5 ms·

> Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory. Until Erdogan overturned it, there was a ban on women wearing hi

> Islam was acceptable (as Turkey was attempting to be a "free" republic), but not compulsory. Until Erdogan overturned it, there was a ban on women wearing hijab (the head covering , that the vast majority of Muslims consider a basic tenet of their religion) in universities in Turkey. I leave the judgment to you, but personally I wouldn't consider asking millions of people to choose between adhering to their religion and getting a higher education to be treating their religion as "acceptable, just not compulsary". https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11880622 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-11880622

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
- Cyph0n 5y ago
  And the solution to that imaginary problem is.. to ban all women from wearing hijab? Excellent logic.
  - istinetz 5y ago
    Well, yes. What solution do you propose? Mass propaganda? Perhaps possible in 2021, but it wouldn't have been as effective in the 1930s.
    - Cyph0n 5y ago
      Why did you use the word “propaganda”? Why not “education”? Regardless of the time period, I would simply propose focusing on educating current and future generations that men and women have equal rights. If you dig into history a bit, you’ll find that state-sponsored persecution - ethnic, religious, or otherwise - is almost always guaranteed to backfire in the long run.
      - worik 5y ago
        But what is the problem? It may have a religious origin but a headscarf is a fashion accessory. Like trousers or shirt buttons. We could ban them too, just for fun! Up with skirts! Down with trousers! See? What fun!
        Cyph0n 5y ago
        Okay, let’s work with that. Do you also apply that logic to Sikh turbans (dastar)? In other words, do you believe that forbidding Sikhs from covering their hair is not religious persecution? How do you think Sikhs would react to that? Edit: Or wait, I might have misunderstood: do you actually think that a hijab is equivalent to a generic headscarf? If so, it is not - please read a bit about it before commenting further.
        worik 5y ago
        I am with you, not against you. Turbans are fine by me. Of course banning them is religious persecution (there is an interesting intersection with motor cycle helmet laws) I do not want to wear one (but I have been known to wear a headscarf) There is no justification for fashion law. The niqāb is problematic. I find it difficult to talk with some one when I cannot see their face. (Then there was Covid....). I am not sure if that is a personal quirk or a basis for a justifiable fashion law! And of course a hijab is a headscarf. Not just a head scarf, like a turban is a hat, not just a hat. Why would we want to ban either?
        Cyph0n 5y ago
        Sorry about that - sarcasm is tough to detect sometimes haha! I agree about the niqab as it can be a bit of a hurdle to deal with in some situations.
      - istinetz 5y ago
        Because I dislike euphemisms. Is it any less propaganda just because you agree with it? Educating people of what? "Gender equality is good" is a normative statement. And nitpicking aside, my point stands entirely, whether it's "propaganda" or "education".
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Of course, male from Saudi Arabia claims that this problem is imaginary. What a surprise. /s Just because you decided to consider this problem imaginary, it does not mean that this problem does not exist in the real world, bringing suffering to millions of disenfranchised women.
    - Cyph0n 5y ago
      Wow, you’re completely off the mark, buddy! But nice try with the amateur OSINT haha.
- throwaway123x2 5y ago
  lol this is so patently false. in a family very close to me, the husband would very much like his wife to wear not hijab and his wife tells him to mind his own business. both are muslim.
  - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
    Tell it to this girl [1], or this [2] girl. You won't be able to tell it to this [3] girl, because she killed herself, rather than submitting to this barbarity. If you have some anecdotal example of a person who does this willingly (likely because of systemic multigenerational indoctrination), it does not prove that many other women are not willing to submit to this requirement, yet, are powerless to resist it without having to face severe consequences. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085734 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085734 [2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woman-told-wear-hijab-Ill-kill-cousin.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woma... [3]: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2013/07/17/Egyptian-girl-refuses-to-wear-hijab-and-shoots-herself-to-death https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2013/07/17/Eg...
    - worik 5y ago
      Because you can come up with people being psychotic monsters, it does not mean people are psychotic monsters. There are a lot of barbaric things that go on in families all over the world in all sorts of families. What exactly is your point?
      - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
        The point is that wearing hijab is coercion. It is not a 'free choice'. Nobody chooses to be a sub-human, unless forced or brain-washed since early childhood.
Cyph0n 5y ago
Yep. A lot of people seem to - willingly or unwillingly - ignore the dark side of Ataturk’s revolution. The fact of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever as rosy as you would like it to be.
Bayart 5y ago
I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).
- femiagbabiaka 5y ago
  Allowing people to dress how they please is hardly deference.
  - saithound 5y ago
    There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture. The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.
- smnrchrds 5y ago
  > I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view? Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.
hereforphone 5y ago
I don't disagree with you but I'd like to provide some context for how things have shifted, for others reading this thread. The current headscarf culture in Turkey, as I see it. The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments. Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.
dan-robertson 5y ago
It seems to me that headscarf-wearing is quite politicised in many countries and I think there is a risk of applying the standards of one’s own political group in one’s own country to another place where the connotations are different. For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead. In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider: - changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced. - changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced. - changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced. It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.

Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago

Cyph0n 5y ago
And the solution to that imaginary problem is.. to ban all women from wearing hijab? Excellent logic.
- istinetz 5y ago
  Well, yes. What solution do you propose? Mass propaganda? Perhaps possible in 2021, but it wouldn't have been as effective in the 1930s.
  - Cyph0n 5y ago
    Why did you use the word “propaganda”? Why not “education”? Regardless of the time period, I would simply propose focusing on educating current and future generations that men and women have equal rights. If you dig into history a bit, you’ll find that state-sponsored persecution - ethnic, religious, or otherwise - is almost always guaranteed to backfire in the long run.
    - worik 5y ago
      But what is the problem? It may have a religious origin but a headscarf is a fashion accessory. Like trousers or shirt buttons. We could ban them too, just for fun! Up with skirts! Down with trousers! See? What fun!
      - Cyph0n 5y ago
        Okay, let’s work with that. Do you also apply that logic to Sikh turbans (dastar)? In other words, do you believe that forbidding Sikhs from covering their hair is not religious persecution? How do you think Sikhs would react to that? Edit: Or wait, I might have misunderstood: do you actually think that a hijab is equivalent to a generic headscarf? If so, it is not - please read a bit about it before commenting further.
        worik 5y ago
        I am with you, not against you. Turbans are fine by me. Of course banning them is religious persecution (there is an interesting intersection with motor cycle helmet laws) I do not want to wear one (but I have been known to wear a headscarf) There is no justification for fashion law. The niqāb is problematic. I find it difficult to talk with some one when I cannot see their face. (Then there was Covid....). I am not sure if that is a personal quirk or a basis for a justifiable fashion law! And of course a hijab is a headscarf. Not just a head scarf, like a turban is a hat, not just a hat. Why would we want to ban either?
        Cyph0n 5y ago
        Sorry about that - sarcasm is tough to detect sometimes haha! I agree about the niqab as it can be a bit of a hurdle to deal with in some situations.
    - istinetz 5y ago
      Because I dislike euphemisms. Is it any less propaganda just because you agree with it? Educating people of what? "Gender equality is good" is a normative statement. And nitpicking aside, my point stands entirely, whether it's "propaganda" or "education".
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Of course, male from Saudi Arabia claims that this problem is imaginary. What a surprise. /s Just because you decided to consider this problem imaginary, it does not mean that this problem does not exist in the real world, bringing suffering to millions of disenfranchised women.
  - Cyph0n 5y ago
    Wow, you’re completely off the mark, buddy! But nice try with the amateur OSINT haha.
throwaway123x2 5y ago
lol this is so patently false. in a family very close to me, the husband would very much like his wife to wear not hijab and his wife tells him to mind his own business. both are muslim.
- Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
  Tell it to this girl [1], or this [2] girl. You won't be able to tell it to this [3] girl, because she killed herself, rather than submitting to this barbarity. If you have some anecdotal example of a person who does this willingly (likely because of systemic multigenerational indoctrination), it does not prove that many other women are not willing to submit to this requirement, yet, are powerless to resist it without having to face severe consequences. [1]: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085734 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-56085734 [2]: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woman-told-wear-hijab-Ill-kill-cousin.html https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1348389/Muslim-woma... [3]: https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2013/07/17/Egyptian-girl-refuses-to-wear-hijab-and-shoots-herself-to-death https://english.alarabiya.net/News/middle-east/2013/07/17/Eg...
  - worik 5y ago
    Because you can come up with people being psychotic monsters, it does not mean people are psychotic monsters. There are a lot of barbaric things that go on in families all over the world in all sorts of families. What exactly is your point?
    - Andrew_nenakhov 5y ago
      The point is that wearing hijab is coercion. It is not a 'free choice'. Nobody chooses to be a sub-human, unless forced or brain-washed since early childhood.

Cyph0n 5y ago

Yep. A lot of people seem to - willingly or unwillingly - ignore the dark side of Ataturk’s revolution. The fact of the matter is that nothing in the real world is ever as rosy as you would like it to be.

Bayart 5y ago

I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues. Religious vestment simply has no place outside of ritual occasions. But then again, I'm from the country Atatürk took after. From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. Acknowledging religion as something that deserves any sort of deference by the State isn't acceptable. And I say that as an otherwise religious person myself (don't take it as the stance of some rabid atheist).

femiagbabiaka 5y ago
Allowing people to dress how they please is hardly deference.
- saithound 5y ago
  There are no countries that allow people to dress how they please. There is no way that the state letting people walk around, say, naked, in the univeristies they operate _wouldn't_ be considered as deferring to the views of a particular nudist subculture. The state in question has "not showing this kind of deference toward religions" as one of its founding principles: in fact, as founding principle number one. It states that certain personal lifestyle choices, such as religion, do not belong the public sphere. In the public sphere each individual should appear as a simple citizen, and not seek to distinguish thenselves from other citizens along religious lines.
smnrchrds 5y ago
> I would feel extremely comfortable banning those head coverings from all universities, if not all public venues...From our point of view, allowing religion to exist is treating it with tolerance. If saying "either stop adhering to your religion or you cannot go to university/exist in public" is tolerance, what is intolerance? Is everything short of prison, internment camps, torture, and execution tolerance in your point of view? Also, if a government tells religious people "we are going to make your life very difficult, but you should really be thankful to us that we are not outright destroying you", they should not be surprised when they don't end up being thankful and instead vote for the other guy. That's one of the reasons Erdogan is now in power.

hereforphone 5y ago

I don't disagree with you but I'd like to provide some context for how things have shifted, for others reading this thread. The current headscarf culture in Turkey, as I see it. The head coverings (various kinds) are associated with modesty. They are often fashionable modesty (?!) in Turkey now, as Armani and others advertise cutting-edge, expensive headscarfs. Some women are using them as a status symbol. They can also be used to signal pro-Erdoğan, pro-Islamist (in a government sense) sentiments. Now, a woman not wearing a head covering (very many do not) may be called a slut by women wearing them. Rare perahps, but these things happen. There is often a palpable tension between the groups of women who wear them, and the groups of women who do not. It is as I said often a political symbol.

dan-robertson 5y ago

It seems to me that headscarf-wearing is quite politicised in many countries and I think there is a risk of applying the standards of one’s own political group in one’s own country to another place where the connotations are different. For example in developed English-speaking countries, allowing headscarves is seen as promoting diversity, inclusiveness and tolerance. Wanting to restrict this is generally considered to be somewhere between right-wing and bigoted. In France, views tend to be different. In Iran, where hair coverings are mandatory for women, the connotations are different and they can be symbols of an authoritarian or oppressive government (to certain people at least) instead. In this case, as well as the culture in Turkey, one must consider: - changing attitudes to who attends university since the old rules were introduced. - changing attitudes among Muslims to headscarves since the old rules were introduced. - changing attitudes towards secularisation (and politics in general) since the old rules were introduced. It seems to me that most HN readers (myself included) are not in a good position to pass judgement and that this comment benefits from the liberal anglosphere view aligning with its arguments. But I don’t know how that fits in with the way Turks think or used to think.