women to take part in society in any way they want.
The burqini is a throwback to these times. It's in the past, and should be, like bloodletting or radium baths as a cure for all disease.
Sometimes your own culture can be stupid. Then you try to get it out of that way of working.
Actually, my own country only had a very brief spell of christian fear of women, the rights of women were strong enough that they didn't get as badly downtrodden as in the rest of europe. But then, a thousand years ago our marriage traditions had the man handing over the key to the valuables of the house/farm.
Again, the burqini has no place in western society except as a symbol of what our culture is trying to get away from, and an indicator of where deeply religious cultures get stuck.
I have once met and worked with a girl who started wearing a headscarf out of choice. Muslim family, but quite moderate.
She wanted to wear the headscarf because she believes the quaran to speak the truth, her family (including her brothers) asked her what the f*** she was doing and tried to talk her out of it but she wouldn't budge.
Even though I do not agree with religion in general, that is as truly her choice as anything could be. There is nothing except choice and her belief in the quaran stopping her from wearing a thong a breast pasties.
Her decision and should be respected.
In most cases that is not the case, though. That's what I don't like.
And of course, if a culture treats half its population as being inferior, that's not likely to build up a strong self image, which in turn means that it may feel nice to hide behind a burqa.
For me being a "happy mutant" is deeply linked with being free. Repression, whether forced on a person by others, or forced on themselves by themselves over some misguided superstition and perverse philosophy -- we all read the "women are responsible for the wrongs that men commit against them" meme from the Canadian Muslim woman defending the repression -- is also wrong.
I hate to see non-freedom defended in the name of freedom. Accepting other cultures when the cultures have a fundamental problem in terms of "our" philosophy is a mistake. It makes no more sense to accept Muslim culture -- or Victorian repression or anything else like this -- in the name of freedom than it does to embrace Neo-nazis or other groups that seek to destroy our rich culture. Tolerate them by all means, but don't raise them up to be admired.
Their way of seeing the world says that our way of living is wrong. For us to accept them just makes us fools.
getting stoned (rocks thrown at you till you die) could be considered a bit excessive, but as someone mentioned above, that is really a risk in some countries if a woman does not wear the proscribed clothes.
Let's not pretend that the burqa is anything other than it is, a tool for oppression.
Oppression is not limited to muslims, of cours. This is just such a visual reminder that it causes a faster reaction.
Free to choose = good.
Too many times we hear about women "choosing" when what's really happening is someone else is telling them what to do.
When I hear about Mormons and multiple wives, I say "OK so long as women get to have more than one husband". Does that every happen?
Would the people who demand tolerance of burqa at beaches would be so tolerant to allow nudity, I wouldn't have a problem with them. Can you picture a naked woman or man walking on the same beach with fundy Muslim men and Muslim women in burqa without a fuss or worse?
Why is it truly tolerant people, the folks who don't have problems with religious fundies, are often oppressed? Think of gays who still can't be married in most US states and in many places in the world their abuse is tolerated or even supported.
@122 "Let's not pretend that the burqa is anything other than it is, a tool for oppression."
And telling muslim women who live in free countries what they CAN and CAN'T wear isn't oppressive?
Obviously, the people of Islam are children who need to be coddled and told that they're oppressing themselves with their foolish religion. God forbid they are allowed to make adult decisions.
PS: If you think the burqini is high on the list of abominations that some middle eastern governments are perpetrating, you really need to retool your sense of scale.
In reading this post, I keep coming back to "my cultural norms are not your cultural norms". If you have grown up knowing that one should be modest in clothing in public, if that's long skirts, burquas, veils, wimples, bonnets, usw., then that is your cultural norm.
As Westerners, we have some of the same fashion dictates. Would you take seriously an executive or a salesperson in a t-shirt and jeans? While 'in the world', people in positions of power (or who want to engage your trust as a competent and successful individual in whatever they're selling) have a dress code of at least business casual. I know I don't feel comfortable meeting clients without a jacket or blazer, and I won't leave my house in ratty or worn clothing. My family can see me that way, the rest of the world will not. Part of it is I don't feel comfortable without the perceptual armor of clothing between me and the world...and the world comes knocking at the most unfortunate of times.
I spend weeks every year shifting my cultural norms to an older fashion, never leaving my door without long sleeves, two layers of clothing, and my head covered. The first week back in the "real world" during the summer makes me twitchy because I feel naked...my head is bare, my hair is showing. I would submit from extensive discussion with involved parties that many women in religious communities would/do feel similarly when stripped of veils and the armor of their accustomed clothing.
Finally, I had to stop reading the comments to this post, because I was getting angrier and angrier. The tone of some of the comments became that people who believe in a God are stupid idiots, and those who take the dictates of their beliefs seriously (wear 'modest' clothing is in most of the major world religions) are not really thinking human beings. My God happens to be tolerant of gays, shrimp, pork, polyester-rayon blends, the theory of evolution, and women speaking their minds. I resent the assumption that atheism is the one true way - I'm not a fan of religious intolerance and fanaticism from any party. ("There is no God but Science, and Richard Dawkins is his prophet!")
@LS1990
What's wrong with denouncing Islam, if it is only within the greater context of denouncing all religion?
Just because someone denounces religion doesn't mean the pitchforks are next. In fact, that's usually something the religious do.
I always hung out with the Saudi guys in grad school. They were fun, and just really good guys. I always felt instantly at ease with them. Also, I grew up evangelical Christian, and a lot of those people are really, truly caring and sweet.
That doesn't mean both groups aren't crazy for believing in nonsense that means they can't really be friends.
Finally, to get back on-topic, yeah, if someone wants to wear this, I support that decision, even if it's based on stupid crap, as long as she isn't punished for wearing something else. The comments here are not about Islam. They are right-minded comments decrying the oppression of women in SOME theocratic countries. Islam is the second-biggest religion in the world, with 21% of the population following some form of it. That means there are going to be a lot of different interpretations, folks.
So how would "Muslim oppression against women" manifest itself?
Or does it not manifest?
It is a fiction of the collective imagination of the bulk of humanity for going on two millennia?
Shame on you!
@ #123
Yeah, you're right. Not having the same access to education, training or even basic medical care is obviously not an manifestation of this. Neither are honour killings within families or acid to the face.
That could not be a byproduct of women being considered lower than men... no sirree. Which would definitely not come from the quran (and bible) stating this explicitly, teaching that only men may make decisions and that women and slaves have similar rights. (I can bring up passages if you want)
Societies that show less skin than my culture permits are oppressive; societies that show more skin than my culture permits are depraved. That's a normal thing to feel, but it needs to be recognized as ethnocentrism.
I'm an American living in a Muslim country. (Hey Marya, I HAVE worn a bikini in the Persian Gulf. No big deal.) My friends here tend to wear more clothes than me, but it's NOT because they'll get stoned to death if they don't. Can we stop talking as though Saudi and Iran are the normative Muslim countries? My Muslimah friends wear more clothes than me because that's what they feel comfortable in, it's what they've grown up expecting to wear when they reach adulthood, and it's what they feel honors their relationship with God. It doesn't mean they're oppressed or ashamed.
On the other end of the spectrum, there are cultures that show MORE skin than Americans, particularly at the beach. If someone from those cultures called me oppressed or ashamed or misogynistic simply because I would feel uncomfortable in a string bikini, I'd be pretty annoyed.
There are real, serious social issues in the Muslim world, as in any culture. Burqinis sure as hell ain't one of them.
Radical belief about fashion is a spoonerism, no?
It seems that very slender, translucent, or even "network" coverings are able to sidestep most of the semantic issues regrading this specific dress code. Second life has some great approaches to this issue, with its halo like burqini. I get aroused even thinking about the possibilities.
Facebook needs a kind of virtual burqini; even the casual user thinks about this at least once a day.
Our PCs and soon our macs could not exist without them.
And regarding sex crime, a quick hop on to one's very own sexcrime registry dispels any notion that we in the west have misogyny under control.
@ #125
You are right.
Grouping all muslim countries together and equating them with the worst ones is not fair. They are the most visible and give the rest a bad name.
Pretty much all have Sharia law if I am not mistaken, though. Sharia law can hardly be described as equal rights, or?
Again, taking an example from the worst of those countries, but seeing women charged with the crime of GETTING raped kind of makes my blood boil. There are just too many modern examples of bad things going on, Saudi Arabia is included there as are many others (I'm not just focusing on Iran here) and in general rape is not considered a problem. Because it's mostly ignored unless it's very public.
You are an american living in a muslim country, you get to follow other laws (which, incidentally, is one of the reasons muslims feel the right for their own law when they move into our countries.) You do not get held to the same sharia law in some important aspects which makes the experience quite different for you than a local.
Wait, so it's ok because it was the norm in Europe back when the vast majority of Europeans lived in abject poverty virtually without rights, often severly restricted by repressive societies and when women certainly did not have the right to vote?
(Some of) Our grandmothers and fathers fought and often died for bringing change and liberty to Europe.
Those Muslims who grew up in a western society and can chose to wear these garments do so in part because there were people in Europe who rebelled against being forced to wear what society prescribed them.
But this is really besides the point: Of course clothing is NOT just a private choice I make according to my own likes and dislikes. When worn outside it is also always a public statement. Take the extreme case, just to make the point: No matter how aesthetically pleasing I might find a Nazi uniform, I am making a very distinct and particular statement when I wear one in public (one which will get me arrested in many countries). And if I wear it to a fetish ball that is a different statement then if I wear it to a holocaust memorial.
Now we can argue over what exactly the burkini expresses, but we need context! It's well possible, even likely, that it expresses something different in Saudi Arabia than in the US than in Germany. In general wearing this kind of garments in the Western world will be understood as expressing alignment with a moral and ethical system in which women are required to wear certain clothes to participate in social life. Thus as aliugnment with a system where wearing or not wearing the hijab is exactly NOT a choice!
"I hate to see non-freedom defended in the name of freedom. Accepting other cultures when the cultures have a fundamental problem in terms of 'our' philosophy is a mistake."
This is deeply confused. Vanishingly few people on Boing Boing are "defending non-freedom." What Xeni and others are observing is that it's a big, complicated world, and that it's interesting how people adapt to different conditions in different parts of it. Nobody's claiming that restrictions (religious or otherwise) on what women may do are a jolly happy thing. However, it ought to be possible to appreciate the way people creatively manage to be happy and have fun, yes, even in cultures we find alien, without constantly bending the entire goddamn conversation into a yammerfest about how wrong wrong wrong other cultures are as compared to the glorious and in all ways free and feminist West.
I happen to think that tolerance and open-mindedness and freedom are potent and powerful, so I'm not in the least worried that if I fail to unceasingly chant OMG MUSLIM TYRANNY OMG my brain will be kidnapped and corrupted by the forces of World Jihad. I realize that this flies in the face of the prevailing notion that we should all be crap-our-pants afraid all the time, but there you go.
I just bought this swimsuit for my regular lap swims. I am tired of being ogled by the creepy old men who wait in the shallow end for me to get out so they can watch me bend over to pick up my flippers and whatnot. Gives me the willies.
Arikol, #127: "Pretty much all [Muslim countries] have Sharia law if I am not mistaken, though."
Sure, with minor exceptions like Indonesia, Bangladesh, and Turkey, whose populations add up to a half a billion people.
One doesn't have to agree with or like Sharia law to note that a lot of Western yelling about it is pretty ignorant. In many countries it exists as a parallel legal stucture governing certain limited family matters for Muslims only. (One of those countries, by the way, is Israel.) In others, as we've seen, it's been used as a way of imposing wholesale tyranny. It's not all one thing.
To claim the burqa is all about modesty is total bullshit. Just as to claim that the fact that Eve was the one to bite into the apple and not Adam was a coincidence.
Also to present this issue as if it was about xenophobia, eurocentrism, intolerance for other cultures is IMO just acting like a total... you know...
Not everybody on BB is a redneck hillbilly afaik...
Shannon, Arikol, put a sock in it. Stop congratulating yourselves about how open-minded you are. You don't have that coming.
I swear, people like you are the reason the rest of the world sometimes wonders whether anyone in America ever opens a book or watches the news.
Arikol, Islam didn't invent the oppression of women, and it's hardly the sole holder of that franchise. Shannon, the same goes for social norms that disapprove of showing a lot of skin.
You guys think you're defending freedom? You aren't. What you're actually fighting for is the privilege of forcing a large, complex conversation to discuss everything in the oversimplified terms you personally prefer. If you succeed, you'll have "stood up for your opinions," none of which need or warrant defending at the moment, and you'll come out of the discussion not knowing a particle more than you knew going in.
Wake up! Pay attention! Or at least stop commenting on autopilot. If you aren't interested in having a discussion of the real and complicated world out there, yield the right of way to people who are.
Failix, that goes for you, too.
It's been said a 1,000 times already, but I have to raise my voice in agreement: My problem is not the design of the burqini or anyone's choice to wear one.
The problem is that the burqini, for many, is not a choice but enforced through threat of violence (a very real threat, which you must agree, lest we start spamming the thread with videos and news stories) and also because it is emblematic of Islamic attitudes about and treatment of women.
And yes, as everyone here knows, the bible is full to the brim of misogynistic nonsense as well, and all of that is just as evil, counterproductive, and mean. So I'm not picking on Islam here.
I don't think anyone has any problems with the burqini aside from the fact that it's NOT a choice for the majority of women who wear them. They are forced, and given no alternative. That's oppression.
And yes, the Victorian Era brought about extreme oppression of practically everyone. The history BEFORE the Victorian Era is very fascinating. There were essentially no ideas of nudity being dirty. There were no ideas about hiding the facts of sex from anyone. Families slept, and screwed, in common rooms, so everyone grew up understanding it to be the bodily function it is.
It wasn't until companies could no longer supply jobs to 13 year olds that would enable them to afford to raise a family that society invented the category of "adolescent" and began trying to delay when people started their own families. They made separate bedrooms, came up with extremely rigid ideas about sexuality and nudity, and came up with many of the oppressive ideas we bear today.
@133 Teresa, I've spent a long time successfully fighting for personal freedom and I think I've helped make some pretty significant changes to mainstream society in this direction -- feel free to follow the links to see what my track record is. I'm not some hick American as you characterize me, although it's quite telling that this is your knee-jerk reaction, and I have a lot of solid experience in fighting oppression and repression and have come to my views with more than enough scars and life and cultural experiences, and don't need or deserve to be mischaracterized by you in the way the the blindly political correct often do.
I don't care that Islam didn't "invent" the oppression of women or that it's not the "sole holder of that franchise". That doesn't make oppression of women acceptable any more than the "he did it first" excuse that kids use to justify their transgressions is a get out of jail free card.
And I don't buy the "well there are plenty of nice Muslims" meme either -- I don't like to see "nice" Muslims any more than extremist Muslims, and I don't like to see "nice" Christians any more than I like to see extremist Christians. Religion is the root of all evil, and for educated and intelligent people to coddle religion to avoid some sort of "ethnocentrism" is perhaps an even worse offense because they should know better. You should not support evil in the name of "open mindedness".
And it becomes even more vulgar when you see that people who defend Muslims and other non-Christian are very often attacking Christianity (will you stand up for the "GOD HATES FAGS" fools at Westboro Baptist Church, or the many white power groups that cite God as their justification?) in a perverse sort of ultimately self-destructive cultural self-loathing. Wrong is wrong.
The FACT is that some ways of living are better than others in terms of providing human and individual rights, freedom from being told by your peers-elders-government-church-whatever how to lead your life, and access to freedom from ignorance and the accurate perception of reality... And the fact is that religion rarely takes own down that path, and in fact, leads one willfully away from it, and worse yet, does what it can to spread this sickness by coercion and by force.
Islam needs to die. Christianity needs to die. Judaism needs to die. Hinuism needs to die. And so on. And then maybe, finally, we'll have peace in this world and can actually move forward as a species. Things like the "burquini" which seem innocuous on the surface, are symbols of how there are many among us who desperately want to hold onto our primitive and ignorant need to worship invisible beings which in reality are nothing but a system to exploit and control and repress us.
I accept that the cultures of the world contain rich and beautiful traditions, aesthetics, and ways of life. But I do not accept that we have to include appreciation of religion and codified oppression in our appreciation or support of those cultures. We need to help them to evolve past these primitive ideas.
by the way, here is a great piece on this issue:
http://www.racialicious.com/2009/09/14/quoted-a-conversation-between-a-burqa-and-a-bikini
And just to be clear I would never support a war on Islam or any other religion, or taking religion from people by force. I think it needs to happen through education, dialog, and the move toward enlightenment. Nor would I ever support treating someone poorly (other than aggressive debate which might hurt some feelings) because of their religion or culture. I also think that there is great value in the diversity of philosophies that the world's cultures have produced. But I think we need to move to a place where freedom centres around the individual, and that we reject ignorance... and ignorance's flagship product is religion.
And for that to happen, intelligent people, and yes, Western culture, needs to stop coddling religion and sending the message that we value it.
I am not a regular commentator here but here goes:
In the US, standards of dress are reflected in our popular media. The mentality here is that it's OK to have some of your body exposed. It's OK that men see women's ankles, or elbows, or hair, or whatever. All acceptable.
Now, when I see a woman all covered up in a one of these muslim ensembles, my immediate thought is, 'wow, she does not believe in the cultural norms of the US. She has such a different standard of what is acceptable, that she chooses to wear something that completely separates her from the rest of American society. '
That, in my opinion, is a problem. To me, she is saying, 'while I like living in the US, I feel that the women here are exposing WAY too much of their bodies, possibly so much so that my husband will get turned on. They are not as good as me. I am better because I am covering up. '
To me, they might as well be saying, through their outfits, that US women are whores.
If you've been to a beach, and in the water, the fewer clothes you wear the more comfortable you are. Getting out of water draped with wet fabric, so that the sun does not hit your skin, is far less pleasurable than feeling the beautiful warmth on your flesh. I've been on the beach in Turkey -- Western women wore bikinis and some went topless, the poorer Muslim women went in the water fully clothed, the wealthier Muslim women wore their Burkiinis. But the men of all culture wore swim trunks of some sort. This sign of their undressed freedom, next to the covered up women, literally displayed male independence and power. And I know from my own experience and that of other women, that being in the south of France where most women are topless, is a kind of liberating experience -- we felt younger and freer -- not more objectified. Men are free to cover themselves up from head to toe, but there is a reason they don't do it -- and a disparity in liberty shows up in these ridiculous suits demanded for women -- even when the women "choose" them themselves.
I think the people getting upset at the people who are getting upset about the Burqini for getting upset are just silly.
Don't you know, people would be upset about this product no matter who it was marketed for. Let's say it was marketed towards large women so that they don't have to show big bellies on the beach. Some large women would profess their LOVE for their modest bathing suit. Some proud chubbies would be positively outraged, because they WANT to show off their fine round selves at the beach.
"Failix, that goes for you, too."
And here we go... Teresa, If you want to actually talk about the subject and attack me on the basis of what I've said, go ahead. Otherwise you can keep your self-important lectures about what you think I know and don't know, what I am and what I'm not, for yourself. Kthx.
I think there is a valid case to be made that "modest" muslim garb is just a political symbol
Isn't the business suit a symbol of the Western imperialist system that has laid waste to most of the planet? Should we ban that, or is it okay because it's the dominant paradigm, whereas veils are foreign and funny-looking?
most of the planet?
what planet are you living on kiddo?
Stuff it, Shannon. You're not fighting for freedom. You're fighting for what you see as your right to talk but not listen. It's all about your own ego. You're not doing anyone else a lick of good.
You can stomp and bellow all you want to, or rather as much as Xeni and Antinous will let you; but it won't make you right, and it sure as hell won't make your comments interesting.
This isn't the first time burqinis have been discussed on Boing Boing, and you're not the first (or the tenth, or the twentieth) commenter to make your unremarkable and not terribly original comments. You want to know what effect those remarks have on the Islamic world? Because they do in fact have one.
It's this: the Muslim women drop out of the discussion. It's not worth their time or trouble to shout over you, or to try to fill in the gaps in your understanding to the point where you'll be able to have an actual human conversation with them.
That's some mighty blow you've struck for freedom.
Hawley @145: This planet, of course. These days, even penguins know it.
Failix @143, I'm sorry there wasn't anything more interesting to say about your opinions.
Shannon @ 139 wrote Islam needs to die. Christianity needs to die. Judaism needs to die. Hinuism needs to die.
Wow...it really just took a little nudge to break the skin over the crazy, huh?
To me, they might as well be saying, through their outfits, that US women are whores.
Anonymous @148,
Your comment is breathtakingly self-centered and psychotic.
Getting out of water draped with wet fabric, so that the sun does not hit your skin, is far less pleasurable than feeling the beautiful warmth on your flesh.
Anonymous @149,
You seem to feel that your experience is the only possible valid experience. Do you understand that other people are not simply extensions of you? That they might have their own wants and needs and preferences?
Replying to myself @ 153: I took a look at your blog, Shannon, and you seem like a very cool and creative dude, with a beautiful family who you involve in your creativity in awesome ways. But you seem to have some very two-dimensional, black and white ideas about religion and its role in the world. I don't say that to put you down, since I surely have my own set of simplistic ideas in my head, but to push you in the direction of thinking in a complex way about religion. It's been with us as long as we've been us, and it's influenced everything humanity has ever achieved; singling it out for particular blame is too easy an answer.
(This is a lesson to myself as well, to learn what I can about a person before mouthing off to them.)
i was born and raised an american atheist and if it wouldn't be weird for me to wear a burqa to the grocery store, i would in a heartbeat.
sometimes i just don't want to be looked at you know?
Jere7my, it's interesting on a blog that tends to be pro-Dawkins style aetheism that opining for the end of religion is seen as "crazy". Very amusing that rationalism is seen as "crazy" and believing in the Flying Spaghetti Monster (or whatever) is "sane".
The contradiction in the posts is very obvious, and I think to a much lesser extent in BB's editorial policy (which I really do 99% love) as well. I think it's very hard for people to point out when something is wrong when it's in the realm of culture or religion -- it's very easy for people to assume you're a racist or xenophobic or ethnocentric, when in fact you're criticizing problems that are inherent to humanity, not to a specific culture. Thus the "everyone must die" hyperbole in my previous post.
I would be interested in hearing WHY people feel that religion needs to be protected. What is the value in doing everything we -- as a largely atheist culture that's at best symbolically religious -- can to protect more extremist forms of relgion.
It seems to me that's like defending illiteracy or a lack of scientific or historical knowledge as an element of a culture.
It seems clear to me that the arguments about "modest swimwear" are because while some see it just as a piece of clothing, others see it as a symbol of oppression.
A burqini or a victorian swimsuit IS a piece of clothing, and will continue to be one no matter what anyone thinks of it. It is only a symbol if assigned a value that it doesn't inherently possess. If I refuse to assign the symbolic value of oppression to this piece of clothing, it remains a piece of clothing.
By refusing to assign a negative symbolic value to these pieces of cloth, I "allow" those around me the use of the clothing as a means of UV protection, maintenance of modesty, the deflection of lecherous glances, adherence to a cultural more, or simply as a fashion statement as they see fit, not as I would have it be.
Conversely, if I assign this negative symbolic value to the clothing, I am making statements about those who choose to wear it that may well only be true in my own mind, and completely unrelated to the actual reason the wearer chose to do so.
This, it seems to me, is the real flaw in the arguments against such swimwear. Also, this seems to me to be the antithesis of the tolerance and liberty I would like to see in the world.
Maybe it's just me, but I really liked the 'modesty' swimsuits featured in the link. Not because I'm religious (far from it) or repressed, either. Frankly, being on the southern side of age 45 leaves me with a much reduced urge to display all that much skin when out and about in the water or at the beach.
I am a long board-shorts and tank tops person when swimming, because one really can't find swimsuits in retail stores that are anything but one of two types - designed to show it all, or just plain matronly grannie-fug. The modesty suits are cute to me; they look like simple sleeveless shift dresses over cropped bike shorts. I dig, and I'd definitely sport one.
@CMB127, I'm quite certain that you'd be looked at like crazy. I was at Toys R Us a few days ago and there was a woman shopping for birthday presents in a full face-mask style burqa, and I think she was genuinely surprised when I approached her with some friendly suggestions as to what I thought was a good present (she was chatting on a cell phone about the party so I knew what sort of kid she was looking for). I'm pretty sure that wearing a burqa is a good way to be treated terribly by the general population -- it's probably quite scary in the wrong neighborhoods.
@danlalan, Criticizing things that have a problematic foundation is one of the most important acts in maintaining freedom. To not criticize such things in the name of avoiding ethnocentrism runs counter to maintaining freedom.
Think if everyone didn't just defend the free speech rights of racists to speak, but also said that their vile views should never be criticized, and that we should protect their culture with all-white clubs or communities or cities or employers, we'd be doing freedom -- and our culture -- a disservice while convincing ourselves that we're oh so enlightened.
I have no problem with the Burqini itself, being just one more choice available to a woman deciding what to wear to the beach. I certainly think that if a woman has to cover up, for personal reasons or for ones imposed on her by others, it's better that she be able to go to the beach than not. So this is good from that point of view.
What I have a problem with is what the Burqini is (arguably) symptomatic of. If a woman is required to cover herself under threat, from either the government or her family, this is horrible.
If on the other hand, she chooses to cover herself out of discomfort, or in accordance with a personal religious belief, or because she's uncomfortable with her body because of some religious belief, well, that is her right. But at the same time, it makes me sad that she feels that way about her body, or thinks that it is somehow objectionable to its creator.
@shannon
and sometimes a cigar is just a cigar
Danlalan, like I said in the other entry, my daughter's first response when she saw the burqini was "THAT'S SOOOO PRETTY!" so I'm sure there are women who would choose to wear it independent of religious pressure. But let's not kid ourselves and think that is the norm let alone the foundation of this product.
That said, I'm sure there's a political argument that one could make that this is a positive step in the right direction, which many would feel is more realistic than my personal black-and-white leaning attitude. But I think it's impossible to reduce this to "it's just a bathingsuit" since it clearly fills a socioreligious niche.
***
By the way, I have to wonder if people like Teresa above would adamantly defend FGM? There are many women who argue for it as well. Or is that the Godwin of this conversation?
Jere7my @156, if you go back to the first Boing Boing burqini thread, you'll find similar remarks being made by other commenters.
Basically, they're very dull people who don't yet know they're dull. If you want a marker for them, it's that they attach huge importance to getting to express their opinions on all occasions, no matter how marginally relevant (these guys are all talk, no listen); and yet there's almost never anything remarkable or original about their opinions, most which are best described as "rudimentary."
Shannon's a good example. He or she (he, I think) believes religion ought to go away. Now, the fact is that religion's been around for about as long as human civilization, and it shows no sign of going away. It's present in our history, our art, and all our other doings. Our modern world is affected by it in extraordinarily diverse ways. Logically, you'd think it might be useful and interesting to discuss some of them.
Nope! From the point of view of someone like Shannon, none of those potential conversations matter. What matters is that he thinks religion should go away. It's like it's his Magic Opinion, which means it must be brought out and paraded around every time religion gets mentioned, even though it's a boring and elementary point that precludes a vast array of more useful and interesting topics.
In face-to-face conversations, human beings are pretty good at signaling when someone's being a bore. The internet makes it way too easy to avoid noticing that reaction.
Shannon, lets assume for a moment that modest swimwear was created explicitly as a symbol of the inferiority of women, even though the swimwear has utility beyond its original assigned symbolic value. Isn't it better to simply oppose the idea of the inferiority of women, rather than complicate the issue by attacking modest swimwear as a symbol of that idea?
In fact, would you not do the cause of opposing such an odious idea a favor by usurping such a symbol, cutting it off from its offensive roots, and allowing its continued use independent of its oppressive origins? Even if some might continue seeing it as such a symbol, its power would be diluted and the idea it symbolizes diminished.
Just a thought.
Notice how the conversation is now about Shannon?
Notice how the conversation is now about Shannon?
Theresa, my posts are not about Shannon, (s)he is merely a convenient symbol. ;)
Danlalan, personally I think you have to oppose it in all its forms.
Teresa, aren't you done making incorrect assumptions and tossing around insults and creating straw men yet? FFS Teresa, I *am* talking about the religious influence here, I just happen to think it's negative rather than positive, and the conversation isn't "about me" other than you reducing it to personal attacks rather than discussion about the subject, and generally reflecting extremely poorly on BB as a staff member.
oops, Teresa, my bad
Shannon, I do understand where you're coming from. Religeous dogma has been responsible for a lot of opression in the world, but that's not the only dogma there is.
You see, beliefs and convictions concerning our reality are an integral part of our existence.
You wouldn't be able to take two steps into this world if you didn't believe in something.
So, you have your set of beliefs. That of which you are convinced, know, it is the truth.
Well so does someone else.
And whether you call it religion, or statistically proven, or empirically established, fact, rule, truth, law, if you believe it, that is the reality you live in.
To claim your truth over that of someone else. To claim that other peoples truths should 'die'. That, is fanaticism.
In the end, real freedom lies in the observation that hardly anything is absolute.
Marcel, are you saying that you're on the side of people who want creationism in schools? And that you'd say that those who disagree are fanatics?
I'm not telling people that they can't be religious. I am however saying that I am secure enough in my belief that religion is a fallacy, that I don't want to see the structure of society based upon religion in any way, that I feel we have a duty to evolve past it, and that we have a duty to speak out in favor of a world that puts superstition behind us.
Wouldn't Muslim women's rights be better achieved by supporting them than by chasing them down the street tearing at their burqinis and telling them how backward they are? Do you get that there's a big, big, big difference between 'supportive' and 'critical'?
Danlalan, personally I think you have to oppose it in all its forms.
A symbol is not a form of the thing it symbolizes.
You paint with too broad a brush, and this is what offends. The shotgun method hits far too many targets. Perhaps more attention to fine detail will aid your cause, and convince more people of your arguments.
Don't create another straw man, Antonious/Moderator. I don't think anyone is proposing mistreating muslims. There are many muslims in my neighborhood who were anything from a fashionable headscarf to a full burqa. I am friendly with them as people, and I suspect the same statement can be made of all the people who have made similar statements to mine.
And no, I'm not sure that supporting them in a discussion like this which is abstract, rather than about a real specific individual, is the right decision. This is the place to be critical. The real world on a one-on-one level is the place to be supportive.
Again bringing up the Godwin of this argument, I am interested in knowing whether those cheering on the burqini also cheer on FGM, a tradition which is continued to a large degree because women in those cultures push it as much as the men do. Would BB champion a more modern form of infibulation and clitoral removal? Why is there a difference?
Danlalan... I totally get where you're coming from saying that my arguments hit too many targets. However, that is my intent, and as I said earlier, I think that we make a mistake by supporting moderate forms of religion -- such as the burqini is a part of -- while pushing away the extremist forms. Religion historically has moved between moderate and extremist forms -- think of the many periods where Islam in Europe has been moderate, and really, the enlightened thinking of the time in terms of science and an objective understanding of reality -- but it's not going away (as has also been pointed out). I think that if we want it and the huge problems and societal ills it brings us century after century to disappear, that we have to encourage it to go away entirely, not just become moderate. That's why I think we need to paint with a broad brush.
I would make the same statement about Christianity, that I think it's wrong to support regular Protestants while denouncing Westboro Baptists. I feel like many people's arguments are skewed because of a sense of political correctness when it comes to Islam and that may be coloring people's statements in this thread.
Shannon, I think your views on religion stem from frustration, not from reason. I don't blame you for getting frustrated, but the notion that we'd have a shot at world peace if all the religion would just go away is its own kind of mystical thinking. People will always want more resources and more power; religion is one excuse, but when people don't have that excuse they still do terrible things to each other. If you study the rise of Christianity in the Middle Ages, you'll see that people were acting like bloodthirsty monsters before they converted, and they were still acting like bloodthirsty monsters after they converted — and that people were raising families and farming and creating beautiful art both before and after. Despite its many ramifications, Christianity didn't fundamentally change human nature one way or the other. Do you really think Fred Phelps would be less of an asshole if he were an atheist? He'd just find another way to piss on the world.
There's nothing wrong with criticizing people for specific things they do in the name of their religion. I do plenty of that myself — there are loads of fundamentalist loons around. Criticizing an entire set of belief systems because of the behavior of some religious people, on the other hand, is bigotry, and it's ugly. Putting all the ills of the world on the shoulders of people who believe something different from you is bigotry. The history of religion is enormously complex, and putting your hands over your eyes and wishing it would all go away just makes you look like you don't want to learn about it. More to the point, it makes you look shortsighted and fanatical and, well, fundamentalist.
So I don't actually think you're crazy; as I said later, you look like a cool and creative guy. But if we were buddies, I would tell people, "You can't talk religion with Shannon." A lot of people have issues like that, issues where their deeply-rooted beliefs prevent them from engaging rationally with a subject.
jere7my, I don't disagree at all that religion is only a part of the problem, and of course you're completely correct with most of your comment, especially the first paragraph. It is however a force that tells people that the answers to life do not come from reason and discussion, and I think eliminating that is an essential first step. Nor do I think it's responsible for all the ills -- I do however think it's an important and significant part, and for many of the ills, an essential part.
BTW, I greatly enjoy learning about religion and a significant portion of my library is dedicated to it. Don't think I don't appreciate the richness of the cultures steeped in religion. I just think we all need to work together to take that next giant leap for humanity -- moving out of the world of fear flavored superstition.
Ok, Nielsen-Haydens (Patrick and Teresa)
You may yourself "put a sock in it" as Teresa so eloquently put it.
To begin with, I am quite well read and informed although I did not check some facts there, thank you Patrick. Among the books I have read are most of the larger religious texts, a bunch of philosophy, psychology, neuroscience and other quite interesting things.
You make the mistake of lumping those with whom you do not agree into a category of stupidity. Even someone as arrogant as I would not do that. Your arrogance, therefore, astounds me.
I have views, I also have daily contact with people from multiple ethnicities. If you really think that a view on oppression (and it is oppression, I can go into the psychology as well as deeper into how manipulation works).
Showing skin.... what kind of simpletons are you?
Skin is merely the human form. Where I lcurrently ive it would be highly inappropriate to go naked downtown, but going for a swim in a lake naked is no biggie. Everyone takes their clothes off and goes for a swim... end of story. Nothing sexual needs to be involved.
It's a question of dignity and feelings of self worth. If someone has been convinced that he or she will be judged by the gods that is a serious problem.
In our western society the fact that many (especially women) would feel shame for their normal bodies is also a problem.
We can wear much or little. Depending on weather, and what we feel comfortable with, we wear whatever we please.
Our society is by no means perfect, but we are striving to claw ourselves out of the hole of self-loathing dug by some of our ancestors, and parts of our current society. The burqa is a visual reminder of the worst of ours (victorian times) and not something to strive for.
As for the burqini in the other thread, I find the actual burqini quite pleasing to the eye, it's just what it stands for that I don't like.
If my english seems a little stilted that may be because it is my third language, and so may sometimes contain errors.
Agreed with 175 and 178. Cultural relativism is fun and all, but oppressing women isn't quite the same thing as choosing whether to fast from dawn to dusk. Do we just smile and nod at any culture's accepted practices?
After all, we don't even do that here in the States!
The KKK, Skinheads, the Michigan Militia, Scientology, these are all various sub-groups and cultures in the US, and we definitely don't just nod and say 'Yep, we respect anything they do.' I might even criticize groups I support if I think they did something egregious.
While we shouldn't be crude or cruel to people who believe differently than ourselves, we don't just have to mindlessly agree or even condone them. Nor, as so often happens, is it necessary that criticizing one facet of a belief system is an indictment on it all.
For example, I like Britain. Their new-found obsession with surveilance is absurd, and the fact that they still dump money down that silly royal family is retarded. A monarchy is different from my own culture. I think it's retarded. BUT! Britain does all kinds of other awesome things. I'm happy to praise their history, their cities, their culture, even if I think they should clean out the Windsor family's treasuries and dole the cash out to the people.
In the same vein, if I'm appalled at Islam's treatment of women (and I am), and disagree with religion in general (which I do), I'm by no means assaulting all muslims, believing them to be terrible people, or anything of the kind. I could in fact praise a great many things about Islam, even if I think their treatment of women is as dated and backward as England's silly queen.
But Shannon, how is your cause enhanced when people see your name, think "oh, this prick again", and proceed to ignore everything you say?
Personally, I hope that in the fullness of time ideas rooted in rational thought and empirical evidence become the rule rather than the exception, but I have no illusion that these things will happen soon. Pissing on everyone else does not help the argument, and drives away potential allies.
And trying to conflate burqinis with FGM? Come on dude, give me a break already.
This burqini looks a lot better for swimming than the full cotton dresses that I used to see orthodox Jewish women swimming in.
Also, I really object to the idea that Western women (or men) can wear anything they want. This is absolutely not true. If I wear my gutterpunk jeans and tank-top to my corporate office, I will be ridiculed, ostracized, and probably lose my economic power. If I wear a burqa, or a sari, or other traditional dress of a culture not my own (I'm a white liberal American), inappropriate assumptions will be made and my motivations will be seriously questioned. I conform to the dress standards of my culture partially because I want to, partially because it makes my life easier, and partially because I risk personal harm if I do not.
What it all comes down to is that the US freaked out after 9/11 and started treating all Arabs / Muslims like crap. Now that time has passed they realize how wrong and immoral that reaction was and so they are all tiptoeing around Muslim culture and trying to be "tolerant".
Yes, treating Muslims like crap (and I don't mean that lightly, people have behaved barbarically) after 9/11 was wrong, but that doesn't mean that one should make amends for bad behavior by trying to find ways to justify and celebrate repressive aspects of their religion.
Out of some 400 posts there is one anonymous post from a so-called "Happy Burkini Wearer". Have you never heard of Stockholm Syndrome? If the Symbionese Liberation Army had told Patty Hearst to wear a Burkini I am sure that she would have touted its virtues too.
I grew up in the Mormon Church. When men and women get married, the man is given a "secret name" for his wife. When she dies, he alone gets to decide if she can get into the "Celestial Kingdom" by uttering her secret name to God. This is a perverse tactic for keeping the women in line. They also have to wear oppressive garments. I have heard endless complaints by women who cannot wear cute swimsuits because of the stupid garments. But hey, wearing that crap is the only way you are going to have eternal life with your Holy Father! Is there anything more ridiculous than this? Should we celebrate this too? What about when the Pope says "No condoms for people with AIDS!"? Should we celebrate this too?
And if we shouldn't celebrate the stupid stuff other religious groups say and do, why should we find ways to justify and celebrate the Burkini? That's a double standard born out of guilt.
Oppression is oppression and there is no reason to be tolerant of it.
I'd also like to point out that the Victorian Era did not occur in the Eighteenth Century.
Shannon,
Accusing me of creating a straw man and then comparing the burqini to female genital mutilation would be funny if it weren't tragic. Take a few deep breaths.
As to my argument about criticism versus support, how do you think a Muslim woman would feel reading this thread? I think that she'd more likely feel attacked than supported.
FGM=total straw man
There is a failure in the discussion to demonstrate that a burqa is oppression.
Antinous, it's all well and good to call it tragic, but I'm interested in hearing why there's a big difference? They're both cultural expressions that are strongly advocated for inside their culture, but are deeply criticized from the outside.
BB often points out that the Flying Spaghetti Monster is really no different than Christianity. BB has a tradition of choosing a more extreme or silly example that's still essentially the same thing in order to point out the absurdity of supporting the less obvious fallacy. I'm surprised you're not seeing that.
I think a Muslim *woman* reading this forum would feel misunderstood more so than criticized, in terms of the "Muslim woman" part of her identity. However, I think people of all religions would feel criticized, and I don't think that's a bad thing. Religion should be criticized.
...And anonymous, are you seriously suggesting that a burqa is not oppression? Give me a break. Even the Muslim woman in the other forum who was a proud hair-coverer and burqini wearer said that the reason Muslim women have to be covered up is that men wouldn't be able to stop themselves from raping them, and so, because it's "easier" for the women to change their behavior than the men, the onus falls on the women to stop men from raping them. Thus we have a culture that prosecutes women when they're raped. Seems to me that's oppression, even going by the words of the Muslim woman being defended here.
I had a friend in school from Iran, she loved fashion and was always dressed to impress. Once she showed me some photos of when she went home during vacation, and I couldn't help but notice that she was dressed so plain and covered up. When I asked her about why she was dressed that way, because I knew thats not who she was, her reply wasn't "because I love it!" Her answer was "because I have to."
The burkini may be a choice to some, but it's a sexist requirement to many.
it's all well and good to call it tragic, but I'm interested in hearing why there's a big difference? They're both cultural expressions that are strongly advocated for inside their culture, but are deeply criticized from the outside.
Physical injury versus social compulsion which may or may not carry the threat of injury. Huge difference. Have you ever been the victim of violence? It doesn't compare well to social mores, no matter how oppressive you find them.
Thus we have a culture that prosecutes women when they're raped.
You're cherry-picking the worst examples from the most repressive states. In this case, we're talking about Muslims in the US and Europe. Are you going to judge all of European culture based on what happens in Serbia or Poland?
To Xeni, thank you for your eloquent post.
To those constantly ranting about how badly women are "oppressed," can I please say you are taking the word out of context. We tend to impose our western ideals on a distinctly non-western religion. Yes, we see terrible things happen on the news, but as someone who has experienced what actually happens all over the world first-hand, the women who feel truly oppressed are those that *don't* get to cover themselves up as they wish.
As it's been said repeatedly, it's a choice. It's not about "avoiding rape," but a personal liberation inside by being modest on the outside.
It's unfortunate it has been taken to an extreme in some cases, but we see this stuff happen all over in the world, in many cultures, and ignore it.
@ #16 CHUNGDOH,
"An individual, making an individual choice? Fine.
An individual being made to "choose" based on threat of violence, shunning, or worse from her community? Not fine."
This can be applied to either an side you understand, right?
If a teenage girl in West Los Angeles wore a modest bathing suit to the beach, would she not be ridiculed or seen as an outcast?
As far as the rest the comment goes about the amount of personal freedom enjoyed by US Citizens goes, I'll just say this: It ain't Holland by a longshot.
Antinous, you may again claim that I'm cherry picking, but the burqa-supporting culture is one that includes a great deal of physical abuse of women, from rape and subsequent punishment of the raped to simple spousal abuse with women trapped in their relationship. Here in Canada there are many organizations that work with immigrant women to help them escape the brutal reality of these situations. I have friends in these organizations and the stories I've heard are heart breaking... Far less women get out than would like, in part because of the threat of more violence (or death, even here in Canada), and in part because of a fear of leaving their families, children, and even their culture -- to say nothing of fear of god. By supporting a pro-burqa stance, you are unfortunately supporting a world where a great women are forced to suffer...
So I fail to see the big difference.
And yes, a comeback about how our mini-skirt wearing strip club accepting culture does the same, is another straw man that panders to the abusers' politics.
And Antinous, let me repeat that I'm NOT choosing the most repressive states. I'm choosing places like CANADA, where I live. The reason it's an issue in a place like Canada is because of anti-ethnocentric attitudes like those I'm seeing in some posters here. The liberal idea that we need to have a no-questions-asked support of other cultures, and then get the end result that we support things that are fundamentally opposed to our sense of civil rights and law.
I guess it's true, if the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
@ Teresa and Patrick Nielsen Hayden (@114 & @141)
Thanks for thinking enough of Arikol and I (and our comments) to tell us to "put a sock in it." Ad hominem attacks and insults are truly the best form of flattery and fallacy!
I'm also really happy you took the time to use such an original, non-boring expression. It really is the thought that counts, so thanks.
But before I "put sock in it," in the spirit of happy mutancy, did you have a color of sock in mind? Normally, when I "put a sock in it," I prefer green cotton calf-high socks, but just for you, I'll go along with your recommendations.
Ohhh, I know, how about those socks with rubber nodules, the ones that keep you from slipping? Or perhaps, thick and rough woolen winter socks? Oh joy of joys, I can't wait to be an obedient boy for you and "put a sock in it."
I truly hope your care and concern for our opinions and well being will extend to buying a Burqini for me and Arikol. That way, next time you tell us to "put a sock in it," we will have protected our modesty in a most modern way.
And if you every need any recommendations for to spice up your non-boring and original lives together, just let Arikol or I know, and we can tell you several ways you can "put a sock in it." Mmmkay?
I am looking forward to wet burkini contests clips on Youtube.
Did they turn off comments on the latest "Burqas are totally cool" post?
Yay!
For the record, I think that if women want to walk around under refrigerator boxes with periscopes coming out the top, I'm totally cool with that.
UNLESS she can get murdered or beaten for NOT wearing it in Hawaii or Alaska, where really hardcore fans of Metal Gear Solid have control over the government, in which case I respect the right of women in the continental US to rock the box if they so choose, but will still view that particular piece of fashion as a symbol of opression and misogyny. And overzealous enthusiasm for MGS.
Well, I tried to post this on the Hijab board, but when I pressed submit comments were turned off...I'd rather post it there, and may do if comments get turned back on...
Humans invent religions.
Some humans are men.
Historically, men have used religion, and the fear of the unknown / fear/love of non-existent deities to control who in their cultures can receive property, who can run a country, who will control the wealth, what the values of society will be, etc.
All Judeo-Christian-Islamic (and I am sure lots of others) religious books in these cases say that men are morally superior to women and as such have certain rights and powers that women do not.
Men, who created the religions then use the religious tenets they have written in the book(s) to make laws that determine when they are allowed to e.g. kill the women for misbehavior.
There have been witch burnings (millions of women were murdered in Europe and America by the Catholic Church for being witches). Sharia Law says that if a woman is discovered not to be a virgin on her wedding day she can be killed. Sharia law has determined that 13 year old girls who have been gang raped should be subsequently stoned to death. This happened just last year.
There is nothing to celebrate about "ladies fashions" within man-made cultural institutions that have been constructed by men to control and kill women.
If Scientology suddenly announced that they were going to require women to wear Burkinis or head scarves, everyone at BoingBoing would go batshit crazy with indignation and cries of injustice. Why? Because it is commonly agreed that this is a made up religion - we even know the *man* who invented it, L. Ron Hubbard.
But all religions are based on stories men made up. Talking snakes, burning bushes...Just because a religion is over a 1000 or 2000 years old, doesn't make it any more reasonable or rational than Scientology.
And it doesn't mean that the oppressive teachings can ever be incorporated into a truely free and open democratic society. It's like trying to create a better healthcare system while keeping the for-profit Insurance companies involved.
There are many kinds of feminists - two in particular are liberal feminists and radical feminists.
Liberal feminists want equal rights and equal pay etc. WITHIN the current capitalist system.
Radical feminists see that the current system is poisonous to both women and men and that it is impossible to fix the system from the inside, but rather a radical revolution is necessary and we have to start over.
That is the difference here. There is the liberal view that as long as women are not being stoned and caned and having their clitorises cut out with dirty shards from broken Coke bottles, then it is okay to celebrate Burkinis and Hijabs.
But the radical people here are saying No. You can't ooh and aww the paint job on a prison. Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions have been dangerous to women from the get go. Eve is blamed for sin coming into the world - that's the foundational myth that everything else is built upon. That's a huge problem.
@ Secret_Life_of_Plants
Well said, sir.
I count myself among the radicals.
Though I should also say that I have irrational problems with authority that stem from daddy issues, so I can't really be trusted.
The whole debate over whether Islam is oppressive by nature, or whether religion is always bad, misses the point of the post. Even if we all agree that the burqa is a terrible thing (I don't), if we agree that it is anti-feminist and representative of indentured servitude under a different name, the burqini would still be a good thing.
Imagine we're talking about slaves in East Nastyvania, who have to walk around wearing iron shackles every day. Everybody agrees it's a terrible situation, the UN should do something, etc., etc.
Then some enterprising person comes out with shackles which are lighter and more comfortable, which don't rust or clank so loud, which will make the lives of millions of slaves (whose lives are so hard) a little bit better. Isn't it possible to think that's a good thing, even while still condemning slavery? Or must we insist the slaves continue to wear the iron shackles until they can be truly free?
As I say, my view of modest dress is less stark than that — being married to a Mennonite, with living family members who still wear cape dresses and head coverings, gives one a more conflicted perspective on the matter. But I think the analogy holds.
"The liberal idea that we need to have a no-questions-asked support of other cultures"
Wow, that's an impressive feat of not-listening.
Oh, and as for what kind of sock: Argyle, wool, calf-length. HTH.
Arikol, #182: "The burqa is a visual reminder of the worst of ours (victorian times)"
If you think "victorian times" are the worst period of our own history, you're pretty much demonstrating that you know nothing about history.
"I have views, I also have daily contact with people from multiple ethnicities."
Not only that, but I'll wager you're also aware of all Internet traditions.
Isn't pointing out that someone's opinion is less valid because they're white kind of... racist?
Then again, I'm white so ignore that statement, it's invalid.
Shannon: Religion is the root of all evil, and for educated and intelligent people to coddle religion to avoid some sort of "ethnocentrism" is perhaps an even worse offense because they should know better. You should not support evil in the name of "open mindedness".
Utter rot. One should not support evil, agreed.
Religion is not the root of all evil. I guarantee you that an atheist country/world will have evil in it, because people are the root of all evil. Why, and how, they inflict it is as variable as people are.
You may be as self-righteously certain that you have the "one true way" but as sure as there are little green apples, you are wrong about something, and honestly, this is one of those things.
In your, "enlightenment" you are saying that people need to be, "educated" to see the world your way; because you hold it as an article of faith it's the best way.
Oddly enough, that puts you in consonance with a large number of religious people. The only difference being what it is you think people need to be educated about.
I, of course, am in some way "unenlightened" because I am willing to allow for context. I may think the mindset behind the burqa is evil, or quaint, or misguided. I might think it's the best thing since raw bearskins. None of that matters.
The question to ask is, "does this make lives better," all the rest is persiflage.
If Lila Abu-Lughod's findings with respect to veiling among Bedouin women might plausibly be extended to burqini wearers in Europe and the US, then it seems reasonable to suppose women wearing a burqini are basically exhibiting pride in themselves for being so careful of their modesty.
Should their self-pride and their modesty be defined by what clothing they wear? Ideally, perhaps not, but since it is for pretty much all of us who aren't naturists, it's not kind to stop them from enjoying those things.
To put it another way, I'd agree with any fight to allow women to go topless at the beach, but I wouldn't blame women who felt immodest without a top, and I'm really not sure I'd encourage my daughter to do it at all. And I'd apply much the same reasoning to judgments of the burqini.
Under_Study @197, an exhortation to "put a sock in it" is neither an insult nor an ad hominem. They were dismissing your words, not attacking your person.
Secret Life of Plants @186:
Same here. My people were thrown into prison with Joseph Smith, shot at at Haun's Mill, and had babies under wagons during the evacuation of Nauvoo. The first time I disagreed with Boyd K. Packer was in person at a family reunion. I am not easily out-Mormoned.Oh, that's minor. I don't know any Mormon women who lie awake at nights worrying about that possibility.You want to really talk about oppression? How about women having no authority in their own right in a church that leans heavily on their unpaid labor? Or twelve-year-old boys being more or less automatically given the priesthood, after which they have spiritual authority over their sisters, mothers, and grandmothers? Or teenage Mormon girls being constantly told to subordinate themselves to the boys their own age, show respect for them, and act like they're right, no matter how stupid they are? Or the church covertly and gradually rewriting its own history to minimize the roles played by women in its early days? Or Mormon women being made to feel inferior for working outside the home to make ends meet, when they're doing it on top of all the extra work that goes with the active Mormon lifestyle? Or hey, how about the fact that a woman can't reach the highest degree of Mormon heaven unless someone marries her?
Oppression of Mormon women? Yeah. I've kind of noticed some of that going on.
No. Whoever told you that story was fibbing to you. I'm not in the habit of making excuses for the Mormons, but they don't wear their temple garments when they go swimming.Heavenly Father. "Holy Father" is what Catholics call the Pope. Also, temple garments (and the ceremonies that go with them) are not required for admission to Heaven. You just don't get access to the VIP lounge.If you're going to wax wroth about the iniquities of the Mormons, get it right.
Yes. The King Follett Discourse will do nicely. So will the episode with the Kinderhook Plates, or the unfortunate reappearance and translation of that Egyptian papyrus, or Joseph Smith with his face in his hat. After that, we can all sing some good old expurgated-from-the-hymnal classic like "Oh Great Jehovah, Listen to the Red Man's Wail," followed by a rousing chorus of "Yoo-Hoo Unto Jesus."Next question?
You definitely shouldn't celebrate the one about having to wear garments when you go swimming, or the one about not getting into h