Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
France has had a strict policy of state secularism for quite a bit longer than anyone involved here has been alive, and then some. It isn't selective, it's just that one group wants to undermine it, while the rest live more or less in harmony.
As usual.
I think the issue is anglophones don't understand this or appreciate it.
Anglo secularism is government takes no position/is not religious and people are free to preach & practice their religion.
French secularism is religion is like your genitiles, keep it to your self and don't show it off.
Quebec got in trouble and called racist when they banned government employees from wearing religious symbols. People decried it as xenophobic against muslims, when a large amount of jews also had to hide their religoous symbols, and christian cops did too.
English media will have a cow over it, and the French speakers will keep doing what they do best, being stubbornly French.
God I love the Québécois and French.
>Quebec got in trouble and called racist when they banned government employees from wearing religious symbols. People decried it as xenophobic against muslims, when a large amount of jews also had to hide their religoous symbols, and christian cops did too.
Except they had a cross in the legislature.
Kinda destroys your whole argument they've always enforced secularism.
*The crucifix was hung at the initiative of alderman Joseph-Émile Dubreuil, a member of Montreal city council from 1932-1954 and later a Liberal member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly. It was meant to remind councillors that they had sworn an oath before God, Lavigne Lalonde said.*
You’re not wrong but some context is needed.
As someone from Québec, the crucifix had indeed a big religious significance back then, it’s the period we call the « great darkness » where the church and state where in bed together under the authoritarian regime of Maurice Duplessis.
However because of the abuse of the state and church and general anger towards enforced traditionalism the state underwent a massive change during the « révolution tranquille ». Secularism was enforced in school, health and the workplace, abortion was legalized and society shifted towards more secular values. Nowadays we’re not a very religious bunch, it has some gotten a very bad reputation.
For exemple since 1976 Quebec has banned the practice of prayer in the assembly whereas Canada still keeps it in 2024.
It stayed in the Salon Bleu for a while as a reminder of that part of history. However it was promptly removed following the passing of the bill.
>For exemple since 1976 Quebec has banned the practice of prayer in the assembly whereas Canada still keeps it in 2024.
Wait, what? You mean there are Canadian politicians practicing while they are in the room that all the voting, public debate and stuff happen?
What the fuck lol
No it’s not as bad as that thankfully! It’s more of a daily opening religious ceremony before the government gets to business.
However it still upsets a lot of people in Quebec, most of us feel that religion has no place in the government, even for a daily prayer.
« At the beginning of each sitting, before the House considers any business, the Speaker takes the Chair and proceeds to read the prayer, after it has been determined that a quorum4 of 20 Members including the Chair Occupant is present.5 While the prayer is being read, the Speaker, the Members and the Table Officers all stand. The prayer is by custom read partly in French and partly in English. When the prayer is finished, the House pauses for a moment of silence for private thought and reflection. At the end of the moment of silence, the Speaker orders the doors to the galleries opened and calls the first item of business. »
[Governmental source](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_10_1-e.html)
I think you did a great analysis of the situation, it is indeed a very Francophone thing.
However there’s always nuances. In Quebec and in France it’s impossible to deny there’s still some issues about religious integration and intolerance, but on the flip side we are working on it and it seems to have gotten better.
Anyway on t’aime aussi copain, amitiés de Montréal.
Keep in mind it wasn’t even all govt employees. Just employees in position of authority. So a cop can’t wear a cross, but a janitor can have his turban.
And it only applied to new hires, no one was fired because they refused to drop the religious symbols. Except those that where hired knowing full well they didn’t have the right to their religious symbols, but insisted to bring them in anyway.
>French secularism is religion is like your genitiles, keep it to your self and don't show it off.
Was that my Gentiles or my Genitals you are talking about?
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/09/05/france-s-century-long-crusade-against-religious-symbols-at-school-from-the-crucifix-to-the-abaya_6124828_7.html
Some history seems called for.
Doesn't change the fact I've seen kids in French schools with crosses on their necks. It's far easier to be a Christian under French secularism than a musulim same reason why a lot of policies are considered racist without ever being directly racist just treating everyone the same ignoring that not everyone has the same opportunities.
Muslim in France have neckless with Fatma hand, so I really don't see what you're talking about.
And hijab only got ban because salafiste decided to it make a symbole of their cause. No one cared one bit about hijab in France before the 2000's.
If you're such a fan of hijab, get rid of salafist and the ban will be lifted, simple as.
Griezman have the literal face of Jesus and Mary tattoed on an arm, Giroud has a Psalm on a forearm, I'e never heard about any controversy when they play for the national team.
I won't pay too much attention to his comment. Being french I don't really know if he is trolling or just making things up.
Nothing in what he said is neither accurate nor make sens.
I think the difference is that certain muslim immigrants in europe dont intend to integrate into the secular world that greeted them with open arms, and seek to impose the same repressive culture (especially to women) that they were used to in their countries.
Because the rule is about ostentatious religious symbols, not all religious symbols. For instance if your a jew you can absolutely wear a small star of david necklace but a kippa is out.
>Doesn't change the fact I've seen kids in French schools with crosses on their necks.
And kids with the equivalents for islam. The law forbid ostentatious signs only.
France claims to be secular against all religions then why does France celebrate things like Christmas and All Saints’ Day as national holidays? Seems a little more selective then you are letting on
https://www.thelocal.fr/20221221/why-is-christmas-a-holiday-in-secular-france
The whole internet is out there for people, and so few take advantage of it.
So based on the link you sent Christmas was made an exception because they did not want to upset particular group of people… hmm. Convenient also did not respond to second half of my comment where I asked about all Saints Day. Even in your link it says, “And it's not the only one, in fact roughly half of France's 11 public holidays (or 13 if you're in Alsace) represent Catholic events.”
> So based on the link you sent Christmas was made an exception because they did not want to upset particular group of people… hmm.
That particular group being the entire population of France, that didn't want to lose vacation days? Yes, that's what the article says. I get the sense that you just read the first paragraph, which incidentally is where your quote comes from.
They face the same restrictions as Christmas.
> But even though Christmas is a public holiday in France, there are still rules of secularism that apply and like all laïcité rules, they apply to state buildings such as schools, town halls and government offices but not to private businesses like shops, public highways, private homes or churches.
>
> Within state buildings lights, "happy holidays" (Joyeuses Fêtes) banners, and Christmas trees are allowed - because they are not viewed as overt signs of religion - but nativity scenes and cribs are not permitted.
>
> For those with kids in French schools, you may have noticed that there are no Nativity plays at this time of year, for the same reason.
Got it so a Christian holiday is okay for the secular government to celebrate as long as they pretend there isn’t a clear connection to a particular religion. But wearing a piece of cloth on your head is an overt sign of religion? I do not believe in a God and am completely for secularism, but it needs to be actually practiced across the board which is not the case when a country claims “oh it’s okay because we didn’t say it’s about Christ”
You should read more about french laicité and the history of Islam in France before pulling stuff out of your ass, and jumping to the conclusion that "one group" wants to undermine secularism.
Shit is way more subtle than that my dude
"As per the article" in the sense that the person complaining makes that claim and they quote it. Meanwhile the reality is pretty famous:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16547479
https://www.rfi.fr/en/visiting-france/20130923-frances-sikhs-want-right-wear-turbans-schools
You should learn about a topic before basing your grand conclusion on a rumor. This isn't about Islamophobia, it's about your own inability to distinguish fact from fiction.
No, but it's not limited to Qatar. Muslims banned pride flags in a Muslim controlled city in the US. In Cannada, they are running muslim anti LGBTQ marches. Everywhere around the world, they are claiming LGBTQ people deserve the death penalty. Muslims have a HUGE homophobia problem yet expect everyone else to accept them.
> Muslims banned pride flags in a Muslim controlled city in the US.
I don't like the ban and I think it's unconstitutional, but you're leaving out key context. The city council of Hamtramck, MI, banned pride flags *on city grounds*. The ordnance banned flags supporting ethnic, racist, religious, or political views, too.
They also came under immediate fire for it, and former town officials filed a lawsuit over the ban. [The federal case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67980779/gordon-v-city-of-hamtramck/) has been in pretrial motions since November and has been ordered to mediation, to be completed by the end of July. That doesn't mean there won't be a trial.
Edit: BTW, you don't mention that Huntington Beach, CA, voters banned non-governmental flags, including pride flags, a few years ago. Several cities across the country have done this, some in an effort to avoid controversy and some in an effort to back-door banning of flags they don't like. Hamtramck made a bad decision, but it is decidedly not unique in doing so.
> I don't like the ban and I think it's unconstitutional, but you're leaving out key context. The city council of Hamtramck, MI, banned pride flags on city grounds. The ordnance banned flags supporting ethnic, racist, religious, or political views, too.
Even in context that is completely fucked. Adding context literally made it worse lmfao.
> Edit: BTW, you don't mention that Huntington Beach, CA, voters banned non-governmental flags, including pride flags, a few years ago. Several cities across the country have done this, some in an effort to avoid controversy and some in an effort to back-door banning of flags they don't like. Hamtramck made a bad decision, but it is decidedly not unique in doing so.
This is also a garbage decision. Being more upset about one doesn't negate either.
["The rest of the world," he went on, "is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden."](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/19/josep-borrell-apologises-for-controversial-garden-vs-jungle-metaphor-but-stands-his-ground)
Xinjiang banned the veil, not the hijab. Many (religious) Muslim women don't wear a veil but do wear a hijab. Veiling of the face is not required under Islam.
Big difference between "not required" and "required but some choose not to apply it". Just because some Muslim women do or do not wear hijab has nothing to do with the religious position.
The majority opinion is that it is required for women, although there are some opposing opinions which make a good case so make of that what you will.
There are five pillars of Islam. Not one of them deals with personal items. The quran doesn't really mention hijab either (not as clothing, but in a different context as separation).
If the core tenets of the religion say nothing about it, and there are millions upon millions of muslim women out there not wearing it, how is it "required" to be a good muslim?
It used to be fashionable for high status women, but not workers, before the 20th C. In the 1970s, it saw a resurgence as a cultural fightback versus westernisation. It's not "required" to be a good muslim any more than carrying a rosary is "required" to be a good catholic.
There are things you have to do as a Muslim beyond just the five pillars, like rules on loan interest and personal conduct. However, when did I even say hijab, or anything else for that matter, is required to be a good Muslim? I am a Muslim myself and I have many peers and family members who don't wear it and I would never consider them lacking as people or Muslims in any way. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to judge someone's relationship to God even if they do not fully follow the pillars (except the first one for obvious reasons).
I could go on about the history of it and how it is fundamentally different from what carrying a rosary was (and there are rosaries carried around by some muslims to symbolize religious commitment too btw) and how rural and bedouin areas which were relatively oblivious to westernization and globalization had their women societally forced to wear hijab.
I will say it again: regardless of my opinions or the history of it, though, most current day Islamic scholars claim it is mandatory for women to wear the headscarf. There is a minority of them that claims it is not, and they have some convincing arguments to their case. At the end of the day, every individual is allowed to follow what they feel is fine for them, but a consensus does exist.
Pretty sure in Afghanistan at least, women mandatorily need to wear a burqa.
But you are right. Xinjiang banned burqa and niqab, and all face coverings for religious wear, but not the hijab.
That being said, China also does restrict a lot of religious freedom in regards to Xinjiang specifically. All large religious gatherings must be applied for to the government in advance and all religious buildings must have "Chinese characteristics" (i.e. replacing 2/3rd of the mosques in China with Chinese characteristic mosques instead, or demolishing them). All content from Xinjiang is screened by the CCP, and you need a permit to go to some places in Xinjiang if you're a foreigner.
They banned anything that is deemed extremist attire. It's vague and arbitrary on purpose to subjugate a population. Because of this no Uyghur dares to wear a hijab outside and it's not part of Turkic culture anyway. Laowai are fine though.
Would be very surprised that France has ever condemn hijab ban anywhere... France might have been among the first to do so...
That being said not sure anglosphere consider France part of the "garden". France and anglosphere have quite opposite views and practice regarding religion and it's display.
It doesn't matter what happened in 1600's, they are not collectively responsible and what is happening now is modern colonialism and cultural oppression by a modern state using modern technology. One cannot just claim Turkic people have no right to be anywhere and deserve no cultural rights because of history.
“South Asians Northern Europeans and certain Africans, you guys are the best get on in here have some pizza! The rest of you shit stains, theres celery and store bought hummus on the kiddie table.”
- Lactose, soon as I show up
Nice try... you think you're smart but just showed that you have no clue what tolerance means and implies.
The only difference between tolerance and intolerance is the leeway one has before facing sanctions.
Tolerance doesn't mean allowing anyone to do what ever, when ever, without any repercution.
The simple principle of tolerance is that it has a limit, which past the tolerance point you will be confronted to.
I recommend reading the [Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) about it, but you must be intolerant to the people who can destroy tolerant ideals.
The man who came up with the tolerance paradox has gone on record saying that you should not answer intolerant speech with violence. It’s when actual intolerant actions take place that one should start to become intolerant in response. If someone starts saying intolerant things, you’re simply supposed disagree and argue against it.
I have a Muslim office mate. He's overall an okay guys but has many very fundamental, conservative views. For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible. Basically just for goods and services. No polite greetings. Absolutely NO male friends except family obviously.
Once they hosted a dinner at their place for a group of us, which is where I first met his wife. Obviously she wore hijab. I started looking around their home and checking out photographs of them visiting different places around the world. He's very well traveled. And in every single one of their photographs, she was wearing hijab.
Then I realized that in only a few generations time, after her, her husband, her children and grandchildren have all died or forgotten, there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person. Her entire identity exists in a context of her religion. They would have you believe she has no personality or agency beyond that. It makes me question of she's even a real person. Can you really reconsidered a person if you aren't believed to be valid and valued like others?
And that made me sad.
Edit: sorry no caffine yet had to correct some phrasing
My ex manager is a conservative Muslim. I could tell from his marriage and stuff he says during team dinners that deep down he believes women should only be housewives and mothers.
I’m talking about a man that doesn’t want his daughter to go to uni despite having good grades.
As a female I did an internal transfer. New manager is a regular white man, he has a working wife who is also a manager. I like him a lot better
>"Then I realized that in only a few generations time... there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person."
holy shit. this just hit me like a bag of bricks.
It's sobering, isn't it? We live in the most well documented period of human history. Everything down to rats taking pizza in the subways of New York is documented. People tweet their bowl movements. There are famous posts about poop knives.
And in spite of this, the record of a Muslim woman's true identity will still be conspicuously missing.
That's not really unusual for the average person. Unless you do something very important, you just fade into the unknown.
And sure, we have thousands of pictures of ourselves now. But you're kidding yourself if you think your great-great grandkids will bother keeping them as anything other than a random hard drive in some storage box, if that.
That's a different comparison. The original statement was that "in only a few generations time... there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person."
But also just a couple generations ago, hijab or not the average person didn't have any photos of themselves.
Yes, it's pretty weird currently to not have a buncy if pictures of yourself. Or maybe not - my mom took literally tens of thousands pictures of my brother and me growing up, but I have only a dozen or so of her because she just didn't like having her picture taken. A few of them are hanging up around my house, but honestly I doubt my kids will put up any of her because she died before they were born. Now remove another generation or two and even the tens of thousands of pictures of my brother and me will be long forgotten.
>For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible.
Here's a source.
https://islamqa.info/en/answers/10680/rights-of-husband-and-rights-of-wife-in-islam#2-non-financial-rights
>And in every single one of their photographs, she was wearing hijab.
>Then I realized that in only a few generations time, after her, her husband, her children and grandchildren have all died or forgotten, there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person.
you don't need to see her hair for her to exist as a person. this is how you're viewing her, not how her grandkids are going to.
> He's overall an okay guys but has many very fundamental, conservative views. For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible. Basically just for goods and services. No polite greetings. Absolutely NO male friends except family obviously.
The part of his post you ignored to score a cheap point.
Does every comment really need to be a list addressing every point in the previous comment for can we just talk about what interests us within these giant text walls?
Nah man, if your gonna say they’re wrong they don’t get to ignore any points that directly address what they say, so it’s perfectly valid to call them on that.
I feel like the argument of leaving an identity for the future generations is not good for this instance because most people don't even know the live of their great grandparents. I don't even know much about my granddad. I read an article once on explaining on how everyone will just be forgotten in about 2-3 generations after you die, so just live for yourself they said. It is however still sad to live a life the way your friend's wife did.
I was born and raised a muslim, grew up to be an atheist because apparently I put too much logic into the religion. The way I see it for conservative muslim, they really believe about afterlife, heaven and hell that kind lf things. So to suffer for a "short" time in the world is nothing compared to the afterlife. Imagine it like you work hard in your early years to have better life in your old years. Or if you eat the bad part of your dish to leave the best part for last. Maybe if can see it that way for them, you can be less sad 😬 everybody does everything for different reasons anyway.
It's gonna depend on your culture. Many Hispanic and Asian cultures, which are both halves of my family, respect their dead greatly. My mother's side has a single burial stone for her family members to be added to if they desire. Each time someone dies, their name can be added to the stone. There is space for like 8 more names. We visit there every year and plant flowers, go through photographs, and tell stories about them.
I myself only personally know half the people on that headstone, but that's okay. It's nice to learn about my ancestors.
I think believing that everyone forgets their great grandparents and such is a consequence of your culture. Many of us practice differently.
Is it optional for children? Many are brought up in religion, through no choice of their own, then become adults. Most hijabis can't simply take off their hijabs, even if they want to, because of the familial and social consequences. I don't think it's a real choice.
Nope it's not. I know a girl with Muslim parents, who can't wait to become 18, so that she is a legal adult in our country. Then she can finally resist being forced to wear a hijab.
You mean that Muslim girl being beaten up in France for not adhering to the rules of Islam and acting like an western? Get a grip dude. Women in Iran are dying to get their rights not to wear it, yet you spew this nonsense. If a Muslim woman chose not to obey the rules in western countries, minimally she would be disowned, and with zero to no skills, because their women are housewives, she wouldn't be able to do shit. She would be disowned by her family and her husbands family. If she way lucky.
Because we are talking about majority, and I mean vast majority. Your one experience doesn't change the fact that women have no rights, and that are conditions to be like they are. Where they try to rebel, we have seen what happens. So your one friend who is lucky enough to say fuck you to her family, I'm happy for her, but she is an outlier.
Who's **we**??? Are you high? I was mentioning her to make the point that even in countries where religious freedom is highly valued and enforced by law, and where women have full rights, young girls still don't get the choice to not wear a hijab, as their parents ultimately force that(among other things) upon them anyhow.
My point is not conflicting with what you are saying. Someone was rhetorically asking if religion is optional for children, and I said "No it's not", which it seems to me, like you agree with. What's your issue? And again, who the fuck is **we**? Do you often dictate what other people are allowed to talk about?
i don't give a fuck if they listen to me.
if they're too stupid to see they're propping an authoritarian religion by using the choice argument, they're too far gone as is.
what matters is that others don't fall for their idiocy.
Christianity had(broadly) and has(certain denominations) restrictions on what men and women could wear which because over time where most Christians lived became more secular those restrictions eased and went away nearly entirely. The clearest indication is the economic development of a country with the exception of the US which remains quite religious inspite of being a fully developed country.
Is it? A lot of Muslims are brought up with these beliefs, and face a lot of familial and social pressure. Most hijabis fit this description, and taking off hijab would result in real consequences.
No, it’s not. People who are born into religious families don’t choose their religion. It’s the only reality that is presented to them. Some can escape it, but most are brainwashed or forced into believing it.
Fance laws around being secular in public life are applied equally to man and women in the country. It's not a women's right issue in France.
It IS a women's rights issue in many Muslim areas of the world where laws overwhelmingly marginalize women in many areas of their life, not just forced clothing in public.
And how does banning them from sports help? Do you think the people forcing it on them just go "oh, well, I was going to make her wear the hijab, but then I realised she'd miss out on a basketball tournament! Guess I don't care any more."
It's awful that any woman is forced to wear the hijab. But banning it simply makes women doing it voluntarily have to choose between sports and their religion/culture, and makes sure that those forced into it are further isolated.
They are not banned from sport. The hijab is. Here we're talking about athletes for the French national team, so if your religious beliefs are more important than the honor of representing your country in an international competition, then you're a terrible fit to be said representative of one of the countrirs that takes secularism seriously and earned the right to.
The laws apply to everyone and we're not going to make exceptions for Muslims. If respecting the law leads one to give up on their passion or ambitions, it only proved the point that the hijab is a symbol of women submission and those values aren't welcomed in France.
There are also plenty of social services to reach out if wanting to integrate themselves in a secular society ostracizes or even hurts Muslim women.
Not saying living as a Muslim is easy but at some point, Britain with its inclusive multiculturalism is right there or any other Muslim majority country where all those concerns don't apply. 🤷
>And how does banning them from sports help?
They're not ban from playing the sport... that women is litteraly a pro player.
She is ban from representing her country France, because integrist salafism and advocating inforcing charia law, is not but really not at all even close to french values on the topic.
That women is an activist who's political agenda is in total opposition with what France believes to be her values and therefore is not invited to represent France on international stage.
You have muslim all over french sport national team, just not salafist one.
In Vienna we have a problem with adolescent muslim men that patrol the city and attack known muslim girls that don't wear the hijab or rat her out to her family.
So while I appreciate that the women you know have a choice, it needs to be acknowledged that this is not the reality for all women, even in the western world.
Absolutely, I agree with you on that. I just brought it up to solidify my point, being that a lot of women *don't* have said choice because the hijab is forced on them.
Sadly, in Austrian politics, easy choices without thinking about the consequences take priority over thinking of more efficient solutions (not a dunk on the other person in this thread)
And who says that is right? Those "patrols" should be fined/charged.
On the flip side should we have patrols to harass those wearing religious/cultural clothing?
I never said that was right, in fact I think it is awful. The reason I brought it up is because I wanted to highlight how many muslim women are made to wear the hijab whether they want to or not even in a city like Vienna. They don't have a choice, they are being oppressed.
I never understood this argument. How is restricting the freedom to express yourself however you like good? How are hijabs or necklaces with crosses invading secular places? Should we just ban every religious person from any public space, even if they're not imposing anything on anyone else?
Because it starts with something simple and harmless like that and then can escalate.
These laws were created because of Christianity some time ago, Islam should not be an exception.
That makes no sense since French athletes are generally allowed to wear religious symbols, such as a Star of David necklace, a cross necklace, or a kippah
That should be banned too, for public officials and in government funded instances.
It is not “I should be able to do it since other people do it” but “those people shouldn’t be doing it to begin with”.
Fance laws around being secular in public life are applied equally to man and women in the country. It's not a women's right issue in France.
It IS a women's rights issue in many Muslim areas of the world where laws overwhelmingly marginalize women in many areas of their life, not just forced clothing in public.
Since when do players get to wear whatever they want? Go crusade elsewhere! It's not a uniform if it's not the same for everybody, is a hijab going to be standard for everybody then? Idea seems oppressive.
This exactly. They go to Western countries, benefit from their economic welfare and freedom, and in turn, try to change the host country and use its democracy to further advance their agenda. All the while, committing the most horrible human rights abuses against their minorities in their own countries.
I mean I'm all for banning religious influences **in state matters**. Sports isn't exactly something I associate very much with the state.
No hajibs, crosses or prayers or whatever in parliament buildings, trials, banks, post offices, etc. All fair game. It's either all the religion or none of the religion, and religion and state ought to be separate so I'd be fine with someone just flat out not allowing it.
But in **sports**?!
The Olympics are made up of nation-state sports institutions coming together to compete.
Citizens participating in the events are representing their nations sports programs not just themselves.
In my opinion athletes become similar to diplomats
while participating the the Olympics.
So they’re banned because they’re viewed as mandatory, so technically against religious freedom. While also not allowing women who want to wear them to express their religious freedom. Got it. The French have rioted over far less.
Where are the feminists to defend women who want to wear hijab?
Just because there are women who are forced to wear it, it doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. While I'm French, I do hope one of these hijabis who decided to represent another country instead of France due to this rule will win a gold medal. Many international institutions allow it but not my country. I hope it will change.
Many people here are commenting without knowing any context in France. The religious symbols are banned in the places likes schools, ok. Some say that sport is not a school, ok. But what you miss, the governement is struggling every single day with people not following the rule of laïcité. Giving the ok for sport would create an opening for many people, and not only Muslims, to claim, and impose their rules in the public space.
How does banning a hijab making it easier for French muslim women to assimilate by participating in sports?
Women participating in sports at all is a major step towards assimilation, they (the French) should be bending over backwards to try to encourage these women to participate, instead they single out these women in the name freedom. ANd btw, the hijab isnt a religious symbol to muslims. Its only a religious symbol to non-muslims(you wouldnt think this was such a difficult concept to grasp). To (most) muslim women, the hijab is a requirement of dress in public.
And worst of all, and most frustratingly, it singles out women. Is there a beard ban in place yet? Thats actually more of a religious symbol than the hijab (I hope people are understanding the difference between a symbol and a requirement of appearance).
How come that never happens? Oh thats right, it wuld be crazy to restrict people according to how much facial hair they have. Especially men. But clothing? For women? Not crazy at all. Riiiight.
There's so many reasons this kind of thing sucks on so many levels. A lot of these women will feel discouraged from sports. A head covering can be considered just as much a cultural thing as it is religious. Why should someone not be able to cover their hair if they want to? There's nothing super restrictive about a head covering and it's not like it hides someone's identity like a veil. The ones made for sports look form fitting enough to not be a safety issue. It's just hair.
Welcome to r/anime_titties! This subreddit advocates for civil and constructive discussion. Please be courteous to others, and make sure to read the rules. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. We have a [Discord](https://discord.gg/dhMeAnNyzG), feel free to join us! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/anime_titties) if you have any questions or concerns.*
France has had a strict policy of state secularism for quite a bit longer than anyone involved here has been alive, and then some. It isn't selective, it's just that one group wants to undermine it, while the rest live more or less in harmony. As usual.
I think the issue is anglophones don't understand this or appreciate it. Anglo secularism is government takes no position/is not religious and people are free to preach & practice their religion. French secularism is religion is like your genitiles, keep it to your self and don't show it off. Quebec got in trouble and called racist when they banned government employees from wearing religious symbols. People decried it as xenophobic against muslims, when a large amount of jews also had to hide their religoous symbols, and christian cops did too. English media will have a cow over it, and the French speakers will keep doing what they do best, being stubbornly French. God I love the Québécois and French.
>Quebec got in trouble and called racist when they banned government employees from wearing religious symbols. People decried it as xenophobic against muslims, when a large amount of jews also had to hide their religoous symbols, and christian cops did too. Except they had a cross in the legislature. Kinda destroys your whole argument they've always enforced secularism. *The crucifix was hung at the initiative of alderman Joseph-Émile Dubreuil, a member of Montreal city council from 1932-1954 and later a Liberal member of the Quebec Legislative Assembly. It was meant to remind councillors that they had sworn an oath before God, Lavigne Lalonde said.*
You’re not wrong but some context is needed. As someone from Québec, the crucifix had indeed a big religious significance back then, it’s the period we call the « great darkness » where the church and state where in bed together under the authoritarian regime of Maurice Duplessis. However because of the abuse of the state and church and general anger towards enforced traditionalism the state underwent a massive change during the « révolution tranquille ». Secularism was enforced in school, health and the workplace, abortion was legalized and society shifted towards more secular values. Nowadays we’re not a very religious bunch, it has some gotten a very bad reputation. For exemple since 1976 Quebec has banned the practice of prayer in the assembly whereas Canada still keeps it in 2024. It stayed in the Salon Bleu for a while as a reminder of that part of history. However it was promptly removed following the passing of the bill.
>For exemple since 1976 Quebec has banned the practice of prayer in the assembly whereas Canada still keeps it in 2024. Wait, what? You mean there are Canadian politicians practicing while they are in the room that all the voting, public debate and stuff happen? What the fuck lol
No it’s not as bad as that thankfully! It’s more of a daily opening religious ceremony before the government gets to business. However it still upsets a lot of people in Quebec, most of us feel that religion has no place in the government, even for a daily prayer. « At the beginning of each sitting, before the House considers any business, the Speaker takes the Chair and proceeds to read the prayer, after it has been determined that a quorum4 of 20 Members including the Chair Occupant is present.5 While the prayer is being read, the Speaker, the Members and the Table Officers all stand. The prayer is by custom read partly in French and partly in English. When the prayer is finished, the House pauses for a moment of silence for private thought and reflection. At the end of the moment of silence, the Speaker orders the doors to the galleries opened and calls the first item of business. » [Governmental source](https://www.ourcommons.ca/procedure/procedure-and-practice-3/ch_10_1-e.html)
Which they removed…
They earned their right to be smug a long time ago. It's how secular countries should work.
France don’t give a FUCK, They be like Borders, Language, Culture make this country… You in or out?
I think you did a great analysis of the situation, it is indeed a very Francophone thing. However there’s always nuances. In Quebec and in France it’s impossible to deny there’s still some issues about religious integration and intolerance, but on the flip side we are working on it and it seems to have gotten better. Anyway on t’aime aussi copain, amitiés de Montréal.
Keep in mind it wasn’t even all govt employees. Just employees in position of authority. So a cop can’t wear a cross, but a janitor can have his turban. And it only applied to new hires, no one was fired because they refused to drop the religious symbols. Except those that where hired knowing full well they didn’t have the right to their religious symbols, but insisted to bring them in anyway.
>French secularism is religion is like your genitiles, keep it to your self and don't show it off. Was that my Gentiles or my Genitals you are talking about?
incredibly based takes on secularism and i love it. but i’ll never give credit to the quebecass, french “people” are cool though
it's pretty selective people get away with wearing crosses all the time.
https://www.lemonde.fr/en/france/article/2023/09/05/france-s-century-long-crusade-against-religious-symbols-at-school-from-the-crucifix-to-the-abaya_6124828_7.html Some history seems called for.
Doesn't change the fact I've seen kids in French schools with crosses on their necks. It's far easier to be a Christian under French secularism than a musulim same reason why a lot of policies are considered racist without ever being directly racist just treating everyone the same ignoring that not everyone has the same opportunities.
It's impossible to meaningfully evaluate anonymous anecdotes.
In your opinion - what's easier to hide in public? A hijab or a necklace with a cross?
If it isn't visible then it isn't an issue.
You are gonna upset the Reddit hivemind with this (I completely agree with you)
Muslim in France have neckless with Fatma hand, so I really don't see what you're talking about. And hijab only got ban because salafiste decided to it make a symbole of their cause. No one cared one bit about hijab in France before the 2000's. If you're such a fan of hijab, get rid of salafist and the ban will be lifted, simple as.
It is only an issue if visible in France though if I remember it correctly.
They can hide any number of religious symbols in exactly the same way. You are mad Muslims don't get an exception for even more symbolism.
Griezman have the literal face of Jesus and Mary tattoed on an arm, Giroud has a Psalm on a forearm, I'e never heard about any controversy when they play for the national team.
I won't pay too much attention to his comment. Being french I don't really know if he is trolling or just making things up. Nothing in what he said is neither accurate nor make sens.
I think the difference is that certain muslim immigrants in europe dont intend to integrate into the secular world that greeted them with open arms, and seek to impose the same repressive culture (especially to women) that they were used to in their countries.
Kids can, teachers cant
Because the rule is about ostentatious religious symbols, not all religious symbols. For instance if your a jew you can absolutely wear a small star of david necklace but a kippa is out.
If you don't want to adopt the customs of the place you move to you are free to leave.
>Doesn't change the fact I've seen kids in French schools with crosses on their necks. And kids with the equivalents for islam. The law forbid ostentatious signs only.
It’s an old law from the revolution
France claims to be secular against all religions then why does France celebrate things like Christmas and All Saints’ Day as national holidays? Seems a little more selective then you are letting on
https://www.thelocal.fr/20221221/why-is-christmas-a-holiday-in-secular-france The whole internet is out there for people, and so few take advantage of it.
So based on the link you sent Christmas was made an exception because they did not want to upset particular group of people… hmm. Convenient also did not respond to second half of my comment where I asked about all Saints Day. Even in your link it says, “And it's not the only one, in fact roughly half of France's 11 public holidays (or 13 if you're in Alsace) represent Catholic events.”
> So based on the link you sent Christmas was made an exception because they did not want to upset particular group of people… hmm. That particular group being the entire population of France, that didn't want to lose vacation days? Yes, that's what the article says. I get the sense that you just read the first paragraph, which incidentally is where your quote comes from.
Okay so let’s take Christmas out the equation. The 10 other public Catholic holidays are okay and not in anyway selective when it comes to secularism?
They face the same restrictions as Christmas. > But even though Christmas is a public holiday in France, there are still rules of secularism that apply and like all laïcité rules, they apply to state buildings such as schools, town halls and government offices but not to private businesses like shops, public highways, private homes or churches. > > Within state buildings lights, "happy holidays" (Joyeuses Fêtes) banners, and Christmas trees are allowed - because they are not viewed as overt signs of religion - but nativity scenes and cribs are not permitted. > > For those with kids in French schools, you may have noticed that there are no Nativity plays at this time of year, for the same reason.
Got it so a Christian holiday is okay for the secular government to celebrate as long as they pretend there isn’t a clear connection to a particular religion. But wearing a piece of cloth on your head is an overt sign of religion? I do not believe in a God and am completely for secularism, but it needs to be actually practiced across the board which is not the case when a country claims “oh it’s okay because we didn’t say it’s about Christ”
Oh ffs. I'm tired of going back and forth with you illogical victims. Believe what you want.
You should read more about french laicité and the history of Islam in France before pulling stuff out of your ass, and jumping to the conclusion that "one group" wants to undermine secularism. Shit is way more subtle than that my dude
[удалено]
"As per the article" in the sense that the person complaining makes that claim and they quote it. Meanwhile the reality is pretty famous: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-16547479 https://www.rfi.fr/en/visiting-france/20130923-frances-sikhs-want-right-wear-turbans-schools You should learn about a topic before basing your grand conclusion on a rumor. This isn't about Islamophobia, it's about your own inability to distinguish fact from fiction.
the same people crying about the hijab ban in xinjiang are defending it when "the garden" does it lol
It's bad to ban hijabs but it was okay for Qatar to ban lgbtq ANYTHING and the World Cup?
Was it okay? It was widely criticized at the time. Beyond that, are you saying that France has similar human right standards to Qatar?
No, but it's not limited to Qatar. Muslims banned pride flags in a Muslim controlled city in the US. In Cannada, they are running muslim anti LGBTQ marches. Everywhere around the world, they are claiming LGBTQ people deserve the death penalty. Muslims have a HUGE homophobia problem yet expect everyone else to accept them.
> Muslims banned pride flags in a Muslim controlled city in the US. I don't like the ban and I think it's unconstitutional, but you're leaving out key context. The city council of Hamtramck, MI, banned pride flags *on city grounds*. The ordnance banned flags supporting ethnic, racist, religious, or political views, too. They also came under immediate fire for it, and former town officials filed a lawsuit over the ban. [The federal case](https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67980779/gordon-v-city-of-hamtramck/) has been in pretrial motions since November and has been ordered to mediation, to be completed by the end of July. That doesn't mean there won't be a trial. Edit: BTW, you don't mention that Huntington Beach, CA, voters banned non-governmental flags, including pride flags, a few years ago. Several cities across the country have done this, some in an effort to avoid controversy and some in an effort to back-door banning of flags they don't like. Hamtramck made a bad decision, but it is decidedly not unique in doing so.
> I don't like the ban and I think it's unconstitutional, but you're leaving out key context. The city council of Hamtramck, MI, banned pride flags on city grounds. The ordnance banned flags supporting ethnic, racist, religious, or political views, too. Even in context that is completely fucked. Adding context literally made it worse lmfao. > Edit: BTW, you don't mention that Huntington Beach, CA, voters banned non-governmental flags, including pride flags, a few years ago. Several cities across the country have done this, some in an effort to avoid controversy and some in an effort to back-door banning of flags they don't like. Hamtramck made a bad decision, but it is decidedly not unique in doing so. This is also a garbage decision. Being more upset about one doesn't negate either.
Didn't know Muslims control Florida. https://apnews.com/article/lgbtq-desantis-florida-goverment-cb504dfe7d344dfb0bc9a54cfc157b4b
So your point is that they hold views we see as morally wrong so we should stoop down to their level and do it back?
how about rainbow-hijabs then, hm?
what's "the garden" ?
["The rest of the world," he went on, "is not exactly a garden. Most of the rest of the world is a jungle, and the jungle could invade the garden."](https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2022/10/19/josep-borrell-apologises-for-controversial-garden-vs-jungle-metaphor-but-stands-his-ground)
Xinjiang banned the veil, not the hijab. Many (religious) Muslim women don't wear a veil but do wear a hijab. Veiling of the face is not required under Islam.
Hijab isn't required under Islam either. There are plenty of muslim women out there who practice the religion and don't wear it.
Big difference between "not required" and "required but some choose not to apply it". Just because some Muslim women do or do not wear hijab has nothing to do with the religious position. The majority opinion is that it is required for women, although there are some opposing opinions which make a good case so make of that what you will.
There are five pillars of Islam. Not one of them deals with personal items. The quran doesn't really mention hijab either (not as clothing, but in a different context as separation). If the core tenets of the religion say nothing about it, and there are millions upon millions of muslim women out there not wearing it, how is it "required" to be a good muslim? It used to be fashionable for high status women, but not workers, before the 20th C. In the 1970s, it saw a resurgence as a cultural fightback versus westernisation. It's not "required" to be a good muslim any more than carrying a rosary is "required" to be a good catholic.
There are things you have to do as a Muslim beyond just the five pillars, like rules on loan interest and personal conduct. However, when did I even say hijab, or anything else for that matter, is required to be a good Muslim? I am a Muslim myself and I have many peers and family members who don't wear it and I would never consider them lacking as people or Muslims in any way. I wouldn't be so presumptuous as to judge someone's relationship to God even if they do not fully follow the pillars (except the first one for obvious reasons). I could go on about the history of it and how it is fundamentally different from what carrying a rosary was (and there are rosaries carried around by some muslims to symbolize religious commitment too btw) and how rural and bedouin areas which were relatively oblivious to westernization and globalization had their women societally forced to wear hijab. I will say it again: regardless of my opinions or the history of it, though, most current day Islamic scholars claim it is mandatory for women to wear the headscarf. There is a minority of them that claims it is not, and they have some convincing arguments to their case. At the end of the day, every individual is allowed to follow what they feel is fine for them, but a consensus does exist.
Pretty sure in Afghanistan at least, women mandatorily need to wear a burqa. But you are right. Xinjiang banned burqa and niqab, and all face coverings for religious wear, but not the hijab. That being said, China also does restrict a lot of religious freedom in regards to Xinjiang specifically. All large religious gatherings must be applied for to the government in advance and all religious buildings must have "Chinese characteristics" (i.e. replacing 2/3rd of the mosques in China with Chinese characteristic mosques instead, or demolishing them). All content from Xinjiang is screened by the CCP, and you need a permit to go to some places in Xinjiang if you're a foreigner.
> Pretty sure in Afghanistan at least, women mandatorily need to wear a burqa. That ended in 2021 iirc.
They banned anything that is deemed extremist attire. It's vague and arbitrary on purpose to subjugate a population. Because of this no Uyghur dares to wear a hijab outside and it's not part of Turkic culture anyway. Laowai are fine though.
Would be very surprised that France has ever condemn hijab ban anywhere... France might have been among the first to do so... That being said not sure anglosphere consider France part of the "garden". France and anglosphere have quite opposite views and practice regarding religion and it's display.
Who is crying about the hijab ban in xinjiang?
Every western government in foreign bodies like the UN when they endorse reports that bring it up in their accusations China is commiting a genocide.
Got a link?
> the same people crying about the hijab ban in xinjiang The people in Xinjiang lived there before China took over
Xinjiang has also the colonialist aspect to it.
xinjiang was the home of the dzungars until the uyghurs ethnically cleansed them in the 1600s, do better
It doesn't matter what happened in 1600's, they are not collectively responsible and what is happening now is modern colonialism and cultural oppression by a modern state using modern technology. One cannot just claim Turkic people have no right to be anywhere and deserve no cultural rights because of history.
>settlerism is good, actually
Can't tolerate the intolerant, we saw where that leads.
At what point does intolerance of the intolerant just make you the intolerant one?
[удалено]
alright what do you tolerate then?
Lactose
Smh the most racist of all sugars
“South Asians Northern Europeans and certain Africans, you guys are the best get on in here have some pizza! The rest of you shit stains, theres celery and store bought hummus on the kiddie table.” - Lactose, soon as I show up
Nice try... you think you're smart but just showed that you have no clue what tolerance means and implies. The only difference between tolerance and intolerance is the leeway one has before facing sanctions. Tolerance doesn't mean allowing anyone to do what ever, when ever, without any repercution. The simple principle of tolerance is that it has a limit, which past the tolerance point you will be confronted to.
Well they started it
Right? Redditors use "can't tolerate the intolerant" as a blank check to become intolerant of everyone they disagree with.
I recommend reading the [Paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) about it, but you must be intolerant to the people who can destroy tolerant ideals.
The man who came up with the tolerance paradox has gone on record saying that you should not answer intolerant speech with violence. It’s when actual intolerant actions take place that one should start to become intolerant in response. If someone starts saying intolerant things, you’re simply supposed disagree and argue against it.
I have a Muslim office mate. He's overall an okay guys but has many very fundamental, conservative views. For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible. Basically just for goods and services. No polite greetings. Absolutely NO male friends except family obviously. Once they hosted a dinner at their place for a group of us, which is where I first met his wife. Obviously she wore hijab. I started looking around their home and checking out photographs of them visiting different places around the world. He's very well traveled. And in every single one of their photographs, she was wearing hijab. Then I realized that in only a few generations time, after her, her husband, her children and grandchildren have all died or forgotten, there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person. Her entire identity exists in a context of her religion. They would have you believe she has no personality or agency beyond that. It makes me question of she's even a real person. Can you really reconsidered a person if you aren't believed to be valid and valued like others? And that made me sad. Edit: sorry no caffine yet had to correct some phrasing
My ex manager is a conservative Muslim. I could tell from his marriage and stuff he says during team dinners that deep down he believes women should only be housewives and mothers. I’m talking about a man that doesn’t want his daughter to go to uni despite having good grades. As a female I did an internal transfer. New manager is a regular white man, he has a working wife who is also a manager. I like him a lot better
>"Then I realized that in only a few generations time... there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person." holy shit. this just hit me like a bag of bricks.
It's sobering, isn't it? We live in the most well documented period of human history. Everything down to rats taking pizza in the subways of New York is documented. People tweet their bowl movements. There are famous posts about poop knives. And in spite of this, the record of a Muslim woman's true identity will still be conspicuously missing.
It's nothing new. Women are conspicuously missing from nearly all of human history.
Yes, but we can do better. We *are* doing better. Islam (and some other groups) are still on the wrong side of history.
That's not really unusual for the average person. Unless you do something very important, you just fade into the unknown. And sure, we have thousands of pictures of ourselves now. But you're kidding yourself if you think your great-great grandkids will bother keeping them as anything other than a random hard drive in some storage box, if that.
does the average person have effectively no photos of themselves bc they're wearing a niqab.
Hijab shows the face, so there are photos of her. Unless she is considered incomplete without the hair.
the original commenter talked about niqab. corrected in comments.
That's a different comparison. The original statement was that "in only a few generations time... there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person." But also just a couple generations ago, hijab or not the average person didn't have any photos of themselves. Yes, it's pretty weird currently to not have a buncy if pictures of yourself. Or maybe not - my mom took literally tens of thousands pictures of my brother and me growing up, but I have only a dozen or so of her because she just didn't like having her picture taken. A few of them are hanging up around my house, but honestly I doubt my kids will put up any of her because she died before they were born. Now remove another generation or two and even the tens of thousands of pictures of my brother and me will be long forgotten.
so, no.
Do you mean hijab or burkah? The latter being the whole head+face covering and the former just covering the head.
>For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible. Here's a source. https://islamqa.info/en/answers/10680/rights-of-husband-and-rights-of-wife-in-islam#2-non-financial-rights
>And in every single one of their photographs, she was wearing hijab. >Then I realized that in only a few generations time, after her, her husband, her children and grandchildren have all died or forgotten, there will be no record of this woman existing purely as a person. you don't need to see her hair for her to exist as a person. this is how you're viewing her, not how her grandkids are going to.
> He's overall an okay guys but has many very fundamental, conservative views. For example, men should interact with his wife as little as humanly possible. Basically just for goods and services. No polite greetings. Absolutely NO male friends except family obviously. The part of his post you ignored to score a cheap point.
Does every comment really need to be a list addressing every point in the previous comment for can we just talk about what interests us within these giant text walls?
It's all down to intent and context. In this context, it seems like bad faith is the intent.
Nah man, if your gonna say they’re wrong they don’t get to ignore any points that directly address what they say, so it’s perfectly valid to call them on that.
Exactly. As a bald guy, I won't be remembered for my hair either. How's that a big deal?
…are you sure she was wearing a hijab and not a burkha? Because there’s an enormous difference between the two
I feel like the argument of leaving an identity for the future generations is not good for this instance because most people don't even know the live of their great grandparents. I don't even know much about my granddad. I read an article once on explaining on how everyone will just be forgotten in about 2-3 generations after you die, so just live for yourself they said. It is however still sad to live a life the way your friend's wife did. I was born and raised a muslim, grew up to be an atheist because apparently I put too much logic into the religion. The way I see it for conservative muslim, they really believe about afterlife, heaven and hell that kind lf things. So to suffer for a "short" time in the world is nothing compared to the afterlife. Imagine it like you work hard in your early years to have better life in your old years. Or if you eat the bad part of your dish to leave the best part for last. Maybe if can see it that way for them, you can be less sad 😬 everybody does everything for different reasons anyway.
It's gonna depend on your culture. Many Hispanic and Asian cultures, which are both halves of my family, respect their dead greatly. My mother's side has a single burial stone for her family members to be added to if they desire. Each time someone dies, their name can be added to the stone. There is space for like 8 more names. We visit there every year and plant flowers, go through photographs, and tell stories about them. I myself only personally know half the people on that headstone, but that's okay. It's nice to learn about my ancestors. I think believing that everyone forgets their great grandparents and such is a consequence of your culture. Many of us practice differently.
do you hear yourself? "it's fine if this woman's identity is completely forgotten in history, it happens to a lot of people!"
You got all this from a girl choosing to wear a head veil? Reddit libs are on a whole different level of stupid.
it is embarrassing how many people there are in the comments using the "choice" argument to defend a religious ***command*** to wear hijab.
People chose whether or not to follow specific parts of their religion all the time.
read my comment again. slowly this time. i believe in you.
It makes no sense. Religion is an optional thing you can subscribe to. Government rules/regulations are not optional.
Is it optional for children? Many are brought up in religion, through no choice of their own, then become adults. Most hijabis can't simply take off their hijabs, even if they want to, because of the familial and social consequences. I don't think it's a real choice.
Nope it's not. I know a girl with Muslim parents, who can't wait to become 18, so that she is a legal adult in our country. Then she can finally resist being forced to wear a hijab.
You mean that Muslim girl being beaten up in France for not adhering to the rules of Islam and acting like an western? Get a grip dude. Women in Iran are dying to get their rights not to wear it, yet you spew this nonsense. If a Muslim woman chose not to obey the rules in western countries, minimally she would be disowned, and with zero to no skills, because their women are housewives, she wouldn't be able to do shit. She would be disowned by her family and her husbands family. If she way lucky.
I'm confused. How is talking about my personal experience akin to spewing nonsense? Believe it or not, "Western countries" have different situations.
Because we are talking about majority, and I mean vast majority. Your one experience doesn't change the fact that women have no rights, and that are conditions to be like they are. Where they try to rebel, we have seen what happens. So your one friend who is lucky enough to say fuck you to her family, I'm happy for her, but she is an outlier.
Who's **we**??? Are you high? I was mentioning her to make the point that even in countries where religious freedom is highly valued and enforced by law, and where women have full rights, young girls still don't get the choice to not wear a hijab, as their parents ultimately force that(among other things) upon them anyhow. My point is not conflicting with what you are saying. Someone was rhetorically asking if religion is optional for children, and I said "No it's not", which it seems to me, like you agree with. What's your issue? And again, who the fuck is **we**? Do you often dictate what other people are allowed to talk about?
That applies to literally all religions and social control groups.
"all religions are authoritarian!!! so this is fine!!!"
True, to some extent, though some religions and social groups are less restrictive than others; to pretend they're all the same is not accurate.
No religion is a brainwash
I agree with your point but if you condesend to people they're not going to listen to you.
i don't give a fuck if they listen to me. if they're too stupid to see they're propping an authoritarian religion by using the choice argument, they're too far gone as is. what matters is that others don't fall for their idiocy.
Christianity had(broadly) and has(certain denominations) restrictions on what men and women could wear which because over time where most Christians lived became more secular those restrictions eased and went away nearly entirely. The clearest indication is the economic development of a country with the exception of the US which remains quite religious inspite of being a fully developed country.
It’s not a choice to wear a hijab, but it’s a choice to be Muslim, that’s the difference
Fundamental islam calls for the killing of apostates (people who were born muslim and chose to leave). Some choice.
Bruh someone was killed in my country some time ago for leaving islam
Is it? A lot of Muslims are brought up with these beliefs, and face a lot of familial and social pressure. Most hijabis fit this description, and taking off hijab would result in real consequences.
No, it’s not. People who are born into religious families don’t choose their religion. It’s the only reality that is presented to them. Some can escape it, but most are brainwashed or forced into believing it.
>choice to be Don't come to my country. Different nation have different law about it.
Why would you even wear extra clothing when doing sports?
Exactly, it literally restricts her potential. Her religious command to hide her hair is very literally oppressing her.
Immigrants screaming "be more inclusive" while not looking to adopt any culture of the place they are moving to.....
A certain kind of immigrants*
Correct, thank you. "Activists" would be that certain kind.
Defending women's rights IS inclusive.
Fance laws around being secular in public life are applied equally to man and women in the country. It's not a women's right issue in France. It IS a women's rights issue in many Muslim areas of the world where laws overwhelmingly marginalize women in many areas of their life, not just forced clothing in public.
Womens rights are now not the right to wear what I want?
Are we ignoring that many women are forced or coerced to wear that?
And how does banning them from sports help? Do you think the people forcing it on them just go "oh, well, I was going to make her wear the hijab, but then I realised she'd miss out on a basketball tournament! Guess I don't care any more." It's awful that any woman is forced to wear the hijab. But banning it simply makes women doing it voluntarily have to choose between sports and their religion/culture, and makes sure that those forced into it are further isolated.
They are not banned from sport. The hijab is. Here we're talking about athletes for the French national team, so if your religious beliefs are more important than the honor of representing your country in an international competition, then you're a terrible fit to be said representative of one of the countrirs that takes secularism seriously and earned the right to. The laws apply to everyone and we're not going to make exceptions for Muslims. If respecting the law leads one to give up on their passion or ambitions, it only proved the point that the hijab is a symbol of women submission and those values aren't welcomed in France. There are also plenty of social services to reach out if wanting to integrate themselves in a secular society ostracizes or even hurts Muslim women. Not saying living as a Muslim is easy but at some point, Britain with its inclusive multiculturalism is right there or any other Muslim majority country where all those concerns don't apply. 🤷
>And how does banning them from sports help? They're not ban from playing the sport... that women is litteraly a pro player. She is ban from representing her country France, because integrist salafism and advocating inforcing charia law, is not but really not at all even close to french values on the topic. That women is an activist who's political agenda is in total opposition with what France believes to be her values and therefore is not invited to represent France on international stage. You have muslim all over french sport national team, just not salafist one.
I am a muslim woman, I don't wear a hijab - the women I know who do wear one make that choice themselves.
In Vienna we have a problem with adolescent muslim men that patrol the city and attack known muslim girls that don't wear the hijab or rat her out to her family. So while I appreciate that the women you know have a choice, it needs to be acknowledged that this is not the reality for all women, even in the western world.
Isn't that victim blaming? Surely the men patroling about should be addressed first?
Absolutely, I agree with you on that. I just brought it up to solidify my point, being that a lot of women *don't* have said choice because the hijab is forced on them.
Sadly, in Austrian politics, easy choices without thinking about the consequences take priority over thinking of more efficient solutions (not a dunk on the other person in this thread)
What are the easy choices?
Banning certain clothes instead of doing smt against the patrolling men (in this case)
And who says that is right? Those "patrols" should be fined/charged. On the flip side should we have patrols to harass those wearing religious/cultural clothing?
I never said that was right, in fact I think it is awful. The reason I brought it up is because I wanted to highlight how many muslim women are made to wear the hijab whether they want to or not even in a city like Vienna. They don't have a choice, they are being oppressed.
bro who is saying that assault should be legal lmao
I wouldn't call it a real choice, especially if they are brought up Muslim, there are real familial and social consequences.
It is a religious symbol, like it or not. And religious symbols should not be allowed in secular places, like the one mentioned here.
I never understood this argument. How is restricting the freedom to express yourself however you like good? How are hijabs or necklaces with crosses invading secular places? Should we just ban every religious person from any public space, even if they're not imposing anything on anyone else?
Because it starts with something simple and harmless like that and then can escalate. These laws were created because of Christianity some time ago, Islam should not be an exception.
That makes no sense since French athletes are generally allowed to wear religious symbols, such as a Star of David necklace, a cross necklace, or a kippah
Those are all banned lmao, god damn dude at least google the shit you're talking about
That should be banned too, for public officials and in government funded instances. It is not “I should be able to do it since other people do it” but “those people shouldn’t be doing it to begin with”.
"No you don't understand! Women *want* to wear this symbol of patriarchical oppression! They *like* being oppressed!"
Apparently not. These delusional people believe the govt decides how much you get to cover up
Yes. Choice feminism is a cop out. Just because a woman makes a choice to do something does not make it a feminist choice.
Fance laws around being secular in public life are applied equally to man and women in the country. It's not a women's right issue in France. It IS a women's rights issue in many Muslim areas of the world where laws overwhelmingly marginalize women in many areas of their life, not just forced clothing in public.
Since when do players get to wear whatever they want? Go crusade elsewhere! It's not a uniform if it's not the same for everybody, is a hijab going to be standard for everybody then? Idea seems oppressive.
France has always been based with shit like this.
Their country their rules, the west actually represents the sin the Qur'an speaks of so why come?
This exactly. They go to Western countries, benefit from their economic welfare and freedom, and in turn, try to change the host country and use its democracy to further advance their agenda. All the while, committing the most horrible human rights abuses against their minorities in their own countries.
The "I need special treatment" groups are mad annoying. Nobody is excluding you, you are excluding yourself.
Oppression is not inclusion.
I mean I'm all for banning religious influences **in state matters**. Sports isn't exactly something I associate very much with the state. No hajibs, crosses or prayers or whatever in parliament buildings, trials, banks, post offices, etc. All fair game. It's either all the religion or none of the religion, and religion and state ought to be separate so I'd be fine with someone just flat out not allowing it. But in **sports**?!
The Olympics are made up of nation-state sports institutions coming together to compete. Citizens participating in the events are representing their nations sports programs not just themselves. In my opinion athletes become similar to diplomats while participating the the Olympics.
France has a very specific definition of secularism. Look up laïcité vs secularism. And this is a core part of french culture.
France is ahead of the rest of the world by banning cult representation in sports
Wait until you wear non Muslim apparel in Riyadh
So they’re banned because they’re viewed as mandatory, so technically against religious freedom. While also not allowing women who want to wear them to express their religious freedom. Got it. The French have rioted over far less.
Where are the feminists to defend women who want to wear hijab? Just because there are women who are forced to wear it, it doesn't mean it's the case for everyone. While I'm French, I do hope one of these hijabis who decided to represent another country instead of France due to this rule will win a gold medal. Many international institutions allow it but not my country. I hope it will change.
Many people here are commenting without knowing any context in France. The religious symbols are banned in the places likes schools, ok. Some say that sport is not a school, ok. But what you miss, the governement is struggling every single day with people not following the rule of laïcité. Giving the ok for sport would create an opening for many people, and not only Muslims, to claim, and impose their rules in the public space.
They can’t demand inclusivity when their cult isn’t inclusive 💀
How does banning a hijab making it easier for French muslim women to assimilate by participating in sports? Women participating in sports at all is a major step towards assimilation, they (the French) should be bending over backwards to try to encourage these women to participate, instead they single out these women in the name freedom. ANd btw, the hijab isnt a religious symbol to muslims. Its only a religious symbol to non-muslims(you wouldnt think this was such a difficult concept to grasp). To (most) muslim women, the hijab is a requirement of dress in public. And worst of all, and most frustratingly, it singles out women. Is there a beard ban in place yet? Thats actually more of a religious symbol than the hijab (I hope people are understanding the difference between a symbol and a requirement of appearance). How come that never happens? Oh thats right, it wuld be crazy to restrict people according to how much facial hair they have. Especially men. But clothing? For women? Not crazy at all. Riiiight.
Something something intolerance paradox, sound familiar leftists?
There's so many reasons this kind of thing sucks on so many levels. A lot of these women will feel discouraged from sports. A head covering can be considered just as much a cultural thing as it is religious. Why should someone not be able to cover their hair if they want to? There's nothing super restrictive about a head covering and it's not like it hides someone's identity like a veil. The ones made for sports look form fitting enough to not be a safety issue. It's just hair.