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

[Berkut]

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.

Indeed.

I think there are plenty of people who have problems with how Christians have historically treated women. In large part, there has been a lot of success in changing those views among most non-radical Christians.

Bill Maher is a good example of what Valmy is talking about. He is vehemently anti-religion in general, and always has been. His being "anti-Muslim" has been completely consistent with his general anti-religion stance. His opposition to particular Islam in particular is

A) Largely simply an expression of his views on religion in general, and
B) To the extent that his MORE anti-Muslim in some cases, it is because he specifically calls out Islam as being in those cases a larger problem than other religions.

But some of the very people who would cheer him on when he is slamming Christianity, will turn right against him when he makes the same critiques of Islam, but I can't really see the differentiation.

[Jacob]

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.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

[Jacob]

Indeed.

I think there are plenty of people who have problems with how Christians have historically treated women. In large part, there has been a lot of success in changing those views among most non-radical Christians.

Bill Maher is a good example of what Valmy is talking about. He is vehemently anti-religion in general, and always has been. His being "anti-Muslim" has been completely consistent with his general anti-religion stance. His opposition to particular Islam in particular is

A) Largely simply an expression of his views on religion in general, and
B) To the extent that his MORE anti-Muslim in some cases, it is because he specifically calls out Islam as being in those cases a larger problem than other religions.

But some of the very people who would cheer him on when he is slamming Christianity, will turn right against him when he makes the same critiques of Islam, but I can't really see the differentiation.

As you describe it, neither can I so we don't have much disagreement there

My concern are the people who are specifically anti-Muslim and grab any argument that can be repurposed to attack Muslims for the sake of attacking Muslims. If you are anti-religious, anti-patriarchy, or whatever then I think it's legit to critique Islam in those contexts - absolutely fair play. My issue are those who use those arguments without caring about religions or patriarchy in general.

[Berkut]

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.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

[Valmy]

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.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

Both of those things can be true. I think rabidly anti-Muslim people are going to grab whatever they hear being said that is anti-Islam or is critical of Islam in some way.

I remember seeing one left wing person lament, concerning Richard Dawkins, that he once had such beautiful things to say but he has become a bigot in response to some anti-Islam thing he said. As if he has actually changed his views much.

[Valmy]

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

Yep.

Mormons are a pretty popular target for everybody though. Good thing they are just so goddamn nice.

[merithyn]

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women. In fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

[Berkut]

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women. In fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

Well, I don't think you can separate out the hijab/burqa thing from the rest of it.

People don't get worked up over the Amish culture requiring women to dress in a certain manner for example. I think that is largely because we understand Amish culture in general, and in the aggregate we know that the totality of how the Amish view women as being nominally within the bounds of acceptable western culture, at least as a quaint outlier.

Personally, I actually think that how the Amish treat women is pretty terrible myself, but again, it isn't something that I look at and just say "That cannot be tolerated in a liberal society".

If the problems the West have with Islam were limited to a head scarf, I don't think there would be any issue over it - anymore than there is an issue over Sikh head coverings or Jews wearing skull caps. It would just be some quaint curiosity. But in fact there IS more behind it, there is honor killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

[The Brain]

If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

[garbon]

If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

It would also likely be viewed as ridiculous to suddenly show concern for how women are treated in society / attack them for their head coverings.

[Jacob]

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I'm not sure what you mean by scale and impact - is wearing hijab really a big problem? I mean, yes, holding that women's hair is potentially sexually alluring and personal, and that the decent thing to do is to cover it up in public is clearly rooted in patriarchal culture. In terms of scale and impact, however, it is nowhere near as widespread as the standard Western position - equally rooted in patriarchal culture - that women's breasts are potentially sexually alluring and personal, and the decent thing is to cover them up in public.

As for the Mormons, when some creep marries some 15-year old girl(s) we rightly go after them - but you don't see anyone arguing that some component of "decent" Mormon attire for women should be banned, and that is the relevant analogy to hijab not coerced underage marriage or bigamy. "Decent" Mormon women - at least in public - wear skirts to the mid-ankles or below (here's a picture) - but somehow those dresses and skirts are not decried as a big symbol of gender oppression that should be banned because they are incompatible with our Western values.

By all means, when Muslims engage in actual practices that interfere with the liberties and rights of others decry it and act to stop those practices in our society. But women covering their hair in public does not interfere with the liberties and rights of others, and turning that practice into a symbol of alleged cultural incompatibility does little except provide ammunition to bigots.

[Jacob]

Well, I don't think you can separate out the hijab/burqa thing from the rest of it.

People don't get worked up over the Amish culture requiring women to dress in a certain manner for example. I think that is largely because we understand Amish culture in general, and in the aggregate we know that the totality of how the Amish view women as being nominally within the bounds of acceptable western culture, at least as a quaint outlier.

Personally, I actually think that how the Amish treat women is pretty terrible myself, but again, it isn't something that I look at and just say "That cannot be tolerated in a liberal society".

If the problems the West have with Islam were limited to a head scarf, I don't think there would be any issue over it - anymore than there is an issue over Sikh head coverings or Jews wearing skull caps. It would just be some quaint curiosity. But in fact there IS more behind it, there is honor killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

I think if the problems are things like honour killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunies etc etc, then those are the things that should be addressed; especially when you have Muslim women who are not subject to those and who nonetheless chose to wear hijab.

If there are social problems in certain groups, there are many many better ways of addressing those problems than to express concern about the clothes the members of those groups wear.

[Valmy]

I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women.

I don't get it. I have heard shitloads of people get on conservative Christianity. That is why non-conservative Christianity exists. Do you think we reject them and their ideas for no reason at all?

Weird. I am not even sure what to say.

[Valmy]

If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

It would also likely be viewed as ridiculous to suddenly show concern for how women are treated in society / attack them for their head coverings.

Pretty sure people do show concern for this kind of thing.

I am so confused right now.

[merithyn]

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women.

Really? You have never heard anybody ever attack evangelical Christianity for being sexist? Ever? I am talking about the people who DO and DID do this.

Please to read again. I said that I've never heard of anyone challenging THE WOMEN. People aren't attacking the Muslim men walking beside them. No, they're attacking women wearing hijabs. Usually when they're walking alone. Do you ever see that with evangelical women and their little doilies? (That feels so disrespectful, but I don't know what else to call them.)

In fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

The assumption by whom? I would assume anybody in the US would be practicing their religion by choice. Last I checked that does not spare something from critique. After all critiquing the ideas of Islam versus critiquing some particular aspect of it, like say laws in some gulf state, are connected but not necessarily the same thing.

But that's my point. It's rare that people treat Muslim women as if it's their choice. There's a distinct difference. I almost never hear, "That poor woman, having to never cut her hair and wear a doily..." but I have heard something similar about Muslim women and the hijab.

There is no question that the assumption in the US is that evangelical women are that way by choice, while Muslim women are coerced into their religion.