That quote is such an insane statement that I feel like it's purposefully put out there to start a flame war. It's disrespectful both to Islam and to our current health emergency.
That quote is such an insane statement that I feel like it's purposefully put out there to start a flame war. It's disrespectful both to Islam and to our current health emergency.
This is not a very common argument from my experience. This is where the contention is for me. Face masks are worn for a simple reason; to stop the spread of infection. Niqabs/other facial...
one of the common arguments against face coverings — or more accurately, niqabs worn by some Muslim women — that they are a barrier to communication.
This is not a very common argument from my experience.
Both are garments worn for a specific purpose, in a specific place and for a specific time only.
This is where the contention is for me. Face masks are worn for a simple reason; to stop the spread of infection. Niqabs/other facial coverings come with different purposes and historical baggage. I'm not trying to give an opinion on facial coverings in cultures different from my own, but to compare a niqab to a medical face mask is a total false equivalence and is deliberately ignoring all of the surrounding context.
Depends on the culture you were raised in. To niqabis it is also worn for a simple reason, to avoid stoking lustful feelings in the men you interact with. Even facemasks have some historical...
Niqabs/other facial coverings come with different purposes and historical baggage.
Depends on the culture you were raised in. To niqabis it is also worn for a simple reason, to avoid stoking lustful feelings in the men you interact with.
Even facemasks have some historical baggage. Like it apparently stoked some anti-Asian racism early on in the pandemic.
I don't necessarily agree with it but it's hard to say she's ignoring all the context when she wrote a 1,000 word article looking at different aspects.
I don't necessarily agree with it but it's hard to say she's ignoring all the context when she wrote a 1,000 word article looking at different aspects.
She spent 1,000 words ignoring the fact that we are currently in an extraordinary situation where we have chosen to put public safety above many of our most treasured values, such as freedom of...
She spent 1,000 words ignoring the fact that we are currently in an extraordinary situation where we have chosen to put public safety above many of our most treasured values, such as freedom of assembly, usually considered essential to a functional democracy, as well as general freedom of movement within and in and out of countries. The idea that extreme crisis measures are equivalent to how we should act in an ordinary situation is a completely false equivalency. If we follow this logic of ignoring that context to its logical endpoint, we would end up concluding that we're hypocrites for criticizing oppressive dictatorships, because we have now introduced policies usually associated with them.
It's dishonest. She may have examined different aspects of context, but she ignored the most important context of all. None of the above is necessarily an argument in favor of banning facial coverings, but merely to emphasize that that discussion needs to be had within the proper context, which this article fails to do. Deliberately, I would say, because I refuse to believe this person is really that naive.
Another piece of context which the author appears to be unaware of is that a number of Muslim countries in North Africa have also banned facial coverings in certain contexts. Algeria has banned the niqab in schools and universities. Tunisia has banned wearing the niqab in government buildings, and Morrocco has banned the sale and manufacture of burqas. These are all Muslim countries. The population is overwhelmingly Muslim and so are the lawmakers. Clearly, the reasoning behind it is not a generic fear or hatred of all things Muslim. So what gives?
The reasoning given for these bans in Muslim countries in North Africa is public safety in the wake of terrorist attacks. Although these are Muslim countries, full facial coverings are not traditionally worn there. This is an influence from the conservative Salafi branch of Islam, which is popular in Saudi Arabia and has deep ties to radical Islamism and terrorism. Which goes to show that even within parts of the Muslim world, there is a concern that these garments are not a neutral expression of Muslim faith, but in fact deeply linked to a dangerous spin on Islam that promotes terrorism and social oppression, as well as a tool actively used to conceal identity in order to commit crimes.
This isn't intended to come out in support of these bans, either in North Africa, Canada, Europe or anywhere else. I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with these arguments. But it's certainly context which the author is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore in pursuit of a narrative.
You're absolutely right. I believe that's what she was ultimately trying to point out... I didn't arrive at dishonesty myself to explain the quality of the argument though.
but merely to emphasize that that discussion needs to be had within the proper context, which this article fails to do.
You're absolutely right. I believe that's what she was ultimately trying to point out... I didn't arrive at dishonesty myself to explain the quality of the argument though.
1,000 words might as well be a tweet. It's not uncommon to see posts here on Tildes around that length and it's still not enough to offer clarity on any subject. If anything, it's irresponsible to...
1,000 words might as well be a tweet. It's not uncommon to see posts here on Tildes around that length and it's still not enough to offer clarity on any subject. If anything, it's irresponsible to start such a conversation and only allocate 1,000 words—not nearly enough for the rich and storied history and politics behind niqabs.
One is being worn as a way of preventing disease transmission and one is being worn as the result of thousands of years of complex societal manipulation to subjugate women and make them lesser...
One is being worn as a way of preventing disease transmission and one is being worn as the result of thousands of years of complex societal manipulation to subjugate women and make them lesser than their male counterparts.
There’s no hypocrisy here since these are two completely different ideas.
I think this article is being misunderstood because it isn't focused enough. To me the important part isn't why face coverings are worn, but why they are banned. Sometimes the argument is...
I think this article is being misunderstood because it isn't focused enough. To me the important part isn't why face coverings are worn, but why they are banned. Sometimes the argument is security, in the sense that we don't want to encourage bank robberies or other crimes. Some anti-mask laws were enacted due to KKK activity. There are other forms of civil disobedience (anarchists) that make people nervous. Ski masks are accepted while skiing, but in other situations they are suspicious.
I don't know how common that argument is, but I think that's the most respectable and reasonable argument, and it seems laws were passed with this justification. There are other motives that are worse.
But we aren't seeing a lot of bank robberies lately. Possibly, the arguments for anti-mask laws are overrated?
These were my thoughts exactly. Her stance is poorly argued but she raises very relevant questions when you consider the gymnastics the anti-covering narratives went through at the time to not...
I think this article is being misunderstood because it isn't focused enough. To me the important part isn't why face coverings are worn, but why they are banned.
These were my thoughts exactly. Her stance is poorly argued but she raises very relevant questions when you consider the gymnastics the anti-covering narratives went through at the time to not seem Islamophobic.
Yes. Yes it is.
That quote is such an insane statement that I feel like it's purposefully put out there to start a flame war. It's disrespectful both to Islam and to our current health emergency.
This is not a very common argument from my experience.
This is where the contention is for me. Face masks are worn for a simple reason; to stop the spread of infection. Niqabs/other facial coverings come with different purposes and historical baggage. I'm not trying to give an opinion on facial coverings in cultures different from my own, but to compare a niqab to a medical face mask is a total false equivalence and is deliberately ignoring all of the surrounding context.
Depends on the culture you were raised in. To niqabis it is also worn for a simple reason, to avoid stoking lustful feelings in the men you interact with.
Even facemasks have some historical baggage. Like it apparently stoked some anti-Asian racism early on in the pandemic.
I don't necessarily agree with it but it's hard to say she's ignoring all the context when she wrote a 1,000 word article looking at different aspects.
She spent 1,000 words ignoring the fact that we are currently in an extraordinary situation where we have chosen to put public safety above many of our most treasured values, such as freedom of assembly, usually considered essential to a functional democracy, as well as general freedom of movement within and in and out of countries. The idea that extreme crisis measures are equivalent to how we should act in an ordinary situation is a completely false equivalency. If we follow this logic of ignoring that context to its logical endpoint, we would end up concluding that we're hypocrites for criticizing oppressive dictatorships, because we have now introduced policies usually associated with them.
It's dishonest. She may have examined different aspects of context, but she ignored the most important context of all. None of the above is necessarily an argument in favor of banning facial coverings, but merely to emphasize that that discussion needs to be had within the proper context, which this article fails to do. Deliberately, I would say, because I refuse to believe this person is really that naive.
Another piece of context which the author appears to be unaware of is that a number of Muslim countries in North Africa have also banned facial coverings in certain contexts. Algeria has banned the niqab in schools and universities. Tunisia has banned wearing the niqab in government buildings, and Morrocco has banned the sale and manufacture of burqas. These are all Muslim countries. The population is overwhelmingly Muslim and so are the lawmakers. Clearly, the reasoning behind it is not a generic fear or hatred of all things Muslim. So what gives?
The reasoning given for these bans in Muslim countries in North Africa is public safety in the wake of terrorist attacks. Although these are Muslim countries, full facial coverings are not traditionally worn there. This is an influence from the conservative Salafi branch of Islam, which is popular in Saudi Arabia and has deep ties to radical Islamism and terrorism. Which goes to show that even within parts of the Muslim world, there is a concern that these garments are not a neutral expression of Muslim faith, but in fact deeply linked to a dangerous spin on Islam that promotes terrorism and social oppression, as well as a tool actively used to conceal identity in order to commit crimes.
This isn't intended to come out in support of these bans, either in North Africa, Canada, Europe or anywhere else. I'm not necessarily saying I agree or disagree with these arguments. But it's certainly context which the author is either unaware of, or chooses to ignore in pursuit of a narrative.
You're absolutely right. I believe that's what she was ultimately trying to point out... I didn't arrive at dishonesty myself to explain the quality of the argument though.
1,000 words might as well be a tweet. It's not uncommon to see posts here on Tildes around that length and it's still not enough to offer clarity on any subject. If anything, it's irresponsible to start such a conversation and only allocate 1,000 words—not nearly enough for the rich and storied history and politics behind niqabs.
1000 words is not a lot. @imperialismus is halfway there with their reply.
One is being worn as a way of preventing disease transmission and one is being worn as the result of thousands of years of complex societal manipulation to subjugate women and make them lesser than their male counterparts.
There’s no hypocrisy here since these are two completely different ideas.
I think this article is being misunderstood because it isn't focused enough. To me the important part isn't why face coverings are worn, but why they are banned. Sometimes the argument is security, in the sense that we don't want to encourage bank robberies or other crimes. Some anti-mask laws were enacted due to KKK activity. There are other forms of civil disobedience (anarchists) that make people nervous. Ski masks are accepted while skiing, but in other situations they are suspicious.
I don't know how common that argument is, but I think that's the most respectable and reasonable argument, and it seems laws were passed with this justification. There are other motives that are worse.
But we aren't seeing a lot of bank robberies lately. Possibly, the arguments for anti-mask laws are overrated?
These were my thoughts exactly. Her stance is poorly argued but she raises very relevant questions when you consider the gymnastics the anti-covering narratives went through at the time to not seem Islamophobic.