Are there any academic theory texts (feminist, postcolonial...

Okay, well for the record I could give two fucks about forcing women to wear shirts in the west. Having said that, certainly there are degrees of oppression and the burqa is more oppressive than the shirt. Either way though, I think this type of argument is sidelining the issue I want to discuss.

>I have no real issues with the Hijab, but it is in no way hypocritical to criticise a culture in which many women must cover all their discernible features in black whenever they leave the house.
This. I don't find the hijab offensive either.

>purely for patriarchal reasons.
and what is the problem with this ?

also, under the burqa, women can stay in PJs are even be naked. it is really super comfy.

>I have no real issues with the Hijab, but it is in no way hypocritical to criticise a culture in which many women must cover all their discernible features in black whenever they leave the house.

It just seems like a cultural bias if you criticise one and not the other. Both are forcing women to cover their body. Both are enforcing differing restrictions for one half of the population based on their own values and ideology.

>under the burqa, women can ... even be naked
and a new fetish awakens

Besides being forced on people purely because they lost, what is essentially, a coin toss with their gender, women don't have the choice to wear it or not.
Might be comfy, but so are tracksuit pants.

Also, Wahhabist LEAVE

Oh my god. Are you thick? We are talking about the burqa IN THIS THREAD. Just because we are not criticizing every other gender inequality IN THIS THREAD doesn't mean that we endorse those positions. At this point I am starting to suspect that you are deliberately trying to keep the thread off topic.

I was responding an user who was specifically talking about what I responded to you fucking retard.

ILLEGAL MOVE. Ad hominem fallacy. You're attacking my character in the form of an argument, as you know.

haha god damn it. I really want to get a dialogue going about this here.

Not sure on texts, but one argument i've heard against a Burqa ban is that women who are only allowed outside of the house if they're wearing a Burqa, will be unable to leave the house PERIOD if the Burqa is banned.
Her fundamentalist husband could get with the times, liberalise, and allow her outside of the house in just a Hijab, but the more likely thing that will happen is that he'll stick to his archaic beliefs and keep her inside day in day out.

Atleast in a Burqa, she can uphold a semi-normal lifestyle, but without being let outside of the house she's essentially suffering in silence

Thoughts? I can kind of understand this line of thinking, however it feels like quite a weak argument.

>Are there any academic theory texts (feminist, postcolonial, or otherwise) that provide an ethical justification for the niqab/burqa?
Just deflection.
>B-But there have been laws against the veil in Algeria!
>B-But aristocratic women are made to dress like ghosts too!
>B-But look at those invisible facial expressions nobody can see, she's an assertive rebel who fights the System just like the Subcomandante Marcos in Mexico!
and the like.

You will not find a singe justification for why people calling themselves gender egalitarians support the institutionalization of the man being visible and the woman being invisible.

It is quite an effective system to hide bruises and other evidence of domestic abuse, isn't it?

I mean, the clergymen repeatedly say you cannot strike her more than 10 times, that you shouldn't use the full length of the arm but only the forearm to strike less hard, and especially that you should avoid leaving marks (clever system, isn't it?), but your loving husband is not infallible.

>Pseudo-progressives and their media outlets (Buzzfeed, Huffington Post, etc.) seem to think it's racist and Islamophobic to criticize this cultural practice
Follow the money, you could see if the Saudis are financing the media outlet directly, or the political party or candidates of choice of the journalists. The niqaab is most frequently encountered where wahhabism is prevalent, for example in Saudi Arabia, lands under the control of ISIS, or this thread.

>If you are sincerely passionate about gender equality
if

OP here. I have heard this argument and it is definitely compelling. I wasn't talking about a burqa ban, but about-

A. simply being able to critique it without being labeled an ignorant islamophobe.
B. why many progressives seem to take off their thinking caps when talking about islam.

I agree that if it is going to harm the women rather than help them, we aren't ready to "ban" it. Ideally there would be a cultural shift or religious reform and we would have to.

>It is quite an effective system to hide bruises and other evidence of domestic abuse, isn't it?
Ban makeup.

It's all in the details of what each restriction implies.
A burqa covers up a woman's entire being. The face, which is incredibly important in the forming of human relationships (as well as being important to differentiate one human person from another), is unrecognisable and the burqa-clad woman will find it infinitely harder to make and uphold friendships with other people, as well as make it harder to interact with anybody.

While gender-bias exists with how taboo men and women's tits are, this gender-bias doesn't stop a western women living a normal life.

>why many progressives seem to take off their thinking caps when talking about islam.
whereas your thinking cap is firmly on your head when you compare some pinkhaired twitterette bitching about mansplaining to a LEGAL BAN ON CLOTHING

I think this is a compelling argument against what I said.

>legal ban
When did I say this, though?

radical

the whole debate about the burqa started when france banned it
if you wanna criticize it, go for it

>women don't have the choice to wear it or not.
Only liberals/libertarians believe in personal free will, so yes it does not make sense for liberals to wear a burqa. Oddly enough, these people feel entitled to manage other people lives.

>if you wanna criticize it, go for it
That's true on this board (more or less) but definitely does not reflect the attitudes of my peers (college educated American progressives in their mid twenties). It's pretty taboo to criticize the burqa in left leaning circles, which is counter-intuitive to me.

Freedom is having your own choice to kill yourself.

Honestly, most of the leftists I know are at least critical of the burqa, they just aren't okay with outright banning it. A lot of leftists (and I am more or less one, I should declare) seem like they just go full retard to the far logical extremes of their position when met with opposition even if they don't truly believe it.

Don't be reductive. No one's against someone choosing to cover their hair. It's the implications of it and the fact that women but not men are expected to cover up that make it oppressive.

No one is forced or expected to wear makeup.

How do you know their abusive husbands aren't forcing them to wear it?

>Buzzfeed, HP

No, there is no academic consensus behind low-brow tolerant views.
I'll tell you the truth on this: people are not being apologetic of Islam because Islam deserves it, they're being so becuase they know that
a) this criticism is useless, since muslims are ininfluential in the West (they won't actually change our laws) and since what we say here won't change a thing in the places that matter on the other side of the world
b) this useless criticism will 100% get coopted by far right politicians and activists to spread hate against immigrants and refugees (wich ALWAYS work when there's a crisis)

That's why you never hear leftists bitching about anything that doesn't directly goes against their national Constitution. It's a delicate situation in catastrophic times.

There's a huge social pressure to wear makeup.

Do you wear makeup on your forearms?

See what I mean? Deflect, deflect, deflect. They're an obedient bunch.

But Muslim women use makeup too.

Especially in Islamic countries. Allah help you if you aren't sufficiently pretty when your hubby comes back home.

You wear shirts that cover your forearms. Should we ban shirts?
Or if a wifebeater beats his wife in the stomach area, is the logical thing to do ban any women's clothing that covers the stomach?
And if we continue with this line of thought in the end women will have to walk around nude.

What does that have to do with anything? If the logic is "this can be used to conceal bruises" then makeup is bannable, as well as practically all clothes (except underwear I guess).

But I never said anything about banning anything.

How about we ban gender-specific restrictions on which clothing can be worn huh

Cool, but avoiding the point.

That's a noble idea, except it's unenforceable.

Just purge muslims out of this world so this """problem""" vanishes.

>except it's unenforceable
It can be fought just like female genital mutilation with an interdisciplinary approach of education, activism, legal reform and kulturkampf.

>avoiding the point
You mean this one?

>You will not find a singe justification for why people calling themselves gender egalitarians support the institutionalization of the man being visible and the woman being invisible.

Economic sanctions could work, too

Oppression isn't an on/off switch. There's a distinction between mild oppression (women can't show their breasts in public) and severe oppression (women can't show their face in public). Not acknowledging that distinction is retarded.

Not really, because how can you be sure that the woman who's wearing a covering wants to wear it (remember, the issue isn't 100% clear, there are women who want to wear this stuff)? If you ask her and she says "Yes" she might be lying to protect herself, right? So your "common sense" approach is going to turn out to be banning burqas, niqabs and hijabs.

No, the one where you want women to walk around nude.

True.

It's a cultural issue, it is not fought on an individual basis. The only thing worth banning, if anything, are the asshole patriarchs, and concealing your face in public. Only then the women will be free to choose.

She chooses to be part of the religion that requires to wear the burqa.

You are a shitlord not respecting her choice and right to do so.

Now end yourself sjw. You are probably a white male.

>No, the one where you want women to walk around nude.
cringe

It's the logical conclusion of your "hey it's a great way to hide bruises!" thought.

It's probably got something to do with people recognising that deep down they have tendencies towards out-group racism (as we all innately do) and so they want to steer clear of a topic that might bring this out socially. Also, there might be an acknowledgement that nobody knows what the fuck they're talking about enough to take on an ancient practice from a foreign people.

It's similar when you are a parent, people don't generally pull other parents up in their parenting even if it goes against their values because it can just tap into such core beliefs and issues of values so fucking quickly.

There are always going to be topics that encourage people to show their hidden values much faster and these are threatening in social situations where you are 1) not very close to people, and 2) your reputation there might impact your livelihood.

I want to see breasts of random girls in the street though (not the old hags, but it is the price you have to pay),

ugh

>She chooses to be part of the religion that requires to wear the burqa.

AHAHAH THIS FAG BELIEVES IN FREE WILL!

Don't fall back into philosophical obscurity when social pressure is WAY more grounding and applicable.

This post is way too sophisticated for Veeky Forums. Fuck off you normie faggot.

>To me, it seems condescending as fuck to not subject other cultures to the same intellectual scrutiny as your own.

Can you justify this position? European-derived cultures have tried telling other cultures what to do before, which is something we call colonialism or imperialism. The same standard applies. Should we force other cultures to believe what we believe, because we believe these beliefs to be correct?

Yes. It is the right of the might to lead the world. Islam needs to be eradicated and people freed.

Sorry, I meant to say:

It's probably some cuck thing where people have faggot feelings and they take this out on niggers but don't want their boss to find out in case they love the BBC. Also, everyone in the world is fucking dumbshit cunts.

Its like even when a couple of dykes want to raise a baby I don't get all up in their manly faces about it because they might decide to unleash their tableted testosterone on me to prove they aren't accidentally making their baby gayer than Streisand.

We should just force people to just wear name badges that let others know whether they are polcucks or libtard so that everyone won't be so chickenshit about their opinions and we can just all nuke each other and be done with this shithole muslim planet once and for all.

Might comes from right, not the other way around.

Yeah if you are an idealist retard that doesn't observe the reality

WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKING FUCK, BESERKEEEEEEERRRRR.

The reality is that no one will impose their might if there's not a good reason for it. That reason is justified through 'right' otherwise you get a bunch of offended dudes 'out-mighting' you for failure to observe protocol.

liberalism ftw!

>which is something we call colonialism or imperialism
I know what colonialism is, brah. I mentioned postcolonial theory in my OP. People in the west view eastern people as inferior and therefore do not even deem their cultural practices worthy of any serious cultural criticism. To refrain from criticism of an eastern practice that you would certainly have made of a western practice is to immediately impose "otherness". I am not telling muslims how to live, just wondering: what are the ethical justifications for this practice? As feminists, we should be critical of any oppressive gendered practice.

Thanks, this is the best post in the thread (as far as helping me wrap my head around all this).

>there's not a good reason for it.
wow already a concession.
that's all I needed

good reason = islam is backwards ass terrorist religion

eradicate them

Google 'cultural relativism'.

These retards actually believe you can't critic a culture unless you are part of that culture and therefore you can't make value judgement on cultures in general.

See Said's Orientalism

The main argument from actual leftists that I'm suprised no one has really mentioned yet is that women in the middle east have to liberate themselves on their own terms. It can't be some hypocritical western liberal imperialism that doesn't genuinely serve to advance the status of women.

OP here, I've read Orientalism. The book in your pic looks interesting. Admittedly I hadn't heard of it. Is this what I'm looking for?

>People in the west view eastern people as inferior and therefore do not even deem their cultural practices worthy of any serious cultural criticism.

No that's not postcolonial. It is colonial to oppress 'otherness' because it conflicts with the standards of the dominant culture.

To impose a view on Muslims is telling them how to live. The justification for this practice is not telling them how to live, based on the legacy of Western colonialism.

>It can't be some hypocritical western liberal imperialism that doesn't genuinely serve to advance the status of women.
haha what the fuck

if you get liberated you are liberated
should of USA have left Europe alone because "they need to liberate themselves on their own terms"
hahah

>because we belief these beliefs to be correct

Yes. Only a post modernist thinks that truth is subjective, the rest of the world can appreciate objective criteria. All strains of middle eastern islamism are objectively worse than western enlightenment cultures and for that matter also worse than most confucian asian cultures.

>women in the middle east have to liberate themselves on their own terms
Why aren't women allowed to help one another across national borders, again? Is it because the patriarchy said they can't?

>to liberate the muslims out of their shitty islam is "oppressive"
do you have a boypussy holy shit

have you seen Islam in action at middle east
the so called moderate islamists against Syria?
this is what you fucking want to go on you retarded leftist anti-human cuck

That's a completely reductive account of cultural relativism and intellectually disingenuous.

>It is colonial to oppress 'otherness'
>The justification for this practice is not telling them how to live
huh? Not trying to be a dick- I can't figure out what you are talking about. Are you basically saying, "You are an imperialist for expecting a culture to morally justify its blatant oppression of women?" Oh, sorry I mean "Telling them how to live".

That's what he means, he is an useful idiot of the past completely brainwashed by his nu-liberal leftard ideologies.

Could see that from the way you framed your question.
I think this is exactly what you're looking for, it contextualises and historicises both the debate and the practice of wearing.

The sources you mentioned are low brow sources, and low brow sources have notoriously contradictory belief systems. Barely anyone in any field of academia (apart from English and meme degrees) believes Moral Relativism is a coherent stance to take.

But most people would point out that it's not really going to do any practical good if we start shitting the bed about burqas even though they're so flagrantly opposed to our value system.

If you want to understand the logic of these publications and of meme degrees (and I'm doing two meme degrees so I'm not maligning anyone for their choices/mistakes) and the problems with that worldview (as well as some possible things of value to be taken from it) then James Rachels' essay "The Challenge of Cultural Relativism" is a good unpacking, while a little bit strawmannish at parts.

It's also very important to distinguish the burqa, from things like niqabs and hijabs, since there's a big difference between the latter which signifies modesty and the former which is just a device which eradicates women from the social sphere by covering them up entirely. The former, I personally think, ought to be challenged and restricted if not outright banned. But if you're gonna start persecuting people for wearing the latter then you'd also have to start persecuting nuns, because they wear exactly the same kind of clothing for exactly the same purpose.

There's nothing wrong with modest clothing, all religious communities practice this to some extent. It's a cultural product of the sexual revolution to think there's something wrong with that, and the disastrous cultural impact of that movement is pretty apparent to most of us. But the burqa is a whole different question.

The objective truth is that cultures need certain 'truths' in order to function correctly; the imposition of Enlightenmental conscious purpose is disruptive rather than helpful, because the extent of nature is only present in nature rather than the abstractions we place upon nature i.e. our 'understanding'.

Cultures resist other cultures that have different values. That's just an unchallenged rule. Feminism, liberalism, capitalism, socialism, all developed in certain, specific circumstances as they occurred in the Western world. To impose these values on another culture results in the same problems as transplanting a limb on a person -- the body rejects anything it considers alien.

Cultural relativism is a tool designed to unarm the intellectual capacities of its followers.

Meanwhile the same ideologies that you aren't allowed to criticise are busy dismantling your own ideologies locally and abroad. Take a step outside of your ideological bubble for second please.

So what is your answer to this problem? To kill those who disagree? Is that not the same thing you are arguing against?

Iran before religious leaders proves you already wrong, they accepted all of that.

Next leftard that wants to get btfo by facts of the history?

Great, I was able to find a pdf and look into this book a little. It sounds like exactly what I am looking for. Thanks a lot, I appreciate it.

No, I'm saying the legacy of imperialism is apparent in the expectation of other cultures to behave in a way that is acceptable to your own culture.

Also

Stage an actual moderate, modern, "free" revolution of the Islamic religion that will start spreading schools condoning what the Saudi Arabia is doing which is forming, funding, supporting, spreading schools that spread the nutjob version of Islam. Educate their people from within, with some external support.

And of course there's the way of killing for example every religious leader of ISIS and ISIL, that's a good start in my opinion.

Well I guess you can leave the thread then.

American culture has successfully spread all around the world. You are right that trying to force people to adopt your culture with force does not work, with the exception of extreme cases like post-WW2 germany. You can very well convince people of the merits of your culture though, through debate and advertisement.

And if you don't think your culture is superior then you should reform or abandon it. Like with any ideology, you can do that.

>Iran before religious leaders proves you already wrong, they accepted all of that.

Yes, and then the Revolution happened.
As the guy said in his post:
>the body rejects anything it considers alien.

And eventually this will trickle down to the Muslims already in the country who still suggest women should wear a hijab or burka?

>Revolution staged and supported by Saudis is somehow "body's reaction to foreign limb"

just fuck off with this ignorant shit

Why do people hate the sexual revolution?

I don't get it. As a horny motherfucker, I want to have sex as much as possible with as many women as possible. Why wouldn't other dudes want that?

>Shah's rule staged and supported by Burgerland ('53 coup d'etat) is "normal body"

just fuck off with this ignorant shit