• Evilsandwichman [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
    19·
    3 hours ago

    “Who thinks we should go to war with muslim countries to protect their women?”

    Hands raised

    “Who thinks we should safeguard muslim women in our own country?”

    Crickets

    “Who thinks we should go to war with muslim countries to protect their women?”

    Hands raised

    “Who thinks we should go to war with Israel to protect muslim women?”

    Crickets

    “Who thinks we should go to war with muslim countries to protect their women?”

    Hands raised

    “Who thinks we should end sanctions so muslim women and their children don’t starve to death?”

    Crickets

  • Scratch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    33·
    5 hours ago

    “I can’t go outside without wearing a head covering.”

    “Head coverings are now illegal.”

    “Now I can’t go outside.”

    This makes the world more fair and equitable.

    Here’s a wild idea, instead of making clothing illegal, why don’t we make coercing people into a manner of dress illegal?

    • chuckleslord@lemmy.world
      4·
      3 hours ago

      I’m having difficulty parsing this. Are you saying “we should ban religions from coercive headgear” or “we shouldn’t ban clothing”? Cause those are contradictory positions and I’m not certain what you’re trying to say (which is probably entirely on me)

      • Scratch@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        4·
        2 hours ago

        Ban anyone for coercing someone into or out of clothing.

        Granted, I haven’t put a major amount of thought into the nuance, but the idea of making it a sin for some people to legally go outside is absurd.

        The approach of these laws makes it so the victims of mistreatment are the ones breaking the law.

        It’s like making it illegal to be homeless or illegal to have been mugged. It’s fucking outlandish.

    • velma@sh.itjust.works
      16·
      5 hours ago

      I’m sure there will be well-balanced and nuanced discussion from the men of Lemmy on choice feminism and women’s oppression! I’m sure of it! /s

      • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        1 hour ago

        Last time I tried explaining (not defending) the hidjab ban in French public schools with a well balanced argumentation, my comment was deleted; so I won’t try anymore and we won’t have a discussion. I was expecting more from Lemmy

        • geneva_convenience@lemmy.ml
          5·
          58 minutes ago

          Last time I tried explaining why Jews had to wear a yellow star during the Holocaust with a well balanced argumentation, my comment was deleted; so I won’t try anymore and we won’t have a discussion. I was expecting more from Lemmy

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          1 hour ago

          Well thanks for announcing to the class that you have an opinion that you refuse to share.

          Wooo, that very first mod comment on your mod log is enough for me hahaha

          reason: Bothsidesing genocide

          Fucking yikes, dude

      • Ariselas@piefed.caEnglish
        2·
        2 hours ago

        But it is a nuanced issue that requires consideration of multiple truths and sometimes contradicting world views.

        • velma@sh.itjust.works
          4·
          2 hours ago

          Yes, something that the men of Lemmy are known for when it comes to discussing these types of issues. Notorious even.

          Is the /s not a well known indicator of sarcasm?

  • apotheotic (she/her)@beehaw.orgEnglish
    23·
    6 hours ago

    That thread was so ew

    I’ll freely own the fact that I’m a western, white, woman and can never fully understand the cultural and greater context surrounding the choice as to why a Muslim woman, or a woman of any religion, creed, race, upbringing, etc would desire to wear a piece of clothing that would to me, with my cultural and greater context, be a symbol of my oppression.

    The cool part is that I don’t have to understand why she would make such a choice, to support her right to make such a choice.

    If you want to support womens rights, you can’t go around trying to restrict us. If you are concerned that women who are making these choices are doing so under indoctrination, coercion, etc, then instead channel your energy into making sure they, and all women, have safe places and resources to address those things.

    • AlteredEgo@lemmy.ml
      3·
      3 hours ago

      It’s also ew that they pretend advertising and propaganda to change minds of muslims wouldn’t work. It totally would. You just need a good campaign specifically targeted to the patriarchs and matriarchs to make more liberal attitudes to clothing fashionable. It would totally work.

      And at the same time work against the influence spreading of Saudi Arabia pushing their extremist wahabism schools. That’s where they should use the hammer.

  • bryophile@lemmy.zip
    25·
    6 hours ago

    Everyone believes they’re choosing freely, especially when they’re choosing what their culture taught them to want.

    • robot_dog_with_gun [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      12·
      3 hours ago

      am i freely choosing to wear pants or just indoctrinated by the society i was raised in? if i moved somewhere they donald duck it would i assimilate or continue to wear pants?

      i know suit guys who will dress up even if they’re not leaving the house and that’s real weird to me but it’s not muddied by being imposed on an axis of oppression or whatever.

      • Azzu@leminal.space
        1·
        3 hours ago

        Clothing (pants) is very much not natural and indeed only enforced by society. If one knows about various indigenous people around the world, one knows pants are not universal.

        I actually, in this heat, would love not to have to wear pants or anything really. I’m naked at home all the time. However, if I went outside it’d be indecent.

    • PattyMcB@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 hours ago

      I generally wear what’s most comfortable for me. Sometimes I’ll “dress up” for stuff where it’s socially still “required” like job interviews or weddings, but even that is rare for me.

    • mathemachristian[he]@lemmy.mlOP
      18·
      4 hours ago

      This is framing of women in western clothing as more progressive vs women in hijab/chador is incredibly racist. It relies on Islamophobic stereotypes that play Islam as a less advanced civilization when compared to the rest. Please do not forget that the Iranian revolution that got rid of the shah was an internal, peoples revolution against a hostile empires marionette. The ayatollah was the synthesis of contradictions inherent to Iranian society and depicting current Iranian society as regressive compared to the Iranian society under the shah is effectively saying that westerners “know better” what the Iranian people need than the Iranian people themselves. This is racist. Whatever point you want to make against theocracy is lost in all the racist baggage that comes with the image.

      • HenriVolney@sh.itjust.works
        1·
        57 minutes ago

        Not discussing the racism part but the Iranian revolution was actually two-folds, like the Russian revolution. The first revolution was brought by a vast array of people, from islamists to communists. Many people hoped to keep their progressive way of life and to get political freedom on top if it. Way they got is a second revolution in the form of a swift consolidation of Khomeini’s power and a theocracy, with political assassinations and vice squads.

    • ghost_laptop@lemmy.mlM
      23·
      5 hours ago

      Two pics mean nothing bro, do you think there are not women like in the picture above currently? And if that were the case, what do you think it happened in Iran during the '70’s that caused this “issue” when it comes to religion? ahh, yeah, it’s always the us empire.