• Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    there are enough religious states out there that let you opres women to your hearts desire.

    Oppressing, like this very ban? Prohibiting a woman to wear what you don’t like is exactly as oppressing as forcing her to wear something. Hiding behind secularism doesn’t make it okay, it’s still anti-feminist, and paternalistic.

    My point is about the lack of respect for body autonomy, which is binary: either there is or there isn’t. Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.

    • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      How do you get by without the ability to read? It is equally forbidden for other religion and men (example Kipa) to wear religious symbols in school) - same rules for everyone.

      Either you own your own body or the state does, which compiles the list of what you can and cannot do with it.

      Wait till you hear of the tyranny of school uniforms. Basically Afghanistan. When you grow up, I’m sure you will learn to not to think in absolutes and also to read. Save my post and read it whet the time comes.

      • Rozaŭtuno@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        How do you get by without the ability to read?

        That should be my line. I’ve already said twice that I’m arguing this under the lens of feminism and twice already you’ve conveniently ignored it to hide behind the excuse of laicism. And if that wasn’t enough now you’ve resorted to infantilizing who disagrees with you.

        Forcing someone to do something because of religion is wrong and oppressive, but that doesn’t mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn’t any less oppressive.

        I’m questioning whether the law is just and is applied justly, you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally. That’s an example of negative peace.

        Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests, so I’m done. Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism. Peace ✌

        • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          under the lens of feminism

          And again, just for my amusement since - you can’t read, same rules apply to men, women and different religion.

          to infantilizing who disagrees with you.

          Nah, mate - you have done it to yourself, but just not engaging with what I write and making weird absolutist statement. Obviously I don’t know if you are a teen, but I sure hope so.

          but that doesn’t mean that forcing someone NOT to do something in the name of laicism isn’t any less oppressive.

          So how do you make sure that girls that don’t want to wear religious closing are not forced to to so? Sometimes you have to chose, whose rights to oppress - and sorry I will be always on the side of moderates and not fundamentalist. Since as mentioned before - there is no point in appeasement of fundamentalist.

          you are running on the assumption that the law must be just because it oppresses everyone equally.

          No, I was more like: you don’t like secular countries - move to a religious one. Because we have a lot of the second and only a few of the first. But again - you can’t read so you will never know.

          Anyway, I hate internet screaming contests,

          Sure buddy.

          Enjoy your neoliberal state slipping into authoritarianism.

          Sure, gay Europe is in it’s downfall and will end surly soon, just after capitalism collapses. I know that argument from somewhere - and not from feminists.

          • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            The fact that it also applies to men is not an argument in your discussion.

            It’s sad that freedom has to be given up for those few who are oppressed.

            All these laws do is divide people. They’re racist laws wrapped in a thin layer of good intentions and nationalism.

            • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Nah, mate - religious rules that only apply to one sex don’t belong in the modern world. You can try to spin it all you want - but it’s conservative Islam that tells women what to wear.

              • Hawk@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                And now it’s the government telling women what to wear, which is even worse as it takes everyone’s freedom, not only those who are oppressed.

                • gapbetweenus@feddit.de
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Wait till you hear about school-uniforms, basically gulag.

                  By the way you can still wear what ever you want - just not in school, which is like it has always been. And if your religion tells you to wear modest cloths, you are still free to do so. It only targets fundamentalist who have to wear a specific outfit. Which by the way is not specified in Quran - there is a lot of room for interpretations.