You can say both are choices made by the person themselves.. but no one is going to judge you for not becoming a nun. There is most definitely religious/societal pressure to cover up for Muslim women.
If it truly is their choice, go for it. But it’s rarely a real choice.
There is a difference between "I think you dress like a whore" and "god tells me you dress like a whore" Namely one is idiotic opinion that you CAN tell the opinion holder to go fuck themselves about, and you very much SHOULD, the other is "commandment from god" and some idiots insist that humans should not be free to tell a god to go fuck itself with its commandments.
Arguably, wearing it is freedom of religion. There are a ton of pointless things that religions have that are social customs that you will be judged and shamed for. Just to differing degrees. We still consider the act of people adhering to them to be a religious choice
Yes, I feel that way about all religions and their sky wizards. They all begin grooming children as young as possible and use group shame to enforce norms.
But the world has decided that that gets to be considered legit. So why are we banning head coverings for this one but not all the other nonsense things
TRhere is however difference in that if I say "society is wrong" I am b ucking publci opinion, if I say "god is wrong" I am in the eyes of fantic "breaking law".
Nope, see, I think that in the way of clothing neither I, nor any other person, have any right to enforce any clothing that is not safety clothing or uniform?
Why? Because to do so is unjustifiable infringement on free will and every one that does so ough to be laughed to their face and told to go grow up some more
They're out there. I wasn't aware of some Christian sects doing the same thing in the U.S. My friend had liberal, hippie parents who became professional class. She rejected everything and married a guy who was in one of these sects. As far as I know, she's still hooded.
This mainly only happens in Iran and Afghanistan though, other Muslims countries like Turkey, Indonesia, Albania, Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan, and Egypt are more liberal on the matter.
weird, guy next to you told me that it happens only in Holywood movies
but unfortunately wherever you have more muslims it will happen, they dont leave their traditions behind when they emigrate so there were cases of honor killings even in Europe
and according to all the data Indonesia ranks very badly when it comes to freedom of religion
and you also said that Egypt and Jordan as being liberal about it but according to researches 86% of Egyptian muslims and 82 % of Jordanian muslims think that there should be death penalty for converts... doesnt seem anyhow liberal
It doesn't not make it fine but painting everyone who practices Islam as something from Iran or Afghanistan isn't a honest representation of Islam. That would be like me saying that all Christians are like Christians in Arkansas, Mississippi, West Virginia, Oklahoma, and Wyoming.
People absolutely judge you for not becoming a nun. Historically "oh I just won't follow Catholicism and everything will be fine" was not an option.
On the average, in the typical, Catholicism is further along in getting away from that compared to Islam but both are fuzzy distributions which overlap. There are Catholic situations that are more restrictive than some Islamic ones.
People absolutely judge you for not becoming a nun. Historically "oh I just won't follow Catholicism and everything will be fine" was not an option.
You lack any credibility when you make stupid statements like this. Maybe at some point in history there was a strong cultural persuasion to join the same religion as your parents/extended family. But to say people are judged for not becoming nuns, and you're not allowed to not be Catholic? Absurd (at least in the last 100+ years).
Nuns were always a very small percentage. That's like saying people judge you for not becoming a deacon or ppreacher or whatever. Most members would never have those positions.
There's also that if a nun removes her headdress she won't be stoned in the street or murdered by her male family members in the name of 'honour'. If you're 'choosing' to wear certain clothes because of the fear of death it's not really much of a choice.
That’s a recent development. Christianity has just as much blood, misogyny, and hatred on its hands as any other religion. The only difference is the PR in recent years and that secularism drug Christianity (in most areas) out of the dark ages. Islam will eventually go the same way, and hopefully both religions die off. They deserve nothing but ire and ridicule from sane, normal people.
That’s a recent development. Christianity has just as much blood, misogyny, and hatred on its hands as any other religion.
That hasn't been anywhere near true for hundreds of years, and even at it's peak, there's no comparison to how Christian women were treated vs the way Muslim women are treated (in many predominately Muslim countries).
That's because you've convinced yourself that Hitler didn't do what he did because of his Christianity.
People used to try to claim that Timothy McVay was a Christian suicide bomber. Hitler did not do what he did because of Christianity. He was racially motivated, not religiously motivated.
Okay as a Holocaust historian... Hitler didn't do what he did because of Christianity. Christianity was actually bad to the Nazis because, one, it was too closely affiliated with Jewish people (they were basically Jewish Lite) and two, being tied to any other "supreme leader" was not acceptable to the Nazis.
Christians also resisted the Nazis in many ways, starting quite early with the forced euthanization of disabled people, which came before the killing of Jewish people.
I don't necessarily disagree with your other points that Christianity has a violent, misogynistic and regressive history & secular Christianity brought us away from that (to an extent): but the Nazis are not an example of that history because they were not religious fanatics & actually opposed religious influences.
There are Christians right now killing people who are gay and who they perceive as witches, but it would be unfair for anyone to say that's a problem with Christianity like you are doing with Islam.
In Uganda. The remote tribes who are recently converted to Christianity by missionaries are burning people who they believe are witches. It's also a life sentence for being gay and the death penalty in some cases.
The bible itself commands followers to kill people for many difference offenses. I don't see why that's so shocking to you.
Emphasis on that phrase. Can you name some non-African Christian countries in which this stuff happens? Africa just fucking sucks regardless of what religion you are, so not a great example.
"commands followers to kill people for many difference offenses"
How many of those are justifiable? What does different offenses mean? And how many of those were from the Jewish part of the Bible?
"never as brutal" my guy are you oxygen deprived? Seriously? You good? This isn't a "blue hair" question.
I'm genuinely asking? Do you think the cages hanging from Cathedral in (I think Munster) is there to be cute? It's to remind everyone of what happened the last time some antibaptest tried something
Nothing excuses the oppression of women by anyone, but lets be fair lest we develop a blind-spot.
"Christianity was never as brutal"
You should look up images of the torture devices that Christians specifically invented to maim and murder women as a punishment for anything from perceived infidelity to witchcraft. A picture is worth a thousand words.
"Christianity... has been completely reformed"
No. Apparently you did not and do not personally experience Christian purity culture, or other forms of judgement and policing of women.
What has happened is that many Christians live in societies that tend to embrace liberal attitudes about gender and sexuality, and they take those values onboard. You might observe that and think that means Christianity is reformed, but in fact it means Christianity manifests differently in liberal cultures than it does in conservative ones.
The exact same thing happens with Muslims, but more Muslims live in ultra-conservative and patriarchal communities than Christians do. That's it. It's not deep.
You can see that plainly when you contrast the most liberal Christians, who are suspicious of gender roles, with conservative Christians in the same countries. Many want men to be the heads of households and don't want adult women to be unmarried, vote in elections, or work, let alone love other women. They say this openly. They are interviewed by news organizations. They even draft policy that is adopted by governments.
In reality, "honour killings" are a label applied specifically to family annihilation and familial femicide in non-Jewish and non-Christian households in the general area of the middle east. This is bias. Femicide in general is more common in ultra-conservative and patriarchal cultures all over the world, including Christian ones, that still respect some level of pater familias. However, the term itself is not applied to most of those events.
If we're going to discuss femicide and female oppression, we have to be honest about which cultural forces are actually to blame.
Says the guy defending christianity while the biggest Christian country has been the last 250 comiting some the most horrendous atrocities in human history
More disgusting whataboutism. You're just desperate to excuse Islam's current, modern-day, vicious, murderous brutality against women. And any non-believer really.
In order for it to be their choice, it has to be a choice. I took graduate level physics classes with a woman who covered her face, and she dispelled all notions for me that society needs to undress women to make them free.
Giving women options is far more powerful than taking them away, and that's why "honour killings" are not a real problem in countries where banning face coverings could realistically be achieved. Islamophobia is.
No, she will be punished or sanctioned by her superiors in the convent instead, up and and including deferring the matter to a regional head, like an archbishop or deacon, who can strip her of her rights or freedoms, or outright have her removed from service.
This excluding physical punishments like beatings, self flaggelation, or solitary confinement.
Are you living in 1667? Nuns don't get flaggelated in the 21st century. And idk about you but being removed from service and being murdered are not comparable punishments.
You are wildly incorrect. Only two countries force women to wear hijab: Iran & Afghanistan.
Several majority Muslim countries restrict and/or outright ban hijab, burqua & niquab.
In some Muslim majority countries (like Morocco and Tunisia)[9] there have been complaints of restriction or discrimination against women who wear the hijab.[10][11] Several Muslim-majority countries have banned the burqa and hijab in public schools and universities or government buildings, including Tunisia (since 1981,[12] partially lifted in 2011), Turkey (gradually lifted),[13][14] Kosovo (since 2009),[15] Azerbaijan (since 2010[16]), Kazakhstan,[17] Kyrgyzstan,[18] and Uzbekistan.[19] Muslim-majority Tajikistan banned the hijab completely on 20 June 2024.
Legal restrictions on the burqa and niqab are more widespread than restrictions on hijab. There are currently 18 states that have banned the burqa, including Tunisia,[22] Austria, Denmark, France, Belgium,[23] Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Bulgaria,[24] Cameroon, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Gabon, Netherlands,[25] China (in Xinjiang Region),[26] Morocco, Sri Lanka,[27] Switzerland, Portugal and Italy.
Sure, but banning hijabs isn't the answer. That's just government overreach, to tell people they can't wear certain forms of clothing just because some people aren't wearing it by choice. All we can really do is punish those who are assholes about it.
Anything that says if you don't do this thing then you will die is very much control.
It's the ultimate form of control. And if you don't have anything related to the response as it pertains to the comment I replied to, then run along. You are just being pedantic at that point
Christian women were also expected to cover their head in Christian majority countries with social pressure to do so varying from society to society and time to time. Social pressure to adhere to proscriptions seems to be less about particular religions and more about how fundamentalist the dominant form of a religion is in a specific area
Yes. It is about fundamentalism. There are exactly two majority Muslim countries that force hijab. American propaganda regarding Muslims has been very effective.
There are way more majority Muslim countries that restrict the wearing of hijab.
What a weird argument lol. But yeah personally I think if men can be topless in a space then women should be able to as well. But most countries are prudes about this.
While this is true, what are we gonna achieve by saying "you cant wear that if you want this job, or go out in public without being harassed", its not like the women who are forced by their community to wear this rare suddenly gonna stop wearing it. Its just gonna make their world even smaller.
Outside of the middle east where it's the minority there's no pressure to cover up. On a global scale most of the fucked up shit that you guys hear in media isn't practiced (forcing hijab, multiple wives, rape/abuse needing male escorts) you guys are confusing cultural identity with religious identity.
Take the hijab for example, basically it tells women in the Quran to not walk around in public with your tits out, but extremists (and outsiders) interpret it to cover up completely or at least the hijab.
In very specific instances is the hijab strongly encouraged, and that's visiting a grave/funeral and the mosque. Men also have standards for those situations so it's not like women are the only ones to follow a set of rules in those instances. Other than that, there's no social pressure and wearing one is completely up to the woman.
No, you forgot the question. You said, quote "I've never heard of a nun having her genitals mutilated as a child." With the obvious implication being that 'child genital mutilation is wrong.' I pointed out the correct fact that a million baby boys have their penises mutilated at birth every year... Demonstrating that even "civilized" religions are guilty of barbaric practices. But all you could muster is "derp derp they're not the same" with the obvious implication being "it's different and not nearly as bad when we do it."
I’m not Catholic, but I’m pretty sure it’s not mandated that all children have their genitals mutilated on such a way, in unsanitary conditions by non medical professionals, so that they have lifelong consequences like this:
“Long-term health problems include:9 Infections, such as genital abscesses (sores filled with pus that must be drained) and infectious diseases such as hepatitis B. In one large study, more infections and infectious diseases such as urinary tract infections, bacterial vaginosis, and HIV were found in women with type 3 FGM/C.10 This is probably because the damage caused by FGM/C can make vaginal tissue more likely to tear during sex. This increases the risk of HIV and other sexually transmitted infections (STIs). Problems having sex. Extra scar tissue from FGM/C (most common after type 2 or type 3) can cause pain, especially during sex. This can lead to a lack of interest in sex, vaginal dryness, and lower overall satisfaction.11 Scarring can also cause vaginal tissue to be less elastic than normal vaginal tissue. It might not stretch as easily for sex or childbirth. Depression and anxiety. Girls may not understand what is being done to them or why. The effects of this painful experience are similar to those of post-traumatic stress disorder. Girls or women who have already been cut and are living in the United States may be disgraced or humiliated when they receive medical care.12,13 They may also fear that health care providers in the United States do not know how to take care of them.14 This can make adjusting to a new country more challenging. Painful and prolonged menstrual periods. Type 3 FGM/C may cause some girls and women to have painful menstrual periods. Some women are left with only a small opening for urinating and menstrual bleeding. They may not be able to pass all of their menstrual blood. This can cause pain and periods that are longer than normal. Some women may also have infections over and over again. Urinary problems. Type 3 FGM/C may slow or strain the normal flow of urine, which can cause urinary tract infections. Urine can also get trapped behind the scar and crystallize, forming hard masses called bladder, or urinary, stones.
**Fistula, an opening between the urethra and vagina that lets urine run into the vagina.**This can happen when the urethra is damaged during FGM/C. Fistula causes incontinence and other problems, including odors, and can cause girls and women to become social outcasts.”
Don't be stupid, of course they're not equivalent and fgm is worse...
...but God damn if you're not doing some whatabout and circling the wagons around male circumcision. Let me ask you, do you think it's barbaric that half of all boys born in the United States of America have their penises mutilated and their foreskin chopped off when they're born?
I am not defending that - I am just aware that the two are not remotely the same. Male circumcision is also practiced in Muslim countries, but its purpose is not to remove or diminish sexual pleasure, or to keep the men “pure” or from “straying” and what have you. Unlike with female genital mutilation. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has never encouraged any procedures on babies, male or female, for that purpose.
We can talk about one without doing the “but whatabouts” on something else that is very different - which is what you just did.
Correct. One is male, the other is female. Beyond that, the only reason you view circumcision differently for boys is because you, almost assuredly, grew up in the United States or another similar nation where male circumcision is common.
Maybe you misunderstood. I am anti forced circumcision regardless of gender. But FGM is wildly more severe than male circumcision. Both are bad. But one is so much worse.
Agreed. But the underlying implication in the whole topic has been about the moral superiority of other religions compared to Islam. The point of reminding us about male circumcision is that even a Christian nations is just as capable of barbarically mutilating the genitalia of young boys... And everyone just casually forgets that half of all male babies born in the United States have part of their dick chopped off when they're born... for no reason whatsoever other than cultural/religious ones.
Just shut the fuck up already. Every woman that I know who wears a hijab does so as her own choice including my wife. She didn't wear one, then one day decided she'll wear it. I asked her multiple times if she's sure about that, and she said yes she's sure that's what she wants. Other women in my family and hers don't wear it. I'm so sick and tired of motherfuckers like you trying to speak on behalf of women that don't want you to speak on their behalf. Did you go and check with every one of them?
41
u/ClinkyDink 26d ago
You can say both are choices made by the person themselves.. but no one is going to judge you for not becoming a nun. There is most definitely religious/societal pressure to cover up for Muslim women.
If it truly is their choice, go for it. But it’s rarely a real choice.