Git wrote:nippletwister wrote:Git wrote:nippletwister wrote:There are differences of both quality and quantity between a head covering and a leg iron, although they are both oppressive in some sense. There are certainly cultural attitudes and women's own desires to be taken into account. Nobody has ever defended their own leg iron from criticism, or asked for the government to allow them to wear it when they didn't have to, much less held a "Slave's Leg Iron Pride Rally".
Actually, it did happen quite a lot post Civil-War, see for example Fredrick Douglas's autobiography which contains a somewhat-apologetica for them (
http://blindedbycolor.com/2012/05/09/on ... y-slavery/) (or for a fictional example, see the
Damane from the Wheel of Time books).
Voluntary slavery is still slavery. Just because these women have internalised the misogyny behind the veil doesn't mean that they aren't subjugated. What has happened is that these women are
brainwashed.
And those examples have shit-all to do with slaves, in masse, celebrating slavery and leg irons as a way of life, which is what your dishonest comparison would require. The first example, black owned slaves, were often bought by family and eventually turned free, sort of a halfway-house concept. The second group is that tiny percentage of escapees that just couldn't make it living in fear and uncertainty and returned to their sadly safer existence as slave workers instead.
They *still* wanted to wear leg-irons (physically or indeed metaphorically). They *still* wanted to be *owned*. They *still* wanted to be considered *property*.
nippletwister wrote:
Sad and all, but fuck-all to do with your comparison to large numbers of women embracing and even celebrating a slightly oppressive cultural norm. You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-head-covering women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?
"You also miss the fact that a lot of pro-FGM women claim that they want to preserve their culture while they live in places that don't want to accept their culture...some of them do it out of rebellion against western cultural norms. I wonder if they think of themselves as feminists?"
See what I did there?
There is no defense for the veil, just as there is no defense for FGM. You're just engaged in standard cultural relativism.
nippletwister wrote:
It's like every time you give an example of something to support your exaggerated bullshit claims, it turns out to be a really bad comparison that you have over-interpreted. You ignore facts and differences to benefit your exaggerated claims. You probably wouldn't have to do this obvious truth-stretching, if you actually thought about what you were saying(instead of just "feeling" about it) and quit talking out your ass so much, don't you think?
Unlike you, I don't make excuses for an incredibly misogynistic and barbaric concept as veiling. I tend to find that women being taught that they are inferior to men and that they must cover up to avoid "provoking" men
is a bad thing. There is some shit that is
objectively bad and should never be defended.
In fact, there is, at the base level, no difference between you defending the veil and Greg Laden defending men crossing over the road to avoid "scaring" women walking past them.
And now, just like our last go 'round that shall not be named, you slip into assuming that I'm supporting the veil, and supporting the oppression of women, even though I have straight-up said I consider the veil oppressive. Maybe it's not a slip on your part...maybe you're trying to poison the well intentionally, and tar me with an ugly position I never took up. I don't know. I do know that you do not handle disagreement or nuance very well, as your bullshit claims and absolutist views have already shown. What I disagree with are your dishonest comparisons, your exaggerations, and your belittling of those you seek to help.
I make no excuses for veiling, nor do I engage in cultural relativism, i.e., claiming that there are no moral differences, only aesthetic differences, between different cultural practices. But I do take into account the values, feelings, and opinions of the people I'm trying to "liberate". That does not mean I agree with those feelings or opinions, simply that I do not want to apply malicious motives or bad characterizations to those I disagree with.
My only claim has been a refutation of your claim. The veil is not at all comparable with leg irons, and many of the very people forced to wear it would probably agree with me on that much(evidenced by the very celebration that started this all). That agreement can't be boiled down to purely brainwashing and internalized oppression, but is instead also informed by the stark and obvious differences that anyone not blinded by absolutist thinking can see. There are differences in purpose, in effect, in the perception of those wearing it, and most importantly to me, of their value to society and as people. Leg irons weren't intended to "protect" slaves. As bad as the veil may be, it is rooted in the belief that women need protection and privacy and safe-keeping, not to make them slaves, though there are still effects that can seem slave-like when compared to women in the west. You seem to think you know better, but all your "evidence" is quite lacking, made up of only bald assertions and bad comparisons. Meanwhile, the celebration of the veil by women goes on, quite ignoring your quaint and patriarchal superiority.
Also, you claim that returning slaves "wanted" to be owned, that they "wanted" the leg irons, trying again to compare the open celebration of the veil to fearful returning slaves. I see you are a time-travelling mind-reader. The examples you provided made it clear that the returning slaves did so because they thought it was their best option in a scary world. Of course, they couldn't have a will of their own, or the capacity to reason at all and make a shitty choice for lack of options....no, it must be the colonization of the mind, and exactly the same as these poor women. You know best, apparently!
All that said, I think the veil is stupid and helps promote the artificial separation of the sexes, ignorant attitudes towards sex and women, and also helps keep women socially silenced. But these are all part and parcel of the wider culture. The veil is a symptom, a symbol, and can end up being a valid part of a woman's sense of self or belonging to that society. Attacking the veil against the will of the women affected accomplishes nothing, and may even be a factor against your efforts. Treat the disease, with clear legal policies, and the symptoms will eventually go out of style. Treat the symptoms,(and do so smugly and with contempt, "freeing" women by controlling them), and you may even cause a flare-up of the attitudes and beliefs that are the disease.
I believe your opinion of the veil is the more moral one, that getting rid of it should be the goal....but it must be done by argument and example and having options, not by outrageous comparisons that offend even the victims, or by introducing force. By making them do what you want, you are still an oppressor, and a foreign one at that. That's not cultural relativism, it's treating people as human beings with rights and feelings and minds of their own. You should give it a shot sometime.
