Beach Hajib

[Bluegoat]

I don't think that differences in mens and women's clothing, or different cultural levels of acceptability for nudity, means that any are wrong or that there is some kind of sexism going on.  THat is just using a really blunt measure for something that actually requires a little more discernment.

 

Men and women are different, pretty much every human culture has some ways of acknowledging that - even apart from functional or status differences, there are clothing differences, speech differences, hair and jewelry, the colours associated with clothing.  And, honestly, most people actually like that there are some differences like that, they like to be able to present themselves at times in a more feminine or masculine kind of way.  Without those kinds of social signals, that would not be possible - they seem to be much more benign than some of the more substantial things like restricting employment or the ability to make legal contracts. 

 

Similarly, different cultures have different norms for what is conventionally covered or not - that doesn't make one body shaming and the other not.  It would be completely possible to have a culture where people go naked that had a poor attitude to bodies, and one where they covered a lot where they did not.  These things tend to have a lot to do with historical chance, climate, and technology as well.

 

I think it should be unsurprising that clothing customs signifying sexual differences may be related to biological sexual differences at times - like covering breasts but not men's chests. 

 

There are times when clothing traditions may in fact reflect a total reduction of the individual to something less than a person.  I think that has happened in some of the extremist Islamic regimes.  I also think it happens in the west, for example in strip clubs, and other settings where sexuality is elevated above the person.  I think it would be better for people if those kinds of attitudes were lost, which might well mean losing the clothing to some extent.  (Although, sometimes the attitude changes and so the clothing difference then ceases to be significant in the same way, too.)

 

However, in any case, legislating people out of it when they would personally prefer to wear it is an ass-backwards way of asserting their personhood. 

Edited August 23, 2016 by Bluegoat

[Wheres Toto]

Here's a link to a chart of where it is allowed to go topless in the US.  I just read an article about this for NY - it's technically legal there.

 

http://www.munknee.com/going-topless-is-legal-in-these-u-s-states-canadian-provinces/

 

NJ has a couple nude beaches, one is at Gateway National Recreation Area.  Most others I think are private.

[ktgrok]

just because something is done in the name of religion does not mean it is ok.

 

 

Agreed. But the situation here is the opposite. Covering yourself is legal, UNLESS it is done for religious reasons, at which point it is illegal. In other words, it is being targeted as wrong just because it is religious. Which is just as dumb as saying something is right just for being religious. Secular laws should not be about religion one way or the other. 

[mommyoffive]

I wonder how you would be treated wearing one of those.  

 

Sad that I even have to think like that.

[Lady Florida.]

Huh. Learn a new thing every day.

 

You have NO topless beaches ?! That seems extreme.

 

We have some unofficial ones, like this one near me. 

[SKL]

I think it's just more than the recent attacks, though I am sure that kind of thing wil always make people more jumpy.

 

It sounds really awful, but there really seems to be something about French culture that allows for this, and it was going on in other scenarios well before the attacks, both in France and Quebec (check out the Quebec charter controversy.)  That just seems like the latest rationalization to me, moving along from safety, security, and secular values.

 

From what I read, it is specifically the fact that it counts as a religious symbol, and a Muslim one, that they are offended by, so others covering up, and apparently other religious garments and symbols won't be banned.  I'm not sure if that is better or worse than if they were.

 

Years ago I read that France's population was either 10% or 20% Muslim.  It might be more now with all the emigration.  While there may well be people in France who discriminate against or fear Muslims, I don't think it's because Islam is strange to them.  It might be more like our Jim Crow type laws where people are used to each other but unwilling / afraid to really mix.  But really, only a French person would be able to explain what is going on there.

 

I must say it is understandable that there is fear in France, and it seems all too easy for some comfortable people to laugh that off.

[SKL]

I think the question of religion-inspired dress codes is a genuinely difficult issue.  There is no question that in much of the world women are oppressed and abused with more or less impunity.  Some of the most extreme examples of state approved or religion approved abuse happen to be in situations where the abused woman / girl is Muslim.  It is a real problem.  Dress code is often part of the problem, like it or not.

 

On the other hand, women should be allowed to wear Hijab if they want to!  And I was one of the first people to say those beach hijabs are brilliant and attractive and I kind of want one.  I just hope the people wearing them at that waterpark I visited were happy in them.  They seemed happy.  But I live in a place where it happens to be more likely the woman's own choice.  Though, anyplace where you have immigrants from other cultures, you're going to have a range of beliefs from "mix in" to "I will kill you if you do as the American girls do."  There have been cases in our country of men killing girls and women for doing things I would not consider risque.  It just isn't common enough here for me to think "she's oppressed" when I see a woman in Islamic dress.

 

The problem is, how do we know of they are wearing it because they want to, or because they will be killed if they go out without it?

 

Is it like Chinese footbinding, which was outlawed for all, including women who already had bound feet and could not switch back without severe pain?  Was it wrong to ban footbinding?  After all what little girl ever asked to have her foot bones broken?  But then again, what old lady ever asked for that?  It's just not as straightforward as we "over here" would like to think.

 

Very recently a famous Muslim woman was murdered by a family member for wearing Western clothes.  The only reason the murderer is facing punishment is that the murdered woman's father will not forgive him.  Friends from Muslim regions tell me that most often, when that happens (and it is not uncommon), the family forgives the "honor killing" and the killer goes free.  That is how the law works.  When families in conservative cultures migrate to "the West," they don't leave all their cultural beliefs behind.  There are people in Nice and in many other places who are in hijab because they would be murdered if they wore something else.  That's not OK.  The question is what to do about it.

 

I don't mean to pick on Muslims.  There is plenty of abuse and oppression of women in non-Muslim areas too.  And there are plenty of Muslim areas where "honor killings" etc. are not accepted.  But to pretend this is not an issue in some of the Muslim world (including some Muslim immigrants in "the West") is frankly ignorant.

[Bluegoat]

Years ago I read that France's population was either 10% or 20% Muslim.  It might be more now with all the emigration.  While there may well be people in France who discriminate against or fear Muslims, I don't think it's because Islam is strange to them.  It might be more like our Jim Crow type laws where people are used to each other but unwilling / afraid to really mix.  But really, only a French person would be able to explain what is going on there.

 

I must say it is understandable that there is fear in France, and it seems all too easy for some comfortable people to laugh that off.

 

I don't think it's just that - as I mentioned, it's a problem that goes outside the borders of France itself and preceded both these attacks and a lot of the increase in the Muslim population in France as well.

 

I know my husband saw a big issue with that kind of response among the French troops when he was stationed in Rwanda.  And arguably you can trace it back as far as WWII, which never created quite the same introspection for the French as it did for the Germans.

 

The poster above who linked it to the earlier power of the Catholic Church was, I think, quite right - here in Quebec it's a really interesting bit of history, called the Quiet Revolution.  They went from being a deeply religious Jansenist Catholic culture where the government had very close links to the Church, to becoming aggressively secularist, which only seemed to deepen their negative response to non-Catholic religion.  This happened in less than a generation.  There was a similar experience in France, though not necessarily on the same timeline.  It's also been affected by some of the intellectual/philosophical movements in France/Quebec, and there has been a tendency to nationalist movements even before this wave of Muslim immigration

 

Essentially, there is a view of religion that does not say, people should be free to pursue their religion, so we won't elevate any particular type of worldview to an institutional form in government, which is what we see in the English speaking world.  Their view is closer to the Soviet one - better if no one has religion and so while we won't make it illegal we will try and wipe it out of public like even at an individual level, and hope it does out.  It's not a matter of protecting individual freedoms of conscience at all.

[Bluegoat]

I think the question of religion-inspired dress codes is a genuinely difficult issue.  There is no question that in much of the world women are oppressed and abused with more or less impunity.  Some of the most extreme examples of state approved or religion approved abuse happen to be in situations where the abused woman / girl is Muslim.  It is a real problem.  Dress code is often part of the problem, like it or not.

 

On the other hand, women should be allowed to wear Hijab if they want to!  And I was one of the first people to say those beach hijabs are brilliant and attractive and I kind of want one.  I just hope the people wearing them at that waterpark I visited were happy in them.  They seemed happy.  But I live in a place where it happens to be more likely the woman's own choice.  Though, anyplace where you have immigrants from other cultures, you're going to have a range of beliefs from "mix in" to "I will kill you if you do as the American girls do."  There have been cases in our country of men killing girls and women for doing things I would not consider risque.  It just isn't common enough here for me to think "she's oppressed" when I see a woman in Islamic dress.

 

The problem is, how do we know of they are wearing it because they want to, or because they will be killed if they go out without it?

 

Is it like Chinese footbinding, which was outlawed for all, including women who already had bound feet and could not switch back without severe pain?  Was it wrong to ban footbinding?  After all what little girl ever asked to have her foot bones broken?  But then again, what old lady ever asked for that?  It's just not as straightforward as we "over here" would like to think.

 

Very recently a famous Muslim woman was murdered by a family member for wearing Western clothes.  The only reason the murderer is facing punishment is that the murdered woman's father will not forgive him.  Friends from Muslim regions tell me that most often, when that happens (and it is not uncommon), the family forgives the "honor killing" and the killer goes free.  That is how the law works.  When families in conservative cultures migrate to "the West," they don't leave all their cultural beliefs behind.  There are people in Nice and in many other places who are in hijab because they would be murdered if they wore something else.  That's not OK.  The question is what to do about it.

 

I don't mean to pick on Muslims.  There is plenty of abuse and oppression of women in non-Muslim areas too.  And there are plenty of Muslim areas where "honor killings" etc. are not accepted.  But to pretend this is not an issue in some of the Muslim world (including some Muslim immigrants in "the West") is frankly ignorant.

 

 

To some extent I think it is an impossible question to answer.  When you see a model, or a prostitute, wearing clothes that are clearly meant to present her as a sex symbol or object rather than a person, in industries that both have tendencies to see women that way, how do you decide if it is what she wants, or she is being oppressed, or both?  Well, those things are intertwined, and you probably can't say for sure in any generalized way, though maybe you can in individual cases.

[AHASRADA]

I think since the specific purpose of a burka or hijab is not just to be modest, but rather specifically target women and shame them and keep them from equality, it is not ok. I think women are just as valid as men. They are not filthy and dirty things that must be watched and disciplined by men. And they are not out to do bad things when they leave skin uncovered. Accepting the burka is accepting a degrading view toward women and a complete lack of equality.

Wow. This was so painful, discouraging and disappointing for me to read. It is hurtful to me to know that there are fellow females who think I am oppressed because I choose not to expose my body to the world. I understand men not "getting it," but is it really so hard to imagine that some women prefer modesty, through a free personal choice? And that many of such women are Muslim?

 

I realize there is a lot of oppression and injustice in many patriarchal societies, and enforcing culturally acceptable dress can be part of that. Please don't equate such behavior with Islam. There are plenty of cultures, societies and religions that oppress women, and plenty of Muslims (absolutely the majority in Western countries) who believe in gender equality and respect for women. Many of us are working toward better education in those areas of the world in order to put a stop to unjust social practices that abuse women.

 

I assure you, if a woman is on the beach in a burkini, she is more than likely wearing it out of personal choice and conviction. If she were from an oppressive family, she would be at home, not at the beach. The same goes for Muslim women attending college, med school, working in public, etc. while dressed modesty. Do you really think a family who would force them to cover up would allow them to get a college degree and work outside the home?

 

For most of us, our modest clothing is a symbol of our faith, our morals, and our refusal to be judged based on our body shape or size or hair style. It has nothing to do with shaming women, and everything to do with respecting our privacy. I suspect the above quoted assumption of what Muslim women's clothing symbolizes has more to do with Christian puritanical teachings than Islam.

 

If you've never met a Muslim woman in your community, I highly recommend befriending one. I'd bet you'll find out she's anything but oppressed, and feels proud and liberated by her modest dress. Just a thought.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

Edited August 23, 2016 by AHASRADA

[Um_2_4]

Wow. This was so painful, discouraging and disappointing for me to read. It is hurtful to me to know that there are fellow females who think I am oppressed because I choose not to expose my body to the world. I understand men not "getting it," but is it really so hard to imagine that some women prefer modesty, through a free personal choice? And that many of such women are Muslim?

 

I realize there is a lot of oppression and injustice in many patriarchal societies, and enforcing culturally acceptable dress can be part of that. Please don't equate such behavior with Islam. There are plenty of cultures, societies and religions that oppress women, and plenty of Muslims (absolutely the majority in Western countries) who believe in gender equality and respect for women. Many of us are working toward better education in those areas of the world in order to put a stop to unjust social practices that abuse women.

 

I assure you, if a woman is on the beach in a burkini, she is more than likely wearing it out of personal choice and conviction. If she were from an oppressive family, she would be at home, not at the beach. The same goes for Muslim women attending college, med school, working in public, etc. while dressed modesty. Do you really think a family who would force them to cover up would allow them to get a college degree and work outside the home?

 

For most of us, our modest clothing is a symbol of our faith, our morals, and our refusal to be judged based on our body shape or size or hair style. It has nothing to do with shaming women, and everything to do with respecting our privacy. I suspect the above quoted assumption of what Muslim women's clothing symbolizes has more to do with Christian puritanical teachings than Islam.

 

If you've never met a Muslim woman in your community, I highly recommend befriending one. I'd bet you'll find out she's anything but oppressed, and feels proud and liberated by her modest dress. Just a thought.

 

 

 

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

 

Asmaa, good job sister! I was biting my tongue and you put it so much more eloquently then I would have late last night :) !

[Bluegoat]

FWIW, here in Canada it is legal for women to go topless, but it isn't very usual, even at the beach.  It just isn't culturally normative.  There is a nude beach near me, and even a nudist park, but most people have no interest in that, and women aren't going topless at work or other places either.  Certain men seem to think it is ok to go topless around town on hot days, though I would say they are making a fashion/cultural faux pas.

 

In fact I think we are more inclined to be private about nudity than they used to be in some ways, you don't see open showers and such in changing rooms any more and people typically try and hide to change which wasn't much the case when I was a kid.  Ads and such probably have more nudity though.  I don't really think that is a good combination.

[Osmosis Mom]

AHASRADA said it perfectly fine. Oppressed women are not out on a beach having fun with their children, friends, or family - no matter what they are wearing. It is very disheartening to meet otherwise friendly people who are not really prejudice, but actually afraid of who you are - because of a scarf on your head. No matter that you live in their neighborhood and might even have been born here. But, I am digressing.

 

I recently went to a water park with some homeschooling moms and dads and their children. My 6 year old was wearing a gym outfit in lieu of a swim suit to cover her up a bit while being economically smart about the option. A fellow Christian father came over to me and raved about her outfit and that his own wife wore a fully modest outfit and would never wear shorts or anything like that. His own girls were wearing shorts and long-sleeves in the water park. However, what was interesting to me (I am in my 40s and have been raising children for over 25 years, I no longer have visions of breaking down stereotypes or really making friends across religious lines btw, I have given up basically) is the fact that this man found we had so much in common and freely was chatting with me all whilst his wife (very lovely women) was hanging out with the two other mothers (sort of although not directly excluding me by their choice of seating etc.), one of whom was a pretty liberal Christian and other being in a mixed-Jewish marriage with no dress code (I know many Jewish with modest dress codes). Women - and I am generalizing from years of experience - tend to take a stance away from me while husbands and grand mothers have no problem whatsoever chatting me up and seeing past the head scarf and see common values, an interesting person, and what not.

 

You explain that to me... Why are mothers so inclined to feel threatened? Is it due to lack of education and subsequently self-esteem? I don't know. I do know that we have so much more in common than not and I can almost guarantee you that most Muslims out and about would be thrilled and very open to speak with you, become friends, and build a mutual relationship. We just don't get the chance. And it is frustrating and very discouraging. Burkini or not. Because a burkini is not a niqaab, but a modest outfit so we can go to the beach and feel good about ourselves!!!!!

[Rosie_0801]

NADIA!  :seeya:

[MercyA]

 

I think since the specific purpose of a burka or hijab is not just to be modest, but rather specifically target women and shame them and keep them from equality, it is not ok. I think women are just as valid as men. They are not filthy and dirty things that must be watched and disciplined by men. And they are not out to do bad things when they leave skin uncovered. Accepting the burka is accepting a degrading view toward women and a complete lack of equality.

For most of us, our modest clothing is a symbol of our faith, our morals, and our refusal to be judged based on our body shape or size or hair style. It has nothing to do with shaming women, and everything to do with respecting our privacy. I suspect the above quoted assumption of what Muslim women's clothing symbolizes has more to do with Christian puritanical teachings than Islam.

 

AHASRADA, I really appreciate your post. I have often remarked to my husband that (aside from theology :) ) I often feel I have more in common with American Muslims than with many American Christians. 

 

However, I just wanted to point out that as a theologically conservative, headcovering Christian, I am far from oppressed! My husband and I absolutely believe men and women are equal, although we have different roles in our marriage relationship. Men in my circles certainly do not shame women or consider them "filthy." I have a college degree and my husband fully supports education for women. He'd love to see my daughter become a scientist or engineer, I'm sure.

 

It is indeed frustrating when untrue assumptions are made about any of us based on our clothing choices. I value this forum as a place for honest discussion on these issues.   

Edited August 23, 2016 by MercyA

[MercyA]

However, what was interesting to me (I am in my 40s and have been raising children for over 25 years, I no longer have visions of breaking down stereotypes or really making friends across religious lines btw, I have given up basically) is the fact that this man found we had so much in common and freely was chatting with me all whilst his wife (very lovely women) was hanging out with the two other mothers (sort of although not directly excluding me by their choice of seating etc.), one of whom was a pretty liberal Christian and other being in a mixed-Jewish marriage with no dress code (I know many Jewish with modest dress codes). Women - and I am generalizing from years of experience - tend to take a stance away from me while husbands and grand mothers have no problem whatsoever chatting me up and seeing past the head scarf and see common values, an interesting person, and what not.

 

You explain that to me... Why are mothers so inclined to feel threatened? Is it due to lack of education and subsequently self-esteem? I don't know. I do know that we have so much more in common than not and I can almost guarantee you that most Muslims out and about would be thrilled and very open to speak with you, become friends, and build a mutual relationship. We just don't get the chance. And it is frustrating and very discouraging. Burkini or not. Because a burkini is not a niqaab, but a modest outfit so we can go to the beach and feel good about ourselves!!!!!

 

I have wondered that myself for years, Nadia. When I switched from a standard American wardrobe to skirts and a head covering, it was some of the women in my life who seemed most affronted.  I think maybe they thought that I must be judging them, because of the personal choices I made. I know some also made incorrect assumptions about my theological beliefs when I changed what I wore. So many of the misunderstandings could have been avoided with a simple conversation or two! I would have loved it if people had just asked honest questions instead of making assumptions. I wonder why people are so unwilling to just talk things over?

[AHASRADA]

MercyA, I appreciate and agree wholeheartedly with your comments. I wanted to clarify that I did not intend to place the same negative stereotypes onto Christians as are being placed on Muslims, which is why I chose to add the word "puritanical", to convey a historical and sectarian interpretation of the reasons for female modesty. Covering is so foreign to many people in modern society, that when they do see one of us, they automatically project what they see as outdated and oppressive treatment of women within their own cultural history to those of us choosing modesty in our time.

 

I agree that most bridges are built at the grassroots level. Interestingly, before 9/11, I was regularly approached by children and their mothers in supermarkets, asking if I would mind explaining why I dress the way I do, which I greatly enjoyed and appreciated. Unfortunately, our individual voices have been drowned out by the media covering extreme rhetoric and behavior on all sides. No one asks anymore, likely because they falsely believe they already know all the answers :(.

 

Sent from my GT-N5110 using Tapatalk

[Bluegoat]

It wasn't that long ago that it was normal in our society for women and men to cover their heads out in public, or for men, to uncover them indoors in public. 

[Jane in NC]

Nadia,

 

How lovely to see you again.

 

I am filled with admiration for you and your good works.

 

Best regards,

Jane

[MercyA]

Why do you cover ?

 

See, this is the kind of question I love!   :)

 

Short answer: I cover because of 1 Corinthians 11:1-16. I believe that as a Christian, I should obey New Testament teachings out of love for Christ (John 14:15). 

 

Longer elaboration, with answers to a few common Christian objections to covering (abridged from an article I wrote years ago):

 

Objection #1: Head Coverings Were a Cultural Issue of Paul’s Day.

 

Archaeological and written evidence show that for the first 1,900 years of Christianity, believing women throughout the world covered their heads for prayer. Many continue to do so today. Christian women in Eastern Europe, India, and Africa, for example, and in many American Mennonite, Brethren, Apostolic, Hutterite, Amish, and independent and home churches still wear head coverings. American women routinely covered their heads for worship in both Protestant and Catholic churches through the middle of the last century.

 

More importantly, the reasons given by Paul for covering one’s head have nothing whatsoever to do with culture. Paul says the covering should be worn:

• Because it displays the proper order of Biblical headship (God—Christ—man—woman; vs. 3-9).

• “Because of the angels†(vs. 10; a cryptic statement, but surely not cultural).

• Because even “nature itself†testifies that a woman should be covered (vs. 13-15).

Objection #2: The Covering Is a Woman’s Long Hair.

 

Throughout the history of the Christian church, the covering mentioned in 1 Corinthians 11 has been recognized to be a physical, cloth covering. While Scripture clearly teaches that a woman’s long hair is “a†natural covering, the argument that the hair is “the†covering referred to by Paul does not hold up on close examination.

 

1 Corinthians 11:6A states (emphasis added): For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn...

 

This verse (and indeed, most of the chapter) would make no logical sense if the covering is only a woman’s hair. If that were the case, the verse would read something like this: For if the woman be not covered with hair (if she is shorn), let her also be shorn.

 

A woman with her hair already cut off would not be commanded to cut off her hair again, nor would we expect men to be able to remove their hair while praying or prophesying (vs. 7).

 

Objection #3: Jesus Didn’t Teach Covering, So It Must Not Be Important.

 

Jesus did teach on the issue of the head covering. Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians 14:37, “...the things that I write unto you are the commandments of the Lord.â€

 

More space is devoted to the head covering than to many other topics in the New Testament. Approximately half of 1 Corinthians 11 pertains to head coverings and half to the practice of communion. Why do we feel free to ignore the first half of the chapter while universally applying the second? Like communion and baptism, the head covering is a physical symbol of a spiritual reality.

 

~ ~ ~

 

Thanks for the question, Sadie.  :) I suspect you will object to the Scripture I've cited due to your concerns about men not being required to cover as women are, among other things. I realize we won't have a meeting of minds on the authority of Scripture, but I can tell you there is NO misogyny in my home. My husband is the most humble, kind, respectful person I know, to women and men alike.

 

Have a good night!

Edited August 24, 2016 by MercyA

[HRAAB]

I wouldn't wear one because it would never occur to me.  I'm not Muslim, and it would feel odd to me to wear something that is a part of another religion.  I do wear a long cover up when I'm out of the water, but if I'm swimming, I prefer to be in my swimming suit.  I don't care to have people looking at my 50+ year old body on the beach, but there are plenty of cover ups for me to choose from without choosing a beach hijab/burkini.

 

None of that was meant to be offensive; just honestly how I would feel.  That Muslim women are being banned from dressing according to their beliefs is horrific.

[MercyA]

A businessman is paying fines for women who choose to wear burkinis on French beaches. He says, "My duty is to remind great European democracies that what made these great democracies is the respect of fundamental freedoms, freedoms that have been taken away from women who have opted to wear the traditional Islamic dress. Even if I don't agree with these women, I will fight until death to guarantee their freedom of expression."  :thumbup1:

[FaithManor]

A businessman is paying fines for women who choose to wear burkinis on French beaches. He says, "My duty is to remind great European democracies that what made these great democracies is the respect of fundamental freedoms, freedoms that have been taken away from women who have opted to wear the traditional Islamic dress. Even if I don't agree with these women, I will fight until death to guarantee their freedom of expression." :thumbup1:

What a neat man!

[mmasc]

If you want a different take on swim wear Google, "Chinese swim mask".

Good grief! I'm all for sun protection, but that would definitely scare the pants off my kids!

 

(Of course, I'd explain and life would go on...I just mean the initial sight of that would truly scare them!)

[Osmosis Mom]

NADIA!  :seeya:

Rosie! Awesome to see you too!  :laugh: Plus great to have been missed!

[Osmosis Mom]

Nadia,

 

How lovely to see you again.

 

I am filled with admiration for you and your good works.

 

Best regards,

Jane

Jabe, What a kind thing to say. Words do matter and you made my day with your post. I am up for air and will pop in once in a while here on the board. Have a lovely day!

[Carrie12345]

 

If you've never met a Muslim woman in your community, I highly recommend befriending one. I'd bet you'll find out she's anything but oppressed, and feels proud and liberated by her modest dress. Just a thought.

 

 

 

:thumbup1:

 

Even better, meet a bunch!

Sitting and speaking with a group of Muslim women in their masjid was a truly wonderful experience for me and my daughters.  We are not one bit religious of any sort, so admittedly it was more of a socio/anthro-type trip.  My friend is an American-born convert, and we were introduced to women with all sorts of backgrounds/origins/birth places, with various takes on what and why they choose certain things.  All of them adhered to similar modesty, but they were FAR from uniform, just like every church congregation I've sat with over the years. Or any other group of humans, for that matter.

[Bluegoat]

Thanks Mercy.

 

lol, you know me well. Of course I'll object to Scripture! especially scriptures referring to male headship :)

 

The idea of keeping communion with women through history is an interesting one. I still (just) remember older women wearing mantillas during mass. I even think I had one for one of my Barbie dolls ??!! 

 

I'm sure your dh is perfectly nice! Critiquing systemic misogyny isn't the same as assuming all husbands are nasty bullies. 

 

A question - what does 'even nature itself testifies a woman should be covered' mean ?

 

For some reason this makes me think of male pattern baldness.

[MercyA]

lol, you know me well. Of course I'll object to Scripture! especially scriptures referring to male headship :)

 

The idea of keeping communion with women through history is an interesting one. I still (just) remember older women wearing mantillas during mass. I even think I had one for one of my Barbie dolls ??!! 

 

I'm sure your dh is perfectly nice! Critiquing systemic misogyny isn't the same as assuming all husbands are nasty bullies. 

 

A question - what does 'even nature itself testifies a woman should be covered' mean ?

 

Thanks for your gracious response, Sadie.

 

My mother was Episcopalian as a girl, and she remembers putting a Kleenex on her head while passing through the sanctuary if she forgot her mantilla.  :) That's too cute about your Barbie doll!

 

Paul's appeal to nature in defense of the covering is found in verses 14 and 15: "Does not even nature itself teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a dishonor to him, but if a woman has long hair, it is a glory to her?  For her hair is given to her for a covering." My understanding is that he is referring to the natural tendency in most cultures for women to have longer hair than men.

[MercyA]

For some reason this makes me think of male pattern baldness.

 

LOL, Bluegoat. :) It is true that women are more likely to keep their natural covering of hair as they age.

[Jane in NC]

Wow, did y'all hear Razi Iqbal interview the mayor of Nice this morning on the BBC?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p045r4hc

[MercyA]

You know I'll disagree that is a natural tendency and insist it's a cultural tendency with evolutionary purpose, right ? :)

 

The whole natural/cultural thing is super interesting, and if you could come over for a cup of tea it would be great to discuss, but I fear I have derailed this thread too much already.

 

Of course!  ;)

 

And yes, that would be interesting to discuss over a cup of tea (or beverage of your choice).  :)

[Ravin]

Wow, did y'all hear Razi Iqbal interview the mayor of Nice this morning on the BBC?

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p045r4hc

 

So the logic is, because women in Arab countries can't wear bikinis, women in Europe shouldn't be allowed to wear burkinis?

 

Seriously, I think someone needs to manufacture burkinis and hijabs with French flags and Liberté, égalité, fraternité written all over them hundreds of times. See what the French make of that!

[Ravin]

Fighting for the freedom of the women...who you didn't see on the beach ten years ago...maybe because Burkinis weren't as readily available then? Maybe because Muslim women didn't feel safe going to the beach at all? 

 

Assuming that if a woman wears religious coverings, they must be Islamists, or controlled by Islamists?

 

A woman in a suit is an extremist.

 

I'm listening to this interview and it's just...bigotry wearing the name of secularism.

[poppy]

Wow, I am surprised to hear there are topless beaches in the US.   I do think they are rare.  I personally do not know any women who regularly go topless and I have never seen a topless woman at a beach.  I do not live in a warm climate, maybe that's a difference. I do spend  a good deal of time at beaches during summer since the ocean is a short drive for me - mostly Rhode Island beaches and the Cape.

 

I honestly think that this is about bigotry, misogyny and fear under the guise of secularism, but also that we don't bother trying to understand the French attachment to secularism.

 

It is possible to try to imagine yourself in both sets of shoes.

 

I do hope everyone here who is (rightfully) outraged about this ban is equally outraged about coerced covering. The two are sides of the same coin.

You mean like in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Chechnya?  Yes, of course.  Freedom of expression is a human right.

[Laurie4b]

The burkinis frankly remind me of the Christian modesty swimwear sites. What if you're wearing the same thing but aren't Muslim? 

 

I can see security issues in burqas so can at least see a rationalization for banning them. But a person should be allowed to wear as much clothing as he or she wants to at the beach. Skin cancer and all that. Different levels of comfort with skin showing, etc. I usually wear a long sleeved rash guard and a large hat. I do wear a shorter skirted bottom, but I may change that to protect my skin from aging. 

[laundrycrisis]

I read in a book that the French also require men to wear little briefs for swimming, and won't allow swim trunks because they see them as unhygienic or something. I think there is an obsession there with "proper" swimwear.

 

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-09-01/no-speedo-then-dont-try-go-swimming-france-seriously

 

http://www.thegoodlifefrance.com/speedos-versus-trunks-in-swimming-pools-in-france/

[Negin]

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Negin

[Laura Corin]

Thanks Mercy.

 

You know I'll disagree that is a natural tendency and insist it's a cultural tendency with evolutionary purpose, right ? :)

 

The whole natural/cultural thing is super interesting, and if you could come over for a cup of tea it would be great to discuss, but I fear I have derailed this thread too much already.

 

To derail further: is it not the case that most men find it hard to grow their hair past mid-back, while most women can grow it much longer?  Or is that not true?

 

Calvin's is at upper-back now, so it will be interesting to see how far it gets. He has beautiful dark ringlets.

 

[Bluegoat]

To derail further: is it not the case that most men find it hard to grow their hair past mid-back, while most women can grow it much longer?  Or is that not true?

 

Calvin's is at upper-back now, so it will be interesting to see how far it gets. He has beautiful dark ringlets.

 

 

It seems to me that for a long time, the world record holder for hair growth was an African man.  There are ethnic differences in hair growth that I suspect might be more significant than sex based ones.

 

THough I suppose even if we are talking about situations where the hair is never cut, men are more likely to lose years of growth to baldness.

[EmmaNZ]

I think since the specific purpose of a burka or hijab is not just to be modest, but rather specifically target women and shame them and keep them from equality, it is not ok. Simply wearing a scarf on your head is not Muslim. Wearing a big hat or a swimsuit that covers more skin is not automatically a burkini. I think women are just as valid as men. They are not filthy and dirty things that must be watched and disciplined by men. And they are not out to do bad things when they leave skin uncovered. Accepting the burka is accepting a degrading view toward women and a complete lack of equality.

 

If you want to stay covered up at the beach, then go for it. But that doesn't make your garnent a Hijab or a Burka or a Burkini.

Wow, that is so spectacularly WRONG, I almost can't believe I read it on here. It is the kind of thing one finds on Facebook or BBC news comments sections. 

 

The purpose of a hijab is to cover yourself according to laws sent down by God. It has NOTHING to do with a man whatsoever. I choose to dress the way I do. Some days I wear a long dress, other days I wear trousers and a tunic top. Every day I cover my hair with different colour scarves (often to match my shoes and bag :))  At the beach and the waterpark I wear a burkini. If I was in France right now I would probably be facing a fine just because I want to play in the surf with my kids.

 

I also think 'women are just as valid as men'. Nobody watches or disciplines me except myself and God. My husband and my children walk the path with me, and we try to make good choices together. I have NEVER met a muslim man who thinks women are filthy and dirty and need to be watched. I suspect I have met MANY, MANY more muslim men and women than you.

 

I do not suspect non-muslim women of being 'out to do bad things' when not covering. I overwhelmingly see them as trying their best to do the right thing in a confusing world. Yes, they have made different choices to me, but I respect them all the same. Why is it impossible for you to respect a women for choosing a different dress code to yourself?

 

I wonder how you would be treated wearing one of those.  

 

Sad that I even have to think like that.

In my experience, in several countries around the world, most people are respectful and friendly. Much the same as when I wear hijab.

 

 

 

(I do have a harder time believing that when I see women in niquab).

 

 

 

Niqab is a different thing to hijab, I agree. I do not currently wear one, for a variety of reasons, although I have in the past. But a women in a niqab is no more oppressed than one in a hijab. (Obviously, here I am only talking about countries I know well which does not include some of the Middle Eastern countries). However, the women I know who wear niqab, including one of my best friends, are intelligent, university-educated and useful members of society. They do not do this thing lightly, but they do it knowingly.

[StephanieZ]

I am so appalled by what is going on in France. The controlling and policing of a woman's chosen clothing is horrible. It reminds me of how fortunate I am to live in the US, and it certainly makes me more determined than ever to maintain free religious expression in our country. Although I am not religious, I strongly believe that the strength and beauty of our country is rooted in our respect for individual liberty, and that freedom of religious expression is certainly one of the most fundamental aspects of that liberty. 

 

Clearly, IMHO, liberty stops where it hurts others. So, no, you can't ignore child safety laws because your religion tells you to. You can't beat your child or wife because religion tells you to. You can't deny a citizen their rights (to marry, to purchase a home, etc) even if your religion tells you to reject their color or gender or sexuality. Government and businesses that serve the public should be required to obey laws . . .

 

But, an individual should have the liberty to wear what they want. And, no, someone's discomfort for your nudity or your covering isn't *hurting* them at all, and certainly not to the extent that it should be allowed to impinge on the greater rights of the individual whose dress (or lack thereof) bothers you.

 

Regarding things like proving identity (face covering). This one I think depends on the purpose of the law/rule. I don't think face covering should be completely prohibited in the public sphere, but I can see that government offices (Driver's License, etc) and even private businesses that rely on identity for safety (child care pick up or hospital visitors) or even for financial reasons (gym memberships) should be able to require face exposure for ID. It would be nice if there was a way of alternate ID (say, finger print scanner), but that wouldn't be cheap or easy to implement, and soon enough, you'll have a religious group that requires glove wearing, lol. It's all about balancing of individual liberty with public (or other people's) needs. Liberty is important enough to go to some trouble to accommodate it, IMHO.

 

 

[Roadrunner]

So can you wear a rash guard on the beach with pants? Or do we all must be in bikinis? What if I don't feel like swimming but just supervising my kids? Can you were a rash guard with a headscarf? Will only those in headscarfs face a fine?

France has gone too far, and I am a secular person who can't stomach religion most says.

[zoobie]

I don't understand what the difference is between a beach hijab and... 

 

Can you wear a scarf, pants, and top on the beach as long as it's not made of swim fabric? I'm thinking of a gorgeous picture of Grace Kelly with a white sweater/scarf combo--was that in To Catch a Thief?

 

Can you wear a scuba suit? 

 

Can nuns or orthodox Jewish women wear their preferred attire on the beach? (Imagine if all these groups banded together to form a huge, awesome, COVER IT UP beach protest!)

 

It's nothing more than restricting a particular sex + religious group's attire, which is insane. It serves no legitimate government purpose. (I realize they don't have our same constitution.)

[Bluegoat]

I don't understand what the difference is between a beach hijab and... 

 

Can you wear a scarf, pants, and top on the beach as long as it's not made of swim fabric? I'm thinking of a gorgeous picture of Grace Kelly with a white sweater/scarf combo--was that in To Catch a Thief?

 

Can you wear a scuba suit? 

 

Can nuns or orthodox Jewish women wear their preferred attire on the beach? (Imagine if all these groups banded together to form a huge, awesome, COVER IT UP beach protest!)

 

It's nothing more than restricting a particular sex + religious group's attire, which is insane. It serves no legitimate government purpose. (I realize they don't have our same constitution.)

 

As far as I can tell from my reading, you can wear the exact same thing, but not for religious reasons, and that is ok. 

 

It really is the religious factor that is seen to be offensive, as a public display of what is meant to be private.  They don't seem to include non-Muslim religious displays, but my suspicion is that is actually a bit of a contradiction - they can't or won't because of the historical connotations that would have. 

[Laura in CA]

an interesting NYT editorial: "When a Swimsuit Is a Security Threat"

 

and my friends in France/UK have been posting pics contrasting women in modest burqinis and fat men in Speedos  :laugh:

along with this article: "In Wake of Burkini Ban, Muslim Women Demand Criminalization of Fat White Men in Speedos"

 

 

 

ETA: the NYT editorial (not surprisingly) was able to articulate the situation better than I am — that France is seeing women in burqinis simultaneously as both victims AND threats ...  :glare:

 

Edited August 25, 2016 by Laura in CA

[poppy]

Didn't know what would happen when I started this thread but I have a happy update.  It made me smack myself in the head and order some stuff to make beach-going more comfortable.

 

I got this (one black, one patterned): http://www.landsend.com/products/womens-plus-size-adjustable-swim-tunic-rash-guard/id_300326?sku_0=::IIB)- a rash guard that is not skin tight/sweaty looking!

 

And some coolibar capris.

Hooray! Thanks for the push, all.

[MercyA]

Didn't know what would happen when I started this thread but I have a happy update.  It made me smack myself in the head and order some stuff to make beach-going more comfortable.

 

I got this (one black, one patterned): http://www.landsend.com/products/womens-plus-size-adjustable-swim-tunic-rash-guard/id_300326?sku_0=::IIB)- a rash guard that is not skin tight/sweaty looking!

 

And some coolibar capris.

Hooray! Thanks for the push, all.

 

Love that top!!! Enjoy yourself and enjoy being comfortable! 

[zoobie]

I actually think the bolded is problematic in this context. Because it switches the focus from 'what I personally feel comfortable with' to 'dressing according to God's laws'. And the French - rightly or wrongly - have issues with ostentatious symbols of religion.

 

Strategically, I'd be emphasizing the personal choice aspect. A lot of people can get behind that in a way they just won't re God's laws.

 

Is it slightly disingenuous to pretend it's just a personal fashion preference in the same way a one piece is a personal preference ? Sure. It's likely to be a lot more effective though.

 

Re the italicised - it's going to differ from place to place. The area I live in, where I see niquab frequently, is low socio-economic. Doesn't mean the women wearing it aren't smart or useful, but they are statistically unlikely to be university educated.

 

I think, as someone who dislikes it intensely and sees it as a quite appalling symbol of systemic misogyny, it is quite fair to ask me to tolerate it in AU, and to not judge the woman behind it - I'm afraid I will never go the one step further and develop an appreciation for it. It's out of place here. I do support the French ban on niquab in public for France. And I would prefer it not to be culturally acceptable here.**

 

** Not talking about hijab! Or burkini.

Are the French limiting nun habits? Or do they only have a problem with symbols of Islam? They seem okay with ostentatious Catholicism. (Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur...)

[Roadrunner]

Are the French limiting nun habits? Or do they only have a problem with symbols of Islam? They seem okay with ostentatious Catholicism. (Notre Dame, Sacre Coeur...)

I just got off the phone with a an American friend who has lived in France for a long time and she just said, "look, French don't like Arabs. It's that simple." She did add though that younger generation is changing somewhat.