French officials decide that Buriki cannot be worn at a swimming pool, despite its design exclusively as swimwear

[magomago]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: magomago


You know what, I am pushing others to accept these women to go and swim. You know why? For me, it simply isn't a random 'population' of females who wear Hijabs. I can put actual faces, names, and experiences to these women. I know some of them actually want to go out and swim, but for their personal reasons (many may think they simply are 'oppressed' but when you speak to them and realize how smart they are, you start to see that they actually appreciate and enjoy their hjiab) they feel they can't. This actually gives them a chance to go out, to swim, and to enjoy places like the beach. I know other Muslim women who don't wear hijabs but are equally as uncomfortable in a bikini. By forcing them away on the false notion of 'accomodating them', you prevent people's assimilation into a new culture and you futher isolate them. Who would have thought that isolating immigrants further is what advocated.

I think those are the attitudes the French are trying to stop from 'infecting' their culture.

The French are very comfortable with their body images, which you'll be more than aware of if you've ever been to a public beach in the south of France. They don't view the body as shameful.

They would view those women as oppressed, and so truly oppressed that the women don't even question it or think it out of the ordinary any more.

Well here is the problem: it isn't "infection" in the culture. Its simply a different idea and way to do things. There is nothing wrong with that, no more than wanting to wear a bikini.

I personally don't think the body is shameful, and I think it depends on each person and how they view it. Some 'big' women I know most definitely aren't comfortable with a bikini because they view their body as shameful even though they really built themselves into it. some other women (muslims that I know) don't have shame in their body, but simply refuse to wear what they deem to be revealing clothing.

Its really trying to legislate a point a view and get everything to think/accept the same standard. What I thought about the other day is that societies typically have an issue if you don't cover up to the minimum standards --> rarely is there an issue with covering up MORE. Back in my Jr. High School there were rules such as "Guys can sag, but you aren't allowed to show your ass/boxers". "Girls can't wear short tops that reveals their stomach, it must cover it up". to go in excess of these rules --> ie: not sag and wear normal pants, or wear a longer shirt that covers more than the stomach area, was allowed.

Its an interesting thing to think about - the balance between meeting a society's standards and maintaining one's of preference.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: TruePaige
I think people wearing clothes in the pool is retarded.

They are simply re-educating these morons.



Yes, I think any woman stupid enough to be oppressed by jealous men through their religion is a moron.

It's funnny because the woman in the OP's BBC article says she's bing opressed and segregated by the french. The dumb wise and beautiful woman doesn't want the French to do it but it's ok for her religious friends to do it??? WTF?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: JeffreyLebowski
It's funnny because the woman in the OP's BBC article says she's bing opressed and segregated by the french. The dumb wise and beautiful woman doesn't want the French to do it but it's ok for her religious friends to do it??? WTF?

Where did the woman claim say it was OK for anyone to oppress or segregate others? Considering the evidence available, it looks like you are you the one being a dumb wise and beautiful woman here.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: WelshBloke

Originally posted by: magomago


You know what, I am pushing others to accept these women to go and swim. You know why? For me, it simply isn't a random 'population' of females who wear Hijabs. I can put actual faces, names, and experiences to these women. I know some of them actually want to go out and swim, but for their personal reasons (many may think they simply are 'oppressed' but when you speak to them and realize how smart they are, you start to see that they actually appreciate and enjoy their hjiab) they feel they can't. This actually gives them a chance to go out, to swim, and to enjoy places like the beach. I know other Muslim women who don't wear hijabs but are equally as uncomfortable in a bikini. By forcing them away on the false notion of 'accomodating them', you prevent people's assimilation into a new culture and you futher isolate them. Who would have thought that isolating immigrants further is what advocated.

I think those are the attitudes the French are trying to stop from 'infecting' their culture.

The French are very comfortable with their body images, which you'll be more than aware of if you've ever been to a public beach in the south of France. They don't view the body as shameful.

They would view those women as oppressed, and so truly oppressed that the women don't even question it or think it out of the ordinary any more.

Well here is the problem: it isn't "infection" in the culture. Its simply a different idea and way to do things. There is nothing wrong with that, no more than wanting to wear a bikini.

Try getting a female friend to walk into a Mosque wearing a mini skirt and crop top and using that argument on the imam.

I personally don't think the body is shameful, and I think it depends on each person and how they view it. Some 'big' women I know most definitely aren't comfortable with a bikini because they view their body as shameful even though they really built themselves into it. some other women (muslims that I know) don't have shame in their body, but simply refuse to wear what they deem to be revealing clothing.

The French have no issues with being fat and wearing bikinis/speedos, its one of their more disturbing aspects. They cant see why anyone else would.

Its really trying to legislate a point a view and get everything to think/accept the same standard. What I thought about the other day is that societies typically have an issue if you don't cover up to the minimum standards --> rarely is there an issue with covering up MORE. Back in my Jr. High School there were rules such as "Guys can sag, but you aren't allowed to show your ass/boxers". "Girls can't wear short tops that reveals their stomach, it must cover it up". to go in excess of these rules --> ie: not sag and wear normal pants, or wear a longer shirt that covers more than the stomach area, was allowed.

American school culture is not going to give you any insights into the way the French think.

Its an interesting thing to think about - the balance between meeting a society's standards and maintaining one's of preference.

Replies in bold

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Try getting a female friend to walk into a Mosque wearing a mini skirt and crop top and using that argument on the imam.

A priest running a church would be unlikely to welcome a woman in such dress too, and be more likely to have some poor little boy naked in the back room at that.

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
The French have no issues with being fat and wearing bikinis/speedos, its one of their more disturbing aspects. They cant see why anyone else would.

I've seen plenty of French people dress more modestly while swimming, fat and otherwise.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
Try getting a female friend to walk into a Mosque wearing a mini skirt and crop top and using that argument on the imam.

A priest running a church would be unlikely to welcome a woman in such dress too, and be more likely to have some poor little boy naked in the back room at that.

So apart from throwing in the religious slur you agree with me?

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
The French have no issues with being fat and wearing bikinis/speedos, its one of their more disturbing aspects. They cant see why anyone else would.

I've seen plenty of French people dress more modestly while swimming, fat and otherwise.

I bet they didn't think of it as modest though. To think like that you'd have to consider the alternative immodest.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
just try to quote me its easier for my responses

first point:
I'll agree you most likely won't find an imam who pimps the concept of mini skirts and crop top, but you aren't going to find an imam who likewise pimps muscle tees for guys. We somehow think modesty is only for women, and guys walk around and do whatever they feel like. Islam specifically encourages modesty without detailing exactly what it should be.
But what does this narrow focus have to do with a culture and society? That 'imam' is supposed to fit as a piece into the culture and the society. Sure some imams may have a more stringent view of what is or isn't appropriate than others will.

My comment is aimed at what is or isn't allowable in the public space - not the personal opinion of those who live in a society. There are probably many people who support, in the public realm, the right of a woman to wear a burkini, but privately they will not agree with it. We can see straight forward examples in this thread. Your argument, if put more correctly, would be akin to an imam stopping a female in the middle of a public road and telling her she can't proceed unless she puts on more clothing.

point 2:
I don't care what the 'monolithic' unit of French think. They can be 500 lbs and wear a speedo if they feel like it. I may think its repelling, but I simply have to accept their existence next to me in a pool. The same goes in reverse: accept the right of a lady to wear swimwear that covers herself (note: SWIMWEAR) even if you think its repelling.

point 3:
you are missing the point. I brought it up to explain that societies and cultures typically, when it comes to clothing, insist on a minimum standard. To go over that standard generally is not an issue.

 

[magomago]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
I bet they didn't think of it as modest though. To think like that you'd have to consider the alternative immodest.

Who cares what they personally thought of it. That isn't your business. A person can wear a burka for modesty reasons, medical reasons, "I'm too much of a fat cow" reasons.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
So apart from throwing in the religious slur you agree with me?

I did not slur Catholicism or any other religion here, but rather simply expressing my disgust for particular activities of the Church. As for agreeing with you; no, I think your failure to distinguish between public and private property undermines your argument.

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I bet they didn't think of it as modest though. To think like that you'd have to consider the alternative immodest.

I'll bet French individuals hold a wide range of views on modesty/immodesty, including the ones you are attempting to deny.

 

[actuarial]

I find it hilarious how many people are bringing up the point of "would they be open to other views in Muslim society?" Is this now the gold standard of personal freedom in the world? really? That's like saying no one who's ancestry is Chinese is allowed to fight for democratic freedoms.

I wonder if they would kick me out if I wore a LZR suit because it's "pants"? How about a wetsuit?

Everyone's right in that France can choose to do what they want in terms of mandating public clothing. So can Saudi Arabia. I wouldn't stand up for either treatment where I live, because I actually believe in Liberty. It seems people these days are too busybody, or too ignorant, to actually protect their own freedom. I wonder how many people in this thread hate on HOAs when they force their local 'customs' on others!

 

[babylon5]

Originally posted by: actuarial
I find it hilarious how many people are bringing up the point of "would they be open to other views in Muslim society?" Is this now the gold standard of personal freedom in the world? really? That's like saying no one who's ancestry is Chinese is allowed to fight for democratic freedoms.

I wonder if they would kick me out if I wore a LZR suit because it's "pants"? How about a wetsuit?

Your analogy is poorly chosen to make your point.

 

[WelshBloke]

Originally posted by: magomago

Originally posted by: WelshBloke
just try to quote me its easier for my responses

first point:
I'll agree you most likely won't find an imam who pimps the concept of mini skirts and crop top, but you aren't going to find an imam who likewise pimps muscle tees for guys. We somehow think modesty is only for women, and guys walk around and do whatever they feel like. Islam specifically encourages modesty without detailing exactly what it should be.
But what does this narrow focus have to do with a culture and society? That 'imam' is supposed to fit as a piece into the culture and the society. Sure some imams may have a more stringent view of what is or isn't appropriate than others will.

I was just using the Mosque as an example of a place with a dress code. Change it to a monastery if you want. You said about wanting the French to change their swimming dress code 'Its simply a different idea and way to do things. There is nothing wrong with that, no more than wanting to wear a bikini.' I'm just pointing out that 'different ways of doing things' arnt always acceptable.

Originally posted by: magomago
My comment is aimed at what is or isn't allowable in the public space - not the personal opinion of those who live in a society. There are probably many people who support, in the public realm, the right of a woman to wear a burkini, but privately they will not agree with it. We can see straight forward examples in this thread. Your argument, if put more correctly, would be akin to an imam stopping a female in the middle of a public road and telling her she can't proceed unless she puts on more clothing.

But the French rule isn't about the right to wear a burkini, it covers pretty much everything apart from regular swimwear. This isnt about 'walking down the road' its about a pool that has entry requirements and a dress code.

Originally posted by: magomago
point 2:
I don't care what the 'monolithic' unit of French think. They can be 500 lbs and wear a speedo if they feel like it. I may think its repelling, but I simply have to accept their existence next to me in a pool. The same goes in reverse: accept the right of a lady to wear swimwear that covers herself (note: SWIMWEAR) even if you think its repelling.

Its not about what anyone thinks , its about the rules that are in existence and if they apply to everyone.

Originally posted by: magomago
point 3:
you are missing the point. I brought it up to explain that societies and cultures typically, when it comes to clothing, insist on a minimum standard. To go over that standard generally is not an issue.

I'd disagree, cultures have dress codes on what is suitable in context. You don't wear a bikini to a restaurant, you don't wear a suit to the pool.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: magomago
Well here is the problem: it isn't "infection" in the culture. Its simply a different idea and way to do things. There is nothing wrong with that, no more than wanting to wear a bikini.

Ok, so you say it's a "different idea", the French think it's a symbol of oppression. In the end, who ultimately gets to decide if a "different idea" is appropriate, what is OK to wear in public, at the public pool, on the street etc? I'm pretty sure in a democratic society, the people of that society get to make those decisions collectively, much like the french have. What this woman is asking -- no, demanding -- is that her rights to her beliefs trump the rights of society to set standards and apply them equally to all. I'm fine with her doing whatever she wants in private, but society has the right to set a collective standard of what is appropriate behavior in a public setting.

Yes, sometimes it's not easy to balance between "tyranny of the majority" and "the minority gets to impose their will on the majority", but ultimately, the minority should be "protected" from the majority only in the sense of protecting "inalienable" rights. I'm not sure what laws in France are like, but in the US those inalienable rights are set out in the constitution.

The majority has the right to legislate anything outside of those inalienable rights. If the majority wants to outlaw red hats, they can do so, there's nothing inherent in the constitution protecting my right to wear a red hat. If they want to make a law that all people should have shaved heads to prevent lice outbreaks, they can do so. If the majority wants to legislate away my right to vote because of the color of my skin, then my rights should be protected because that right is inalienable. It would take a large leap of logic to put "what attire to wear to the public pool" in the category of "inalienable rights".

Originally posted by: kylebisme
I'll bet French individuals hold a wide range of views on modesty/immodesty, including the ones you are attempting to deny.

If that's the case, they (as a collective) set the rules accordingly. In fact, they have already done so. Now someone wants the rules to either change or not apply to her because of her beliefs. Why should society have to change the rules they've agreed on as a democratic society? She can go to a private pool or go to the public pool and abide by the same rules as everyone else.

 

[actuarial]

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The majority has the right to legislate anything outside of those inalienable rights. If the majority wants to outlaw red hats, they can do so, there's nothing inherent in the constitution protecting my right to wear a red hat. If they want to make a law that all people should have shaved heads to prevent lice outbreaks, they can do so. If the majority wants to legislate away my right to vote because of the color of my skin, then my rights should be protected because that right is inalienable. It would take a large leap of logic to put "what attire to wear to the public pool" in the category of "inalienable rights".

So you would be perfectly fine if there was a law passed in NA (a state/province, or country wide) stating that everyone had to wear grey uniforms?

How about if they passed a law saying Yamachas could not be worn in public, because the majority of people decide they don't like what it represents?

 

[Red Irish]

I dislike the fact that Muslim women are encouraged to cover up their bodies. I feel that this is demeaning as it affirms that they are inferior to their male counterparts and that their bodies are in some way unclean. However, that is simply a personal opinion and no individual should be afforded the right to impose a dress code. Moreover, like many other posters, I come from a predominantly Christian culture, which promotes its own misogyny: the immaculate conception, whereby, by inference, all other women are dirty. Perhaps certain posters should begin with oppression in their own backyard before looking over the garden fence.

Personal opinions aside, I feel that a public swimming pool should impose standards of hygiene and oblige bathers to wear some form of clothing: the burkini is clearly in keeping with these requirements.

If these women state that they wear such attire through personal choice and deny any oppression, I would be arrogant if I were to suggest that they have been brainwashed and are unable to voice a personal opinion: we cannot "free" such women by replacing one set of oppressive codes with another.

In the end, the choice should be left to the women themselves and whilst I believe that Muslim women should cast off many aspects of their religious and cultural tradition, my opinion and the opinion of the French government should count for very little.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: actuarial

Originally posted by: Double Trouble
The majority has the right to legislate anything outside of those inalienable rights. If the majority wants to outlaw red hats, they can do so, there's nothing inherent in the constitution protecting my right to wear a red hat. If they want to make a law that all people should have shaved heads to prevent lice outbreaks, they can do so. If the majority wants to legislate away my right to vote because of the color of my skin, then my rights should be protected because that right is inalienable. It would take a large leap of logic to put "what attire to wear to the public pool" in the category of "inalienable rights".

So you would be perfectly fine if there was a law passed in NA (a state/province, or country wide) stating that everyone had to wear grey uniforms?

How about if they passed a law saying Yamachas could not be worn in public, because the majority of people decide they don't like what it represents?

Would I be "perfectly fine" with such rules? No, I'd think the idea was absurd. However, if that's what the society wants, it can create those rules and enforce them. I, like everyone else, would have to abide by those rules if society decided to impose them.

 

[kylebisme]

A fan of mob rule, eh? And if the French decided to start making Muslims wear yellow crescent badges, would you still be arguing that a society should do as it wants?

 

[BoomerD]

Originally posted by: kylebisme
A fan of mob rule, eh? And if the French decided to start making Muslims wear yellow crescent badges, would you still be arguing that a society should do as it wants?

It's their fucking country. While I may disagree with it, they ARE free to pass whatever laws they so choose. In your example, are they being discriminated against in any way except the dress requirement? You say nothing about being loaded into box cars for shipment to "reeducation camps."


I dislike many of the laws in foreign countries...many are heavily discriminatory against "outsiders." My dislike of them doesn't change the fact that those laws were passed...
AFAIK, most Muslim countries are far from being "free-thinking." Many are very repressive, in thought, in dress, and in social behavior. Are they supposed to change because I, as an American and (for the sake of argument) a devoted nudist want to be able to walk the street buck-nekkid? No? didn't think so.
(good thing that's only hypothetical...I don't want to have so many people laughing...without being able to at least collect a cover charge)

Based solely on news reports, aren't many American women forced to wear burkas when in public in many Muslim nations? Even though they're not Muslim, they're forced to adhere to the local "standards of decency."

Is that wrong? Personally, I think so, BUT, once again, it's their country...and they're free to make whatever laws they so choose. WE have the choice whether to visit those countries and subject ourselves to the local laws...or to stay away.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: BoomerD
It's their fucking country. While I may disagree with it, they ARE free to pass whatever laws they so choose. In your example, are they being discriminated against in any way except the dress requirement? You say nothing about being loaded into box cars for shipment to "reeducation camps."

Sure, but all that has been done under established laws before too.

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Based solely on news reports, aren't many American women forced to wear burkas when in public in many Muslim nations? Even though they're not Muslim, they're forced to adhere to the local "standards of decency."

Is that wrong?

Not many Muslim nations, but yes it is wrong, and writing into law doesn't change that.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: OCguy
This is why I laugh when sheltered liberal morons pretend the US is the most racist xenophobic country on the planet.


The French are more nationalistic than a Mississippian at a Nascar race.

Your kidding right? French are a strange bunch I give ya that . BUT! If you were a nudist on a nudist beach. and people are there won't disrube. Than they should not be at that beach. I am pretty sure the nudest are at eas. with there sexuality. But the people who won't disrode under the teaching that it will cause sexual desires to build in subconscious and eventualy to the consciuos. Its a religious trick of sorts that backfired.

It's the old garden of eden fruit on tree temptation . Don't do this or its wrong . But it s only wrong if ya believe the lie. I understand the french point of view. If you believe its wrong to dress revealing much. Than don't come to our beaches. We don't want you To have any immoral thoughts you been decieved into believing. Ya the french are right on this one all the way . If ya see dirt stay away.

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
It's the old garden of eden fruit on tree temptation . Don't do this or its wrong . But it s only wrong if ya believe the lie.

That is what the serpent claimed anyway.

 

[Nemesis 1]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: Nemesis 1
It's the old garden of eden fruit on tree temptation . Don't do this or its wrong . But it s only wrong if ya believe the lie.

That is what the serpent claimed anyway.

Ya basicly your right but its more complex than that. GOD is omni poteint and omni present . Basicly all time exist at exact same time .

So when God command that Adam not partake from the fruit of the tree of LIFE! God already new everthing that would happen . The real lesson here is God Withheld nothing from man . He only asked obedience to one simple thing. When man learns to live above all earthly laws except the 1 he did ask Adam . Simply obedience to your creator.

Man would be in an enlightened state and no other laws or authority exist. It s Satan or the idea of satan thats War murder and all evils were necessary Forge man with fire to purifiy him for enlightenment. When it is in fact only a distraction that serves to distract mankind to the point were Tech overtakes judgement and Man threw lies and deception destoys man.

God gave Adam a choice> EVE was used to tempt Adam . as she already partook, the seed was established . THE thought was injected into ADAMS mind that EVE had already partook and Gods command broken . But God did not command eve not to eat.

It was eve that got Adam threw remorse and making an assumption . Guilt is a heavey weight to carry for any. Piling it on has gone on from that day worth . In the beginning their was only 1 commandment and God Made it Easy for man yet he failed. Since that time to now look at all the laws that have added to the burden of our consciousness.
Christ did say make not laws least ye be bound by them .

THE LIE was that which the servant told eve. to get her to eat. Power. IT was Confusion that got ADAM.

 

[Kadarin]

Originally posted by: kylebisme

Originally posted by: BoomerD
Based solely on news reports, aren't many American women forced to wear burkas when in public in many Muslim nations? Even though they're not Muslim, they're forced to adhere to the local "standards of decency."

Is that wrong?

Not many Muslim nations, but yes it is wrong, and writing into law doesn't change that.

"All women must wear burqas" is wrong, just as "all women must wear bikinis when in a public pool" is wrong? If this is the case, then what you are in essence saying is that it's wrong for a culture/society/nation to enforce any given clothing standard for anyone.

Because it's all arbitrary anyways, right? Or is it that whatever is written in your religious book of choice is correct, and everyone else's is wrong?

 

[kylebisme]

Originally posted by: Kadarin
...what you are in essence saying is that it's wrong for a culture/society/nation to enforce any given clothing standard for anyone.

Because it's all arbitrary anyways, right?

Right.

 

[JEDIYoda]

I Love you guys...your all way too funny!!!