[Frollein]

Also, why shouldn't a person dress as they please? Do you want someone telling you what to wear?

Do you know what happens when someone here wants to wear a swastika? They go to jail, that's what happens. So the state does tell people what to wear. But apparently wearing the uniform of a misogynist ideology is now a sign of feminist self-determination.

[The Sabbaticus]

Apparently not everyone agrees with you, Godstud. Video after the jump.

The video sees the enraged hijab-wearing Muslim woman unleash a rant at the man who is told to "f*** off".

She screams at him: "You have no right to be here!"

The Muslim student took issue with the man for wearing a Pauline Hanson shirt on a university campus.

[Godstud]

Wearing something with a swastika on it, or something offensive on it, like Pauline Hanson, is not the same thing, and you fucking know it! Don't be a wanker. The clothing isn't offensive, what's is written on it CAN be.

[MRogerNhood]

The comments are kool.

That is a hot German woman.
That's not even playing fair.

[Frollein]

Wearing something with a swastika on it, or something offensive on it, like Pauline Hanson, is not the same thing, and you fucking know it! Don't be a wanker. The clothing isn't offensive, what's is written on it CAN be.

That clothing is highly offensive - it's a political statement about the supremacy of their ideology. That you don't find it offensive just shows your ignorance about Islam - wilful ignorance, considering the trail of blood their terrorist attacks leave all over the globe.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

I have no problem with hijabs: lots of women wear scarves, and if people want to wear it as a religious symbol, then whatever. It can be fashionable.

Niqabs and burkas are unquestionably offensive, misogynistic, and oppressive. I still find it amazing that anyone who can call themselves a leftist will ever defend things as blatantly sexist as clothing designed with the sole purpose of oppressing women and reinforcing their status as less than Muslim men. A society that considers itself progressive and promoting women's rights shouldn't tolerate women being treated as second-class citizens.

Imagine if blacks in the American South were pressured into wearing iron shackles or some kind of clothing to signify their status as less than equal to whites. Would hipster liberal feminists defend that, too?

[Frollein]

Hijabs aren't a religious symbol. They don't feature in the Koran. They are a political symbol just like the rest of woman-concealing tents.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

They aren't in the Quran, but they've become a religious symbol for some people. My point is that it's like any other piece of clothing also used by religious adherents: Mormon missionaries wear the same kind of clothing, and Mormons who go to church wear similar clothing as well. It can be fashionable, religious, or whatever depending on a person's perspective. If women want to wear scarves, I see no problem, and they shouldn't feel obligated to do so in a society that purports to be "progressive" (regardless of the reality). I see no room for niqabs and burkas in a "progressive" society, and it's absolutely astounding to see feminists and progressive liberals defend sexism.

[Pants-of-dog]

That clothing is highly offensive - it's a political statement about the supremacy of their ideology. That you don't find it offensive just shows your ignorance about Islam - wilful ignorance, considering the trail of blood their terrorist attacks leave all over the globe.

And kilts are a political statement about Scottish supremacy.
Are ponchos a political statement about Chilean supremacy?
Are truck nuts a political statement about redneck supremacy?

But hey, let us assume that hijabs are symbols of oppression. So what? Freedom of speech is a thing. If women want to wear sexist symbols, let them.

[The Sabbaticus]

^ P-o-D once again bringing his peculiar brand of 'insight'. I wonder if the kilt is proscribed within a religious context. Or for that matter a poncho. And what would the consequences be if these Scots/Chileans are not wearing their kilts/ponchos.

[Frollein]

The kilt isn't proscribed, but the lack of underwear is. Otherwise you're no true Scotsman. Just ask Pote.

[Decky]

^ P-o-D once again bringing his peculiar brand of 'insight'. I wonder if the kilt is proscribed within a religious context.

Highlanders are Catholic and their faith, culture and language survived centuries of oppression by evil satanic protestants. I would say there is a religious element to wearing one.

[Pants-of-dog]

^ P-o-D once again bringing his peculiar brand of 'insight'. I wonder if the kilt is proscribed within a religious context. Or for that matter a poncho. And what would the consequences be if these Scots/Chileans are not wearing their kilts/ponchos.

According to Frollein, the hijab is also not religious.

Glad we all agree.

Highlanders are Catholic and their faith, culture and language survived centuries of oppression by evil satanic protestants. I would say there is a religious element to wearing one.

If you agree with Frollein, then that means that you think kilts are a sign of Scottish supremacy.

[Decky]

You know nothing of other cultures. Kilts are a highland thing not a Scottish thing. The vast majority of Scots are lowlanders. Maybe you should stop talking about things you obviously do not understand?

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

The kilt isn't proscribed, but the lack of underwear is. Otherwise you're no true Scotsman. Just ask Pote.

Frollein just wants guys naked without thinking about whether they want to show off their packages. How sexist of you, shame, shame!

[Pants-of-dog]

You know nothing of other cultures. Kilts are a highland thing not a Scottish thing. The vast majority of Scots are lowlanders. Maybe you should stop talking about things you obviously do not understand?

Sure, kilts are a symbol of Highlander supremacy, and not Scottish supremacy. Got it.

There can be only one....race.

[Frollein]

Maybe you should stop talking about things you obviously do not understand?

Think about the blessed silence that would then descend upon PoFo from his corner...

Frollein just wants guys naked without thinking about whether they want to show off their packages. How sexist of you, shame, shame!

That's not true. I want attractive guys get naked. Besides, the kilt makes sure they appear decent. I guess the package is symbolic of hidden freedom or something. You'd have to ask our resident Scotsman about that.

[Bulaba Khan Jones]

Men are not just pieces of meat, Frollein.

[Hong Wu]

Imagine if blacks in the American South were pressured into wearing iron shackles or some kind of clothing to signify their status as less than equal to whites. Would hipster liberal feminists defend that, too?

At the rate things are going with their growing support for segregation, they would probably call it ironic and defend it. That's why they're kneeling during the national anthem and so-on, completely oblivious to how kneeling used to be considered a respectable sign of, well, respect.

Maybe some day they'll have segregated blacks wearing shackles working in cotton fields for no pay, and justify it because it's an incrimination of their own system. It would be "fashionable".

[Frollein]

Men are not just pieces of meat, Frollein.

Of course not.