The hijab (etc) is immodest

[R00tKiT]

There are european/american women who wear the hijab by choice, too, you know. So try including this category in your next unproved claim.

It was said above that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women. 
Boru

According to whom? People who hate the hijab?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

It was said above that the hijab is a symbol of the oppression of women. 
Boru

According to whom? People who hate the hijab?

No, by people who hate the undeniable fact that some Muslim women are compelled to wear the hijab.

Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

All sorts of women all over the world wear scarves. This is so basic that it's hard to understand why it needs to be said. No one is fielding an objection to scarves or scarf wearing.

Are the concepts we're discussing so unfamiliar to any of you that you're drawing a blank as to what else it might be? Is there some reason that it can't be exactly the objection repeatedly described to you in this thread?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

All sorts of women all over the world wear scarves.  This is so basic that it's hard to understand why it needs to be said.  No one is fielding an objection to scarves or scarf wearing.  

Are the concepts we're discussing so unfamiliar to any of you that you're drawing a blank as to what else it might be?  Is there sopme reason that it can;t be exactly the objection repeatedly described to you in this thread?

I have no objection to cowboy hats.  I would object to a law forcing me to wear a cowboy hat.





Boru

[The Grand Nudger]

OFC, but I'm trying to figure out what's rattling around in the heads of people who think it's about staring at tits, or hating scarves.

[R00tKiT]

No, by people who hate the undeniable fact that some Muslim women are compelled to wear the hijab.

Some Muslim women are also compelled not to wear the hijab. You can always find a group of people compelled to do just about anything.

"Symbol of oppression" is a purely subjective sentence you can keep repeating all day long. Similarly one can simply declare "miniskirts reflect moral decadence" which is subjective too. It's just your word against mine.

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, and when people are compelled not to wear the hijab, it's as awful and for exactly the same reason. If you can understand the one, you can understand the other.

[EgoDeath]

The hijab is, more importantly, none of your business.

It is because I say so. Watcha gonna do about it? A big NUFFIN.

And curiously they never complain about being oppressed, so I would say you're putting words in their mouths.

How about I kidnap you. Tie you up, put you in my trunk and keep you in a dank basement for a couple of weeks. You gonna complain when I serve you a cold ham sandwich instead of a hot filet mignon with frites and garlic cheddar mashed potatoes? No, you won't. You'll eat your ham sandwich and you'll fucking like it, bitch. Oh, and by the way, I only have RC cola. No coke or pepsi for you, BOY.

LOL I'm just kidding, obviously. I would never kidnap someone. LOL! and being hyperbolic here, but you get the point, no? Besides, who the fuck drinks RC COLA WILLINGLY

Yeah and that's why they wear the hijab. Thanks for pointing that out.

I don't quite follow. Care to explain? Or wait, is it none of my business?!?! NOOOOOOOOOOO!

She can still have any man she wants while veiled. This is retarded, sir.

I never said otherwise, thus making the comment about me being mentally challenged quite ironic.

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

No, by people who hate the undeniable fact that some Muslim women are compelled to wear the hijab.

Some Muslim women are also compelled not to wear the hijab. You can always find a group of people compelled to do just about anything.

"Symbol of oppression" is a purely subjective sentence you can keep repeating all day long. Similarly one can simply declare "miniskirts reflect moral decadence" which is subjective too. It's just your word against mine.

I would be perfectly happy if there was NO compulsion in how people dress. And I agree - telling women that they cannot wear the hijab is every bit as oppressive as forcing them to wear it.

Boru

[WinterHold]

In my opinion, people must have the freedom to live as they want unless they are causing harm to somebody else.
Physical harm is identifiable and easy to detect; while psychological harm must be conditioned to its physical conclusion -like causing depression to somebody via constant bullying-.
As long as no harm is caused; things can indeed change or stay the way they are.

Yes, good points. 

"Psychological harm" may be awfully hard to spot, in terms of direct cause-and-effect. And I imagine that when we're causing it our victim may well be trying hard not to show what's happening. 

Freud writes well about this in his Civilization and its Discontents. He points out that we can never reach a final healthy permanent balance. The tension between what society demands and what we want, and the tension among different things that we ourselves want, can't be resolved, only managed. 

But surely the main thing is to avoid inflicting harm when we can possibly avoid it.

Psychological harm is invisible, that's why I personally believe is very hard to resist in terms of causing it;  hate and jealousy for example can shape a large bulk of the hater's actions. Just like a puzzle board each piece of the puzzle is a psychological action, and the final picture is a harmful conclusion.
My bold is the finest solution to a healthy life.

People will rebel and get around anything forced on them, unless they are totally convinced with the rule implied. That's why I insist that freedom of choice is "a must".

I studied in a Saudi Wahhabi school and there weren't any girls. Boys resorted to homosexuality -just like the case in prisons-, they got around the rule of "no sex".

Sex is probably the best example. Decrees from above never work. 

Internalized rules, as you say, will operate more effectively. (Freud's description of the Superego is all about this.) I think peer pressure works because the shame it brings on is closer to an internal view than that caused by "higher authority." 

People in Japan often talk about "shame culture vs. guilt culture," where they say that Japanese society tends to be more orderly because it demands (or used to demand) group behavior. Roof-thatching or rice-planting can only be done by the whole village together, and so being ostracized is the worst thing. This contrasts to American culture, where everybody thinks he's Clint Eastwood. That's too simple to be true in every case, but I think it's a useful distinction.

But you have to make somebody "ostracized" if they are causing harm to others.
This is a kind of punishment that is good for the society and even essential: some people are in for the harm, they want to cause harm, they believe in harm culture too. The best solution would be to isolate them from the public, and their psychological harm would stop too when they can't practice it on anybody.