[Pants-of-dog]

@SSDR

I am refuting the conservative notion that headscarves are inherently bad and anyone who wears them is inherently bad.

[SSDR]

@Pants-of-dog, It's not a conservative notion. It's a progressive notion. Headscarves are a symbol of patriarchy.

[Pants-of-dog]

That is contradicted by the fact that it conservatives who are trying to ban it in western countries.

[SSDR]

@Pants-of-dog, Just because conservatives are trying to "ban it" doesn't mean that going against Islamic head scarves is "conservative."

[Hindsite]

That is contradicted by the fact that it conservatives who are trying to ban it in western countries.

I don't know of any conservative in any western country that is trying to ban head scarfs. We just don't like the Muslims covering their faces with masks so they can't be recognized. It makes them appear like criminals that are hiding their identities from something they did against the law.

[Drlee]

That is contradicted by the fact that it conservatives who are trying to ban it in western countries.

Nonsense. What countries?

Germany bans head scarves by teachers in school.

Many countries ban full-face veils including the obviously right wing Denmark.

Headscarves are banned but sort of tolerated in Turkey; a largely Islamic state.

There is no move to ban them in the US of which I am aware though there are various dress codes around.

This is not about banning them. It is about whether a sitting US Congresswoman should wear an open symbol of the oppression of women.

Why do you think this is a liberal/conservative issue? If it is, and if conservatives are on the side banning symbols of the oppression of women then I would ask; why are the "liberals" are not joining them. Liberals oppose religious garb on Christians. They oppose religious symbols in government places. Why do they not oppose this religious symbol in the people's house?

Do try though, to remember that the democratic party is decidedly NOT liberal in any meaningful sense and the big spending constitution flaunting republicans are NOT conservative in any meaningful way.

[Pants-of-dog]

@SSDR

It does mean that it is not an inherently progressive position.

———————-

@Drlee

Are you talking to me?

[Verv]

Homosexuality was, less than a decade ago, a disqualification for entry into the military. Three decades ago it was a felony.

All of my life, until fairly recently, nobody would admit to being gay. Even famously gay people like Liberace did not admit it. My aunt, the colonel, lived with her lady friend not partner and then only after she retired from the service.

There has been a gay identity forever. In all but a few places it was kept very quiet, between gay people.

The way as I have understood it occurring in Korea and Iran is that often times married people partake in it but view it as a dark side of themselves, a perversion, and few people fancy making this a primary orientation or identity, due to generally understanding it as a deviation.

It's like a heterosexual man fantasizing about a world where his wife accepts his mistress's existence and endorses their continued escapades, or it's like a man who exclsuively plays women or visits harlots expecting the rest of society to also recognize this as an acceptable lifestyle.

So what you are remembering is the decadent and moral cripples of an already highly secularized Western society not quite coming out and saying it because nobody would accept it.

... And the fact that people refuse to accept such a lifestyle is "bigoted," but the highly ideological & hateful attitudes that the left has to those who disagree with their politics (and all the baiting they engage in) is portrayed as progress and tolerance. So perhaps this is why there is a confusion on these things.

People didn't accept evil and would shame people who embraced it -- since when is that "oppression," and when is that anything but the proper reaction one receives from their chosen way of life?

[SpecialOlympian]

The way as I have understood it occurring in Korea and Iran is that often times married people partake in it but view it as a dark side of themselves, a perversion, and few people fancy making this a primary orientation or identity, due to generally understanding it as a deviation.

It's like a heterosexual man fantasizing about a world where his wife accepts his mistress's existence and endorses their continued escapades, or it's like a man who exclsuively plays women or visits harlots expecting the rest of society to also recognize this as an acceptable lifestyle.

Being shamed into denying your natural feelings is oppression and it's hilarious how you keep bolstering POD's point. Your comparison is hilariously bigoted as well, since you're comparing two adults engaging in a consensual relationship with willful infidelity and supporting the sex trade.

... And the fact that people refuse to accept such a lifestyle is "bigoted," but the highly ideological & hateful attitudes that the left has to those who disagree with their politics (and all the baiting they engage in) is portrayed as progress and tolerance. \

One way to not feel bad about being a bigot is to stop being a bigot.

Also good job hitting all the Nazi points in this thread Verv. You're really convincing people you're high minded and not just making half-assed justifications for your desire to return to a mythic past by purging degeneracy from the societal body. Tossing "leftists are the real Nazis" on the pile is just *chef's kiss*

People didn't accept evil and would shame people who embraced it -- since when is that "oppression," and when is that anything but the proper reaction one receives from their chosen way of life?

Says the guy who is appalled that anyone should ever face consequences for marching around with Tiki torches while shouting actual Hitler era Nazi propaganda.

[SSDR]

@Pants-of-dog, So going against wearing religious scarves is conservative?

Noemon Edit: Rule 2 Violation

[Stormsmith]

I agree with Pants Of Dog's notion that a piece of cloth isn't oppressive, but I also note that they, along with statues, eg Charlottesville, can evoke a strong emotional response.

As to the idea we should ban them, then no. Consider our favourite Pakistani-Canadian, Malala Yousafzai, who wears the scarf. No one would tell her she was symbolizing being oppressed. No one.

[SpecialOlympian]

When I want to make the point that headscarves are oppressive I definitely want to use women who successfully ran for office as my example. I am a big brained smart person.

What they should do instead of wearing headscarves is spend hours every week meticulously maintaining their hair because of the societal expectations we place on women. That is true freedom.

[Sivad]

I'd love to have some wingnut candidly explain their issue with the Muslims. Wingnuts don't give a fuck about savage repression and exploitation and most of them are religious fanatics so we know it's not that. So what gives, wingnuts, what exactly is your retarded beef with these people?

[Verv]

As to the idea we should ban them, then no. Consider our favourite Pakistani-Canadian, Malala Yousafzai, who wears the scarf. No one would tell her she was symbolizing being oppressed. No one.

Sacred cows are impressive to people, right. It's pretty funny.

I am sure there were Nazi soldiers and Communist fighter pilots who took bullets and did amazing things overcoming their difficulties. I bet there are even some epic little Nazi girls and female suicide bombers who stared down the barrels of guns and chose the hard path -- the path less traveled.

Of course, no one would say that the exploits and bravery of these people justify their beliefs or ideologies.

Why does Malala justify the headscarf?

And what about her feat makes it possibel that she is not in an oppressed state..? Would the boldness and strength of will of a female suicide bomber indicate that radical Islam is not oppressive at all?

[Stormsmith]

Why does Malala justify the headscarf?

She doesn't justify it, just chooses to wear it

And what about her feat makes it possibel that she is not in an oppressed state..?

It strikes me her well educated mind is free

[SpecialOlympian]

I'd love to have some wingnut candidly explain their issue with the Muslims. Wingnuts don't give a fuck about savage repression and exploitation and most of them are religious fanatics so we know it's not that. So what gives, wingnuts, what exactly is your retarded beef with these people?

They're visibly different and serve as scapegoats.

Other than that, conservative Christians and conservative Muslims both believe women are chattel.

I am sure there were Nazi soldiers and Communist fighter pilots who took bullets and did amazing things overcoming their difficulties. I bet there are even some epic little Nazi girls and female suicide bombers who stared down the barrels of guns and chose the hard path -- the path less traveled.

Of course, no one would say that the exploits and bravery of these people justify their beliefs or ideologies.

Why does Malala justify the headscarf?

Christ, Verv. You are awful at drawing comparisons and, on top of the immense lack of thought that goes into each one, you somehow cram your love of Nazis in there too.

[Sivad]

They're visibly different and serve as scapegoats.

Other than that, conservative Christians and conservative Muslims both believe women are chattel.

Yeah, I guess I just don't see what's so special about the muslims, they're just one more bunch of idiots making the world way more crappy than it needs to be and in that respect they're not much different than the liberals or the gulagists or the conservatives or any of the other organized idiot factions ceaselessly striving to make everything as stupid as possible.

[Sivad]

The liberals are the ones running this shitshow so they're the bunch of malicious idiots I focus on, I don't really get why anyone would waste time and energy on islam?

[Verv]

The liberals are the ones running this shitshow so they're the bunch of malicious idiots I focus on, I don't really get why anyone would waste time and energy on islam?

We are critical of Islam for a variety of obvious reasons.

It's a heresy, for instance, that violently took over Christian lands in the Middle East and invaded Europe. The Turks, Uzbeks, and others enslaved tens of thousands of Europeans, seizing them directly from the shores of the Black Sea and other locales. We have a good historic rivalry going.

We also are now often victimized by terrorist attacks and grooming gangs in our Western nations. Of course, I think that the Left which has irresponsible immigration problems are more to blame for this, but hey, this certainly doesn't make us feel more grateful to them.

But I do agree with the spirit of what you said.

Muslims are often times very great people, very pious, and they tend to be extremely hospitable and lion-hearted. I pray for the many Muslims who have defended and helped the Christians of the Middle East when they have been targeted, and I pray for the welfare of all Muslims.

I think there is much to be admired in their history, culture, and in their ability to maintain a lot of the principles they were founded on.

I'd rather be ruled by a Muslim than an atheist.

[Ter]

I think there is much to be admired in their history, culture, and in their ability to maintain a lot of the principles they were founded on.

Yes agreed, and they managed to keep their women under control.
In the West they are running helter skelter, exposing 98% of their bodies, many are cuckholding their husbands and so on and so forth.
In the typical Muslim household, no monkey business !
Al-Hamdullilah !