fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3819 ]

The hijab is a tool used to subjugate women

Far less so than a bikini.

Also, you're wrong. Ask some Muslim women instead of getting your theories from bigots.

DA
I know several muslim women who actually say that them not being allowed to drive in their home country is actually a great and nice thing for women, because they don't "need" to drive. So you'll excuse me if I don't exactly take their word for what is and isn't oppressive to women.

They don't speak for me or anyone else. I'd rather have the freedom to drive.

And plenty of Muslims would like the option to not wear a hijab or something comparable without facing repercussions from their family or communities. Because that's the point: A hijab in itself is not a bad thing UNLESS the choice to wear it does not lie with the individual woman. And traditionally and in many communities, that's not the case.

No woman anywhere should be forced to wear something, or forbidden to wear something. Though it gets me that no one seems particularly mindful of those women who have no choice but to wear the hajib. I've seen the argument too many times that some women in Saudi Arabia choose to wear the hajib because it has meaning for them as an excuse to dismiss those women in Saudi Arabia and other places who do not want to be forced to wear something.

As for not being required to not drive a car, great, if a woman has access to men who are willing to drive her wherever she needs, but I'm sure there's plenty of poor women who don't have that luxury, or whose lives would be improved if they had access to their own vehicles and could legally drive them.

There's a tendency to dismiss the unwilling women of the communities that practice a stricter interpretation of Sharia because some women do prefer for whatever reasons, or because some communities are more progressive or modern.

How is a bikini oppressive? Many muslim countries force women to wear a hijab under threat of beatings. When my life is literally on the line over a bikini, I'll get back to you.

Lots of women who grew up in Muslim households resent having to cover up so much. One person's culture can be another person's oppression. No different than the bullshit in other Abrahamic religions. Islam doesn't get a free pass because muslims get lots of hate crimes. One can hate a religion and cultural traditions without hating the people.

I think people conflate being arabic with being muslim, making "islamophobia" out to be a race thing when it's really that the religion is dogshit and leads to a ton of oppression in africa and the middle east. Pretty much every country that is ruled by strict adherence to Islamic law have terrible human rights ratings.

How is a bikini oppressive? Many muslim countries force women to wear a hijab under threat of beatings. When my life is literally on the line over a bikini, I'll get back to you.

But surely that's an argument against those policies in those countries. I don't see where that goes to the idea that the hijab is bad and verboten in all contexts whatsoever.

Lots of women who grew up in Muslim households resent having to cover up so much. One person's culture can be another person's oppression.

I agree, but that doesn't mean that it ALWAYS is.

Islam doesn't get a free pass because muslims get lots of hate crimes. One can hate a religion and cultural traditions without hating the people.

It's straightforwardly against the basic principles of Western liberalism to hate a religion as such. Hate the cultural institutions by which that religion is practiced all you want, but that's a tremendously important distinction to maintain.

I mean, you know, there are plenty of people out there who hate the Roman Catholics or the Mormons. I disagree with them, but no one's stopping them from doing so. But the point I want to make is that we stopped trying to outlaw the practice of Roman Catholicism or Mormonism long ago, and I think we would think of it as obviously wrong if someone were to try to do so. Now, you can look at specific practices within those religions - Mormonism is a good example, in that things like bigamy aren't permissible in the United States. But Mormonism is. And yes, that's a US example, but I think the general principles there are broadly correct generally.

I think people conflate being arabic with being muslim, making "islamophobia" out to be a race thing when it's really that the religion is dogshit and leads to a ton of oppression in africa and the middle east. Pretty much every country that is ruled by strict adherence to Islamic law have terrible human rights ratings.

First of all, that's a terrible thing to use as evidence, because there are just sooooooo many cofounders. I'm not even arguing against the conclusion. It's just really bad evidence and argumentation.

Second, I agree that actually existing Islam is wildly problematic in my parts of the world. I think the problem is, again, where you translate that into a general critique of Islam as a religion, shorn from cultural or social or historical or economic context. I don't think that's how religion or any other social institution actually works.

"It's straightforwardly against the basic principles of Western liberalism to hate a religion as such. Hate the cultural institutions by which that religion is practiced all you want, but that's a tremendously important distinction to maintain."

Bullshit, liberals attack Christianity and Mormonism all the time.

I don't think that's accurate. I think liberals are critical of specific cultural features of Christian and Mormon religious institutions. I don't think they're criticizing Christianity as Christianity or Mormonism as Mormonism. Which, again, that's the basic distinction I'm making all through here.

I think the only people who are criticizing Christianity and Mormonism as such are "new atheists" and I think they're just illiberal on this specific issue, and also wrong, and also like it's just it's own thing.

SA

Look, I'm not like...foaming at the mouth trying to get Muslims to stop practicing or wearing hijab. I just think that the abrahamic religions and the cultural values that stem from a bigoted, misogynistic, homophobic religion are a huge problem in the world right now, and it's undeniable that the worst offenses in the world today are being committed in the name of Islam. As shitty as Catholicism is, at least they've gotten their shit together in recent years. Women aren't getting corporal punishment for getting raped anymore. Atheists aren't being given the death sentence.

The Koran advocates homophobia, misogyny, murder. Muhammad was a mass murderer and a child rapist. How can you just sweep all that under the rug like it doesn't mean anything? Yeah there are tons of decent and good people who are Muslim, likely because they're practicing a more liberal and less strict form of their religion. Just as Christians who don't follow their religion as strictly are more tolerant and decent. However, even more liberal practices can still poison the mind, just like a Christian who says "love the sin, not the sinner" to a gay person. They may not be killing lgbt, but that mindset is creating an atmosphere for more hardcore bigots to thrive and feel validated in.

You basically haven't answered any of my points, just dismissing them as irrelevant. The most baffling of which is your outright dismissal of my case that Islamic law is fucked up. Like, literally do some research. It is objectively bad because of these religious tenets. Surely it is not the only reason, but your outright denial of Islamic law being fucked up is just beyond me.

This might be a bit long so sorry in advance for that but it's a sort of complicated topic so.

First, in general, I tend to think about religions basically in social terms. Like... I think it's very difficult to talk about the eternal "core" of any religion. Because what's really significant, I think, is how people live and practice whatever faith in question, and because there's often such strident differences in terms of the interpretation of the true "meaning" of the faith, and the proper way to practice it. So I generally think it's less useful to look at the core scripture of a religion, and more useful to look at how that religion actually exists in whatever society we're talking about, keeping in mind the many variations that exist in any religion.

You can make a scriptural argument, for instance, that Christians should consider homosexuality sinful; you can make a scriptural argument that they shouldn't do so. I don't feel qualified to make the decision about which of those scriptural interpretations is correct from a religious point of view. And more to the point, it doesn't really matter very much to me. What matters to me is that you have one set of institutions that treats gay people decently, and one set of institutions that doesn't. From my point of view, I don't see the point in arguing that Christians who interpret Christianity to say that homosexuality is fine are incorrectly interpreting their religion. The important thing to me is that these particular people identify as Christians and also treat gay people decently. Which means that, from a practical point of view, when we're talking about actually existing Christianity, it is definitely possible to have an existing Christianity that respects gay people. And therefore on the other hand, when I criticize Christians who are bigoted, what I am criticizing is their particular institutions, views, and choices and not Christianity as such, because from a practical point of view there's no intrinsic tie between the Christianity and the homophobia. And the same is broadly true of Islam and the many and various fucked up notions that particular Islamic sects believe. And, with regards to Islamic law, that's one of the reasons it seems somewhat irrelevant to me. I completely agree that it's fucked up. But from my point of view, those laws are a particular socio-cultural instantiation of Islam, nothing more and nothing less.

That's a very general broad case, and I know that not everyone agrees with that point of view. But I don't think that you have to agree with it entirely to say that there are moderate Muslims. There are Muslims who do interpret and practice their own Islam in a way that doesn't do those things. To me, criticizing Islam as such means criticizing the faith and practice and beliefs of those people, and that's something that I have no interest in doing because I don't necessarily find them objectionable. I don't agree with them, but I don't find them objectionable in a liberal society. Even if you think that those people are being bad Muslims, they do exist and seem sincere.

Last - to me, when I'm talking about Muslims, especially in relation to democracy and liberalism, the central point of view is about Muslims who live in the West, particularly in the English-speaking West. So that's another reason that I'm not as invested in Islamic law - because Islamic law is a different thing in the West than it is in countries where it is the actual law of the land. That doesn't justify anyone who's interpreting it in a fucked-up way, whether that be in the West or elsewhere, but it seems less pressing than the concerns of Muslims in the West who are tolerant and who are the victims of discrimination.

So, that's how I feel about it personally.

First, in general, I tend to think about religions basically in social terms. Like... I think it's very difficult to talk about the eternal "core" of any religion.

Well yes, that's exactly what I've been talking about. How it's practiced, the general culture around the religion, the laws enacted in the name of that religion. I've stated this again and again. There are plenty of real world examples and statistics that back up my points. I'm not just theorizing here.

from a practical point of view there's no intrinsic tie between the Christianity and the homophobia.

I understand what you're trying to say here but it's just...wrong? People don't develop bigoted beliefs in a vaccuum. They're taught this stuff, from observing their parents and their peers. And if their parents and peers are a part of traditions and cultures (ie christianity and islam) where lgbt are considered sinners, then they're going to pick up on that too, no matter how "decent" they are otherwise. It's undeniable that religion is the main force driving the anti-lgbt crusade, and just because not ALL of them are doing it, doesn't mean the culture of religion has zero bearing on its existence and continuation to this day.

but I don't find them objectionable in a liberal society

There's a lot to find objectionable. Just because it's someone's faith or tradition doesn't mean sharia law is right. There are cultures that practice female genital circumcision and I sure as hell ain't gonna give them a pass cause it's their tradition. Cultural practices, religions, and traditions are absolutely not above reproach.

because Islamic law is a different thing in the West than it is in countries where it is the actual law of the land.

Well yeah of course it's not bad here. We do a fairly decent job of separating church and state in the west, and Islam is a minority religion out here. The point isn't that I feel threatened by Muslims in my country. My point all along is their religion is terrible and countries where it is practiced more strictly are human rights nightmares.
There is nothing worthwhile about a belief system where the less strictly you practice it, the better a person you are. How about just ditching the religion entirely at that point.

But the point is that if the connection between the religion and the bad shit (the homophobia and what have you) is social and contingent and mediated, then it doesn't make sense to criticize the religion in general, abstract, overarching, undifferentiated terms. My whole point is that I don't think it's true or useful to criticize Islam or Christianity as such. If you want to criticize conservative Islam and Christianity, and criticize the regressive world views which those particular interpretations of those religions promote, I think that's fine and I agree in many ways. But you need to make that distinction! It's a tremendously important distinction! Because where the regressive attitudes are a particular part of a society and a culture and a practice, that means that they can be reinterpreted and changed.

It is wrong to say that "their religion is terrible" because there is no such thing as "their religion" outside of how it's practiced and actually exists. Different ways of conceptualizing and practicing the religion exist, both in theory and in actual existing fact. So the problem must be with the practices and not with "their religion".

And I can't say why you wouldn't ditch the religion at that point, because it's not my job, and it's not your job either, to determine the validity of someone else's faith. Nor is it really possible. But when someone comes and says "I consider myself a Muslim, I believe this and this and practice in this way and this way, and that includes tolerance for LBGT and all that sort of thing", I don't believe it's correct either to say to them that they're not really a Muslim, or to say that Islam as such in the abstract sense conflicts with LBGT rights.

Bottom line, the point I'm making is - criticize the specific practices and cultures. But don't look at any of those socially determined, specific things, and assume that they're eternally linked to the religion, because they're not. And that distinction should flow through the criticism and everything.

The mental gymnastics you're going through to ignore all the suffering caused in the name of Islam is incredible. You keep saying that it's just these vague cultural things causing homophobia, but not religion, even though religion is a huge force that shapes culture and tradition. You seem to be saying that religion has absolutely NO bearing whatsoever on a person's belief system or what types of things they advocate or dislike.

For the record, I'm not against religion. I think the Abrahamic religions are outdated and promote a lot of bigoted things, and the more people move away from them, the better off we'll all be. If it's to a more peaceful belief system, or none at all, so long as the culture promoted by that belief is good for all beings, it is good.

You've been really polite in this debate, and I appreciate that, but I feel this will be my last response here.

I agree that religion is a huge force that shapes peoples' beliefs, but it also is shaped by those beliefs. I agree that specific religious traditions have played a significant role in many bad things, as a force in peoples' beliefs. I agree that suffering has been caused in the name of Islam. That does not mean that those things are intrinsically tied into any possible Islam. You can change it and people are changing it.

The point I'm making about religion being socially constructed - to be clear - is not denying that religion doesn't influence peoples' worldviews. It's a massive constituent part of their worldview - but it is also partly constructed by that worldview. So when you're talking about the role that religion plays in forming a worldview, it plays the same kind of role that any other social institution does. What it doesn't have - and this is really the central important point that I want to make - is any kind of transhistorical eternal core. There's no absolute, atemporal essence of Islamness that exists outside of particular social situations.

I agree with the ideal that you need to have a culture that's good for all beings. My whole point of view is that there's no intrinsic conflict between those beliefs, and any Abrahamic religion. They are not mutually exclusive. I recognize the harm that those religions have done when they don't promote that kind of culture. There's just no reason, at all, whatsoever, that they need to be regressive. And I don't see the point of rejecting those forms of them which aren't regressive. That's really my whole argument here.

All of this. Criticising religious beliefs is not the same as racism.

Where are the countries where women are forced to wear a bikini every time they go outside and those who don't are stoned to death?

That's a fucking stupid argument. The bikini has no religious significance. Women aren't pressured to wear bikinis over onesies.

A lot of things are used in a lot of ways.

Being FORCED to wear one is subjugation. But CHOOSING to wear one is liberation. Those are the same outfit but very, VERY different backgrounds.

[ SECRET POST #3819 ]

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject