3 ms·

> But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and ho

> But even more so, who said the 1.3 billion people in China are "victims" needing our compassion? Have you asked them whether they like their government and how their country is going? I highly recommend a short essay by the anthropologist Lila Abu-Lughod titled "Do Muslim Women Need Saving?" that touches on parts of this question: http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving/ http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/01/do-muslim-women-need-saving....

euyyn 10y ago
By the 3rd paragraph it's already problematic: > We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency. Agency doesn't mean "the will of the majority", it means individual ability. The Taliban imposing veiling removed agency. Now it's given back. Even if no more than a single woman in Afghanistan willingly removed the veil, it's still a good thing. If 10 years from now 100% of the women there decide they don't want to wear it anymore, they'll (hopefully) be able. Not under the Taliban. > many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men. I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. The difference, of course, is that religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed, and the Taliban did impose them. > If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Is the whole essay like this?
- cooper12 10y ago
  I agree with your statement of agency, but the problem the article was pointing to was the view of the veil as an oppressive device. Despite claiming to be a freedom-loving country, France (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité) did no better by its Muslim women by removing their agency. > I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. Huh? I think you're mixing up religious beliefs with social ones. This mandate is not unique to Islam and can be found all over the world in societies of varying development and even Christian ones. In fact, you should look at pictures of pre-revolution Iran [0] as proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled. > This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Oh really? Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. It's still illegal in most states for women to go topless. Just because you're not forced to wear a veil, doesn't mean you aren't oppressed by society's fashion. > Is the whole essay like this? It's not really a long essay, see for yourself. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in-photos-2015-4/ http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in...
  - euyyn 10y ago
    What the French legislative does doesn't define what liberty and agency mean. > proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled There are many branches of Islam, the same as there are many branches of Christianity. In any case, my point was just that I can see how it's liberating for someone who would have personally chosen separation anyway. The Taliban imposed it. The author's argument that "many women saw it as a liberating invention" is like saying "many African slaves did live happy lives in the US south, and remained with their masters after liberation". Even if it's factually true, it's dishonest. If the veil's so good, let each woman choose. > Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. You know that has nothing to do with fashion, which is what the author talks about. And you know those things are illegal, as opposed to mandated by law. So I don't think you're being frank in this conversation, rather just arguing for the sake of it.
    - cooper12 10y ago
      Um no, no one was talking about fashion. Funny how you accuse me of not being frank while you make disingenuous statements like "mandated by law".
      - euyyn 10y ago
        If you think no one's talking about fashion then you didn't read the essay well, nor my initial response to it: > we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. Codes of dress, and tyrannies of fashion. As I said, this is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. > you make disingenuous statements like "mandated by law" Maybe I'm misinformed. I honestly believe the Taliban government imposed that all women had to wear a veil. Is that not the case?

euyyn 10y ago

By the 3rd paragraph it's already problematic: > We were surprised when many women in Afghanistan didn’t take them off after being “liberated,” seeing as they had become such symbols of oppression in the West. But we were confusing veiling with a lack of agency. Agency doesn't mean "the will of the majority", it means individual ability. The Taliban imposing veiling removed agency. Now it's given back. Even if no more than a single woman in Afghanistan willingly removed the veil, it's still a good thing. If 10 years from now 100% of the women there decide they don't want to wear it anymore, they'll (hopefully) be able. Not under the Taliban. > many women saw it as a liberating invention because it enabled them to move out of segregated living spaces while still observing the requirements of separating and protecting women from unrelated men. I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. The difference, of course, is that religious beliefs shouldn't be imposed, and the Taliban did impose them. > If we think that U.S. women live in a world of choice regarding clothing, we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Is the whole essay like this?

cooper12 10y ago
I agree with your statement of agency, but the problem the article was pointing to was the view of the veil as an oppressive device. Despite claiming to be a freedom-loving country, France (Liberté, Equalité, Fraternité) did no better by its Muslim women by removing their agency. > I see how it can be liberating in that way for a woman whose religious beliefs make separation and protection a moral mandate. Huh? I think you're mixing up religious beliefs with social ones. This mandate is not unique to Islam and can be found all over the world in societies of varying development and even Christian ones. In fact, you should look at pictures of pre-revolution Iran [0] as proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled. > This is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. Oh really? Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. It's still illegal in most states for women to go topless. Just because you're not forced to wear a veil, doesn't mean you aren't oppressed by society's fashion. > Is the whole essay like this? It's not really a long essay, see for yourself. [0]: http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in-photos-2015-4/ http://www.businessinsider.com/iran-before-the-revolution-in...
- euyyn 10y ago
  What the French legislative does doesn't define what liberty and agency mean. > proof that Islam itself is not incompatible with women mingling with men or not being veiled There are many branches of Islam, the same as there are many branches of Christianity. In any case, my point was just that I can see how it's liberating for someone who would have personally chosen separation anyway. The Taliban imposed it. The author's argument that "many women saw it as a liberating invention" is like saying "many African slaves did live happy lives in the US south, and remained with their masters after liberation". Even if it's factually true, it's dishonest. If the veil's so good, let each woman choose. > Men have been beat for wearing drag or for dressing effeminately. (or if you care specifically about women, see: transgender women) Gang members kill people over the color of their shirt or shoes. You know that has nothing to do with fashion, which is what the author talks about. And you know those things are illegal, as opposed to mandated by law. So I don't think you're being frank in this conversation, rather just arguing for the sake of it.
  - cooper12 10y ago
    Um no, no one was talking about fashion. Funny how you accuse me of not being frank while you make disingenuous statements like "mandated by law".
    - euyyn 10y ago
      If you think no one's talking about fashion then you didn't read the essay well, nor my initial response to it: > we need to look no further than our own codes of dress and the often constricting tyrannies of fashion. Codes of dress, and tyrannies of fashion. As I said, this is the most ridiculous argument. Of the many many women of the free countries that purposely dress against the norm, none are sent to jail, stoned to death, or whatever. > you make disingenuous statements like "mandated by law" Maybe I'm misinformed. I honestly believe the Taliban government imposed that all women had to wear a veil. Is that not the case?