I was recently criticised for ‘picking on Iran’.
Well, yes if you side with the Iranian regime, or don’t see anything wrong with it, then my opposing it may seem this way to you.
It is all about taking sides really.
The same applies to the discussion we are having here on the veil.
You either have a problem with it because it is a religiously sanctioned tool for women’s repression or you don’t have any problem with it and think it is merely another form of clothing.
You either consider child veiling a form of abuse because of what it represents for the child [it is the sexualisation of a child from a very young age, it is in place to prevent her from causing fitna or chaos in society if she is not covered up. It represents sex apartheid similar to racial apartheid but based on gender. It says she cannot mix with boys, go into certain fields of study, can’t feel the wind in her hair because she is a girl…] or you just don’t.
If you don’t see it, you’re on the wrong side!
to me it’s the side that is asking why? The head draped nuns in Rumer Goden’s “black narcissus” are asked whether they have no ears.
Ace of Sevens, dysomniak,
Both Maryam and Anne Marie Waters have made several blogs and essays on why the veil is problematic (I would say a toxic symbol) and why the sexualisation of little girls is abusive. Dig a little deeper.
I really don’t think digging deeper will help these two… but thank you for suggesting it.
That’s a serious false dichotomy. Besides the fact that those are not the only two options, it could be one thing in some situations and another in other situations.
My main problem here is “this is bad, so we should ban it” sounds like the sort of thing a conservative would say. If I heard this pitched in terms of “this is why the benefits of banning veiling outweigh the negatives” instead of simplistic with-us or against-us reasoning, I might be convinced.
Seconded.
This is one of the most awful things I have ever read.