brimstoneSalad wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 4:24 pm
DarlBundren wrote: ↑Mon Feb 27, 2017 3:00 pm
Do you think it would be more effective to call for limited restrictions?
It depends on the details of the situation.
I follow the empirical evidence, which is a lot harder than taking ideological hard-line positions. It means we have to find and look at the evidence, and even do research.
I appreciate you arguing the rational that different civilisations should be able to have their own conceptions of modesty and be able to reduce the level of restrictions at their own pace Brimstone. A politician from another country promoting completely secular policies is much easier to cast off as the enemy and retreat into fundamentalism, than citizens pushing for cultural changes from within.
A minor point of clarification though; I hope you'd agree that knowing what you know about how people being free to dress how they like doesn't have to lead to societal collapse; it would be morally reprehensible for you to join the religious police and enforce the law on the hijab. In the same vein that a draft resister would shirk a bad war even if they believed in the necessary preparedness of the military and the good consequences of involvement in previous wars. That is leave the job to someone else who believes in it wholeheartedly. Try to make your people see the ugly effects such a job has on a person.
I still think expectations of modesty can shift dramatically quickly by the acts of those within the country resisting wearing the veil as happened in Egypt, or in Turkey where the protest now goes the other way to try and let women who wear the hijab into public office. And it is especially pertinent in Iran where they experienced a glimpse of freedom from religious tyranny before the coup and subsequent theocracy.
In the end the restrictions will come from the values inculcated by the family, having a government decree might make it easier to achieve broader uniformity and safety in the short term but people will still wear what their culture subscribes without it, the least modestly dressed are always going to be perceived as a vulnerable target by abusers in every culture, but considering most abuse is caused by a partner at home than a stranger on the street, I wouldn't deride a person for taking the risk of going outside in less modest clothes than the culture recommends because it might be your only escape from an abusive home life where it is forced on you. I think this anarchic imaginary of a desire to live 'as if' we were already equal; fuels real pragmatic struggles, like the spontaneous events leading up to the Montgomery bus boycott where many black people were arrested for refusing to get up for white people, before the NAACP planned to direct that energy through the protests around the court case of a modest middle class respectable black woman.
DarlBundren wrote: ↑Sun Feb 26, 2017 9:40 am
NonZeroSum wrote: 'Some' women don't.
Come on...Some women don't want to be punched in the face either. Would you claim that it is wrong to consider punching them in the face as a bad act only because some of them don't mind being punched? Now, seriously, I am not saying that women should not wear headscarves. I only want them to have the possibility to choose without being stoned.
I know your hostile attitude is directed at jihadists who would enforce 'religious modesty' laws internationally if they had their way, but I also hope coming to the end of the discussion you have a better semblance of why saying some women is important, as there are as many ways to tie a headscarf as a Sikh turban, these are traditional cultural signifiers people hold very dear, and wouldn't appreciate being compared to being punched in the face.
