@iapetus_rocks wrote:
@am*3 wrote:
Yes, already got that from iap*s posts.
Do we always have to account for the 1% or less of people who think a man may be under a burqa? I think not.
Burqa's are blue anyway.
Hey, I must object. I have never raised concerns re whether it could be a man under the burqa and I even said above that I think the supposed "security issues" are a red herring anyway.
My concern is and always has been with patriarchal religious systems which hold that women are less than the equals of men, and which finds one form of that expression by "encouraging" their women to dress in a certain fashion; one which inhibits their ability to freely interact with others in society; a dress form which effectively negates them as individual persons and denies them the right to express that individuality via their choice of clothing, make-up and/or hairstyle.
Let's be honest . . . there is not much no opportunity to express any individuality for a person who dresses in such a manner that even their facial expressions are concealed, let alone their hairstyles.
And these dress forms are not chosen freely. They just are not.
They are dress codes dictated by a religion which marginalises its' womenfolk, and which even goes on to blame the women if the men are lacking in some basic human decencies; respect being not the least of these.
Why are only the women who dress like ones masked and anonymous, considered worthy of respect in Islam? Why?
At last, a poster who calls it like it is for the oppressed women of the world and some here in Aus too.
All this defence for a stone age garment that totally oblibterates a woman from socializing, an edict put on her by men and a religion that just has no respect for women in some countries.
There is no defence for marginalizing women, for subjugating women, for oppressing women and all the other horrors perpetrated on women by a stone age mentality of many men and their diseased take on islam.
