Zompist Bboard Again

I personally am not a fan of the burqa or the niqab, but I am the of the view that if people willingly choose to wear them, including in public, it is their business (but, conversely, I am very strongly against anyone pressuring or requiring others to wear them).

About religious mutilation, from a purely ideological view I should see FGM and circumcision the same way, but in practice I am far more opposed to the former than the latter due to it having a much greater impact on the people in question.

Gives me contradictory feels, man. Like, on the one hand, just let people wear the rag on the head if they want to, right? but, on the other hand, in my own country religion getting its dirty little paws in politics is a big problem, and we even have weird traditions such as the president giving a yearly speech *each* to the catholic church and the evangelicals... not to mention the situation in the Empire, so I get the appeal on preventing theocracy.

About religious mutilation, from a purely ideological view I should see FGM and circumcision the same way, but in practice I am far more opposed to the former than the latter due to it having a much greater impact on the people in question.

I'm not that sure: I don't know much about this but afaik not all FGM is cliterectomy, some are just a nick here, a slice there (not that it's okay to nick and slice babies' junk, but hey). Also, for all that white christians like to imagine themselves as so different from brown africans, the rationale for male genital mutilation in, say, the US is much the same as the rationale for female genital mutilation in Ethiopia or whatever: a mix of "it discourages sex / reduces pleasure / protects against temptation" and "it's just a cultural thing, it's icky if you're not cut", no?

Torco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:55 pm Gives me contradictory feels, man.

Heh, yeah, you're not alone! What helps me stick to my views is that in our case, deep down there's a fair bit of racism involved.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Thu Jan 12, 2023 9:05 am

Torco wrote: ↑Wed Jan 11, 2023 1:55 pm Gives me contradictory feels, man.

Heh, yeah, you're not alone! What helps me stick to my views is that in our case, deep down there's a fair bit of racism involved.

I am similar here - the implicit racism associated with laïcité's implementation in the present is a significant factor in my opposition to laïcité. If France were a uniformly White, Catholic society, and laïcité in the present tense were truly about resisting the influence of the Catholic Church on society, I would have fewer objections to it.

True... i guess it's good utilitarianism: what happens as a result of the policy? then it's not such a good policy... either way, in favour of it, it's better the least influence any religion gets, seems to me.

People have always converted to Islam for reasons that are religion-adjacent at best.

* For a while now, a lot of women in the West have been arguing that the bodily exposure demanded by non-Islamic societies in modern times creeps them out. Note that my very religious mother wanted something like laicite because religious clothing reminded her of fundamentalists, whereas I, a militant atheist, do not support it.

* Previously, the Bengali singer Kabir Suman converted to Islam because he wanted to marry two women, and only Muslims were allowed to do that in India. Note that I have been hanging out with Indian Muslim men all my life, and I've never known any of them to marry multiple women. Not a single one. I think only the ultra rich, the utterly destitute and artists do that kind of thing.

* Recently, the sex trafficker Andrew Tate converted to Islam. I think he calculated that far right Islamists are the demographic most likely to continue defending him even after his confessions to the charges are publicized. If that's what he thought, then he was right about that part. He might have overestimated the intelligence of his non-Muslim audience though.

So "Islam" is perceived to be a solution by advocates of feminine modesty, polygamists, as well as sex traffickers. This is how religion works in general.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:10 pm People have always converted to Islam for reasons that are religion-adjacent at best.

Certainly— historically, you could add the millions who converted because the state they lived in was Muslim. But--

* For a while now, a lot of women in the West have been arguing that the bodily exposure demanded by non-Islamic societies in modern times creeps them out.

I don't want to assume, so who exactly are you talking about, and do you think they are tempted to join Islam?

zompist wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:31 pm I don't want to assume, so who exactly are you talking about, and do you think they are tempted to join Islam?

Not the most in-depth exploration of this argument, but the one that took me the least effort to find: https://youtu.be/wzkFoetp-_M

I've known plenty of Western women whose first experience wearing an abaya was: "Holy shit, nobody on this street gets to know what shape my body is. THIS IS FUCKING AMAZING!" To date none of them has expressed an interest in converting to Islam. Of course, being gay I probably don't run in the sort of circles that would be eager to convert anyway (I mean, there's WAY more lesbian night life in Saudi than you might expect, but still).

As a woman who probably falls into that category (of "not super delighted about extensive bodily exposure"), I'd say Moose has the right of it. I certainly do get an element of "that would simplify my life so much" when I see a woman wearing a headscarf, but I'm hardly tempted to convert to another religion for the sake of wearing clothing that... I don't actually have to be Muslim to wear. Voluminous dresses and various types of headwear are pretty common in a variety of cultures. Who's going around forcing non-Muslim women to wear crop tops?

How many examples do you want? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EtXBZ8wS1EQ

There's a whole discipline called "Islamic feminism" that triggers both atheists and the Islamists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_feminism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Muslim_feminists

While many of these people come from Muslim backgrounds, some do not: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amina_Wadud https://www.google.com/search?q=Amina+W ... 0&dpr=1.25

alynnidalar wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 9:59 pm As a woman who probably falls into that category (of "not super delighted about extensive bodily exposure"), I'd say Moose has the right of it. I certainly do get an element of "that would simplify my life so much" when I see a woman wearing a headscarf, but I'm hardly tempted to convert to another religion for the sake of wearing clothing that... I don't actually have to be Muslim to wear. Voluminous dresses and various types of headwear are pretty common in a variety of cultures. Who's going around forcing non-Muslim women to wear crop tops?

BTW based on stuff I read way back, one of the reverts was concerned about finding a community that will accept them in spite of their sartorial choices. I don't think I will track down that particular reference, and even I don't have a high opinion of my memory.

rotting bones wrote: ↑Sat Jan 14, 2023 4:10 pm People have always converted to Islam for reasons that are religion-adjacent at best.

* For a while now, a lot of women in the West have been arguing that the bodily exposure demanded by non-Islamic societies in modern times creeps them out. Note that my very religious mother wanted something like laicite because religious clothing reminded her of fundamentalists, whereas I, a militant atheist, do not support it.

I have similar experiences; at least two Muslim friends of mine are entirely OK about the laicite restrictions I mentioned, and would definitely be in favor in restricting "religious" clothing even more. Which I guess goes to prove matters are never neatly clear cut. (Also shows that Islam isn't the monolithic fundamentalist entity it's sometimes portrayed as, far from it. I've yet to find two Muslims who'd really find themselves in agreement with each other on religious matters. )

Over here, a fair amount of non-religious women express interest in the burkini; they're not interested in converting but the bodily exposure bothers them.
I never heard about women converting just to wear less revealing clothing. What I did hear/read is female converts to Islam mentioning that they find Islam's attitudes towards women, on the whole, healthier. (Personally, I can't agree with that, but I don't think they're entirely wrong either.)

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:51 am I never heard about women converting just to wear less revealing clothing.

I've never heard of that being the only or the most important reason either, only a significant factor in the conversion story. Usually, it involves the bullying that comes from thwarting the male gaze.

Ares Land wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 7:51 am What I did hear/read is female converts to Islam mentioning that they find Islam's attitudes towards women, on the whole, healthier. (Personally, I can't agree with that, but I don't think they're entirely wrong either.)

Personally, I think it's unhealthy to cover yourself. The enemy is not revealing clothing but the fetishization of women. The hijab has been fetishized in Islamic poetry. At the same time, there are tribes where women don't cover themselves and the men don't lust after them all the time.

I understand that covering yourself can be the least bad course of action in times when insanity grows stronger with each passing day. However, I cannot accept it as a permanent solution.

Uh... you're going to need to clarify that one. Why is it unhealthy to wear clothing covering your body? Why is it healthy to wear clothing that doesn't cover your body? Why do these sorts of statements mysteriously only seem to appear to apply to women, and not to men?

I'd presume because of decreased levels of vitamin D synthesis (which IIRC requires skin exposure to sun light)

If so, that's got to be the most hilarious argument against long sleeves that I've ever heard. For the good of humanity, we must immediately legislate shirtlessness at all times.

Vitamin D expression is different across different parts of the body. It's the abdomen that counts the most, not the arms. So forced short-tanks and low-rise jeans? Oh. It's 2002. That's just legally mandated 2002.

Moose-tache wrote: ↑Mon Jan 16, 2023 3:30 pm Vitamin D expression is different across different parts of the body. It's the abdomen that counts the most, not the arms. So forced short-tanks and low-rise jeans? Oh. It's 2002. That's just legally mandated 2002.

Oh no. Does that mean goatees and spiky hair too? Because I'm not doing that again.

Generally, atitudes towards women's clothes are basically a double bind, which I'm told is the best way to drive people crazy. There's no good option and there does not exist a set of clothes women can wear that people won't loudly object to. (It'll either be too long or too short, and that's just for starters.)
Here in France the whole thing about headscarves starting in high schools -- and as far as I can see the double bind is hardest on teenage girls.

i'm equally opposed to FGM and MGM;