... and mostly "just let women wear whatever they're comfortable wearing"

for deranged shooters. Or the target of vicious verbal attacks by assholes.

I think these folks are residents.

Vacationers--especially the wealthy ones--toss those chadieris and abayahs in a sack and toss that in the back corner of the closet when they go on holiday. They dress to the nines, hit all the fashion houses, spend like drunken sailors, and kick up their heels. Sure, there are always the potentates that bring the four wives in bedsheets along, but there are also plenty of Saudi women who style it up like mad once the aircraft leaves Saudi airspace--it's almost a joke.


Perhaps the Nice police should consider putting a few women on their beach patrol. Simply for optics.

You've got men telling women to put it on (or they can't go out) and others telling 'em to take it off.

I think if the French hold the line on this, they may be able to give women the ammunition they need to say to their fathers and husbands who are insisting they wrap themselves up in absurd fashion, "I can't wear that--it's against the law" so they aren't stuck sweating like pigs in too much clothing under a hot sun.

...or heavily fined for wearing anything less! Everybody reading this post has seen numerous male and female sunbathing examples of what I'm talking about. Don't lie.

I think the French have it backwards. The West needs to put burkinis on a few more people at the beach. Not for religious reasons, just so I can finish my lunch.

People who have a "stance" on other people's clothing disturb me far more greatly.

I can make it my business to speak up/have a stance against them:






The wear of hijab is often not a choice--it's imposed upon women by men, usually their husbands or fathers, and supported by the society in which the victims of this oppression live.

When western women decide to adopt it as a visible expression of their newly found faith (or as a fashion statement), and enjoy the attention they get as a consequence, sometimes playing the victim if they get the side-eye, they know full well they can take it off without being murdered and their corpse set on fire.

And no one is forcing all women in a particular culture to wear that costume under threat of beating or death.

You just don't understand. There is no "moral agency" when there is no REAL choice. It's not OK. It's not "freedom of choice" -- it's giving men that "agency" to oppress women, and the French aren't having it, because their secular culture allows them to have a say in these matters.

Here, watch and learn--it is a long piece, but you can't possibly come away from looking at this and continue to pretend that the way women are treated, and how they are forced to act and dress, in conservative Islamic society is nothing short of pernicious:

You waded into this discussion without doing much homework, I see.

Don't go to class wearing your yarmulke or turban in France. It's actually against the law.

When Muslim men create their own "Islamic swimwear" we can see how they're treated on the beach. To this point, though, even the most devout Muslim male can enjoy their speedos and their short sleeved shirts, and feel the breeze in their hair--it's only the women who have to be constrained in a hot, sweaty garment, to "preserve their modesty."

smh.




And why are you trying to scamper away into an argument about abortion? This conversation is not about that (FWIW, Islam doesn't prohibit the practice at least in the first trimester, so let's stick to the topic, shall we?).

No one is being "locked up" for this. They're issuing tickets, worst case, and warnings, which are free of charge, and the husbands/fathers, who control the household income and make spending decisions, and who tell the women what they are allowed to wear, will have to pay the tickets. If the women can't take the children to the beach because the men can't get with the program, why, the men will have to take that chore on. Good enough for them.

I am not the French police and the French police aren't locking anyone up. I'm simply someone who objects to the debasement of women and I won't back a right - wing, fundamentalist meme that characterizes women as shameful, filthy, slutty temptresses who must be wrapped up in a garbage bag, even if it is falsely packaged as "choice."

You weren't referencing the OP in that last post--you were in the midst of a convo with me about cooking, shitting, and men's clothing, among other topics.

As I've said, repeatedly, there are ways to comply with Islamic exhortations towards modesty (which are incumbent on men, too--though men ignore these rules) and not look like a walking-talking billboard for fundamentalist Islam. The French don't want to be subjected to these "billboards" -- particularly at a site where so many of their fellow citizens were mowed down in cold blood -- and, frankly, I don't blame them. If they lean hard on this, then women (and women's husbands/fathers, through the process of their "permissions&quot will be forced to adjust--or their husbands will be stuck doing a lot of outside child care, and that's not their thing at all.

Americans don't take this approach--they basically let the melting pot do its work. But America is not a secular nation like France, with laws that restrict religious advertisement in public life --we have "separation of church and state" but we do not prohibit expressions of religiosity within the confines of the state. That's why people can work for the government in religious clothing, that's why we provide "religious accommodation" for people of varying faiths, and it's why we have chaplains in the House and the Senate, and we PAY them, too (something I'm in favor of eliminating--but that's just me).

Honestly, I cannot bring myself to give a shit what other people wear. I do not care. I don't care if people walk around naked or in burlap bags. I simply do not give a flying fuck what people whom I do not know are wearing.

You chose to reply to me, as if I am somehow "wrong" for not giving a shit.

The OP asks a simple question and I gave a simple answer. I do not care, and I will never care what some stranger is wearing to the beach or anywhere else.

I can see it matters very much to you, and you seem to know much more about the topic of what strangers should wear.

I am staying in a hotel in Portland, Maine this week, and I have noticed that there are a lot more women wearing all sorts of things here than in suburban Philadelphia and its environs. Because I'm doing a fair amount of work every day, the housekeeper pops in each day to see if there's anything I need. Now, I don't know a lot about her, but she wears a quite elaborate robe of some sort and a headdress of some kind with sequins and emroidery on it. I assume her family is of some sort of East African origin, but I have no idea nor do I care. She's quite polite and I am polite back.

Now, not having really given a shit what this woman whom I see every morning is wearing, and now having been informed that I should apparently care deeply, what would you suggest I do to or at her when I see her tomorrow?

Because, again, the question asked in the OP is what is YOUR stance on what women put on their heads or whatever. Until several hours ago, my stance was that I don't care. You seem to disagree and have taken issue with my answer. But I am still having some difficulty understanding what it is I should be doing to, at or with women who wear objectionable things on their heads.

So, please, tell me what it is I should do about the housekeeper in my hotel tomorrow morning.

I will try to take a picture and post it here, so I am certain that experts such as yourself can properly advise me on what I should think about whatever she has on her head, how much I should care, and what if any action I should take.

But I am willing to say that if the best course is to go after such women with fines, threats, or whatever, then I guess I don't have much to worry about, really, because it certainly won't have any consequences for me. If I get out to the beach at the Eastern promenade tomorrow, I'll report back here if any women there need my suggestions on what they should be wearing.

She's probably from Central Africa--there are a lot of new arrivals in the greater Portland area who are refugees fleeing violence in their home nations. If her hat looks like this, she might be from the Democratic Republic of the Congo:




You say that you 'don't care,' but you cared enough to participate in this thread....

Does the OP of this thread pose a question about French Law?

I have no "stance" on what people wear. I would prefer to go nude, but that tends to be frowned upon.

I'm fairly confident she is Somalian from her accent. I am around the corner from an Eritrean restaurant, and there seems to be quite the community here. I'm fine with whatever they wear, and the food is very nice.

The temporary ban enacted into law (and supported up to the highest levels of government) against these garments happened in France, you see.

There are tons of Somalis in Maine, now--they pretty much own most of Lewiston. The African immigrant community is responsible for the teeny, tiny 'blip' one can now see on the Maine demographic charts with regard to black citizens. Even at that, Maine is one seriously white state. Every time I go up there I am surprised at how many white people there are!

The question is posed in the OP BECAUSE OF the French law banning the swimming costume on French beaches, that is in all the news headlines of late--and for no other reason.

It wasn't a query that came out of the blue. Silly you, indeed!

There is no "French Law" banning burkinis at the beach. None. Zip.

I was in Avignon on Bastille Day in a party very similar to the one being held at Nice to the southeast. A terrible thing happened there which had nothing to do with whether a woman was wearing a burkini at the beach.

Some overheated mayors in a couple of coastal towns decided that going after women's clothing was an appropriate reaction to a guy going on a rampage with a truck.

It has finally reached a French court - which applies real "French Law" and not the imaginary kind which you believe exists, and guess how "French Law" applies to these jackass mayors:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/

But what truly boggled my mind was how substantially more "OMG!" freaked out the US media was in comparison to the French media.

I think, before you start tossing around phrases like "actually ignorant" you should "actually" check yourself.

FWIW, no one cares about your travel itinerary (which didn't add a thing to your remarks)--but you do love to point out where you're at--why is that, I wonder? Hmmm.

It's time to admit it and move on.

.


We're all living under a false concept of "what's normal," mostly based on business marketing.

It's all fabricated bullshit, and we all buy into different things based on the sales energy put into it.


DeBeers, who monopolizes the diamond industry, was the one to make Engagement Rings and the bullshit "Two Months" salary rule to sell diamonds. It used to be one month, then upped to two months salary.

If they want to come to a beach nude...cool. Burkina? Ok. I'll glare at whatever you're willing show me. If you cover up, I'll glare at a less modest female. Easy.

As for the bullshit "Their forced by their families" argument that's rooted in Western ignorance and over generalizations, stop assuming that everyone thinks like you. "They want to wear a bikini like me. I know it. How could anyone think differently than me unless they are oppressed?" Get over yourself!

I lived in Malaysia for two years. My wife and I met plenty of Muslim, Catholic, and Hindu women who couldn't imagine why Western women would show cleavage, mid drift, thighs, or even their beautiful hair to any man other than their current or future husband. They were seriously dumbfounded. I guess the French would find them too.

is none of my concern, and should not be of anyone's concern. The whole thing is silly. Let people dress as they choose to dress in whatever situation. Sheesh!

Men have no business telling women what they can't or must wear -- within basic norms: exposed face for public service, no pubic area exposed in public -- same as for men. I even think women should not be harassed if they go shirtless in situations men go shirtless.

To a priest at the beach wearing his clerical collar and short pants. While this may be an unlikely scenario, it's not impossible to imagine.

What of large crucifixes, which have also been a subject of controversy? What of tattooed religious symbols on the body?

I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I'm just asking if the standard is being applied evenhandedly.

And, this is France, with problems unique to France that pertain to its history of colonialism and its history with Muslims.

...but "Muslim" is not. Henri IV had the right of it, then: "Paris is worth a mass."

Except that was 500 freaking years ago. And they wonder why they have a problem.

Lourdes, the town, benefits monetarily from tourists visiting the shrine, and then hanging around for a meal, or to buy gee-gaws, or stay in nearby hotels, but the shrine itself is the property of the very private Catholic Church.

That's like saying Gee, there's nothing religious going on in mosques, either.

Your comment makes no sense. Of course France has a Roman Catholic history and many who still practice that faith (though fewer as time goes by) --but the government is secular. That's how they play it. The French culture favors elements like history and tradition--they've made mistakes in their past and they step very carefully and deliberately as a consequence. Changing the historical name of a place isn't going to change the history of that place, and those Saint names for towns ARE part of their history. France is not about to deny its historical relationship to the Holy Roman Empire--their past to no small extent makes them what they are today.

You don't go wearing them to school or work. You can't wear yarmulkes, either.


The thing is, a priest is not likely to be working at a French office or school....unless, of course, it is a private, Catholic school.

I can dreas as religiously or as non-religiously as I like. That's called freedom

The secular nature of France would ensure that your cubicle mate at your office didn't regale you with religious tracts, or offend your ears with religious radio broadcasts/music.

I can see where both systems might have appeal, depending upon perspective.


We got some of our ideas from the French--we didn't take secularism as far as they did, though, seeing as our base population consisted of people who fled Great Britain in search of religious freedom.

Trying out out-pure the original Puritans. They must have been insufferable.

Clearly, all this religious one-upmanship is nothing new. Personally, I would like to place as much distance between myself and organized religion as humanly possible. That being said, some woman wearing a garment she's comfortable in at a public beach while minding her own business...I don't care. It's the in-your-face types that are the problem.

And you can be sure the in-your-face types will be using this kerfuffle to their advantage. And the Islamic in-your-face types are the ones who want to kill me. They said so, and I believe them. I don't need to be told twice.

I think it's possible to hold both positions: leave women alone about their clothing. Islam in its fundamentalist iteration is oppressive and belligerent. So is Christianity. However, I am not in France, where their mileage varies considerably.

New World communities for being late to prayers and not working hard enough. That had to be a bit daunting, I should imagine. I guess some of the locals were friendly so some people managed OK.

You're always going to find people taking advantage of a situation. It's human nature. I do find it telling that the overwhelming majority either agreed (60%) or didn't care (30%) with this ban. That leaves a very small ten percent who opposed it. Nonetheless, the courts ruled against the majority, but I think the mood of the nation has been re-certified, if it hadn't been already.

France has one of the largest immigrant populations of any nation in Europe. Until recent years, they've managed to fold newcomers into their society, mainly by saying, from the get-go, "Be More French." It's only been in this new century that they've really seemed to struggle--and the struggle has brought out all sorts, from the ones who want to maintain the culture, the measured and ceremonial meals, the fine wines, and the unhurried pace, up to and including the Le Pen types (who are using this tension to fuel their rightwing movement).

The real victims in all this are the women who are forced by their husbands or fathers to go out of their homes every day wearing a billboard for a religion that marginalizes and denigrates them in its most fundamentalist iteration. I do think the intent of the law was to give them cover to assimilate into the society, not to point at or mock them. The niqab (face masking) ban of over a decade ago had that effect, and after an initial outcry, people got over it and it's not even discussed anymore.

Would a priest wearing a clerical collar on a public beach be asked to disrobe? Would he be publicly shamed? How about a school full of yeshiva kids on a beach holiday in their yarmulkes?

I think the answer is no, and I think so for a variety of reasons. Catholicism gets a "pass" because it's part of French "culture," and men get a pass because...men.

As Nawaz points out in his article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html, you can oppose the ridiculousness of the selective application of these laws, and you can oppose patriarchy at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

because these are being forced on these women by oppressive, partriachal cultures and families.

How many of them would face violence or shunning or economic abuse after if they dared wear something revealing in public?

So on one hand the state should respect freedom of choice- but on the other hand a secular state shouldn't tolerate the oppression of women in the way the Islam so often does in a way worse way than any other religion of similar size.

Its a sticky situation- the state shouldn't tolerate abuse and oppression and these are signs of it, but also should respect freedom of choice.

I guess it comes down to- do any of the women actually freely choose that clothing absent the socia, cultural and familiial pressures and threats they get from all of those for not complying?

I think it's a safe bet that some women choose religious attire all on their own, as a statement of their religious identity. That doesn't make the attire itself any less representative of the oppressive patriarchal culture that brought it about.

Let's spin the globe for a second and take a look at fundamentalist Mormons in polygamous communities. I'm sure many of the women will cheerfully agree that they "chose" their lifestyle (and bizarre modes of dress). That doesn't make them not brainwashed. In the US, they're free to dress how they like. It's not so clear-cut in France, which is a country with so much tied up in its own secular cultural identity, and what it means to be a "French" person in France.

I deliberately used an extreme example. If we are to wage constructive arguments against bad ideas, like religious extremism, we need to rally the support of moderates within the group. If we want the French to back off being the bathing suit police, we could and should expect that moderate Muslim clerics do their part to quell extremism and promote moderation. Right now, that's an unbalanced equation in France.

That's just Western ignorance and over generalizations.

From my experience, Most Muslim women truly want more coverering than Western women are comfortable with. They aren't threatened by their families, but rather they just dumbfounded as to why Western women would give any man other than her current or future husband a view of her cleavage, thighs, or mid drift. How do you respond to them? Fine them anyway?

I lived in Malaysia for two years. I knew several Muslim women who flat out told me or my wife that they have absolutely no desire for any man other than their current or future husband to see them uncovered. Hands, faces, and feet were all they were willing to show. They would tell me this with no men or other family members around...and I'm Catholic.

My Catholic Malaysian wife had Catholic cousins who wore long t-shirts and spandex to the beach for that same reason. They didn't wear hijabs, but they were certainly covered all the time!

She had other female cousins who barely, BARELY wore anything! My wife is in the middle. Different strokes for different folks.

Not just to hate and fear, but to believe that as a woman, you are "less than," that you "deserve" to be forced to wear hot and uncomfortable clothing, to get little or no education, that your father can sell you into marriage, and that your body is a dirty, awful thing that causes men to want to commit rape.

Watch this little YT effort--look at what the LITTLE GIRLS are saying at the beginning of the piece.

You have to be CAREFULLY TAUGHT:

so note to self: stay away from French beaches.

Or not? Choice for some not others? Some of these beaches that banned do allow topless women

I am not against topless or Muslim practices just let people be at the public beaches

I said before I have seen people at the beach in what is clearly their underwear

Tacky ? Yes Ticket and harrassmemet from police ? Probably not as long as what is normally covered.

Ban the Amish From a day at the beach ?
They swim in pants and dresses so lets hope these kind of bans are not the American way
it opens up a gate or proves a direct discrimination


AMISH AT THE BEACH

AMISH IN THE WATER

And Amish people at American beaches are just that.

They're not burkini clad women at French beaches.

Apples, oranges.

The French don't follow our rules. We don't follow theirs.

I'm offended by their attire.

Picking on women for what they wear will cause immigrants to increase their resentment of the dominant culture and refuse to assimilate. This is just not smart.

I see women here in full veils moving to hijabs and eventually no head covering for some of them over time. No one here tells them what to wear or what not to wear and there are no religious police around to monitor them. They have a choice, some of them for the first time, and it's none of my business what they choose or why they choose it.

I can see why employers might want to ban some garb from the workplace, face coverings are off putting and flapping full body veils can be dangerous around machinery, but the government needs to stay out of this one.

Police or bathroom police. Leave people alone!!!

They are showing all that luxuriant hair, which will drive the men wild.

There's far too much arm skin on display as well, and all that neck skin...much too tempting.

Further, the stockings adhere too tightly to the leg, accentuating the form of it, and the cinched waists on those dresses will cause a man to become excited. If he fails to control himself, and assaults one or more of those women, it is HER fault for failing to conceal herself appropriately!!!

The ridiculousness of the whole situation. "Men are forcing Muslim women to wear certain things! We must free these women from their oppression...by having men force them to wear certain things!"

Removed from all of this is what the woman wants.

And that's without touching on the blatant paternalism on display, particularly within the context of French colonialism in the Middle East and North Africa.

fundamentalist, archaic rules created by a patriarchal culture that despises women and treats them worse than they treat dogs.

And those rules have NOTHING to do with Islam. It's all about power and domination.

to prove that every single woman is being coerced to wear it. Otherwise, you can not strip away from every woman the right to dress as she chooses.

Because the right ultimately rests with the individual.

can't choose to work, in some countries and cultures they can't choose to drive or go to school. Those choices are made for them, burying them under centuries old traditions and bizarre, repressed beliefs. Women in those cultures are NOT individuals. They're goods, no better than a mule, to be traded, used and exploited until they're dead and buried.

They're expected to marry their creepy uncles or cousins at age 14 and pop out hoards of kids and obey every wish and whim of the idiots that they're forced to marry, in addition to the commands of their fathers, brothers and uncles.

Any man who defies such archaic belief systems is shamed for allowing his woman to have power over him.

That isn't islam. Those are fundamental patriarchal cultural belief systems designed by males to remove any potential of the perceived threat by females.

You know, like they used to do in the western civilizations until the chicks decided not to put up with that crap anymore. This sexism isn't limited to arab cultures by any means.

It's hard to grasp the concept of being unable to escape the burden of cultural expectations, isn't it? I used to think 'well, they can just walk away'. But being forced into that belief system from birth makes it difficult and nearly impossible to think any other way.

Obedience to a dress code designed to penalize muslim women.

Online discussions, I have to remember, take place in an alternate universe where, as you imply, muslims immigrate to France and set up sovereign, cloistered, self-contained municipalities free from the interference of French authorities, where the immediately impose strict Sharia law upon every muslim in their communities. Where adulterers are decapitated, thieves have their hands amputated, and women are prohibited from driving cars.

I repeat, you need to prove on a case-by-case basis that EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM WOMAN who is wearing the burkini is being FORCED to do so, against her will.

That's how it works in a free country.

adhere to the mores set up for them?

Are the women willing victims? Perhaps there's another phrase that's more appropriate.

What I find difficult to understand is why someone would defend a patriarchy's 'right' to enforce such nonsense on females in the first place. In a sense, anyone who is suggesting that these women are happy in their burkas and that they have this other right to wear what they want totally doesn't get the big picture.

You see, they don't have the right within their culture, to not wear this garment of horrors if they decide they want to go to the beach or to the pool. See what I mean?

One can't possibly think it's a really great thing for these women to be SO liberated that wow, NOW they get to go to the beach like western women! Granted they have to be draped in sheets and blankets, but look at their amazing freedoms! They've come so far!

Rather a bit like liberating the slaves under Lincoln I think. 'Hey now, you're FREE! But you can't vote, walk down the same side of the street, own property, , travel in THIS car on the train, look at a white man or speak to a white woman until you're spoken to first, or go to school or have a job. But dammit, be grateful you're FREE.' Circa 1865....

Just sayin'.

What the ever loving fuck?

I do see them as oppressive, because I don't think they really "choose" to wear it, even if some say they do. The repercussions may only be ostracism or disapproval from friends or relatives, but that is still powerful social pressure to conform. Let's face it, most people of any religion do not have the strength to stand up to social pressure of any kind.

In France.

Earlier in August a Muslim group had scheduled a private burkini swim party at a pool and specified minimum coverage for the event.

Following publicity, the event was cancelled.

I wonder if part of the reaction now stems in part from situations like these occurring earlier.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-88067292/

that in reality--as someone who has lived under a repressive culture and has seen it up close and personal--is not "choice" at all.

You give this kind of shit an inch, and it will take a mile.


Westerners do not "get" this--in their effort to be so "inclusive" and "understanding," they are enabling the patriarchal bullies who keep women repressed and unable to achieve their full potential.

These guys (and they are Persian) get it:

the female being forced to wear such atrocities.

Not doing anyone but the fundy fearful men a favor, is all this is doing.

you'd have to allow Saudi Arabia their rules, too.

I make no claims that my beliefs should be the absolute standard for all humans .

I would not like Saudi life, so I don't go there.

Not everyone should have to bend to your will.

Anything but the face covering should be allowed in a free society.

I think these items are sexist pieces of garbage, but women should be free to wear them.

Aldo Sterone, an Algerian blogger based in Britain, fled Algeria to escape the growing encroachment of Islamists on public life which began after the first Algerian mujaheddins came back from Afghanistan in the early 1980's.

Slowly, ever so gently, Islamists grew a stranglehold on most issues of public life where they felt the hadiths based Sharia had something to say. On details like today's burkini.

Fast forward to the summers of 2015 and 2016 in Algeria: women denied entrance to clinics or courtrooms on the ground their clothing was not conservative enough.


NB: there is absolutely zero justification for a face veil in the Quran. This stems from interpretations of the hadiths which themselves are unreliable grandmother fairy tales sponsored by the Abbasid Caliphs. It is the Abbasid Caliphs which inaugurated the confining of women to homes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate#Status_of_Women

when they are freely chosen by women with no compulsion by males and/or patriarchal religions, are fine with me. Anywhere.

there is no separating the hijab from its cultural context.

I had a meeting with a Muslim woman in it yesterday. her hijab (with a built-in brim like a sunbonnet!) was utterly unnecessary, and occluded her vision. it "others" her from Americas of every other stripe but Muslim (well, maybe not Hutterites). it was like meeting with a nun from 40 years ago.

and she was very nice.

Which is why any individual wearing one is fine by me.

And it's why I'll stand in support of women who don't want the men in their culture or faith telling them what to wear, too.

I spent the 4th of July sitting blanket to blanket with a Muslim family, women in full gear. I didn't ask them if they were unhappy, lol. I did note that they were relaxed, and appeared to be comfortable and happy.

The women have merely been conditioned to accept this oppression and consider it 'normal'. Think about it logically. Who in the hell would actually WANT to cover up in hot clothing out at the beach? What If you conditioned women to think it was wrong to get an education and do anything other than raise children for their husbands? They might be "happy" with their choices to drop out of school and raise babies, but it wouldn't make it any less oppressive.

Islam has historically been extremely oppressive towards women. Just look at nations like Saudi Arabia. It's actually an extremely sexist/misogynistic thought process. Comes from the belief that the beauty of a woman is inherently evil and drives men to sin. Therefor it's up to women to cover up and not tempt men. Of course it wouldn't be up to the men to simply have a little self control. It's just as bad as the "she must have wanted to get raped because she dressed like a slut" attitude. It's all linked back to the fundamental misogynistic belief that it's the duty of women to save men from temptation.

But it has to be up to the practicianers of Islam to deal with this issue. Imposing rules will not work and will create more problems than it solves.

think is comfortable for a women at the beach and educate them about lifestyles

AMISH AT THE BEACH
Yep somebody needs to "work on" these people and set them straight

associated with a particular religion ( you yourself could point to that they are Amish)
are what some people imagine are good reasons I guess
It's the F'ng public beach
I have been to Delaware beaches and they are quite beautiful. Enjoy!

if thats who you are referring to........sorry if you experience that a lot I imagine the Muslims trying to convert you aren't much different than the crazy X preachers out here. We have a big Muslim population here but never seen them trying to convert
What part of the country are you posting from?

Amish do hawk bakery goods at the downtown train station but not their religion . Don't know if that's imposing
They don't use cars ( suspicious to the paranoid) but can travel by train and bring thier wares in to the city to make money. I asked them why they are not there in the evening, they just said they needed time to get back home so they only do the morning rush and lunchtime. Just as well, I don't eat bakery goods often but thier products are especially wholesome with good pure ingredients but it is still sugar

Or seen them in action, I take it....

And someone yelling "Join our club" (as some Christian evangelists might do) isn't the same as being thrown in jail for violating some idiot's idea of what Islam is or being forced by a patriarchal figure to shroud oneself in garments so that men are not "offended" (i.e. driven to lust which makes them NOT responsible if they choose to indulge in rape) by the sight of their hair or figure.

We're not talking about baked goods, here:

Sounds a little kinky, but I'm down with that too.

it. Nor do they in other SouthEast Asian countries.

It seems to be more of an Arab cultural phenomenon rather than an Islamic one.

Why don't Southeast Asian Muslims wear a burqa, niqab or hijab as much as Muslims in Arab countries...?

I believe the answer to this question lies with the history of how Islam spread to Southeast Asia, mainly the Malay peninsula, the half (western part) of Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam.

Unlike Persia or Egypt which had direct contact with the Arabian culture, where niqab or burqa is worn, Islamisation in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei took place without much involving the Arabs.

Islamisation in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei is a result of hundred year long trade with Muslim traders from Gujarat (India) and China. History recorded that Muslim traders from those regions have visited Southeast Asian shores as early as the 14th century. The first Muslim grave found in Indonesia, belonging to Fatimah binti Maimoon, is dated from this era.

By the 15th century, many kings in coastal kingdoms, such as Aceh (Indonesia), Melayu (Malaysia), Champa (Vietnam), Demak (Java), and Brunei, have become Muslims. As these kingdoms grew bigger, stronger, and expanded into inland areas, conversion to Islam became common among the local populace.

If Islam hadn't been preached by Gujarati and Chinese traders, I doubt that Islam would have been accepted in Southeast Asia. The Gujarati and Chinese cultures became 'buffers' between the local Southeast Asian cultures, which had practised polytheistic Hinduism for nearly 1,5 millenia, and the Islamic Arabic culture which preached strict monotheism.

The heyday of Islamic proselytisation by chinese traders was when the Great Admiral Zheng He of the Ming dynasty, a Muslim, with a massive fleet of 317 chinese galleons and 28.000 crewmen visited Southeast Asia, India, and the Arabian peninsula for diplomatic missions between 1405 and 1433 CE. Half of the 'Wali Songo's, the well-known & venerated first Islamic preachers in the soil of Java, were of Chinese origin.

After the Ming dynasty fell, Chinese Muslim hegemony in Chinese internal politics and international trade declined. Chinese traders then became less and less associated with Islam in Southeast Asian coasts and more with Buddhism or Confucianism, as what they had always been in Southeast Asian inland areas, such as Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand. The homelands of Chinese Muslims in China are the chinese western provinces. The Niujie Grand Mosque in Beijing, constructed in 996 CE, gives testament to past Chinese Muslim influence in Chinese politics.

https://www.quora.com/Islamic-Culture-Why-dont-Southeast-Asian-Muslims-wear-a-burqa-niqab-or-hijab-as-much-as-Muslims-in-Arab-countries-or-even-in-Europe

They don't all wear the full burka, granted, but as Wahhabism has spread, so is has the burka. I've personally witnessed multiple Thai women in full black burka, from Bangkok to the Malaysian border. The southern Thai border, by the way, is heavily Muslim. I saw this within just the last few weeks.

Furthermore, my Father in Law is a Muslim convert, married to an Indonesian Muslim, and resides in Indonesia. She doesn't wear the burka, but extended members of her family (in the distant Aceh province) definitely wear the full gear.

I think maybe it's like a spreading fad among the fundies, sort of their way of saying, "Look how Muslim we are!" These are not groups of people with much in cultural common, except their religion, so that's the best hypothesis I've got.

Most women I knew carried a scarf--but it was more of a "just in case" type thing, like "Just in case I want to use the phone or the bathroom at the local mosque" (this was before cellphones).

Now, you go to Iran and everyone who isn't in chador is in manteau. The burqua is an Afghan thing, by and large--I've never seen that characteristic blue color, the styling, or the weird spit-flecked screen they're forced to look out of in other countries, though I have seen some pretty aggressive coverings of other types.

Ultimately all cultural standards of "appropriate dress" are completely arbitrary, and to think our Western standards are superior to any other is a form of cultural imperialism.

the Burkini law in France is misguided and unenforceable, and now it is suspended by the courts. let's not confuse a French law with something that happened in America.

the freedom to NOT wear religiously-proscribed dress (and conversely, TO wear it) makes "western standards" objectively superior to those of at least 2 specific countries where such freedom does not exist: Iran (where the Basiji enforce morals), and SA (where the Mutaween enforce morals). I'd include others, but I don't believe there are state-sponsored morals police elsewhere. I'm probably wrong about that.

American women generally dress to please themselves and other women (and no, I'm not including FLDS, Amish, or Hutterites in that generalization). in general, they have the freedom to do as they wish - modestly, immodestly, comfort, impractical.

if American Muslim women use that freedom to dress like old-school nuns, fine, but don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

If women want to wear burkinis on the beach that is their choice. I understand the possible implications in doing so (from the French police's point of view), and I understand that some of those women might be wearing them to appease someone else ....but it's still their choice.

expressions of religiosity in public life. While we have freedom OF religion, they have freedom FROM religion--if you want it, you really have to seek it out.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

1. They look bad on me, so I won't wear them, despite using other protection to prevent a return of my basal cell carcinoma.

2. As a dude, what a woman chooses to wear is none of my business (unless she chooses to make it so).

These burkinis look great to me.

Ripstop nylon under a hot sun? Might as well wear a sauna suit.

and literally avoid being in the sun as much as possible. I love linen, it's light and cool and always an absolute fashion classic.

I stay covered from head to ankle and cover my wrists, face, neck and feet in sunscreen. I wear sunglasses whenever I step outside, being blue-eyed. I would wear a hat, but I keep my long hair piled high on my head, which precludes hats.

I am a gardener, and enjoy being outside as much as possible, although it's hard in the summer, but I have the early mornings and evenings in the high heat to do my chores. Can't stand the mosquitoes though, but whatever.

I never, ever go to the beach except in winter, and being a bit of a nutcase, I can't imagine what pleasure is to be found in sitting on a beach, doing nothing, getting sand in all my bits, roasting, sweating and turning my skin into leather, and watching a billion other people doing the same thing. It's just not an activity I find appealing.

I prefer to sit on an outdoor, shaded terrace drinking gallons of Rosé rather than watching screaming kids whine, cry, moan and shriek. I look at the rows and rows of people basting themselves like roasting chickens on a bbq and I just don't get what is appealing about it!

We have a pool, but I hate it. I don't like soaking in chlorine and chemical sewage. I am looking to switch it over to a UV filtration system, but the technology hasn't quite caught up to my ideas yet.

That being said, approaching 60, I have no wrinkles, no skin discoloration and look half my age. Bonus!

(get offa my lawn!) Yeah, I'm a sarcastic bitch, no offense intended to the beach basters!

and burkinis are ugly as sin but if they allow a women to enjoy the beach when otherwise she would not be able, so be it.

I'm guessing that was, when--the fifties? Sixties? That wasn't taken last week. I don't know if many -- if any -- convents wear those costumes any more.


And of course, those poor women were part of a patriarchal system that oppressed them as well, deeming them impure and less imbued with the holiness required to be priests of their faith as a consequence of their religion's tenets, which determined that one had to be male to "talk to Jesus" and these handmaidens were there to HELP the priests do their work!

More to the point, those women could walk away from their vows of celibacy and religiosity without having to fear their father or husband coming after them and strangling them to death, or setting them on fire, or what-have-you.

I don't really see the equivalence, but that's just me...

And that's not the beach, is it? For all you know, these ladies don their Jantzens when they go down to the shore.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the marginalization of women in this fashion--it's not winning me over, sorry.

And "lots of nuns" have been mustered OUT of their orders because the money spent on them is needed to pay for the sins of pedophile police. Further "lots of nuns" do NOT wear those foolish, anachronistic costumes because they are ridiculously expensive and uncomfortable to wear. In fact, "lots of nuns" who used to wear the "penguin costumes" now look more like THIS:




from an unrelated article about the decline of women choosing to enter that particular vocation: http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2011/03/fewer-children-then-fewer-nuns


I can't help but notice that you avoided responding to the difficult concept that nuns--unlike women who are trapped in a life of hijab wearing because their culture and male relatives demand it--can leave their orders and their "costumes" behind without fearing that Pope Francis will come after them and kill them for their shameless immodesty.

So, nice try, no cigar. Or, to put it more waggishly, right church, wrong pew!


And, from your link:

Another surprising advocate of the ban is Lorella Zanardo, a feminist advocate whose documentary film Il Corpo Delle Donne, the body of a woman, about sexism in Italian television, has helped change archaic atttidues towards women in this country. She actually donned a burqini and went to the beach to see what the buzz was about. She says she found it to be “hot, heavy and uncomfortable.”

Even though Zanardo has spent her career trying to make sure women are appropriately covered up in the often blatantly sexist Italian media, she believes, at least in this case, that the covers should come off.
“I defend the right of Muslim women to break free of their cages,” she says. “Immigration should be an introduction to the culture, to the knowledge of rights, customs and traditions of other people. When I travel in the Arab world, I dress simply with a light veil, jeans or trousers. Why is it here we see sad scenes of Muslim women in Italy completely covered up and sweaty beside their men who have adopted the local customs and wear light clothes and shorts. Is that freedom? We must not allow the fear of sounding anti-Islamic trump feminism and the struggle for women’s rights.”

Perhaps you don't understand what a "burkini" is made of--it's not a wetsuit. It's a ripstop nylon, fast-drying outfit, that includes a long tunic so no one can see "that area" of a woman where the legs meet the rest of the body. They're not cool garments (picture yourself wrapped in a head-to-toe MEMBERS ONLY jacket on a hot beach on a sunny day)--they're just slightly less uncomfortable than street clothes, and they dry quickly, so a woman isn't left sitting in heavy damp clothing.

Do you know any wetsuits that are constructed like this?





Most wetsuits I've seen are rather sexy and form fitting. The only resemblance is that they have the little hat thingy, but otherwise, a burkini is not a wetsuit.

Sixty percent of the French people agree with the ban, and about thirty percent Just Don't Care. I rather doubt France cares what the rest of the world thinks--they aren't going to make it easy for patriarchal expressions to become the norm in their land--they just aren't. They were successful back in 2004 with the "headscarf law" which eliminated religious expressions (from all faiths) from schools and places of public accommodation and disallowed hiding the face from view; we'll have to see if this law, too, is upheld as a consequence of the secular tradition of the nation.

Funny how everyone praises France for their "nanny state" work week, wages, and health care, but when they step in and say "No--we're not going to allow women to become billboards for a sexist, misogynistic POV" that people who call themselves liberals line up on the side of the ulema and, in effect, support the practice of imprisoning women in restrictive and bulky clothing in order to ease the carnal urges of men.

I guess you have to have actually seen the negative effects of this demand placed on women, this insistence that they are dirty, unclean, slutty, etc., if they don't wear that constricting costume, be it chador, hijab, manteau, chadieri, burqua, or cutesy "burkini" to say "Unnnh unnnh--I am not going to be part of a crowd that supports misogyny disguised as choice."

Now, here in USA, people have a right to wear what they'd like, because we have Freedom OF (not FROM) Religion...so here, in USA, all I can do is roll my eyes when I see some poor woman sweating like a stuck pig in ninety degree heat while her husband strolls two feet in front of her wearing a short sleeved shirt of the thinnest cotton.

Are they now not permitted to go to the beach? And what about nuns visiting France? Are beaches now off limits for anyone wearing too much clothing?

Have you ever worn a wetsuit? They have to be pretty tight so I've never found them particularly comfortable, especially when dry. But do you honestly believe that tight fabric head-to-toe is fine, but looser fabric head-to-toe is deserving of banning by an entire country? If a French Muslim woman wore a wetsuit, that'd be okay? But a few extra centimeters of fabric isn't?

And "misogyny disguised as a choice" is an interesting turn of phrase to defend paternalistic misogyny disguised as progress.

frolicking on the beach. For all you know, they're there in their Jantzens, soaking up the rays. Why do you assume French nuns don't know how to put on a bathing suit because there are a few pictures of elderly Italian nuns, in gray, knee-length dresses, exposing their gams to the sunlight, floating around who haven't managed it?

Why do you keep going on about wetsuits? Is there a church of the Sweaty Nether Regions where "the wetsuit" is a visibly ostentatious religious garment that makes it clear that the wearer belongs to a specific faith? If there isn't, then your point is not taken.

Most of France agrees with this ban, or has no empathy--and that "tough love" approach is the way to go. Women aren't forced to wear face coverings by their misogynistic fathers/husbands any more, because French law has forbidden it for more than a decade.

Have you ever worn hijab? Not a wetsuit, but HIJAB? NO? Well, why don't you take some guidance from men who have so done: