I have seen this cartoon so many times posted as if it demonstrates some sort of wisdom in its false equivalence and it frankly pisses me off so god damned much.
This is a consequence of failing to wear the niqab in this "male dominated society".
Welcome to Canada - where you have freedom, except to dress as you choose! Forcing a woman to remove her niqab for a short ceremony is not going to do anything to end oppression of women. All the time and money that is being spent on this ridiculous court battle should be directed into an activity that actually helps oppressed women.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Amethyst For This Useful Post:
^Or the consequence of trying to read a book somewhere in Pakistan, or... a dozen other possible things, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by corporatejay
Sorry, is that canada?
No, this would be the male dominated society referenced in your cartoon where women are compelled to wear this garb.
This would be why, while I agree this is a big waste of time because going after a small symbol of female oppression is focusing on trivialities, it remains a symbol of female oppression to such a horrifying degree that comparing it to a bikini suggests one has completely lost the plot.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
Last edited by CorsiHockeyLeague; 10-02-2015 at 08:15 AM.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
No. That is the consequence of being under ISIS's control.
At its root, it is a consequence of being part of a culture where women are viewed as property instead of people.
ISIS is one of the more dramatically evil incarnations of it, but there's been no shortage of so-called "honour killings" by men in this country who were angry that their property failed to behave as expected.
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Resolute 14 For This Useful Post:
The bottom line for me is that it should always be a choice. It shouldn't be something men make them do, nor should it be something that the government tells them they can't do. There are families in Canada where some women dress in western clothing and others choose to where niqabs because the like presenting themselves with modesty.
I think we need to stop pretending that we know what everyone's individual intentions are for wearing it.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
^Or the consequence of trying to read a book somewhere in Pakistan, or... a dozen other possible things, really.
No, this would be the male dominated society referenced in your cartoon where women are compelled to wear this garb.
This would be why, while I agree this is a big waste of time because going after a small symbol of female oppression is focusing on trivialities, it remains a symbol of female oppression to such a horrifying degree that comparing it to a bikini suggests one has completely lost the plot.
Actually my cartoon says "culture", not society (which you've now mentioned twice) which are different.
You're assuming in that cartoon the woman in the niqab is not in Canada.
At its root, it is a consequence of being part of a culture where women are viewed as property instead of people.
ISIS is one of the more dramatically evil incarnations of it, but there's been no shortage of so-called "honour killings" by men in this country who were angry that their property failed to behave as expected.
I think "no shortage" is a bit of an overstsatement. There's an average of about 1 a year in the entire country. Domestic abuse is an issue in a lot of cultures where men feel like they've lost control of their property.
Actually my cartoon says "culture", not society (which you've now mentioned twice) which are different.
You're assuming in that cartoon the woman in the niqab is not in Canada.
My point, which you have consistently missed, is that it's not particularly relevant where you assume she "is". She is nowhere. It is a political cartoon. The cartoon is using two extremes as symbols of different incarnations of sexism - one wherein women are primarily valued their superficial appearance and sex appeal, and another wherein they viewed as chattels. The equivalence created by the cartoon is obvious, in the sense that they're saying the same things about each other. But these two problems are not equivalent. Not even close.
I can't believe we're actually arguing about this, but hey, internet.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
The sexual liberation did present an entirely new set of consequences and problems for women in the West. Thankfully, all of them pale in comparison to the issues represented in the photo posted by CHL. The fact that some women can be mutilated, shamed, killed, and then have the actions against them condoned by society at large is a level of barbarism far, far beyond the excesses of the beauty industry, or plastic surgery, or whatever.
The Following User Says Thank You to peter12 For This Useful Post:
We've discussed a woman's right to wear a niqab (or whatever the hell she likes) before. This is an election, and there are many bigger, non dead cat issues.
For better or worse, their stance over the niqab may have cost the NDP the federal election, after their support in Quebec plummeted over the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manhattanboy
I have no problem with the mayor expressing his views and I agree with him on this issue.
What bothers me is his constant holier than thou attitude using words like "disgusting", and always dismissing those who disagree with him as small minded and ignorant. He gets front page play because, yes, he's the mayor, and in no small part because of his background. If he wants to be constructive, he should engage in a mature discussion.
I know people who work with him who are quite tired of his childish pouting whenever he does not get his way.
People I know in the local media who have covered politics for 20 years say Nenshi has the biggest ego and craving for the limelight of any politician they've ever come across. And no, they're not partisan conservatives.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
My position is politics should never, ever pander to religion. If the law states you have to show your face for a ceremony, you should show your face for the ceremony. Religion of any kind, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam should not be given preference over any law, ever. The wearing of a Niqab, is entirely based on religious ideology, a very oppressive and violent one, and like it or not, the raging jealousy of the husbands of these women.
I would think these women would feel liberated to be able to actually be treating as equal individuals, unfortunately they have been brain washed into thinking that hiding their appearance in a very unnatural way, is morally correct. It is not.
I am shocked that Nenshi would take this stance on the issue personally. He seems like a very enlightened, very pro-womens lib man. However, IMO the wearing of a Niqab is as oppressive to women as not allowing them to vote. Just because these women believe it is right, doesn't make it so.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to pylon For This Useful Post:
I don't show up to court not wearing a shirt, even though it's completely legal to not wear a shirt. Not sure why a niqab is any different with regards to a respectful dress code.
Also Nenshi has great policy and I believe in his vision and message, but MAN the way he talks is really grating.
My position is politics should never, ever pander to religion. If the law states you have to show your face for a ceremony, you should show your face for the ceremony. Religion of any kind, be it Judaism, Christianity or Islam should not be given preference over any law, ever. The wearing of a Niqab, is entirely based on religious ideology, a very oppressive and violent one, and like it or not, the raging jealousy of the husbands of these women.
I would think these women would feel liberated to be able to actually be treating as equal individuals, unfortunately they have been brain washed into thinking that hiding their appearance in a very unnatural way, is morally correct. It is not.
I am shocked that Nenshi would take this stance on the issue personally. He seems like a very enlightened, very pro-womens lib man. However, IMO the wearing of a Niqab is as oppressive to women as not allowing them to vote. Just because these women believe it is right, doesn't make it so.
The law doesn't state that you have to show your face for the citizenship ceremony. You do have to show your face to an immigration official in private prior to the ceremony to confirm your identity, but the law has always allowed facial coverings for religious purposes during the public ceremony. Harper and Kenney tried to change that rule, but they were defeated by the courts twice. They now want to appeal to the Supreme Court, wasting taxpayer money on a costly case they will almost certainly lose for a third time.
Last edited by MarchHare; 10-02-2015 at 11:42 AM.
The Following User Says Thank You to MarchHare For This Useful Post:
Everyone in Toronto is insanely jealous of Calgary because of Nenshi. He is the perfect example of what a community leader should be.
Well they should be jealous given the mayors they have been saddled with recently. It's like saying Oilers fans are insanely jealous of Calgary because of the Flames blueline corps. Eh...maybe I'm giving Oilers fans too much credit here as many probably do think their defense group measures up well against the Flames.
However, IMO the wearing of a Niqab is as oppressive to women as not allowing them to vote. Just because these women believe it is right, doesn't make it so.
"You are not allowed to wear that."
"You are not allowed to vote."
Both are telling women they are not allowed to do something.
The act of wearing a certain piece of clothing is not oppressive. Being forced to wear it or not wear it against one's own choice is oppressive. Instead of spending our efforts to forbid it at one ceremony (yet allow it everywhere else) let's focus on things that actually DO help prevent oppression - education, English (or French) skills, childcare, driver's license. Or maybe ending oppression isn't really the government's goal?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Amethyst For This Useful Post:
Both are telling women they are not allowed to do something.
The act of wearing a certain piece of clothing is not oppressive. Being forced to wear it or not wear it against one's own choice is oppressive. Instead of spending our efforts to forbid it at one ceremony (yet allow it everywhere else) let's focus on things that actually DO help prevent oppression - education, English (or French) skills, childcare, driver's license. Or maybe ending oppression isn't really the government's goal?
I agree with this. Taking away the choice from all women is still dictating what they are allowed to do and is oppressive. If a man is caught forcing a woman to wear one, I would welcome stepping in, but we can't assume what all women are thinking when they wear it. Some are quite adamant that it is their choice.
If Harper really cared about gender equality, he would look at why many employers still pay women 80 cents for every dollar a man earns. The economic inequality IMO is one of the main factors that make women vulnerable to abuse.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
So of all election issues Whineshi decides to chime in on this one? And who's politicking again?
The guy is becoming insufferable. His 15 year old teenage girl hissy-fits are getting old. He was good for a time but stick a fork in him, he done! I hope he decides to move on soon as he's starting to self implode.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Clarkey For This Useful Post:
