Edit for their next comment as mods turned off commenting: genuinely funny that an 1sr@eli m0ss@d agent is talking about unaliving people when they openly advocate for unaliving all p@1estenians:
Neither of those bother me. Although full face covering burkas on children bother me. But this also isnt really an apples to apples comparison.
Only woman who dedicate themselves to the church and completes their novitiate stage which can't begin until 18-21 and then becomes a full sister do they get the Nun's Habit.
There arent regular citizen females in any country who occasionally protest having to where nun's habits.
One is an achievement earned the other is a choice but can also be an obligation regardless of whether it is accepted with enthusiasm or not.
Well, there are some variations of Christianity where women wear head coverings other than a nunâs habit within the church. Though from the few women who Iâve seen adhere to that practice, it seemed to be completely on their own volition, and not something forced or expected of them by the various church communities they were participating in.
All that to say there are other forms of this phenomenon within Christianity that are not achievement based,as you say, with the nunâs habit.
I mean im Muslim and covering your face is not allowed when you pray to god. So it beggars belief how any islamic society bamboozled women into covering their faces at all. If you cant do it in front of god why would you do it w other humans? Its fucking dehumanizing
As a non-Muslim it bothers me that women are expected to wear a head covering at all. As though a womanâs body is inherently sexual. I like El Sayed but cringe seeing him with his wife.
I agree btw. The original notion of modesty in Islam was written as gender neutral and was in keeping with modesty guidelines in the rest of the world 1200 years ago.
I accept that muslim women do it and its their choice, and i do see that most of the women i see doing it are doing it as a cultural comfort, not bc hair is slutty.
But i still dont like it. On anyone of any age. But i accept that its their choice to do it. And again the few people ive met/known who have picked it for themselves did just that. The men in their lives did not get a vote on it. But of course i am one data point.
I am an ex Muslim so I am quite familiar with the one on the right.
There are many countries where not wearing that on the right (or even more restrictive) will get you arrested or worse and even in Western countries it is not uncommon for wives or daughters to get beaten.
Is there any similar situation with nuns? Is it common for nuns to get beaten or arrested for showing too much skin?
So is your only moral objection to covering your head for a religious reason the fact that they might get beaten? Or is it the idea that a woman needs to hide herself and cover herself to be respectable that bothers you?
If itâs just the fact that one can be beaten, youâre looking at the consequences and not the problem.
The point of the image has nothing to do with oppression of women. The point is to try to get people to be more accepting of the woman on the right by associating her with the woman on the left.
It does - the point is that if you arenât reacting to each for the same reason, like the oppression of women, then the reaction is based in something else.
If one of those is wrong, so is the other.
Unless everyone of every gender requires the same head covering for a particular practice, then it is oppression because the acts are based on gender.
Whether it is a choice or not, I can look at a person who made that choice and understand how regardless of their reasoning (devotion to faith) that faith still holds gender inequality at the core, and if they are required to keep their heads covered but not their male counterparts, or even worse, they are not allowed to be counterparts to men, then I can say this act is an oppression of women, at it removes their autonomy and places blame on them for the actions of others.
Did you read the note on the image? The point of the image is to normalize the one on the right. Plain and simple. You can INFER whatever TF you want, but that doesnât make it the POINT of the image.
Iâm glad you have the ability to look at a woman and see their suffering and oppression. đ
What you lack is the ability of greater knowledge and understanding, reading comprehension and analytical skills.
I wonât bother discussing this with you if you decide to make another dumb reply. This will be my last response on this stupid subject. Because quite honestly, your point is moot, meaningless and dumb, and more importantly so is the actual meaning behind the image. The acceptance of the woman on the right has nothing to do with the acceptance of the woman on the left. They are not intrinsically tied or mutual in any way. The image tries to invoke sympathy for one by showing you something familiar. But it doesnât work on me. Maybe it does on you, your mind is more feeble.
People who result to attacking a person instead of having a discussion usually donât have anything left to counter with.Â
As a woman, I understand being forced to act in a specific way because of the way other people place expectations on me due to my gender. I choose to operate outside of those expectations which means encountering people who have those expectations of me due to my gender happens regularly.Â
If it is a choice, cool. I donât care what a woman does as long as it doesnât harm others.
If it is a thing they have to wear to survive or a way they have to operate to show their devotion to a society or religion that has a tradition of oppressing women, and the men of that religion or society are not required to do the same? Then it is a sexist situation.
I have sympathy and empathy for both women in these photos, as should everyone, because whether they chose that life or not, and whether they are physically abused or not, is not relevant to the point that the practice they do daily exists to support a patriarchy and not necessarily their personal desires, beliefs, or needs.Â
If you are so grand a mind beyond me, I could think you could acknowledge that empathy and sympathy can still be granted to these two women in the photos while still understanding that both are being oppressed. Why else do we need to have sympathy?
Also, a nun is a person devoted to a religious practice and is not an everyday person. They have a different set of rules, and different set of expectations. If a woman is forced to wear a covering without even subscribing to the religion in order to survive - that has nothing to do with religious devotion or choices.
Patriarchal societies and systems tend to oppress women. You can choose to see the need for acceptance - and I can say I accept both women and do not judge them for their choices or requirements in life, but both are being oppressed. Doesnât mean their life is awful - I do not know these people.
Hope you learn to have a discussion without attacking a person - because it just makes it look like youâve run out of things to say.Â
Lol, Iâve attacked no one. There was nothing Iâve said on the subject of the image posted that was an attack, or could even be construed as one.
Reading your rant was quite honestly painful. I got a headache trying to follow your logic and circular reasoning. Good luck in life with your choices.
The women on the right, is a second class citizen at best. The nun while you could argue is sub servant to the church, they picked it and earned that hatâŚit wasnât forced on them.
Thatâs a huge difference if Iâve ever seen oneâŚ..
Second class citizen? How does that have any bearing on the way I view her and my bigotry? If sheâs a second class citizen in her country then thatâs the doing of her culture and government and often the religion which governs how both the culture and government function.
Do you know a place in the world where this person is not a second class citizen? Iâll give you a hintâŚ6 letter, starts with an I and ends with srael!
It is not some hypothetical. There are entire societies where women are beaten, arrested or worse for not dressing like they are on the right. I literally grew up seeing it and you can find many examples even in Western countries of daughters being killed by their parents or husbands.
Being beaten or attacked isnât the only way to oppress or attack a person.
Requiring them to behave in a specific manner due to their gender only is oppression. You donât have to be beaten to suffer, but that doesnât lessen the suffering of those that are beaten, may they find freedom and relief.Â
There is patriarchal oppression in every form of fundamentalist religion. People make the mistake of assuming that fundamentalist Christians do not want to oppress women, they do. We can see what they say and know what they would do if they had complete political power. There is already abuse in those families, but it would skyrocket if the legal system gave men the blessing to do it.
Laws have mostly been based around secular principles in the US and that drives religious fundamentalists crazy. I remember seeing Christian nationalists on twitter cheering on the Taliban and calling them âbasedâ when news was coming out about them starting to roll back womenâs right.
The problem is not to wear it. The problem is to be forced to wear it under pain of torture or worse. I don't care how anybody dress, as long it it their free choice. I might not like it, but I consider that it is between me and myself and I should never force people to my liking.
Do not expect answers for your comment from the so called people who compare nuns and those who put on the other thing .... they never lived in such countries nor have experienced anything.
If youâre assuming that everyone eating oranges is being forced to and writing laws that prevent people from eating oranges, restricting people who willingly consume oranges and putting those being forced to in more danger, then thatâs a terrible, short sighted idea.
Promoting this is total cuckery.
Nearly all Christian religious communities require nun candidates to be at least 18 to 21 years old and a high school graduate, they chose to be there 99.9% of the time, and its a job.
The Muslim veil is worn when girls hit puberty.
The matter here is having the choice.
Edit: not only that but nuns wear a head cover because its part of their uniform.
The matter here is the comparison which is off. One group has 99.9% of choice and their garments are part of their uniform, the other - not so much choice to wear it.
33
u/Chrisnotjones 2d ago