Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I actually took notice of the Sex Party....

 AlexHolker wrote:

That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.

I tried that last time. Unfortunately, there seem to be enough morons out there who thought that letting Captain Speedo have a go would be a good idea...

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.

That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.

Pretty much. As much as I'd love to wash my hands of the lot of them, doing that just gives the drongos the ability to choose a second, third, tenth Lambie. Then we really are stuffed.

The problem is, it's really hard to think that something positive is happening. You could be against both the LNP and ALP and want to therefore vote, say, green, but you know that since the Green won't win in your area, that the ALP is just getting your vote anyway. That unless the rest of the area decides to vote green as well, your vote almost counts for nothing. It's a bitter pill to swallow, and what turns a lot of people onto just throwing their vote so that the people they dislike can't get it.

I'd like to dress like this all the time. It'd be awesome. I'd run around giving people hugs, doing cartwheels in the street, dancing in the super market, and I wouldn't have to shave or worry about bad hair days.

Hiding behind a mask is very liberating; no one can see when you're hurt, or blushing, or tired, or old, or ugly. You can do what you like, because you have that extra layer of protection and anonymity. This is the same reason people act differently when in cars, or on the internet. I have even seen people change when they wear sunglasses or hats, as they take on that new persona.

My concern about burqas is that even when they are worn out of choice, they seem to be just another crutch for people with low self esteem, just like sunglasses, or too much make up. If you can't stand to go outside and honestly bare your own face, then how can you honestly call yourself free?

Dakka OT knows no boundaries.....I see some are pushing the boundaries of "Plushophilia"

To be fair, a term of Liberal government is probably what the country needed after the whole Rudd/Gillard/Rudd fiasco. Reminds everyone that the Liberals are a bunch of ultra-conservative nutjobs who can't be trusted to look after anyone except the wealthy, while giving Labor the shake-up that they needed to get back on track... So I remain cautiously optimistic about the next election, and am just hoping that Abbott can't do too much damage to our children, our young unemployed and our relations with our neighbours (piss off Indonesia and China, there's a great idea!) in the meantime.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smacks wrote:
My concern about burqas is that even when they are worn out of choice, they seem to be just another crutch for people with low self esteem, just like sunglasses, or too much make up. If you can't stand to go outside and honestly bare your own face, then how can you honestly call yourself free?

That's not even remotely what burqas are about.

 insaniak wrote:
That's not even remotely what burqas are about.

You say that, but I read through quite a lot of testimonies by women who actually wear burqas on a daily basis (out of choice). One that stuck in my head was a woman who was forced to wear one when she was 13, and now she wears it out of choice because she feels uncomfortable outside without it. Many others talked about it just being 'easier', and stated that it can get sweaty and uncomfortable, and they are not always as strict with it as they are supposed to be.

 Smacks wrote:
One that stuck in my head was a woman who was forced to wear one when she was 13, and now she wears it out of choice because she feels uncomfortable outside without it.

And that has what to do with self esteem?

If you're used to covering up, then of course you're going to feel uncomfortable not doing so. In the same way that a girl who has gone her entire life wearing ankle-length skirts might feel uncomfortable going out in a mini-skirt. It's just a matter of degrees.

 insaniak wrote:
In the same way that a girl who has gone her entire life wearing ankle-length skirts might feel uncomfortable going out in a mini-skirt.

Yes she might... If she was self conscious about her legs. I don't she how that isn't intimately tangled up with self esteem issues.

 Smacks wrote:
Yes she might... If she was self conscious about her legs. I don't she how that isn't intimately tangled up with self esteem issues.

I don't walk around in public sans pants. Not because I have low self-esteem, but simply because I was brought up to believe that it was more acceptable to cover my parts in public.

If I went for the first 20 years of my life wearing pants, and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo was considered acceptable, the fact that it's culturally acceptable in my new home isn't automatically going to make me feel any less uncomfortable about doing it myself.

It's not a self-esteem issue at all. Just an issue of what you are used to, and what you believe is 'proper'.

 insaniak wrote:
I don't walk around in public sans pants. Not because I have low self-esteem, but simply because I was brought up to believe that it was more acceptable to cover my parts in public.

If I went for the first 20 years of my life wearing pants, and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo was considered acceptable, the fact that it's culturally acceptable in my new home isn't automatically going to make me feel any less uncomfortable about doing it myself.

It's not a self-esteem issue at all. Just an issue of what you are used to, and what you believe is 'proper'.

Having your face uncovered is not just 'acceptable' in western culture, I would say it is expected. Which is why the burqa issue keeps coming up. I don't think it is just 'islamophobia'. If I went somewhere where people expected me to be naked, then I might feel uncomfortable doing that... for about a day, and then I would get over it and feel a lot better that I'm no longer being contentious. I don't need my pants to be confident. Being uncomfortable just looking someone in the eye, is one of the hallmarks of low self esteem.

I'm not going to argue that all women who wear burqas do so out of low self esteem (indeed, some are just forced to wear them by men ), but it's obviously something that might be attractive to people are who are naturally shy, and I don't think it's going to help them in overcoming that.

 Smacks wrote:
Being uncomfortable just looking someone in the eye, is one of the hallmarks of low self esteem.

It's also a hallmark of someone being brought up to believe that it is inappropriate to look someone in the eye.

... and I don't think it's going to help them in overcoming that.

Nor is banning them by law from wearing what they feel comfortable in.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
Being uncomfortable just looking someone in the eye, is one of the hallmarks of low self esteem.

It's also a hallmark of someone being brought up to believe that it is inappropriate to look someone in the eye.

And where do you draw the line? Someone could argue it is 'inappropriate' for women to drive, or vote, or leave the house, or choose their own husband (and so on). At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?

Nor is banning them by law from wearing what they feel comfortable in.

I never said they should be banned by law. I'm actually against them being banned by law. But... that doesn't mean I have to like them, or think they are acceptable. I wouldn't like to have to constantly interact with someone through a burqa at work, or in a school. And it's not bigotry, I don't really like sunglasses either.

I feel like this problem solves itself. If you don't like people making fun of you on the street for wearing something weird, wear something acceptable for the culture you are in. I had people shout stuff at me all the time when I had long hair. They were douche-bags, but that's life. I wouldn't go to Saudi and expect to prance around wearing a gold mankini and a ball-gag, that would be asking for trouble. Thankfully we are a bit more tolerant, but if you don't try and fit in, then you should be prepared for all the social and legal problems that go along with that.

 Bullockist wrote:

I don't see the problem with burkas . you can't see their face , least you can see their eyes.

Ohh really??





Yep, I can TOTALLY see their eyes through that.

And if you do the google image search for burka, half of the first page is very, very similar to that.


I would argue that the burka is extremely dehumanizing, and I would think that there's a right to be seen as a human being on this planet, which is clearly being violated by such attire.

Yeah, to me burqas just come across as dehumanizing women as if they're not allowed to be viewed as people (the outfit removes all physical features). That being said forcing them to not wear buqas wouldn't solve anything as the woman would just end up sitting at home as they aren't

allowed to show their face in public without a burqa.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

I don't see the problem with burkas . you can't see their face , least you can see their eyes.

Ohh really??

Spoiler:

Yep, I can TOTALLY see their eyes through that.

And if you do the google image search for burka, half of the first page is very, very similar to that.


I would argue that the burka is extremely dehumanizing, and I would think that there's a right to be seen as a human being on this planet, which is clearly being violated by such attire.

I always confuse the burka and the niqab. I think if people think the burka is dehumanising they need to have a long hard look at themselves. Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing, the fact that people think that someone is less because of the clothing they wear is worrying. If you can't see their eyes they can still see yours.
If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 insaniak wrote:
and then moved to a place where running around with bits akimbo

this sounds painful.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.

That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.

unfortunately with preferential voting as insaniak or motyak pointed out, that choice doesn't matter much. I already vote for small parties in the senate and as i live in a blue ribbon liberal electorate my vote in the house of reps doesn not matter much. *cough* budgy smuggler area *cough*

 Bullockist wrote:
Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing

Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.

 Smacks wrote:
At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?

That's ultimately up to the people being 'oppressed'.

But... that doesn't mean I have to like them, or think they are acceptable.

Of course you don't have to like them. But unless you're in some way responsible for someone who wants to wear one, it's not really your place to decide whether or not they're 'acceptable'.

If you don't like people making fun of you on the street for wearing something weird, wear something acceptable for the culture you are in.

Yup, intolerance is totally the fault of the people being victimised for being different...

I wouldn't go to Saudi and expect to prance around wearing a gold mankini and a ball-gag, that would be asking for trouble.

Yes it would... because standards of decency aren't a door that swings both ways.

For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.

Hey, just be glad you guys don't have an outbreak of one guy with Ebola... The stupidity would really ratchet up a fee notches.

 insaniak wrote:

For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.

Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?

The burka, and to a lesser extent the niqab, are actually symbols of fundamental/radical Islam. Contrary to popular belief in the west, it is not a central tenet of thr muslim faith for a woman to cover her face, and most mainstream muslims in the western world and the more cosmopolitan nation states in the middle east have interpeted the relevant passage of the Koran a good bit more literlally and simply cover up from the neck down, usually also covering their hair as well. The passage if youre curious:

“And say to the believing women that they should lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments except what (mist ordinarily) appear thereof; that they should draw their veils over their bosoms except to their husbands, their fathers, their husbands’ fathers, their sons, their husbands’ sons, their brothers or their brothers’ sons, or their sisters’ sons, or their women, or the slaves whom their right hands possess, or male servants free of physical needs, or small children who have no sense of the shame of sex; and that they should not strike their feet in order to draw attention to their hidden ornaments. And O ye Believers! Turn ye all together towards Allah, that ye may attain Bliss.”

Mind you the passage of "lowering ones gaze" and "guarding their modesty" is also used to apply to males, and insofar as I can tell the justification for the burka/niqab is the use of the word "veil" (or linguistic equivalent) which to some implies a head covering though many linguists and muslim scholars would tell you that the meaning of the word as it appears in the koran has changed over the past few hundred years.

 insaniak wrote:

 Smacks wrote:
At what point does it stop being culture and start just being oppression?

That's ultimately up to the people being 'oppressed'.

Stockholm syndrome is a good example of why that kind of thinking isn't always enough. There are plenty of people around the world who are oppressed and exploited, yet they seem to be content and take pride in their work. That doesn't make it okay to exploit them. I don't expect Muslim women to all turn against their culture and their family and their heritage. Many will obviously embrace it, the good and the bad.

But unless you're in some way responsible for someone who wants to wear one, it's not really your place to decide whether or not they're 'acceptable'.

On the contrary, it is my place, and mine alone to decide what behavior I personally find acceptable. If women want to wear a burqa then perhaps it is not my place to stop them, but that does not mean I would support them either. I do not like talking to people in masks, I find it impolite and sort of dishonest. I'm perfectly entitled to (politely) decline to speak to someone wearing one. The burqa is especially divisive. There are even Muslims, such as Dr Taj Hargey in the UK (who is actually an Imam) who has tried to get it banned. He referred to it as: "an archaic tribal piece of cloth that is eagerly used by fundamentalist zealots to promote a toxic brand of extremist non-Koranic theology".

Yup, intolerance is totally the fault of the people being victimised for being different...

Not all differences are good, and not all intolerance is bad. There are plenty of behaviors and ideologies that we as a society should not tolerate (Racism for example).

For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.

That isn't what has been happening though, at least in the UK. The burqa became a 'fad' amongst girls who were mostly born here (2nd and 3rd generation), and who's mothers had not worn them.

PhantomViper wrote:
Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?

It's not a double standard.

If you have a friend who finds swearing offensive, you might choose to not swear around him. You wouldn't expect him to swear around you just because you don't find it offensive.

This is the same. Covering up to avoid offending a more conservative culture is not the same thing as expecting someone from a more conservative culture to fling their clothes to the wind the moment they enter a more liberal environment.

 AlexHolker wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
I hereby resign from "team Australia"and am tempted to up my donkey vote from local politics and extend it to federal politics.

That is a terrible response. If you don't like how the current mob of politicians are acting, vote against them. Find someone you don't find completely repulsive and give them your vote, whether it's the Greens, the Libertarians or the Sex Party.

The Beauty of a true multi-party system.

 insaniak wrote:
. . . and am just hoping that Abbott can't do too much damage to our children, our young unemployed and our relations with our neighbours (piss off Indonesia and China, there's a great idea!) in the meantime.

A certain guy named after a tropical plant will be sure to put a stop to Abbott's crazy . . . at least right up to the point he rolls over like a barrel of pork.

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing

Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.

Agreed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PhantomViper wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

For you going to the Middle East, it's not a big deal to wear a little more clothing if your normal apparel is a bit too shocking for the locals.
For someone from the Middle East coming to the West, it's a much bigger ask to expect them to just shuck their clothing because everyone else is doing it.

Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?

This is true. Australia is not Saudi Arabia. When in Rome one should do as the Romans do.

 insaniak wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:
Why the double standard? Why do you expect westerners to conform to the cultural exigences of a foreign culture, but don't expect the same when the situation is reversed?

It's not a double standard.

If you have a friend who finds swearing offensive, you might choose to not swear around him. You wouldn't expect him to swear around you just because you don't find it offensive.

This is the same. Covering up to avoid offending a more conservative culture is not the same thing as expecting someone from a more conservative culture to fling their clothes to the wind the moment they enter a more liberal environment.

No, its a double standard.

In general, in western cultures if people talk to other people with their faces or head covered even if that coverage only includes a hat or sun glasses, that is considered a lack of manners and will even actually offend some people when you do it. The same thing applies to wearing head coverings / sun glasses inside buildings, etc.

If westerners go to a Muslim country, then they will have to let go of many of the things that are part of our culture and identity, like having alcoholic beverages to accompany their meals, eating pork, if they are female they know that they at least will have to cover their hair and the majority of their bodies, etc.

All of those things are part of each culture, so why are you defending one and condemning the other?

 Bullockist wrote:

If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...

IMO, there's a HUUGE difference between me growing my beard because *I* want to, a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke because he wants to honor his religion or his religion calls him to; and a woman wearing a burqa because her husband/father (or another "man of the house") is FORCING her to wear it. I do agree with you that the hijab is OK (even though I don't really like it either, it just isn't as ridiculous) as religious/cultural headwear, along with the Sikh turban, yarmulke or ubiquitous "pope hat"

 Ahtman wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:
Beneath the burka is a human no matter what they are wearing

Which doesn't change that making a person completely hide themselves is dehumanizing as it deprives the person of their visible human qualities such as a face. None of the Muslims I know wear it and are not fans of either the look or the implications of a burka, but then most of them didn't grow up in the ME. That being said making a law just to target them seems unfair and problematic, but being that hidden in public is also worrisome.

Hiding visible human qualities does not make someone less human it is just YOUR perception of them as less human which is the issue here.
I still have no idea why someones face being hidden in public is worrisome, they are most likely doing the shopping not planning something nefarious. Having an uncovered face does not make them any less likely to be planning something nefarious.
In the age of video cameras in public places covering the face whilst committing a crime has lost a lot of its value.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Bullockist wrote:

If people want to wear something it's up to them in my opinion however I draw the line at...

IMO, there's a HUUGE difference between me growing my beard because *I* want to, a Jewish man wearing a yarmulke because he wants to honor his religion or his religion calls him to; and a woman wearing a burqa because her husband/father (or another "man of the house") is FORCING her to wear it. I do agree with you that the hijab is OK (even though I don't really like it either, it just isn't as ridiculous) as religious/cultural headwear, along with the Sikh turban, yarmulke or ubiquitous "pope hat"

But will the government then criminalize all forced wardrobe? What about a jewish mother who forces her child to wear a Yamaka against his will? What about a prudish father who forces his daughter to wear pants instead of a mini skirt? What about A Wife who forces her husband to wear a sportcoat and tie to brunch? Where is the line? What constitutes excessive force and when is it complying of their own free will? Who makes those distinctions and enforces it? What are the criminal ramifications?

Some would say they are wearing the head coverings to honor his/her religion, and the religion calls them to it as well and are not 'the man is forcing me'. Face coverings have roots in cultures who used them for very real practical purposes like maintaining moisture and protecting your face from damage to wind, sand and sun as well. Hell, in the winter, 90% of the people on the metro and in DC, our nations capital are bundled up way more than most islamic head coverings. There are hundreds of people a day walking past the white house with thier entire face covered during the winter and the world hasn't ended and no one is at risk. As long as 'the government' isn't forcing people to wear/notwear specific things, then I don't have a place telling people what they do. What you wear and what you do to your body is freedom of speech. Policing speech to determine why one form of expression of covering is 'bad' and another is 'choice' is a scary place to be and usually what is meant to shield people becomes a weapon used by the intolerant and bigoted to harm people.

nkelsch wrote:


But will the government then criminalize all forced wardrobe? What about a jewish mother who forces her child to wear a Yamaka against his will? What about a prudish father who forces his daughter to wear pants instead of a mini skirt? What about A Wife who forces her husband to wear a sportcoat and tie to brunch? Where is the line? What constitutes excessive force and when is it complying of their own free will? Who makes those distinctions and enforces it? What are the criminal ramifications?

-Mom making a child wear religious attire generally speaking, is OK, because children generally do not have the same kind of "rights" as adults do. This is based on them being CHILDREN and not fully understanding what rights entail (as far as, you have a right; now here's your responsibility with that right)

-the most prudish father that I've personally known would probably "force" his daughter to wear a long, loose skirt/dress, not pants of ANY kind.

-Does the husband want to get laid for the next week? How about sleep in his bed? yeah, this one's pretty ridiculous. I know that my wife has "forced" me to wear some clothes for an outing... Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, as I will wear what I want (and that basically means being appropriate for what I'm doing)


Again, dealing with children's issues, if they are under 18, is a bit problematic due to them generally not having the same level of rights as the parents. I don't think that I'm advocating any sort of draconian dress code here, just that people have Human Rights, and that I believe that the burka violates those rights.