Soccer / Hijab

[infernale]

Yep. This here is one of dem serious posts. Rare as they may be, when they involve anything outside of music, I do think about other things. I think I probably don't write about other things (aside from my general woe is me *headpalm*) simply because I work with people who are of sufficient intellect that I can vent and rave and have a good old

Comments

[aske]

Came across this on Facebook, you'll appreciate it:



The Italian team are scum, and Ivory Coast are showing themselves to be of similar ilk. Pretty much why I'm more inclined to lend support to teams such as the Koreas, Japan, etc., they spend less time rolling around on the grass like these glass jaw ponces from Europe and South America.

Also, Sepp Blatter is a piece of shit, the sport will be a lot better once he's out of the picture. Instead of addressing matters like the need to update the referee system (unwillingness to accept change, as you said) he's tossing out stupid ideas such as eradicating the offside rule and other nonsense.

I'm divided on the burqa/niqab issue... as expected I have a negative knee-jerk reaction to anything based in nonsensical religious culture, but I'm also against the curtailing any sort of personal expression. But fuck, at least showing your face in certain situations is a common courtesy that should be acknowledged. I try to remember to remove my sunglasses when I'm dealing with people outside of my immediate circle. But otherwise, generally out and about on the street, yeah, whatever.

You might find a lot to agree with in this Hitchens article: http://www.slate.com/id/2253493

[aske]

Whoops, made it sound like Ivory Coast are a European or South American nation...

Spewing if Italy win again, though.

RE: Hitchens article

[sebastianne]

I'm avoiding doing my paperwork at work, so here goes->

I think Hitchens has some valid points, but once again his writing is more on the vein of sarcastic sensationalist banter than actual well thought out debate. Banning the burqa is in no way ‘lifting a ban’, at least not for all women anyway. Sure there are those who are forced to wear it against their will, but what about those who choose to wear it? It is a ban for them, no matter which way you choose to look at the debate. Banning the burqa will not emancipate women from the inequalities that exist in the Muslim faith, in fact it may make the matter worse for some women who will be exposed to increased attempts at control and violence in the more private sphere as people of extremist dispositions try and compensate for what they will experience as an insult against their religion. This will result in women being forced to stay indoors even more out of the public eye and other such actions. But then again it seems that the majority of people like to turn a blind eye to the unpleasant things that happen in society as long as it’s not directly in their face and offending them.

As for ‘society is being asked to abandon an immemorial tradition of equality and openness in order to gratify one faith, one faith that has a very questionable record in respect of females.’ That is pretty laughable given the historical norm in most cultures/societies/religions is one of inequality and intolerance, and if we take a look back through history Christianity has had one of the worst track records for the treatment of women, and these days just because sexism and misogyny in Christianity is more covert doesn’t make it any less worse than what is seen in Muslim communities.

Comparing burqa’s to the Ku Klux Klan outfits is also a cheap jab, given one is a political organization under the guise of religion, and is essentially an organization that exists specifically for the intolerance of certain races, which is not comparable to the Muslim faith. The Islamic fundamentalist extremists are a vast minority of Muslims, and the burqa is not directly associated with them, unlike the Klan hood being directly associated with the KKK.

As for the burqa being used to cover injuries, you don’t think that doesn’t happen with general clothing? You’d be amazed at the number of women walking around with wounds of domestic violence that you don’t see because they are covered by clothes and make up. The burqa plays no special role in perpetrating violence against women any more than do a pair of Levi’s and a t-shirt.

I’ll concede he does have a valid point with the car driving ;)

As for honour killings, they arent caused by the burqa but by extremist views, just like extra-marital sex and pursuing certain careers also instigate honour beatings and killings. Banning the burqa will not stop honour killings and violence against Muslim women. The burqa is a symbol of religious faith for those who choose to wear it, not an object of humiliation. In fact for those women who choose to wear it, they would be humiliated to go out in public without the burqa. I think this is a point which is sorely missing in all the media hype and discussion. And as for it being a garment imposed by menfolk, well lets just take a look at the major European fashion housse who dictate the latest women’s fashion. It’s dominated by males, and the ideals of beauty of slimness espoused by the fashion industry have certainly caused immense suffering and misery for many females in so called ‘more advanced, less primitive’ Western societies.

Re: Hitchens article PT2

[sebastianne]

I think sadly the burqa has become a symbol of all the things non-Muslim people dislike about Islamic fundamentalists. And that’s because it’s an easy visual target. The real issues are religious intolerance, fundamentalist religions (Muslim varieties and others), and the various forms of sexism and misogyny that occur (which happen in our society as much as any other). Because the unequal treatment of women looks different in the Muslim religion than it does in our society it likely appears more offensive, because we have become complacent about issues like rape, sexual abuse, domestic violence, raunch culture which objectifies women, unequal pay rates, prostitution etc

The common law argument is pretty poor too, given we don’t allow polygamy based on the Christian belief in monogamous marriages. I mean we’re ok with poly relationships and god knows how many married Christian men have cheated on their wives? Medical neglect and circumcision cause physical damage, which places them in a different category to the burqa. Wearing the burqa should be a choice, banning it is imposing on women just as much as is enforcing it, and as I wrote previously, I think it’s a bandaid solution to much deeper and more important issues.

Re: Hitchens article PT2

[aske]

Well, what I wanted to write in response to your longer comment is mostly summed up in this "Part 2" comment. :P

Whilst I enjoy listening to (or reading) Hitchens rant and rave, he's trying to live up to his role as an entertainer and contrarian just as much as he is a writer/editor/journalist/etc, but he seemed to be coming from a similar angle as Craig was. I'm sure Hitchens is also aware of the history of inequality throughout Christianity's history, and he definitely doesn't discriminate when it comes to attacking other religions. ;)

The burqa is a symbol of religious faith for those who choose to wear it, not an object of humiliation. In fact for those women who choose to wear it, they would be humiliated to go out in public without the burqa.

How is this so? Not that I'm outright disagreeing (yet :P), but something in my brain, just, er, isn't processing this.

[sebastianne]

In the same way that I'd feel humiliated walking down the street naked. It's ingrained in me that covering certain parts of my body is appropriate in public, even if it doesnt have religious connotations for me. You have to remember there are a whole bunch of people in this world who live more tribal lifestyles who think we're strange for the amount of clothes we wear, especially that we sexualise female breasts and consider it appropriate to cover them in public ;)

Re:

[aske]

There's a fair difference between someone accustomed to regular Western clothes walking down Swanston St naked, and someone accustomed to wearing a niqab walking down Swanston St sans niqab. Not that I'm using this as an argument to ban face coverings, but rather questioning the reasons for the personal desire or supposed necessity to wear them. It's certainly a part of Islamic culture, but as far as I'm aware, not demanded by any Koranic tenets. And, of course, even if it were, I'd still have plenty to say about that. :P

In light of the fact that, say, non-Japanese can easily become accustomed to sitting around naked in a hot spring with a bunch of strangers (actually, the only people I know who have lived in Japan and have outright refused to go to onsens are prudish Christians) I can't imagine that the transition from being completely covered to wearing just the hijab could be considered humilitating...?

[infernale]

Hitchens is one of those guys that makes some great points, and is usually entertaining to read or watch. He does though remind me of the opposite end of the spectrum - a religious extremist - he is just an athiest extremist. I find anyone who is so blindly unwillingly to at least take time to realise why people are the way they are - rather than just choosing to view it as a personal weakness, is kinda missing the boat. I have a few friends that fall into that boat, and are openly proud of it (Remember Julian and his acidic vitriol Holly, or were you lucky enough to avoid going down that path?)

I have pretty strong views about religion, but I married an openly catholic woman, understanding what this meant. This is not because i am teh dumbz0r, simply because I have an understanding of WHY. I sometimes think the Hitchens of the world lack that simple human understanding, in the same way that zealots of any sort do. He has good taste in booze though :)

Cote D'Ivore (sp??) - More French than some French place names, no wonder you are confused ;)

[aske]

Hitchens is definitely godless to the bone, although it bugs me when people describe him or Dawkins or whoever else as "fundamentalist" or "militant" atheists. Consider the lengths a fundamentalist religious person will go to in order to impose their views on others, compared to a "fundamentalist" atheist. And at least the diehard atheist crowd would be coming from a mindset willing to change their views on, well, anything, if sufficient evidence were to be presented. Certainly not the case with the religious mobs.

Nah, wasn't confused, heh. Just the way I worded it made it sound as if I was suggesting that Cote D'Ivoire is either in Europe or South America since they seem to enjoy taking a dive too.

[infernale]

The really hardc0re Atheists I know (including me) wouldn't believe in divinity if.. well there is no analogy. they just wouldn't ever. I think that's the whole point of being atheist - it relies on not believing in or submitting to faith, but reason, and reason could never ever handle something that existed beyond the scope of the explainable, which why be definition can never be divine.

[infernale]

Although there was one night on nangs, acid and a fuckload of wine i nearly jumped ship. Hah.

[ms_liv]

if you are really an athiest, why do you fear death?

Re:

[sebastianne]

RE:There's a fair difference between someone accustomed to regular Western clothes walking down Swanston St naked, and someone accustomed to wearing a niqab walking down Swanston St sans niqab

For you yes, but maybe not for them! It's all relative. It's like orthodox Jewish women shaving their heads and wearing wigs- seems strange to us they can wear someone else's hair but not their own, but to them it is very important and they would consider it a huge change to go through.

And there is a shitload of religious practices that people abide by that arent in religious texts and a heap of practices that are in texts that people dont follow -ie that Jewish email I sent you recently ;)