"“You don’t have to wear the hijab. No one is forcing you to.”
This kind of delusional statement might have worked when the “word” was shared on stones. Too bad that the transmission of facts in this century ensures that anyone with a keyboard can figure out the truth. Little wonder that some hope for the return of the Dark Ages.
What truth would that be? What is delusional about telling a poster that they don’t have to wear the hijab if they don’t like it? Do you even know what ‘delusional’ means?
Why not? They have a right to have their event and you have a right to support if you want to or not if you don’t want to but its a free country for ALL.
That being said, according to Muslims I know, most hijab wearers do it under the pressure of their family, culture, community or to make a statement. Only a small percentage does it to please their God.
Oh, I think it’d be excellent for them to have a conversation about its wider meaning—and that conversation should include both that it’s a symbol of subjugation in some places and contexts and a symbol of personal devotion in others and a symbol of personal empowerment in others.
However, the conversation right here is about this one event, and its appropriateness—and it was designed to get those who don’t wear a headscarf to experience what it’s like to wear a headscarf in the local community. In the actual experiencing of it, the experiences of the far past and the far distance aren’t what’s being experienced—it isn’t a living history sort of thing, and it isn’t a simulation of [insert other community name here]. So why the attempt to bring those things in as being centrally important to the event that the OP linked to?
The idea that women covering themselves in a way men do not somehow “pleases god” is a blantantly sexist notion, and one that is very clearly part of a pattern of control and subjugation of women throughout time. It is certainly not unique to Islam.
Women in such cultures very often internalize these concepts. Just as women in cultures that favor female genital mutilation are the prime perpetrators.
@infinityman “So what do we disagree on?”
My post was never intended to be in response to your post. We agree that women and girls should be free to wear a hijab or burqa, but not be coerced to.
In contrast, @dfbdfb’s view does concern me.
First, @romanigypsyeyes posted that women can wear whatever they want to.
Then, I replied that what troubles me is that “many of these women do not have any choice, even in the US.”
@dfbdfb then expressed his view that many women not having a choice is trivially true and compared it to “… kids who had to go to church despite not wanting to…”
To me, the view that forcing women and girls to wear a hijab or burqa is trivial and no more troubling than say, telling a person to wear a jacket or making a dog to wear a collar, is deeply troubling and offensive.
Even more troubling, is that Americans are so conditioned to not discuss religion that very few people are willing to call out a statement like that as unacceptable. In my opinion, this is the type of person would have allowed the southern states to keep slaves, if they had only argued that slavery was acceptable because it was part of their religion. I do not agree.
"
What truth would that be? What is delusional about telling a poster that they don’t have to wear the hijab if they don’t like it? Do you even know what ‘delusional’ means?"
If I understand correctly, your comment was about telling one poster what she can do! The delusional part would be to elevate that you term to a more generic you that would address a wider population. To be clear, the truth one could find is that millions of followers of Islam have been brainwashed or threatened to follow the questionable interpretations of tenets of their religion. What is further delusional is to cling to the notion that many are free to choose. It might be the case in your close family, but that is surely not the case in plenty of countries.
For the record, I think that the high school event was a good idea in the sense that it might foster a dialogue about what might be good about the practice and what is also negative. Of course, that requires a certain freedom of expression that might be foreign to some.
Which of course they did.
Religion was also used as a reason for Spanish invaders to virtually “own” vast numbers of native people throughout Latin America.
To clarify, I meant legally they can wear whatever they want (with a few exceptions). I also meant I don’t care what people wear.
Yes it is unfortunate that families and cultures force (mostly) women into certain manners of dress. Of course, that’s not limited to Islam. Mr R’s female cousins are not permitted to wear anything other than floor length skirts.
Religion was also the prime motivator for northern abolitionists who wanted to abolish slavery in the United States.
But they were Boston Unitarians. 
No, seriously, religion has obviously been a force for both good and evil throughout history.
My soap box moment:
Requiring the covering of 50 percent of a population and denying them a legitimate voice all the while espousing it is a “choice” of religion is ridiculous. The requirement comes BY LAW in most of these countries. It has nothing to do with religion. It’s political.
If it was only for religious purposes, only Muslim women who want to wear head scarves in these countries would. .And then you woudn’t read stories of women who travel abroad, discard their normal garb but have to put it back on upon returning to their country.
It is mandated for ALL women in a lot of countries. No religion–just because you are a woman. And punishable by law. If I visited these countries I’d have to cover up, couldn’t drive, have to have chaperones. There is no religious freedom here. I’d be subjugated to the laws. Why? Because I’m a woman, Keeping half the population under thumb.
While I’m still on my soap box…body language and fashion is a form of communication.
To require that someone cover up and conform to a particular dress is a huge form of control. It’s a denial of individuality. It’s why a company or team or club requires uniforms–it’s team building for the company/the brand…Great if you buy into the concept and want to be part of that team.
I have the freedom to quit the company/team/club if I’m in the states And quit the uniform too.
But I couldn’t quit a country or religion if it was mandated.
I was in Iran 5 years ago. They were quite open to non-Moslems drinking alcohol - the Christian Sports Club even has a bar and you can drink as you like. I asked why then all women have to cover up (especially hair), and the answer, of course, is that it is to protect men. So for the benefit of Moslem men, all women should comply.
I can’t agree it has nothing to do with religion - religion informs or controls the political system that writes and enforces laws.
@Consolation that was my point that you seemed to have somewhat missed. It is written, in the Qur’an (I can’t speak for the Bible or Torah) that God wants modesty of ALL. Men do have clothing restrictions on them (nothing too tight/are not allowed to wear gold or gemstones/forbidden from wearing certain fabrics) that do not apply to women. The whole “only women should cover up/be modest” idea is pushed by the same men @Much2learn and I mentioned, for purely sexist reasons. Nothing to do with religion and EVERYTHING to do with men who wish to keep woman pliant and biddable.
I never refrenced people who are forced into wearing the hijab, so I don’t know where you got the idea from. I said that those that DO choose to do so, shouldn’t be shamed for their choice.
[quote]
I can’t agree it has nothing to do with religion - religion informs or controls the political system that writes and enforces laws.
[/quotes]
I disagree. Opportunistic people inform and control the political system. They may use religion - or rather, a certain version of it - or any another means that suit their purposes.
Probably lots of people in the US only see Islam and/or Muslims when mentioned in television news about Daesh, the KSA, or other religious conservative types.
^And that is why a “Walk a Mile in Her Hijab” event is meaningful, as it serves to spread awareness of how many American muslims live as opposed to more extreme examples seen through the news, movies, and other forms of media. It presents other faces of Islam.
@Much2learn, please stop trying to skewer me based on my use of the phrase “trivially true”. As I noted upthread, saying that something is “trivially true” does not mean or imply that it is trivial. What it does mean is that the statement that has been made is a vacuous truth—it is true, but not in any way that is meaningful.
Let’s reconstruct, shall we?
You said:
Importantly, this was (in the context of that post) a statement about women who, “until they are through college and completely on their own” are required to do as they are directed.
My response (saying that this is trivially true) was pointing out that that is an absolutely true statement—but it isn’t true in any sort of meaningful way. In general, those who live at home, or aren’t through college and completely on their own, have to conform to some degree to the expectations of those that are supporting them. This isn’t, however limited to Muslim women wearing a headscarf—as I pointed out, it includes several different sorts of things, including, for example, those who have to go to church even if they don’t want to.
This should, I think, be an uncontroversial statement, and I don’t get what about it so “concerns” you, except insofar as it points out that that one thing you said really isn’t a strong argument.
Unless, that is, if you’re saying that my point was what you were reacting to with this:
In which case I’ll note rather emphatically that that isn’t what I was saying at all, and I’d appreciate you recognizing that.
“Are Christians “barbaric” because they Christen babies(i.e drown them in water)?”
Wait, what? Can we deal in reality here?
I have seen babies fully immersed in fonts during baptisms on Tv. I may have actually just proved @ucbalumunus’s point: what you see on tv may not represent a religion’s true form. And I should that that particular statement and the one about the Jews are exaggerations, meant to prove a point.
Full immersion is not equivalent to drowning … :))