Not a clue. — Kenosha Kid

Actually, I do have a clue, and this is quite general and unpopular: don't do business with dictatorial countries that believe rights depend on demographic. We prop up regimes that oppress women, homosexuals, and ethnic minorities then complain that other countries follow suit.

Why don't you care? — baker

I've never cared what people choose to wear. Clothes just aren't that interesting to me.

But that doesn't mean we should perpetuate the myth that it's a question of choice when the choice is often a chador or a face full of acid. — Kenosha Kid

It's politically correct to call it a "choice".

How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk.


Clearly, this doesn't compare with having acid thrown into one's face. But one would think that "civilized" countries would be more inclusive about a person's appearance ...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

How about the situation in "civilized" countries, where a woman who doesn't wear make-up and who doesn't wear high heels and a suffficiently short skirt or tight pants, has fewer chances of getting a job in comparison to the woman who is dressed that way (both competing for the same position, and not as a dancer in an adult bar)?
Women are "free" not to wear make-up etc. at their risk. — baker

Unequally bad, yes. I'm not sure it's a thing these days, but it was in my lifetime. However even that is about how one dresses for work, not how one dresses when out and about generally. It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack.

During the Gulf War it was reported that (as I recall) in Saudi Arabia a US Army NCO, an MP, in uniform in a local grocery store was struck by a man with a whip - not hard. She ignored it and was struck again. She drew her service weapon and theirs was an international incident (no one got shot). He was a local enforcer of religious codes, and her head was uncovered. To the shame of us all, she was restricted to base. — tim wood

???
Their country, their rules.

It was wrong, but qualitatively different from the need to wear a chador outdoors at all times for fear of violent attack. — Kenosha Kid

Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard, or no man will want her, and she will be ridiculed for being an old spinster. Well, at least she can take solace in not having acid thrown into her fce!

R-i-g-h-t! When a woman gives offence in those cultures she's burned, stoned, beaten to death, hanged - what else?. The offence? The sensibilities of some man were offended. — tim wood

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.

Whereas in "civilized" countries, a woman needs to live up to a certain standard — baker

Well no, she doesn't. Or, when she does, that is wrong. You can't have a society in which a woman can wear a nun's habit or a microskirt and stilettos and at the same time insist that women are forced to wear a microskirt and stilettos. That makes no sense.

I get that there are pressures to conform to fashion, peer groups, etc. But one has the freedom to not opt into that.

Islam and Christianity are both theistic religions. What's the difference?

But one has the freedom to not opt into that. — Kenosha Kid

And doing so comes at a cost. It's not free.

And doing so comes at a cost. It's not free. — baker

Only if you value what's lost, in which case you'd opt in.

Islam and Christianity are both theistic religions. What's the difference? — Wayfarer

Could you please explain how a god with a son can be the same as a god without a son?

It was a rhetorical question aimed at the OP. I wasn't myself saying that they're 'both the same'.

It is not certain that he sees it as a rhetorical question. But the question with the identity of the gods is so clear that everything must collapse.

Only if you value what's lost, in which case you'd opt in. — Kenosha Kid

Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster.

Easy for you to say, as long as you don't face the prospect of becomig the ridiculed old spinster. — baker

I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. The typical story told is that women feel like they become invisible, but it's worth bearing in mind that today's and yesterday's invisible older ladies were the day before's catcalling victims.

One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I'm not sure anyone ridicules old spinsters. — Kenosha Kid

Meet you there!

One can grow old graciously, without demanding an adoring crowd, and without giving a crap that no one thinks you're hot shit anymore. — Kenosha Kid

Nobody is talking about an "adoring crowd", but about a woman not being good enough to be loved. Not pretty enough, not rich enough, not successful enough to be loved by a man.

A social situation like this couldn't have happened over night, as if there was no history to it. It seems unlikely that women somehow wouldn't be complicit in it.
— baker
Their country, their rules.
— baker
Well, you have emptied both the ignorant barrel and the stupid barrel; just what are you working on? Are you suggesting that what is wrong on one side of an arbitrary line is right on the other? — tim wood

What are you talking about??

It's bizarre that a person goes to some foreign country and expects that the people there will play by this person's rules.

The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

In both pictures, women are covered from head to toe. Yet, one is considered the epitome of virtue and the other is seen as the very definition of oppression. — TheMadFool

depends upon who is doing the seeing. I suspect there are many Muslims (and some of them women) who believe their attire is the epitome of virtue.

Similarly, I suspect there are many non-theists who consider the habits worn by nuns to be oppressive symbols worn by those most likely raised in oppressive religious environments.

For the most part, I suspect both groups consider themselves to be virtuously attired.

There are enforced dress codes in the enlightened democratic rational West too. Some body parts must be exposed, and some must be covered. Walk down the street clad in a balaclava and nothing else, and see how free you are.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

In the US such laws are locally made — tim wood

As they are in every part of the world, the writ of human law being universally local. But the point stands against anyone who wishes to claim superiority of freedom, or of equality between the sexes, for their own enlightened culture. Inconsistency of rules across time and place with unmarked borders is not that great a virtue either.

It's the sledge-hammer of examples, but can you say holocaust? — tim wood

Can you say, "People who refuse to integrate into the socio-economic system in which they live and insist on being a minority thereby risk ostracism"?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

One of my points is that there are different social norms, rules and they apply locally.

Again:
The lines between countries, nations, races, cultures may be arbitrary to you, but they aren't necessarily arbitrary to others. You're saying you're the one who dictates what the right way to think about the differences between countries, nations, races, cultures is, and that those who don't agree with you are wrong?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

I think ownership of turf is the highest epistemic and moral principle.