Sorry, Louise Casey, but Muslim women are held back by discrimination

[The Brain]

Fuck you! I will not have you badmouth history books. They rule.

[Jacob]

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

Whereas your type reminds me of European anti-Semites of the 1930s.

[CountDeMoney]

I don't think I've encountered quite this open a declaration of bigotry here on Languish before.

Oh, I think you have.

[Eddie Teach]

Shit, Siege posts the exact same thing every month.

[grumbler]

Shit, Siege posts the exact same thing every month.

But he's not serious about it.  It's his shtick.

[Razgovory]

but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

[dps]

but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

Bingo.  Criticism of the hijab is just a cover (yeah, bad pun intended) for attacks on Islam generally.

[Berkut]

but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

Bingo.  Criticism of the hijab is just a cover (yeah, bad pun intended) for attacks on Islam generally.

OK, while that is pretty much what he said, it isn't the only way to interpret his point.

He could be saying that Islam is bad, and worthy of being attacked, and the hijab represents an example of what it is that makes Islam worthy of attack to begin with - hence it would make reasonable sense to "bring the hijab" into it as a example of why Islam should be rejected.

So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

This is like saying I should not argue about whether or not Trump is a sexist, misogynist pig of a human being, because my issues with Trump would still exist if he was NOT a sexist pig. That is entirely true - if Trump lacked that particular flaw, I would still be incredibly against everything else he stands for - that doesn't invalidate my argument that he is in fact a sexist pig.

Note that I am not willing to jump on the "Islam is worth of unrelenting attack" train.

[Jacob]

So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

[Berkut]

So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

Who is the white supremacist in this analogy?

[viper37]

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Not at all equivalent, Mart.

totally equivalent.

[garbon]

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Not at all equivalent, Mart.

totally equivalent.

Nope. After all one isn't really limited from participating in society by the wearing of a hijab. Not speaking the language that is predominantly used in a country will be limiting.

I mean I guess you might have difficulty befriending bigots if you wear a hijab but doesn't sound like much of a loss.

[Jacob]

So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

Who is the white supremacist in this analogy?

Crazy Ivan.

[viper37]

I mean I guess you might have difficulty befriending bigots if you wear a hijab but doesn't sound like much of a loss.

you focus on the hijab too much.
The niqab (and other similar clothing) will effectively shut you off from society.  That is the goal of such clothing, to prevent the women from seeking the outside world.

[Valmy]

You don't see a lot of people in the US - except dedicated feminists - causing a ruckus about the deeply sexist notions of "a godly marriage" found within the evangelical community, f. ex. Those same feminists are not shy about critiquing the parallel Muslim practices (and those of other groups) where they exists. Within society at large, that sort of arrangement is acceptable as long as there's no coercion involved, whether amongst Christians, Muslims, Jews or others.

You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.