4 ms·

France just narrowly avoided voting in the daughter of a noted neo-nazi, running the nationalist party that neo-nazi founded. It's also got a hijab ban, which p

France just narrowly avoided voting in the daughter of a noted neo-nazi, running the nationalist party that neo-nazi founded. It's also got a hijab ban, which puts it in the company of places like Russia, or Xinjiang in China, not noted bastions of tolerance and diversity.

sofixa 4y ago
> France just narrowly avoided voting in the daughter of a noted neo-nazi She's drastically less neo-Nazi than her father, just an empty far-right populist. But yeah, not great. > It's also got a hijab ban, which puts it in the company of places like Russia, or Xinjiang in China, not noted bastions of tolerance and diversity It's more complicated than that. The hijab ban isn't coming from intolerance or to force conformity. France has a long and proud history of laïcité, separation of church and state and irreligiousness in public life ( you don't get politicians doing photo ops with bibles or praising Jesus, thank god). Outright religious symbols, especially ones that are a symbol of religious subjugation for many ( many women, especially the young ones, are pressured/forced by family/husbands to be "modest"; plenty of others do it for themselves) have no place in irreligious public places. Religion is a private matter you practice however you please as long as you harm noone. And the ban isn't for hijabs, it's for face coverings, so a Catholic nun is also included; and it only covers public places like post office, town hall, schools ( not sure about that one). But the gist of it is - religion has no place in public life, especially its (often) intolerant parts.
- pasabagi 4y ago
  > Religion is a private matter you practice however you please as long as you harm noone I think the chinese make this argument in Xinjiang much more convincingly, after all, unlike the french, they do not have large, bell-ringing churches and cathedrals in the centers of literally every settlement, all of which are blazoned with symbols of the faith. It's also the argument they make in Germany, where you're not allowed to have religious symbols in public offices, but they still manage to have a crucifix behind every blade of grass, public or otherwise, in Bavaria. The other problem with the hijab ban is that modesty (which is what hijab means) makes no sense in private. So it ends up making women choose between their religious self-expression, and taking part of public life. I'm sure that some muslim women are oppressed by some muslim men, but I can say for certain that every muslim woman, whether they wear the headscarf or not, is oppressed by having this choice taken out of their hands. I love the french universalist tradition, but it feels like mobilizing that in order to restrict the freedoms of a relatively poor and disenfranchised minority is a shameful betrayal. I would find it credible if there was also a general crucifix ban, and the French state, as the soviets did, was turning churches into community centers or tearing them down. Since no such idea is even proposed, it just seems like yet another classic of the european tradition: abstract equality, concrete discrimination.
  - Viliam1234 4y ago
    > I can say for certain that every muslim woman, whether they wear the headscarf or not, is oppressed by having this choice taken out of their hands. Game theory is complicated. Sometimes having a choice taken away from you is good for you... for example if it is a choice you never really wanted to take, but your environment would punish you for avoiding it voluntarily. When the choice is taken away, the punishment would not make sense. Children do not choose their religion; it is chosen for them, and sometimes the punishment for breaking the rules or trying to leave the religion is death. I am pretty sure there are girls born in muslim families, who are happy for the opportunity to feel the fresh air.
    - pasabagi 4y ago
      Alternatively, literally every white woman I know has told me they find the pressure to appear presentable, to look in a certain way, oppressive and stressful. We live in a society that makes it easy for men to oppress women, in public or in private. Tackling domestic violence, exclusion of women from public spaces, women's wages, would make it much easier for women pressured by families or husbands to take the freedoms that are actually important to them, which may or may not include choices about head wear.
      - Viliam1234 4y ago
        > Alternatively, literally every white woman I know has told me they find the pressure to appear presentable, to look in a certain way, oppressive and stressful. Yes, it is oppressive and stressful, but the stakes are dramatically different, and so is the reason -- intrasexual competition. In case of covering your face for religious reasons, the penalty for disobeying, in worst case, is death. Specifically, a murder, usually by your relatives, for reasons that are typically translated to English as "honor", although the meaning clearly is not the same. A white woman who refuses to use make-up, will miss some opportunities in her life. Another woman will take the partner she wanted, or the promotion she deserved. She may get bullied by other women, especially at high school. Those all are impacts that reduce her quality of life. But how is it related to domestic violence? I have never heard a serious suggestion that the real cause of domestic violence is lack of being presentable. Similarly, what are the public spaces that exclude insufficiently presentable white women: streets? parks? cinemas? universities? trains? Okay, I am sure there are some parties where only the pretty girls are invited, but those probably exclude most men, too. Anyway, I think that "you may be skipped for a promotion" and "someone quite likely will slit your throat" are not the same category of threat. Both can feel oppressive and stressful, but I am sure way more women would trade their problems in one direction than in the other.

sofixa 4y ago

> France just narrowly avoided voting in the daughter of a noted neo-nazi She's drastically less neo-Nazi than her father, just an empty far-right populist. But yeah, not great. > It's also got a hijab ban, which puts it in the company of places like Russia, or Xinjiang in China, not noted bastions of tolerance and diversity It's more complicated than that. The hijab ban isn't coming from intolerance or to force conformity. France has a long and proud history of laïcité, separation of church and state and irreligiousness in public life ( you don't get politicians doing photo ops with bibles or praising Jesus, thank god). Outright religious symbols, especially ones that are a symbol of religious subjugation for many ( many women, especially the young ones, are pressured/forced by family/husbands to be "modest"; plenty of others do it for themselves) have no place in irreligious public places. Religion is a private matter you practice however you please as long as you harm noone. And the ban isn't for hijabs, it's for face coverings, so a Catholic nun is also included; and it only covers public places like post office, town hall, schools ( not sure about that one). But the gist of it is - religion has no place in public life, especially its (often) intolerant parts.

pasabagi 4y ago
> Religion is a private matter you practice however you please as long as you harm noone I think the chinese make this argument in Xinjiang much more convincingly, after all, unlike the french, they do not have large, bell-ringing churches and cathedrals in the centers of literally every settlement, all of which are blazoned with symbols of the faith. It's also the argument they make in Germany, where you're not allowed to have religious symbols in public offices, but they still manage to have a crucifix behind every blade of grass, public or otherwise, in Bavaria. The other problem with the hijab ban is that modesty (which is what hijab means) makes no sense in private. So it ends up making women choose between their religious self-expression, and taking part of public life. I'm sure that some muslim women are oppressed by some muslim men, but I can say for certain that every muslim woman, whether they wear the headscarf or not, is oppressed by having this choice taken out of their hands. I love the french universalist tradition, but it feels like mobilizing that in order to restrict the freedoms of a relatively poor and disenfranchised minority is a shameful betrayal. I would find it credible if there was also a general crucifix ban, and the French state, as the soviets did, was turning churches into community centers or tearing them down. Since no such idea is even proposed, it just seems like yet another classic of the european tradition: abstract equality, concrete discrimination.
- Viliam1234 4y ago
  > I can say for certain that every muslim woman, whether they wear the headscarf or not, is oppressed by having this choice taken out of their hands. Game theory is complicated. Sometimes having a choice taken away from you is good for you... for example if it is a choice you never really wanted to take, but your environment would punish you for avoiding it voluntarily. When the choice is taken away, the punishment would not make sense. Children do not choose their religion; it is chosen for them, and sometimes the punishment for breaking the rules or trying to leave the religion is death. I am pretty sure there are girls born in muslim families, who are happy for the opportunity to feel the fresh air.
  - pasabagi 4y ago
    Alternatively, literally every white woman I know has told me they find the pressure to appear presentable, to look in a certain way, oppressive and stressful. We live in a society that makes it easy for men to oppress women, in public or in private. Tackling domestic violence, exclusion of women from public spaces, women's wages, would make it much easier for women pressured by families or husbands to take the freedoms that are actually important to them, which may or may not include choices about head wear.
    - Viliam1234 4y ago
      > Alternatively, literally every white woman I know has told me they find the pressure to appear presentable, to look in a certain way, oppressive and stressful. Yes, it is oppressive and stressful, but the stakes are dramatically different, and so is the reason -- intrasexual competition. In case of covering your face for religious reasons, the penalty for disobeying, in worst case, is death. Specifically, a murder, usually by your relatives, for reasons that are typically translated to English as "honor", although the meaning clearly is not the same. A white woman who refuses to use make-up, will miss some opportunities in her life. Another woman will take the partner she wanted, or the promotion she deserved. She may get bullied by other women, especially at high school. Those all are impacts that reduce her quality of life. But how is it related to domestic violence? I have never heard a serious suggestion that the real cause of domestic violence is lack of being presentable. Similarly, what are the public spaces that exclude insufficiently presentable white women: streets? parks? cinemas? universities? trains? Okay, I am sure there are some parties where only the pretty girls are invited, but those probably exclude most men, too. Anyway, I think that "you may be skipped for a promotion" and "someone quite likely will slit your throat" are not the same category of threat. Both can feel oppressive and stressful, but I am sure way more women would trade their problems in one direction than in the other.