I think and conclude you are either very young or out of your mind - non-exclusive "or." But we're a philosophy site, so make your case. I'll read.

Proposed: ownership (of turf) makes right.

Or edit as serves your purpose.

You already made the case for this earlier:

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?
— baker

At some point, yes. How not? — tim wood

You, too, are arguing for moral realism, or, in your case, moral egoism/narcissism.

I think and conclude you are either very young or out of your mind - non-exclusive "or." — tim wood

*sigh*

You are very confused. Nuns are free to wear what they like whenever they like. Even nothing at all. Theirs a choice, their own choice. Moslem women, not their choice. And big trouble if they don't comply.

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. And routinely we see news reports of some woman savagely killed for essentially nothing. Whether Islam itself is a rabidly vicious disease of a religion is more than I know. That many practitioners are is a matter of fact. — tim wood

I've never heard of Christian nuns being at liberty to "...wear what they like whenever they like" This is news to me and I'm going to need some reliable sources to believe you.

I’m not saying anything about Christians in general. Those who object to the way Muslim women dress who do identify as ‘Christians’ seem to be presenting a particular consolidated opposition based on a form of faith or belief in a particular source of teachings, and view these particular headscarves as a symbolic expression of what they oppose. The same goes for the consolidated position of ‘freedom’ as opposed to ‘oppression’. — Possibility

I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage.

The fact is, Christian women who dress provocatively are not all free from oppression, and Muslim women who wear a hijab are not all oppressed. But to be honest, I don’t think the objection to Muslim headscarves have anything really to do with one ‘God’ or another, or even about freedom from oppression. These consolidated oppositions are a ruse. It’s more about fearing the potential of what we don’t understand - and not having opportunities to develop understanding in an inclusive environment. — Possibility

The fact is Christians and Moslems both worship the same deity although they have different names for that deity. Given this, it's not surprising at all that a woman's piety in both religions is partly measured by the garments they don (the habit of Christian nuns is virtually a carbon copy of the Moslem chador).

There are a lot of men here with much to say about what women wear and why. It seems to me that an important element missing from this discussion is the variable intentionality of Muslim women and nuns themselves. There is a tendency to view these women as limited by dress requirements, but they don’t always see themselves this way. I recognise that many Muslim women who wear the burka in particular, and headscarves in general, can be either required or pressured to do so - whether under the guise of protecting the person, virtue or property, or as an identification of their faith or cultural affiliation - but many also choose this form of protection or identification. To many of these women - particularly those living in Western society - the chador is an expression of their freedom. As a Western woman, the idea of choosing to draw a clearer line between public and private attire when you’re travelling from one place to another seems an attractive option to me for a number of situations. Banning the wearing of Muslim headscarves in Western society can be seen by these women as a form of oppression. — Possibility

I daresay many of the sharpest critics of the Moslem stipulation on how women should be attired have ever bothered to get Moslem women's views on the matter. Western media too seems biased - granting airtime only to one side of the story. For all we know the majority of Moslem women could be in favor of the hijab and its variants.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men. — baker

It takes two to tango. Right! :up:

As I said, remove the fear of violence for not wearing it and see what happens. — Kenosha Kid

You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch.

You make it sound like Moslem women are terrified of the violence that would follow if they switch to Western-style clothing and thus are just a bunch of downtrodden women waiting for a liberator-savior. Possible, quite possible. All we can do at this point is to wait and watch. — TheMadFool

As I said, many might wear it anyway for cultural reasons, but while that threat of violence exists, it can't be dismissed. Remove the threat of violence and let women wear what they want.

I've never heard of Christian nuns being at liberty to "...wear what they like whenever they like" This is news to me and I'm going to need some reliable sources to believe you. — TheMadFool

What prevents them? Is it the same thing that prevents an Moslem woman from wearing whatever she wants, when she wants to? Or is that something different?

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
— baker
It takes two to tango. Right! :up: — TheMadFool

Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves?

What prevents them? Is it the same thing that prevents an Moslem woman from wearing whatever she wants, when she wants to? Or is that something different? — tim wood

Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves? — tim wood

Your sarcasm is unwarranted. Ask a Christian nun why she wears what she wears and whether she has any issues with the arrangement and the answers may surprise you. Christian nuns are more than happy to wear chador-like garments for they consider it a religious duty to hide their sexuality. The same logic applies to Moslem women. It takes two to tango.

Christian nuns... Moslem women. — TheMadFool

You don't see the category there?

I'm more inclined to believe that the objection to hijabs and the like is mostly from the secular front and definitely not from religion; Christian nuns dress in the same way as Moslem women and Christains are not in the least bothered by it. This clearly indicates that both Christianity and Islam see eye to eye on the issue of women's clothes. Secularists, however, don't buy into the idea and view it as a sign of oppression. The problem with secularists is that they're guilty of double standards - they're fine with Christian nuns' habit but are offended, deeply so, by hijabs and such. Like should be treated alike - an ancient and sensible maxim which those who condemn Moslem women's dresses as misogynistic seem to have missed to our disadvantage. — TheMadFool

I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case.

Christian nuns factor the wearing of a habit into their decision to take the Holy Orders - this is a conscious choice. And I know a number of catholic nuns in our local area whose Order (Sisters of St Joseph) does not require them to wear a habit at all. Canon law requires only that they are identifiable in their manner of dress as members of a Holy Order.

The problem is that those who condemn Muslim headdress as misogynistic are ASSUMING they are forced to do so. Yes, in a number of Muslim countries it is required by law or enforced as a cultural norm, but my main issue is with those upset by Muslim women in Western society who wear the hijab or chador, interpreting it as nothing more than a symbol of oppression and misogyny. This can be offensive to women who choose to wear the headdress, like nuns, as an identification of their community of faith.

Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two.

Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’...

You don't see the category there? — tim wood

No. Enlighten me.

I don’t think you can argue that headdress requirements for Muslim women and Christian nuns demonstrate that both religions ‘see eye to eye on the issue of women’s clothes’ at all. This would make sense only if ALL Christian women were required to wear a headdress in public, which is obviously not the case. — Possibility

Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.

Two points to note:

1. the reason is identical for both (piety)

2. the dress codes are identical

Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former.

Your argument that ‘like should be treated alike’ assumes that the reason for wearing a headdress is alike. I agree that women who wear it as a mark of their faith are choosing to do so, and taking offence to this is a denial of their freedom to express that faith. Women who wear it as a mark of their obedience to ‘God’ is more of a grey area, as very often it is their obedience to ‘man’ and his interpretations that in fact require them to wear it. But your use of the term ‘piety’ appears to lump both of these reasons in together, whereas modern interpretations of wearing the habit distinguish clearly between the two. — Possibility

I'm not too sure about Moslem women wearing hijabs and the like as a mark of "...their obedience to man..." There are many Moslem women in the so-called free world and while some choose to adopt Western clothes, many continue to dress in the same old way that Westerners find offensive. Do you mean to imply that [Moslem] women are oppressed in the "free" world as much as they are in other places? Probably not but then that means Moslem women actually prefer the hijab and such over other fashion alternatives.

Just as a side note: I believe that the most Islamic communities would object to the use of ‘Moslem’ - the difference seems insignificant to English speakers, but in Arabic Muslim means ‘one who gives himself to God’, whereas Moslem apparently means ‘one who is evil and unjust’ — Possibility

:up:

Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust" :chin:

Christian nuns... Moslem women.
— TheMadFool
You don't see the category there? — tim wood

You don't see the category there?
— tim wood
No. Enlighten me. — TheMadFool

My bad. Not category, but category error.
All Moslem women are Moslem women. Not all Christian women are Christian nuns..
Imagine you had said you could not tell the difference between the category of American Boy Scouts and the category of Moslem boys.

All Moslem women are Moslem women. Not all Christian women are Christian nuns.. — tim wood

Becoming a Catholic nun is not entirely a free choice, out of context. One can, ideally, only ordain if one has received "the higher calling". Catholic nuns and monks will tell you that God chose them, and they answered the call. Not that they chose God, out of a multitude of options.

But women are complicit in this. A complex social situation doesn't come about just by the actions of one party, in this case, men.
— baker
It takes two to tango. Right!
— TheMadFool

Oh, ab-so-lute-ly. My heavens, what a shame the world had to wait for you two geniuses to figure it out. If only we had known that slaves wanted to be slaves - after all, they were complicit and it takes two to tango. And those women murdered across the world even today? Can't overlook their complicity. Women who apparently wanted to be jailed, burned, stoned, beaten by mobs, hanged, beheaded mutilated. And great thing of us forgot! The Jews of Europe, 1933-1945, neglecting for the moment the antisemitism before 1933, and everyone thought it was just those Nazis. Whew, I'm glad not to make that mistake any more.

In case you miss the irony, I consider the idea that abuse is the fault of the abused or that the abused is complicit in his or her own abuse disgusting. And if you cannot tell the difference between a woman's choosing to be a member of a religious order as a nun and accepting the obligation to dress a certain way, and a woman forced to wear certain clothing, then what can be said of you? Serious question: what would you say of yourselves? — tim wood

*sigh*
Strawmen prove nothing.

Clearly, you are emotionally invested in this topic and are willing to look at it only from a very narrow perspective.

Sure, looking at things from a chronologically narrow perspective, they appear the way you describe them.

But this way, you're also asking us to believe that for millennia, women have been helpless victims of men.
That all men (or at least the vast majority of men) have been crazy, uncaring, aggressive, misogynist zombies.
And that the most that anyone can ever do in the face of prospective aggression is hunker down and give in.

Think about that.

Not necessarily. The reason is same in both cases - Christian nuns are women who want to showcase their piety and Moslem women want to do the same thing and both do it by following a dress code, the resemblance between the prescribed attire being strikingly similar.

Two points to note:

1. the reason is identical for both (piety)

2. the dress codes are identical

Indeed it's true that not ALL Christian women dress like nuns but not ALL Christian women are claiming to be pious; Moslem women and Christian nuns are publicly declaring their religiosity and since we're not bothered by the latter I don't see why we should get our knickers in a twist by the former. — TheMadFool

I agree that we shouldn’t get our knickers in a twist by women who choose to wear either. But you’re assuming that ‘showcasing their piety’ is the reason in both cases - and ‘publicly declaring their religiosity’ is another blanket assumption that fails to understand the distinction between their identifying with a faith community and their obedience based on religious dogma. There are cases of both among Christian nuns as well as Muslim women.

I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system.

I think perhaps there’s a hidden assumption here in the terms ‘piety’ and ‘religiosity’ that women’s dress is a statement about their sexual status. That this is how you interpret their dress does not make it the reason for their dress. In my experience, neither Christian nuns nor Muslim women are wanting to showcase or claim ‘piety’ or to publicly declare their ‘religiosity’ - they’re wanting to belong, to matter or have purpose within a perceived value system. — Possibility

Exactly.

Further, in order to ge closer to the truth of this matter, we'd need to carefully interview these women, and also account for when they give socially desirable answers and why they do so.

Google definition of Moslem: a follower of the religion of Islam. I don't see "one who is evil and unjust" — TheMadFool

It’s the pronunciation ‘mawzlem’ as an adjective that is a little too close to ‘zalim’, literally translated as ‘dark/night’, but also understood to mean ‘one who is evil/unjust’. Interestingly, the UK Society of Editors also published the following in their (2002) document for journalists on ‘Reporting Diversity’, apparently after multiple correspondence from local Muslim community groups asking them to stop using the term:

“Muslim is preferred. People refer to themselves as Muslims. Many regard Moslem as a term of abuse, like people of African descent dislike being called negroes.”

I once worked with a Muslim woman who was having a conflict with a senior manager who took objection to her coming to work wearing a head covering. It was in an advice office and the senior manager had objected that people coming into the office would make all kinds of assumptions about the person they were coming to see for advice wearing certain Muslim attire. The woman, who was in fact tolerant of all people of all identities felt really upset about the objection because she saw her covering as one of personal expression. From my experience of knowing Muslim women in England, they do frequently wear their traditional clothing with a sense of expression and pride in their identity.

This goes back to a fear of what we don’t understand. Often we anticipate the possibility of a negative relation and seek to avoid it - not realising that in doing so we’re deliberately attributing that potential negativity to what we can do something about, not to what’s really causing it: a lack of understanding.

Yes, I think that many are inclined to make assumptions about the way certain people feel about how they present themselves without really entering into the meaning for those particular individuals.

.

@baker@TheMadFoolLet me make sure I understand you two: in terms of obligations to wear certain clothing and not wear other clothing, according to you two, there is no difference between a Christian nun and a Moslem woman. That at least is what you appear to be arguing.

Have I got it? If not please correct.

@TheMadFool@tim woodFrom the women’s perspective: The Habit and the Hijab: An Exploration on Sacred Dress

Far as I know, if a Christian nun for some reason is out in public in ordinary clothes she runs zero risk of arrest or unwanted official attention. Far as I know, in Moslem countries, if a woman is not "properly attired" in public she risks arrest or other unwanted official attention. Which in turn is just a part, in those countries, of suppression of women.

Far as I know, if a Christian nun for some reason is out in public in ordinary clothes she runs zero risk of arrest or unwanted official attention. Far as I know, in Moslem countries, if a woman is not "properly attired" in public she risks arrest or other unwanted official attention. Which in turn is just a part, in those countries, of suppression of women. — tim wood

I’m not entirely sure it’s ‘official’ attention - I think this is a misunderstanding. The negative attention uncovered women attract in Muslim countries is from those exercising religious ‘power’ or moral indignation, with police and other ‘officials’ in a cultural supporting role.

By comparison, a Christian nun out in public in ordinary clothes is invisible. If she lived in a monastery and came down to dinner without her habit, she would receive similar ‘official’ attention as the Muslim woman ‘inappropriately dressed’ in public.

It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws.

The world really needs more white males telling women what to do. Keep up the good work.

It’s the assumptions made by men that she’s making a statement to them about her sexual status that places her most at risk. This is not just about laws suppressing women, but about how men automatically interpret the way women dress as speaking to them directly. You won’t solve this problem simply by changing the laws. — Possibility

I agree. And what is worse, it's not uncommon for women to be complicit in these assumptions, supporting them.

In Western culture, much of the fashion advice given to women -- by other women! -- is about how to be attractive, and specifically, sexually attractive.

Pick up any women's magazine: on the fashion and relationship pages, women are advised to look attractive to men. Or watch an extreme make-over reality show: when they do an extreme make-over on a woman and then present her in her new look, that look is typically in clothes, shoes, and make up that is sexually revealing and is intended to be attractive to men. Even regardless of the woman's age!

Some, if not most, women have deeply internalized these norms and don't question them. An acquaintance of mine once complained to me about her shoes with high heels -- how her feet hurt because of them, how she began to slouch. And then she said, in a matter-of-fact manner, "But alas, what can you do, such shoes must be worn."

baker@TheMadFoolLet me make sure I understand you two: in terms of obligations to wear certain clothing and not wear other clothing, according to you two, there is no difference between a Christian nun and a Moslem woman. That at least is what you appear to be arguing.

Have I got it? If not please correct. — tim wood

What do you mean here by "obligation"?

We've been saying all along that it's far more complex than that.


On the topic of obligation: I take it you're a male living in the Western world. And you wear pants, not a skirt or some other garment that covers the lower part of the body. Would you say you wear pants out obligation?

suppression of women — tim wood

I suggest you talk to as many women as you can. Ask them by whom they have felt most oppressed in their lives.

I bet at least some of them will reply that it was by other women.

The problem is that those who condemn Muslim headdress as misogynistic are ASSUMING they are forced to do so. — Possibility

When those that choose not to are free from coersion and violent consequences, then coersion and violent consequences will cease to be factors in their decision about what to wear. There is a natural priority here. No one is saying that no woman would choose to wear chador. It's just that currently that decision exists within a culture where oppressive and violent misogyny is alarmingly prominent.