India’s tourism minister Mahesh Sharma stated this week that tourists would be handed a list of do’s and don’ts at airports that would advise them “not to wear skirts” or “venture out alone in small cities.” Cue outrage on Twitter.
He clarified later that he was referring only to religious places, and that he “spoke out of concern.”
“I was speaking about religious places, like temples. I did not comment on what women should wear or not. I am the father of two daughters. I cannot put a ban on when women wear.” One suspects from the clarification that he participated in a discussion with the female members of his household.
But this is not frivolous. According to IMF Chief Executive Christine Lagarde, India’s economic output could increase as much as 27% if the number of female workers were to increase to the level of men. To do that, all Indian women would have to feel safe enough to travel out of the house.
In Christine Lagarde’s own country, France, Prime Minister Manuel Valls gave a rousing speech on Monday in which he hailed the bare breasts of Marianne, a national symbol of the French Republic.
“Marianne has a naked breast because she is feeding the people! She is not veiled, because she is free! That is the Republic!” His inference was that bare breasts were a symbol of France, while the Muslim headscarf was problematic.
The U.N. has called on French beach resorts to lift their bans on the Burkini, and France’s highest administrative court has ruled them illegal.
Both men and women are obsessed with what women wear. But it’s the men who make such statements with the force of ruling power behind them. In Riyadh, Mumbai, and the Riviera, women continue to have to fight to simply wear what they want.
Isn’t it Islam that is demanding women wear a particular, and depersonalising, garb?
The French ban may be a problematic way to try and protect their society’s secularism, but I don’t mind the motive and at least they are not stoning to death those that breach their ban (or in the case of the photo in this post deliberately staging a scene to make a political / religious point).
Telling a woman she must unveil is the same as telling her she must veil.
I would have thought that a democratic country with allegedly high standards of women’s rights would be getting that pretty basic respect right.
Agree, as I said it is a problematic way to seek to protect their society’s secularism. Neither position is good. But they are not equally bad.
I’m not so sure about that. The penalties might be worse in some countries than others, but if one feels strongly enough to follow a particular religion by dressing in a particular way even if it’s outside the cultural norms of society, to me that’s significantly less problematic than a country enforcing a dress code for whatever reason.
Body and hair-covering is common among Christian groups as well.
“Body and hair-covering is common among Christian groups as well.”
yep , thats why my wife left the JWs when she was 18
wouldn’t let her wear trousers & couldn’t give a reasonable explanation other than “dogma”
Hair covering is a way to prevent women being closer to ‘god’ than men. It’s all about power, control and domination.
No, it isn’t, because “Islam” is not a monolithic hivemind.
http://arabsinamerica.unc.edu/identity/veiling/hijab/
Talking as though it is – plus repeating Daily Mail smears about people “staging” the aggressive use of police power to coerce a woman into stripping off her clothes – only really helps ISIS in the end:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/islamic-state/12002726/The-grey-zone-How-Isis-wants-to-divide-the-world-into-Muslims-and-crusaders.html
In that photo why aren’t the police suitably dressed for the beach in their speedos. Another example of their utter hypocrisy.
Speedo’s are not suitable beach attire – Ever
maybe on a nude beach 🙂
I’ve tried to hacky sack in the nude with others – BAD BAD idea!!!
is that a gun in your speedo, or are you just pleased to see me…
where will they put the body cam!!! – yuck imagine the hairy bits – too much!!!
You trying to tell me what I should wear at the beach? now.
If a Policeman wore Speedos on a beach, would they be undies undies undies undies undies, or togs?
undies – un dies – undead – zombies
if I don’t reappear on these forums please note that I may have inadvertently stumbled across the biggest stor
I hope the western colonialsts keep telling the inferior Indians what to do and what not to do, according to their own superior white priviliged colonial cultures.
why did you chose colonial viper – for ages I read it as colonel viper lol
Protecting Secularism at the beach.
What a crock. The French may need to hire more police for the beach…
Some Catholic Nuns are still wearing the full Habit , and have been photographed at the beach fully covered.
Rastafarians. Dreadlocks are also ‘against society’s norm and presumably are ‘threat’ to secularism.
Sikhs. Beard and Headwear.
Brethrens, head scarfs, long sleeves.
Orthodox Jews. Long skirts for the women.
Goths in black jeans and leather jackets.
You’re quite right, but at the moment there is one religious group that some members of are trying to force onto everyone and are running around killing people who don’t share their twisted stone-age barbaric views. Islam is the currently the primary threat to France’s secularism, and France has felt that quite directly more than once recently.
In that respect Islam is quite different to all of the other examples you gave.
I agree that the ban is problematic for many reasons, but I can understand where they are coming from.
You’re quite right, but at the moment there is one religious group that some members of are trying to force onto everyone and are running around killing people who don’t share their twisted stone-age barbaric views.
That’s a terrible thing to say about Christianity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism#Contemporary
Wait, what’s that, you say? Only some very extremist fringe groups who claim to be Christian commit violent acts of terror and repression? They’re not really representative of all Christians, and as such, referring to “Christianity” as an enemy of the state is inaccurate and stigmatizing?
Gosh, I wonder if there’s a lesson in that.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d happily see the end of all the sky fairy stuff. But to suggest that France’s secularist nature is under threat from Christianity in the way it is from Islam is just not correct.
You missed the point. France is under threat from fundamentalism (and probably its own foreign policy). Islam as a religion isn’t responsible for that. Neither are Muslim women making choices what to wear.
The Pope’s penguins are no better than Daesh. Go and google ‘Magdalen laundry’ if you don’t believe me.
Lets start a little list shall we….to test this “Muslims want to over run the whole World” theory…..how about we look back say 100 years….and ask ourselves just how many Muslim countries have been invaded and occupied by Western Christian countries….and then, for balance, how many Christian countries have suffered the same fate at the hands of Muslims.
So….Algeria, Morocco, Lebanon, Tunisia, Egypt, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Palestine, Indonesia, Malaysia….(feel free to add)
Shall we look at countries where the large minority Muslim population endured the horror of ethnic cleansing by the Christian West perhaps….Pakistan, Bangladesh, the Philippines, the former Yugoslavia.
Or conquered and occupied countries with large Muslim populations such as Malawi, Nigeria, Kenya….again the ones with the guns and jails worshipped the gentle Jesus.
Feel free to add…
(If you take the Christian out and just leave White…then you can add to the horror… The West Bank and Gaza and Chechnya.)
So, in the last 100 years….where is the evidence of this take over of Western Christian civilisation again? Name countries invaded and occupied by Muslims?
As with the Soviet Union, the fact that Islam is a shit form of governance meant its world domination project eventually ran out of steam. It hasn’t been an existential threat to western civilisation since the 17th Century. We conquered them instead – the difference being, of course, that because we don’t have a totalitarian ideology, the Muslim countries we conquered are still Muslim countries – the same courtesy wouldn’t have been extended to us if the roles had been reversed.
Have you forgotten history? Try & remember what you learnt about the dark ages with the Roman church in control. Have you not noticed their increased presence & ability to influence governments? Wait till the climate change disaster hits & you will be back to church on Sunday as the pope is asking for now.
I note the link you kindly supplied had this to say…
“According to terrorism expert David C. Rapoport, a “religious wave”, or cycle, of terrorism, dates from approximately 1979 to the present. According to Rapoport, this wave most prominently features Islamic terrorism, but also includes terrorism by Christians and other religious groups that may have been influenced by Islamic terrorism.”
The Quran and other Islamic scripture is used to support Sharia law, which comes in mild / medium / hot versions (the mild version skips the more brutal parts of the Quran and Sharia). The medium and hot versions are still supported by 100’s millions of Muslims…which is in direct conflict with all civilised society.
In an example Chuck can perhaps relate to on a personal level, his political forebears opposed universal suffrage to the bitter end. Right wingers are the same the world over.
And the Bible is used to support “hot” versions of Christianity which justifies doing nothing to prevent the spread of diseases like HIV (because contraception is sinful) the deaths of women in pregnancy (life is sacred!) and the murder of gay and trans people.
The problem is extremism, not the Qu’ran.
Cancer? There’s nothing particularly bad about that. Why, this person over here has an ingrown toenail!
Crappy moral relativism aside, if you want to compare Christianity to Islam in the “oppressive totalitarianism” stakes, you’ll need the Christianity of 500 years ago, not today. Thing is, it’s not 500 years ago, it’s now, and Christianity isn’t the problem, Islam is. We mostly succeeded at stripping Christianity in western societies of its political and social influence and its murderous ideologues – but! It took a long time, a lot of dead bodies and, most of all, some commitment by progressives that religious oppression is not OK. If we really must have Islam present in western democracies, we must also put it through the same de-nazification process we put Christianity through, and if Muslims don’t like it they’re free to take their bullshit somewhere else.
+1
But. US Neo-liberals are not representative of all Americans.
Yep, no scuba-diving headgear allowed on the beach in France, sorry folks.
Indeed. And how can you tell the person who has covered up for religious reasons from the person who has covered up to avoid the sun? It is not so long ago we were all getting ordered to cover up and avoid the sun, and the very fair-skinned have little choice but to do so. Now, in France at least, the imperative seems to be to strip down and display our glorious freedom. After all, nothing says freedom like clutching your stomach muscles and surreptitiously trying to make sure that your bikini bottoms are not creeping up in an unattractive way.
Somewhere or other I read a piece reporting that others on the beach fucking well cheered the cops! 🙁
Maybe, unreported, there are moves afoot to have widespread ‘hooded onesy’ beach protests of solidarity. Yeah. Sadly, I find myself doubting it.
http://indy100.independent.co.uk/image/12122-cxxrnd.JPG
French take their culture very seriously, when in France, you do as the French do.
You either except this or leave.
This isn’t a gender issue, it’s a cultural issue.
Nah, French have a history of doing this shit – a 1958 poster from Algeria.
http://archive.li/yb6ml/ace6929d3721dcc6b880f9a2e94dc3248ea0d774.jpg
Translation: “Aren’t you pretty? Unveil yourself!”
http://time.com/69351/women-unveiled-marc-garangers-contested-portraits-of-1960s-algeria/#1
no its proof that the french law makers are stupid morons you should go there you’ll fit in .
What amazing creatures we humans are! How easily we can distract ourselves from problems that threaten our very survival.
How the fuck anyone can think bullying muslim woman is going to solve terrorism defies belief. Stupid bunch of gutless losers.
I’m inclined to think that the French people have a right to define what constitutes their national culture.
As do the people of Iran.
And where that culture oppresses people based on class, people of conscience should stand up and call them to account.
As long as people of conscience can maintain binocular vision, then that’s all just jim-fine dandy. . .
What?
I wrote
“As long as people of conscience can maintain binocular vision, then that’s all just jim-fine dandy. . .”
is that better?
Good to know you are more interested in being a smart arse than having a conversation.
UK Public’s attitudes (via late August YouGov):
To what extent would you support or oppose a law that bans people from wearing the burka in the UK ?
……………………………….Support Ban ……………………….Oppose Ban
All ………………………………………..57%………………………………….25%
Age 18-24 …………………………….34%…………………………………40%
Age 25-49 …………………………….46%…………………………………30%
Age 50-64 …………………………….68%…………………………………18%
Age 65+ ……………………………….78%………………………………….12%
And by Party Support …
To what extent would you support or oppose a law that bans people from wearing the burka in the UK ?
…………………………………Support Ban ……………………..Oppose Ban
Ukip ………………………………….84%…………………………………..7%
Con …………………………………..66%…………………………………..17%
Lab …………………………………..48%……………………………………37%
Lib-Dem ……………………………42%…………………………………..30%
Yep. The intellectual liberal left’s precious multiculturalism project is backfiring in a spectacular way.
It’s incomprehensible to me. WHY? What is the French authorities reason for banning the burkini? I look forward to the banning of full bodied wet suits on French beaches. What hypocrisy.
I suppose they are at least being consistent.
http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/nuns-cannot-wear-their-habits-on-our-beaches-says-deputy-mayor-of-cannes/
Well I can understand that. Terrorists dressed as nuns could be hiding guns and grenades under a voluminous nun’s habit. But the burkini looks quite close fitting to me.
Le Pen covered a fairly wide range of topics from the burkini debate to the Brexit results, but the best was saved for her warning to the world that a Hillary Presidency would spell global war and destruction.
In the end of the interview, Le Pen made it very clear that she places France’s sovereignty and its citizens best interests, above the EU and the globalist agenda.
And Trump is hitting the very same notes. National identity, cultural distinctiveness and enforcement of borders.
and then you have schools in the US shaming girls for wearing regular clothes that may reveal a collar bone, or may be a centimeter short on the hemline
http://neatoday.org/2016/01/06/school-dress-codes-gender-bias/
from the linked article
quote” Sending the right message to students is important. Otherwise, says one of the Kentucky students in “Shame,” “It sends the message to boys that it’s all girls’ fault.…It wasn’t their fault that they were staring—it’s the girls’ fault,” she said.” quote end.
Christians and swimmsuits. Oh well. http://www.remnantraiment.com/subpages/swimsuits.htm
i think that generally speaking women should wear what ever they want to wear, in saying that we are still made accountable for for the comfort of men. So the observant, obedient muslima may a. not go swim at all or only in a burkini. For the observant, obedient fundamentalist christian girl it will be the same. Lest they stir desires in man (any man btw who just happenes to be near any girl) that can not rightfully be fullfilled cause they are not married. So in order for the girls and women to not ‘defraud’ the poor bloke who can’t help himself lusting after women that are not appropriator covered, we creating dress codes that only apply to the Ladies. Modesty for men and boys obviously has a different meaning.
We then are patrolling women later in their life for not be perfectly groomed – lets herself go, being to well groomed – who the fuck she thinks she is, and it always ends up with ‘why did she wear this or that, and why was she here, and why did she go there etc etc etc when shit goes pear shaped and she defrauded a man so bad he could not control his urges and turned into a boy who will be boys cause that what we say? Innit?
this is a good read about modesty in Christianity and i am quite sure that to an extend much of it could be translated over to modesty in Islam and for that matter into Judaism
https://strangefigures.wordpress.com/2013/07/24/talking-back-to-patriarchy-part-4-joining-the-great-modesty-debate/
Quote:
I understand that our culture has placed a huge significance on gender independence and that considering the struggles of men while choosing your clothing seems almost oppressive, but as a man I can tell you that we are sinning constantly as we try to fight through this culture of sexual openness. Proverbs 5 makes it apparent that God designed the female body to be pleasing to a man. We are warned that we are to be satisfied visually by our wives and to avoid the women who try to entice us. God created your body to be a sacred object, it is a powerful tool that is meant to be used to created desire in your husband. To show off your legs, chest, stomach, or butt is to take something that God intended for the marriage bed and put it on display for anyone to see. This public display not only cheapens the value of your body it throws a massive stumbling block in the way of men who were designed by God to be drawn to your body. – G.N. Davis, “On Modesty”
“But it’s HIS problem if he lusts after me” you may say, “If what I am wearing causes him to lust, then he has bigger issues that need to be dealt with before God.” And though that may be true, it DOES NOT negate the fact that you are still partially responsible because you are the “walking temptation” to begin with. Is that to say that had you not been around this brother would not have lusted after someone else, no, but that is to say that YOU are responsible to make certain that you are not causing your brother to stumble. – Kristy Ferguson, “Are You a Stumbling Block for Your Brother?”
Sometimes when I see a girl provocatively dressed I’ll say to myself, “She probably doesn’t even know that 101 guys are going to devour her in their minds today. But then again maybe she does.”… I don’t know because I’ve never sat down with a girl and asked why. All I need to know is that the way she presents herself to the world is bait for my sinful mind to latch onto and I need to avoid it all costs…..I must confess that even church can have several mines scattered about. To the girls who are ignorant please serve your brothers in Christ and have your dad screen your wardrobe….And to the girls who don’t follow the pattern of the world, thank you….You are following scriptures commands and you are helping your brothers in the process. – a college student’s testimony from C.J. Mahaney’s book “Worldliness” Quote End.
As for the french, topless bathing is common in France and young girls, grown women and very old women do it every day of summer. I still fail to see how wearing a burkini will prevent the man form not having impure thoughts, and how it makes sense for a girl to run around clad head to toe in a swimsuit. And i also would like to know how the girls fear that don’t want to wear the burkini but now must.
I lived in the South of France from early 90 till end 90’s and would spend after that every year about 6 month there mainly for work. The muslimas and their brothers, fathers, husbands and the like wore standard bathing suits, the more modest ones often would wear a long t-shirt but would not swim. They were never prevented from participating in life other then by their own choice of lifestyle.
Now the ladies in France like to go topless to the beach, should they stop and accommodate the imposed modesty needs of others?
A thoughtful argument on the nature of modesty, and one that I have little quibble with. And its not my place in the world to pass comment on how any woman choses to express this, or not.
But to my mind this is much less to do with modesty, than it is to do with symbolising purdah culture in a context where it is not welcome.
modesty is just a nicer word for it.
Purdah goes well beyond modesty. It’s about segregation, control, suppression and hidden abuse.
i know that, but modesty is such a nicer word for it. NO? les restrictive. now just bring that hemline down, just button up that blouse a bit more, no ladies do not play sports, and ladies also don’t need to go to universities casue they get married and have babies…..nice modest well educated ladies that know their place.
purdah.
So no objections to me wearing a Swastika patch to go with my SS cap then? /sarc
All societies have dress codes and norms that have many meanings and signals attached to them. Pretending this is just a matter of personal freedom erases these messages.
When I ask myself what message a Burkina on a French beach conveys, I conclude I don’t like it much. Its a symbol of something antithetical to everything European, almost a provocation.
So no objections to me wearing a Swastika patch to go with my SS cap then?
You may have meant it sarcastically, but it’s exactly the point. Most European countries don’t protect freedom of speech or expression, and feel free to ban whatever they don’t like. If commenters on the thread think there’s some philosophical issue with a few French towns banning the burkini, let them stand up for the right to show symbols of fascism and deny the holocaust – those gratuitous breaches of human rights have been in place far longer and at a national level.
mate you go try that in Germany, or Italy, or France, maybe somewhere in Croatia, Greece.
c’mon make my day and post pictures.
go to a public beach dressed in your patch and SS cap.
Oh my oh my oh my that would go viral before you could say booo.
Blatant strawman. Unless you honestly believe every Muslim woman wearing a headscarf is an agent of ISIS, which seems unlikely.
How is it a strawman? If it’s OK for a government to ban clothing that symbolises an ideology its citizens find offensive, what basis is there for complaining about this particular ban? You personally may find Islam less offensive than fascism, but maybe others don’t – especially in towns that have experienced Muslim violence.
The police in nz wouldn’t force you to remove your patch and cap if you wore them so you’re wrong, try again
So you happily support me in wearing Nazi regalia? Or not really?
Maybe you think such a clothing choice would carry a symbolic meaning that is just a teenie bit offensive?
Maybe the NZ Police wouldn’t act if they thought it just me being an idiot, but how about many thousands of us proclaiming a mass neo-nazi movement? Still no reaction?
no I would think you were at best a bit fucked up ,but i wouldn’t support a law change so that police can forcibly make you remove it, it’s like gang patches in public places i don’t like them but at least you know who your dealing with.
The police in nz wouldn’t force you to remove your patch and cap if you wore them…
The police in NZ wouldn’t have a problem with you wearing a burkini on the beach, either. The police in Nice or Cannes, however, would arrest you on sight for wearing Nazi regalia.
However, the Police in NZ would most likely tell me to get dressed and ‘decent’ were i to frolic around a beach top less.
and i have run into issues when first coming to NZ, not even realising that people here literally wear t-shirts and board shorts to go for a swim.
needless to say i don’t go to beaches to swim anymore, to much prudery going on there.
Germany and Scandinavia are more advanced than us in various ways. Of course, Germany doesn’t hesitate to ban particular clothing, or opinions for that matter, if society deems them offensive. The French are by no means unusual in this respect.
There is no national law in NZ against being topless. Apparently some places have bylaws
there may be no law, but i suggest not you try it. You will be told in no uncertain terms that this is not acceptable.
It happened to me. And try pointing out those that would dare to bare their boobies in NZ in public.
I used to sunbath and swim topless a lot when I was younger. I never got told not to, but I got sick of the middle aged men leering so I stopped. Nothing to do with modesty.
I swim a lot nude now, but I choose where and when I do it, usually where there aren’t people close by. It doesn’t really bother me, the fitting in. But likewise, I occassionally am swimming nude around other people I don’t know, or I see others doing that, and no-one really seems to mind. There is a time and a place and a way /shrug.
Yes but most people still avoid walking starkers down the main street.
Time, place and context. The point is that clothing, or the lack thereof, always conveys a message. And modesty is only one small aspect of it.
I wondered how long it would be before someone decided that it’s all just relative in the end anyway.
I was pointing out that being topless in NZ isn’t a crime (Sabine said the police would ask her to cover up, I don’t think that’s true except where there are bylaws). Genital nudity can be however, and that’s a different thing for obvious reasons.
if someone wear to take offense at your naked boobies and they would call the police to take care of the women who is ‘indecently exposing herself’ the police would come and most likely ask you to cover up.
while there is no law in NZ making it an illegal thing, there is also no law in NZ making it legal. so it is really up to the responding copper (if there is on on duty in that town – who knows now-a-days with cops being cut left right n center).
Breasts are not part of the indecent exposure laws though. I guess it would depend on where you were but I can’t see the police going to s beach to investigate such a complaint.
But there does appear to be at least one council that has a bylaw re visible breasts. Would love to see how that is written to not incriminate women breast feeding.
If something doesn’t have a law written to control it then it is by default legal. That’s how laws work, everything is legal until someone writes a law making it illegal. Otherwise how would one know when one is breaking the law?
There’s some bits about the law and breasts here,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boobs_on_Bikes
Weka, please accept that i may have experiences that differ to yours.
thanks.
Sabine, I’m not talking about my experience, I’m talking about what the law says. if you are talking solely about your experience of being told by police to cover up on a beach, that’s fine. In which case I would say that the police were acting outside of their authority unless there is a local bylaw.
However you appeared to be saying that in general in NZ if you are topless on a beach you can expect to be told to cover up by the police if someone complains.
My original comment was to point out that it is not illegal to have bare breasts in NZ, and that the police have no right in that kind of situation, and I’ve posted some links to support that.
This is a politcal blog, and this issue is a political legal one, so it makes sense I would want to talk about what the actual legal situation is.
Police took two calls from the public concerning the exposure before visiting the beach and informing patrolling lifeguards a bare chest was not an offence.
…
Regarding general nudity,
New Plymouth police Sergeant Kayanna Holly said public nudity was not a big issue in Taranaki but time and place was key to getting away with getting it off.
“Generally it comes down to who is offended. If you are at a nudist beach, sweet. If you are the only one on the beach that is sweet too. But if there are people around who might get offended that’s different,” she said.
Section 27 of the Summary Offence Act 1981 classifies indecent exposure as occurring when a person who, in or within view of any public place, intentionally and obscenely exposes any part of his or her genitals.
Bare breasts are not indecent exposure.
However, that does not mean a topless sunbather will be safe, at least in the New Plymouth district.
A bylaw passed in 2008 prohibits any person to be or remain upon any part of a beach unless properly and sufficiently dressed.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/taranaki-daily-news/news/6321828/Nudity-not-necessarily-an-offence
I expect you are all too young to remember that in the 1950s, 60s and 70s Australian beaches had beach inspectors charged with telling scantily clad women to put more clothes on.
Never satisfied, some people.
Age before beauty, to you i bow. 😉
the same thing happened in Germany. Bikinis were considered a thing from the devil and preachers spoke about the ‘ungodly’ women being Eve taunting poor Adam with the apple of lust.
. Why do women from some cultures cover right up to go to the Beach? And why are their husbands and sons permitted to wear normal beach wear at the Beach?
. Church clothes are appropriate for Church. Beach togs are not appropriate in Church.
. You would have to be utterly totally blind to confuse the Beach with Church. For the Beach is a place to relax and enjoy the Sun and the Sea.
I do not think the French and the Christians can be blamed for treating the Beach as a place for bathing and a remarkable place to enjoy the Sun and the Sea.
They have common sense on their side. Don’t they.
.
Remember that ad with the guy walking away from the beach in his budgie smugglers, it went togs, togs, togs, …. undies )
True comments. Only when we are free of the yolk of sexism will HUMANITY truly be free
In France and Italy there have been recent examples of men telling women what they can and cannot wear.
There are no women in France or Italy? Goodness, straight males there must be doing it tough. 🙂
I imagine there aren’t too many Muslim women among Gold Coast’s bikini-clad metermaids.
http://metermaids.com/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3045379/A-tacky-tourist-attraction-bikini-clad-icon-time-run-Gold-Coast-s-parking-Meter-Maids.html
Going around the Internet –
“No woman in a burqa (or a hijab or a burkini) has ever done me any harm, But I was sacked (without explanation) by a man in a suit. Men in suits missold me pensions and endowments, costing me thousands of pounds. A man in a suit led us on a disastrous and illegal war. Men in suits led the banks and crashed the world economy. Other men in suits then increased the misery to millions through austerity. If we are to start telling people what to wear, maybe we should ban suits.”
Henry Steward
London
That must be a rather boring country filled entirely with men. Where are all the women? Too busy being virtuous…
i think we need to realise first why women were the burka, the hijab, the niquab, or a wig – as do orthodox christian.
i think we need to realise first why women – western christian women – would never be seen in a skirt that is not full lenght, with hair that never saw a pair of sissors, with a blouse that is fully buttoned up with a full arm.
i think we need to realise why women, western christian women – do not permit their children to leave house before they are married no matter if the child is 15 or 35.
I think we need to realise why women, western christian women are not permitted to date, but have to court – dating with the purpose of marriage, and can not meet the propspective husband even after engagement by themselves but must be accompanied by a chaperone.
And all this in the name of being a godly women, and modest, dutyfull, observant godly women, a helpmeet to her headship and the likes.
nothing of this has anything to do with ‘modesty’. Modesty is something very private and what is modest to me might be outrageous to someone else. What looks modest on me, my be very revealing on someone with a different body type.
Is a skin tight full body latex/rubber suit really that modest, or is it the covering of the hair that is modest? And then will the men that come with these girls/women be happy with the other women on the beach who wear their bikinis or are topless? Or should these girls than too adhere to the new standard of modesty?
The Orthodox Christian faith seems to be nonexistent in France.
yes dear.
The orthodox christian faith exists in syria,where we have the largest christian city being under attack from us / and saudi barbarian moderates.
https://twitter.com/hashtag/Mhardeh?src=hash
Augsburg,, Germany has a very large Syrian Orthodox Community. I know that cause i helped paint the Chapel when they build their new church in the early nineties. So much fun, 12 men from the church board explaining me that we should paint Mary as a pretty pale blond women 🙂 ha, as if ever. I just asked the guys to look at their women and if pretty pale blond came naturally.
they got a lovely mother mary with jet black hair, brown eyes and a caramel complexion. the ladies loved her. 🙂
The most efficient policing of women wearing clothes is other women. Like yourself.
If you think your cartoon of all Christianity holding sway over all women has multinational power, let me introduce you to the world’s real clothing police:
the global fashion industry and their media.
Now there’s some multinational gendered power.
Are you suggesting that the fashion industry and media are controlled by women?
I’m pretty sure that Sabine was talking about a small subset of Christianity.
Then she should say so.
She did use the word orthodox in her first sentence.
First if you want to call the people living and working in Gloria vale cartoons for their form of Christianity be my guest.
Secondly if you want to call the women of the Brethren cartoons for their form of Christianity be my guest.
Thirdly if you want to call the baptists cartoons for their form of Christianity be my guest.
but let me make it clear for you to understand, you missed teh point of my post completely.
what i was trying to point out are the various forms of Christianity as they are preached and lived today, in our western world. namely that some live an extrememly liberal interpretation of the bible, and others are very rigid interpretation. The question is now, what is the correct interpretation? My liberal on or your more strict form.
you then completly miss the point which i stated earlier that the one thing all these three religions – islam, conservative judaism, orthodox christianity and fundamental evangelism, fundamental mormonism, have in common. Namely that the matter of lust, sexual desires is a problem for women that they are soley responsible for.
It is up to the women to make sure Men are not tempted, defrauded, driven to lust that can not right fully fullfilled cause not married. Thus for this to prevent the women must cover up.
Again, personally non of this is my business, however when these issues infringe in my rights to wear what i want on the beach, when these issues infringe in my rights to safety on a beach or any holdiay spot or even just out and about in shorts and t-shirt because i don’t subscribe tot he notion that man are all beasts that can not controll their urges when they see the naked knees of a women, then we have an issue.
Fact is, that if women would not grow up in a society that is ruled my Religion they might not consider their body sinful that must be covered up hidden away lest some geezer whom the not even know gets a boner and who will then blame the bitch for not putting out or up?
i think we need to realise first why women – western christian women – would never be seen in a skirt that is not full lenght, with hair that never saw a pair of sissors, with a blouse that is fully buttoned up with a full arm.
Of more relevance is how we got rid of that from western societies, the time, the struggles, the violence and misery it took to get rid of it, whether we’re glad we got rid of it and how we feel about it creeping it back in again.
.Hi Sabine
.
“I think we need to realise why women, western christian women are not permitted to date, ”
. Could you tell me where such Christian women live.
.
Thanks
well some live in the South Island and they live in a nice place called Gloriavale.
if you click on the link it will explain how to get married and if you look at the picture you will see some very stylish and very covering bathing suits in what appears a pool for women only.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3191823/Twelve-elderly-men-decide-arranged-marriages-New-Zealand-s-Gloriavale-cult-use-bloodlines-ensure-family-members-not-paired-together.html
next you have the Quiverfull Movement that is also active in NZ – homeschooling is a big hit with these guys
https://quiverfull.wordpress.com/
East or West, North or South, religion is such a useful tool of oppression.
What about rash vests?
.
. Gloriavale is but a very tiny infinitesimal group of religious people.
. What they do or don’t do has no affect on the billions of Christians Sabine.
.
regards
Observer
There is a saying “when in Rome do as the Romans do” which solves the problem for many…. so it is OK to go topless/bottomless? in France but other countries no way except in Nudist Clubs.
This is whole point, and where both sides of the debate lose the plot … if these women are oppressed and forced to wear these things because of their cavemen husbands, then the law is just, because the intention is to remove this oppression, but, if these women are choosing of their own free will to wear them, then this law is a disgrace. Clearly, there are women in both camps, (which percentage in each we can never, and will never know) so clearly there is no easy answer, and no clear right or wrong, and suggestions as to what is right or wrong, without taking into account those 2 opposite aspects to this, lacks critical thought.