Islamic dress vs the rest of the world

[i-need-a-martini]

How come the burka/niqab is a security risk but the abaya is not? 

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the abaya and the hijab is not?

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the sari is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the shetel/tishel of jewish women is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the way Nikki Minaj dressed and behaved in Anaconda is not?

Is a sikhs kacchera and turban oppressive to Indian men? If not why would they wear it?

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

So have you ever worn a burqa, Martini?

---

Why would I need to wear a burka? It is not part of my religion nor part of my culture.

I assume if I was a devout muslim, then I would wear one.

I am not sure what the point of the question is?

[mugssy65]

I hope that's an open faced helmet Bsal6160?

[village_person]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

How come the burka/niqab is a security risk but the abaya is not? 

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the abaya and the hijab is not?

How is the burka/niqab oppressive to women but the sari is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the shetel/tishel of jewish women is not?

How come the burka/niqab is oppressive to women but the way Nikki Minaj dressed and behaved in Anaconda is not?

Is a sikhs kacchera and turban oppressive to Indian men? If not why would they wear it?

---

I give up. Please tell us.

[punch*drunk]

And as I keep saying, we make the assumption that muslim women have no choice. If we put those countries aside where women need to cover up by law like in Australia, women DO have a personal choice.

Actually the assumption is quite clearly "some" women have no choice.

Do you know for a fact that everyone in Australia that dons a burqa is doing it of their own free will....or are you just assuming?

[icyfroth]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@muppet_detector wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Or how about white wedding dresses - the ultimate symbol of a western womans virginity given away (n public) by one male to another male?

---

that's not opressive, that's patriarchial. And in modern Western Culture at least, marriage and wedding atire are generally personal choices.

At least most of us aren't "handed over" with a herd of goats (anymore).

(That is in reference to old western traditions - the dowery. I have no idea if there is an exchange of assets in other cultures either now or in the past).

---

But isn't that what you are arguing is the reason that muslim womens dress is oppressive - because they are FORCED to wear it by men. Isn't that type of male dominance patriarchial? 

And as I keep saying, we make the assumption that muslim women have no choice. If we put those countries aside where women need to cover up by law like in Australia, women DO have a personal choice.

---

INAM: "But isn't that what you are arguing is the reason that muslim womens dress is oppressive - because they are FORCED to wear it by men. Isn't that type of male dominance patriarchial? "

The point you don't seem to be getting, Martini, is that the old traditions like the dowry and the wedding dress, wearing of head covering (hat) and gloves in public, are no longer a "requirement" by western society.

Western society has long moved on from such restrictions. Thanks largely to the efforts of women who sacrificed their freedom, reputation, health and in some cases lives, to facilitate the freedom of choice and the rights modern women have in the western culture.

Unlike in the eastern countries which have not only not significantly moved on from their opressive religous and cultural opression, but are being dragged back into regression by radical groups like the Taliban and the IS.

Fine by me if that's how they want it in their own country.

Fine by me if women WANT to wear it here in Aus. We are a FREE COUNTRY after all.

But if the Federal Government bans the wearing of the burqa (which is highly unlikely) IN PUBLIC for reasons of security because it is a head-to-toe concealing garment, then muslim men and women must comply, and not put Islamic law above Australian law.

[punch*drunk]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Is it only the burka/niqab that is oppressive?

The hijab and the sari are meant to cover the face when talking to men but most women wear them loose. In theory they should pick them up when they have to cover their face hence the reason why they wear them draped on their shoulder within easy reach.

---

So does that mean none of them are face covering except the niqab and burqa?

Obviously any loose flowing scarf type garemnt can be held up to the face, but surely you can see a difference?

[muppet_detector]

I commented on a wedding dress. I haven't argued anywhere, or even hinted about whether I find a muslim woman's dress code opressive or not.

The whole "passing off parade"  (the element of your post that I considered to be patriarchial) was the symbology of one head of a household entrusting another male with the care of "the little woman". These days it is a symbol of acceptance of a new family member and acknowledgement that a father has sufficient trust and respect for someone else to be the most significant person in their daughter's life.

And the white dress. Older generations may still consider it to be a sign of virginity, (a highly valued attribute for some, but that doesn't make it patriarchial) but these days, i suspect at best it is a tradition being followed without understanding of the superseded symbolic representation, but more likely a conformity to accepted social norms no different to "you wear black to funerals and a hat to the race course". I doubt that every modern bride who wears white to their wedding is a virgin. It is my understanding that some even choose off white as it suits their complexion better and not as harsh as white, which enforces my belief that it is no longer considered to be a representation or declaration of how many times a person has had sex.

I think that you and I have a different understanding of what Patriarchy is, so i will leave you to it.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

And as I keep saying, we make the assumption that muslim women have no choice. If we put those countries aside where women need to cover up by law like in Australia, women DO have a personal choice.

Actually the assumption is quite clearly "some" women have no choice.

Do you know for a fact that everyone in Australia that dons a burqa is doing it of their own free will....or are you just assuming?

---

No I don't. And I have often stated in my argument that perhaps there is a small minority (of the small minority) that may be told to wear it by the husbands. But I don't actually know any muslim women that wear a burka to ask. I suspect not one other poster knows a burka wearing muslim either.

That's the reason I make the statement that it is an ASSUMPTION that we are making that muslim women are oppressed from a western point of view.

However I do live in a muslim area and do have a muslim circle of friends who wear full body covering with their faces exposed. Not just a Hijab. To call any one of these women oppressed is laughable.

But the fact is that whilst there are countries where there are laws that women MUST wear burkas, we don't have those laws in this country. So women do have the freedom in Australia to walk away from the clothing if they feel strongly about it.

[polksaladallie]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Is it only the burka/niqab that is oppressive?

The hijab and the sari are meant to cover the face when talking to men but most women wear them loose. In theory they should pick them up when they have to cover their face hence the reason why they wear them draped on their shoulder within easy reach.

---

So does that mean none of them are face covering except the niqab and burqa?

Obviously any loose flowing scarf type garemnt can be held up to the face, but surely you can see a difference?

---

The shayla can be held up or tucked in,  See the pic in the Nobel prize thread,  at least one third of those very young girls have done this, presumably because the photographer was a male.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@punch*drunk wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

Is it only the burka/niqab that is oppressive?

The hijab and the sari are meant to cover the face when talking to men but most women wear them loose. In theory they should pick them up when they have to cover their face hence the reason why they wear them draped on their shoulder within easy reach.

---

So does that mean none of them are face covering except the niqab and burqa?

Obviously any loose flowing scarf type garemnt can be held up to the face, but surely you can see a difference?

---

This thread was not specifically about defending the burka.

Prior to the burka/Parliament question, there had been other debates on here regarding the opporession of muslims womens dress. Many think the hijab is oppressive. And if we use the same argument that women don't have a choice to wear/or not the hijab (or the abaya) why don't we say yhe same about saris.

And the irony is that westerners generally regard saris as beautiful but abayas as oppressive.

My thread is to query why we regard some garments as oppressive but not others.