What is your stance on burkinis or headscarves on French (or American) beaches (or streets)?

[muriel_volestrangler]

Last edited Fri Aug 26, 2016, 10:48 AM - Edit history (1)

French police make woman remove clothing on Nice beach following burkini ban

Authorities in 15 towns have banned burkinis, citing public concern following recent terrorist attacks in the country
...
The images of police confronting the woman in Nice on Tuesday show at least four police officers standing over a woman who was resting on the shore at the town’s Promenade des Anglais, the scene of last month’s Bastille Day lorry attack.
...
The photographs emerged as a mother of two also told on Tuesday how she had been fined on the beach in nearby Cannes wearing leggings, a tunic and a headscarf.

Her ticket, seen by French news agency AFP, read that she was not wearing “an outfit respecting good morals and secularism”.
...
Last week, Nice became the latest French resort to ban the burkini. Using language similar to the bans imposed earlier at other locations, the city barred clothing that “overtly manifests adherence to a religion at a time when France and places of worship are the target of terrorist attacks”.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-make-woman-remove-burkini-on-nice-beach?CMP=fb_gu

Taking the temperature of DU opinion, which seems surprisingly pro-ban, to me. Feel free to suggest something for the couple of free slots on the poll, and I'll add them if they make sense. Or explain why 2 or more choices make a lot of sense to you.

On Edit: France's top court has suspended the town laws - thanks, closeupready (see #157)

88 votes, 6 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	A headscarf is a symbol of oppression when worn anywhere and should be banned in the USA as well as France
	4 (5%)
	France has a tradition of secularism, so is right to ban dress on beaches that identifies the wearer's religion
	11 (13%)
	The problem is men's attitudes, so Muslim women must be forced to show more skin and hair to fight the sexism
	0 (0%)
	If the woman wearing a headscarf is accompanied by a man, he should be fined, but not a lone woman
	1 (1%)
	Wearing a burkini is extremist Islamism, but this isn't the best way to fight it
	0 (0%)
	Burkinis are ridiculous, mostly worn under duress, but you shouldn't ban them on beaches
	5 (6%)
	Burkinis are ridiculous, but so is much of fashion, and you can't legislate for taste
	3 (3%)
	Burkinis are no different from other choices of beach attire
	64 (73%)
	6 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[FBaggins]

1. 1,3,5,6,7...

... and mostly "just let women wear whatever they're comfortable wearing"

[leftyladyfrommo]

26. That's how I feel but I am afraid that head scarfs may make those women easy targets

for deranged shooters. Or the target of vicious verbal attacks by assholes.

[TheBlackAdder]

90. I don't see this uproar over Hasidic women on the beach, equally covered, walking behind husband.

[MADem]

112. Are there a lot of Hasidic women on French beaches? nt

[Jeffersons Ghost]

132. Muslims have enough money to vacation in France. You know, oil and stuff. here's my views:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028124543

[MADem]

134. It's a complicated situation. I don't think the people they are approaching are vacationers.

I think these folks are residents.

Vacationers--especially the wealthy ones--toss those chadieris and abayahs in a sack and toss that in the back corner of the closet when they go on holiday. They dress to the nines, hit all the fashion houses, spend like drunken sailors, and kick up their heels. Sure, there are always the potentates that bring the four wives in bedsheets along, but there are also plenty of Saudi women who style it up like mad once the aircraft leaves Saudi airspace--it's almost a joke.


Perhaps the Nice police should consider putting a few women on their beach patrol. Simply for optics.

You've got men telling women to put it on (or they can't go out) and others telling 'em to take it off.

I think if the French hold the line on this, they may be able to give women the ammunition they need to say to their fathers and husbands who are insisting they wrap themselves up in absurd fashion, "I can't wear that--it's against the law" so they aren't stuck sweating like pigs in too much clothing under a hot sun.

[AllTooEasy]

139. SOME OF YOU NEED TO WEAR BURKINIS!!!

...or heavily fined for wearing anything less! Everybody reading this post has seen numerous male and female sunbathing examples of what I'm talking about. Don't lie.

I think the French have it backwards. The West needs to put burkinis on a few more people at the beach. Not for religious reasons, just so I can finish my lunch.

[jberryhill]

2. What people wear is simply not my business

People who have a "stance" on other people's clothing disturb me far more greatly.

[MADem]

68. Really? I can't legislate the banning of these clothes, but I don't have to like them, and

I can make it my business to speak up/have a stance against them:






The wear of hijab is often not a choice--it's imposed upon women by men, usually their husbands or fathers, and supported by the society in which the victims of this oppression live.

When western women decide to adopt it as a visible expression of their newly found faith (or as a fashion statement), and enjoy the attention they get as a consequence, sometimes playing the victim if they get the side-eye, they know full well they can take it off without being murdered and their corpse set on fire.

[jberryhill]

84. And your point is what?

There are women who are compelled by the threat of violence to do, or not to do, any number of things.

Is this woman wearing a symbol of oppression:



We tend in most things to make an assumption of individual moral agency, and not to make decisions on behalf of classes of people.

Women are threatened with violence if they don't cook breakfast for their husbands. Women are threatened with violence if they don't have sex with their husbands. We could ban making breakfast or having sex and, incidentally, ONLY punish women who do those things.

But that would make no sense. Women who are being oppressed do not need another instrument of compensating oppression brought against them.

What we tend to do in civilized society is to help women in abusive situations get out of them. Not in all instances - notably prostitution. Although there are some measures designed to assist victims of human trafficking, for example, it is more often the result that we lock up the woman for prostitution.

If a woman is being threatened with violence if she does not make breakfast, we provide - barely and not in some places - resources that such a woman might use, to help her out of that situation. We don't threaten her with fines if she makes breakfast.

There is no good purpose served by forcing women to disrobe to acceptable levels at the beach. None. This was not undertaken as some measure to "help oppressed women".

Policing women's clothing has no effect on men who are oppressing them. None.

[MADem]

86. She can stop wearing that costume and not be murdered for it.

And no one is forcing all women in a particular culture to wear that costume under threat of beating or death.

You just don't understand. There is no "moral agency" when there is no REAL choice. It's not OK. It's not "freedom of choice" -- it's giving men that "agency" to oppress women, and the French aren't having it, because their secular culture allows them to have a say in these matters.

Here, watch and learn--it is a long piece, but you can't possibly come away from looking at this and continue to pretend that the way women are treated, and how they are forced to act and dress, in conservative Islamic society is nothing short of pernicious:

You will never convince me to support the ulema in their subjugation of women, even when said subjugation is "sold" to me as some sort of faux "choice."

It's not "choice" when you can be murdered and set on fire, or have acid flung in your face, for not obeying your husband or father in matters of dress and comportment.

If you think it "has no effect" you might want to re-examine the law of 2004. That was upheld, and it does have an effect. Women who were afraid to go out without covering their faces no longer have to do so, because of "that law." Not having to wear a massive chunk of cloth over their noses, with only their eyes visible, might be a small improvement, but the old "Journey of a thousand miles..." thing applies.

[jberryhill]

87. Then we need to ban cooking

Because there are women who are forced to cook and will be beaten if they don't.

[MADem]

93. More false equivalence. Cooking is like shitting--both genders do it.

But both sexes aren't forced to wear hijab.

You can keep beating the ulema's drum all day, here. None of your arguments will hold a cup of water.

There is simply no excuse for subjecting a woman to a mandatory cultural expression of "modesty" that in actual fact turns them into a religious billboard and then trying to call it choice. It's the opposite of choice--it's imprisonment.

[jberryhill]

95. Oh, is there some rule in France about what men may wear?

Frankly, I am a man. Laws about what women may or may not do, do not affect me. Go ahead, lock 'em up. This is a law which is targeted solely at women.

So, in your world, are women ever compelled by men to get abortions?

[MADem]

98. Well, yes, there is.

You waded into this discussion without doing much homework, I see.

Don't go to class wearing your yarmulke or turban in France. It's actually against the law.

When Muslim men create their own "Islamic swimwear" we can see how they're treated on the beach. To this point, though, even the most devout Muslim male can enjoy their speedos and their short sleeved shirts, and feel the breeze in their hair--it's only the women who have to be constrained in a hot, sweaty garment, to "preserve their modesty."

smh.




And why are you trying to scamper away into an argument about abortion? This conversation is not about that (FWIW, Islam doesn't prohibit the practice at least in the first trimester, so let's stick to the topic, shall we?).

No one is being "locked up" for this. They're issuing tickets, worst case, and warnings, which are free of charge, and the husbands/fathers, who control the household income and make spending decisions, and who tell the women what they are allowed to wear, will have to pay the tickets. If the women can't take the children to the beach because the men can't get with the program, why, the men will have to take that chore on. Good enough for them.

[jberryhill]

103. Go lock them up, then

The question asked in the OP is "What is your stance..." I do not need to do "homework" to know that I do not see any good purpose served by police humiliating some old woman in public. That is my stance.

Fine. Lock 'em up. Whatever. These are laws about what women may or may not do, and will never affect me. If you want to have at them, then you go right ahead and threaten them with whatever is appropriate to end oppression.

[MADem]

107. Why are you trying to position me as the French police, with your "Go lock them up, then" whine?

I am not the French police and the French police aren't locking anyone up. I'm simply someone who objects to the debasement of women and I won't back a right - wing, fundamentalist meme that characterizes women as shameful, filthy, slutty temptresses who must be wrapped up in a garbage bag, even if it is falsely packaged as "choice."

You weren't referencing the OP in that last post--you were in the midst of a convo with me about cooking, shitting, and men's clothing, among other topics.

As I've said, repeatedly, there are ways to comply with Islamic exhortations towards modesty (which are incumbent on men, too--though men ignore these rules) and not look like a walking-talking billboard for fundamentalist Islam. The French don't want to be subjected to these "billboards" -- particularly at a site where so many of their fellow citizens were mowed down in cold blood -- and, frankly, I don't blame them. If they lean hard on this, then women (and women's husbands/fathers, through the process of their "permissions&quot will be forced to adjust--or their husbands will be stuck doing a lot of outside child care, and that's not their thing at all.

Americans don't take this approach--they basically let the melting pot do its work. But America is not a secular nation like France, with laws that restrict religious advertisement in public life --we have "separation of church and state" but we do not prohibit expressions of religiosity within the confines of the state. That's why people can work for the government in religious clothing, that's why we provide "religious accommodation" for people of varying faiths, and it's why we have chaplains in the House and the Senate, and we PAY them, too (something I'm in favor of eliminating--but that's just me).

[jberryhill]

111. Why are you taking issue with me saying "it's none of my business"

Honestly, I cannot bring myself to give a shit what other people wear. I do not care. I don't care if people walk around naked or in burlap bags. I simply do not give a flying fuck what people whom I do not know are wearing.

You chose to reply to me, as if I am somehow "wrong" for not giving a shit.

The OP asks a simple question and I gave a simple answer. I do not care, and I will never care what some stranger is wearing to the beach or anywhere else.

I can see it matters very much to you, and you seem to know much more about the topic of what strangers should wear.

I am staying in a hotel in Portland, Maine this week, and I have noticed that there are a lot more women wearing all sorts of things here than in suburban Philadelphia and its environs. Because I'm doing a fair amount of work every day, the housekeeper pops in each day to see if there's anything I need. Now, I don't know a lot about her, but she wears a quite elaborate robe of some sort and a headdress of some kind with sequins and emroidery on it. I assume her family is of some sort of East African origin, but I have no idea nor do I care. She's quite polite and I am polite back.

Now, not having really given a shit what this woman whom I see every morning is wearing, and now having been informed that I should apparently care deeply, what would you suggest I do to or at her when I see her tomorrow?

Because, again, the question asked in the OP is what is YOUR stance on what women put on their heads or whatever. Until several hours ago, my stance was that I don't care. You seem to disagree and have taken issue with my answer. But I am still having some difficulty understanding what it is I should be doing to, at or with women who wear objectionable things on their heads.

So, please, tell me what it is I should do about the housekeeper in my hotel tomorrow morning.

I will try to take a picture and post it here, so I am certain that experts such as yourself can properly advise me on what I should think about whatever she has on her head, how much I should care, and what if any action I should take.

But I am willing to say that if the best course is to go after such women with fines, threats, or whatever, then I guess I don't have much to worry about, really, because it certainly won't have any consequences for me. If I get out to the beach at the Eastern promenade tomorrow, I'll report back here if any women there need my suggestions on what they should be wearing.

[MADem]

113. Not sure what your housekeeper has to do with French law, but that was quite the jump!

She's probably from Central Africa--there are a lot of new arrivals in the greater Portland area who are refugees fleeing violence in their home nations. If her hat looks like this, she might be from the Democratic Republic of the Congo:




You say that you 'don't care,' but you cared enough to participate in this thread....

[jberryhill]

117. This thread was not about "French Law"

Does the OP of this thread pose a question about French Law?

I have no "stance" on what people wear. I would prefer to go nude, but that tends to be frowned upon.

I'm fairly confident she is Somalian from her accent. I am around the corner from an Eritrean restaurant, and there seems to be quite the community here. I'm fine with whatever they wear, and the food is very nice.

[MADem]

121. The burkini ban on Muslim women in France is all about "French law."

The temporary ban enacted into law (and supported up to the highest levels of government) against these garments happened in France, you see.

There are tons of Somalis in Maine, now--they pretty much own most of Lewiston. The African immigrant community is responsible for the teeny, tiny 'blip' one can now see on the Maine demographic charts with regard to black citizens. Even at that, Maine is one seriously white state. Every time I go up there I am surprised at how many white people there are!

[jberryhill]

122. Perhaps scrolling up is too hard

So I shall do you the courtesy of quoting the question:

"What is your stance on burkinis or headscarves on French (or American) beaches (or streets)?"

Now, silly me, having actually studied US law, international law, a variety of treaties and the rules of an international arbitration system, that question did not even strike me as being about law at all, since I do not consider my "stance" to be a legal question of any kind.

[MADem]

124. Come on--you're playing the clueless card, and we know you're not that.

The question is posed in the OP BECAUSE OF the French law banning the swimming costume on French beaches, that is in all the news headlines of late--and for no other reason.

It wasn't a query that came out of the blue. Silly you, indeed!

[jberryhill]

161. And you are playing the actually ignorant card

There is no "French Law" banning burkinis at the beach. None. Zip.

I was in Avignon on Bastille Day in a party very similar to the one being held at Nice to the southeast. A terrible thing happened there which had nothing to do with whether a woman was wearing a burkini at the beach.

Some overheated mayors in a couple of coastal towns decided that going after women's clothing was an appropriate reaction to a guy going on a rampage with a truck.

It has finally reached a French court - which applies real "French Law" and not the imaginary kind which you believe exists, and guess how "French Law" applies to these jackass mayors:

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/

But what truly boggled my mind was how substantially more "OMG!" freaked out the US media was in comparison to the French media.

[MADem]

172. There isn't now, because the ban (and it was a temporary one) has been struck down by the courts.

I think, before you start tossing around phrases like "actually ignorant" you should "actually" check yourself.

FWIW, no one cares about your travel itinerary (which didn't add a thing to your remarks)--but you do love to point out where you're at--why is that, I wonder? Hmmm.

[Loki Liesmith]

151. You got owned

It's time to admit it and move on.

[TheBlackAdder]

94. Adam Ruins Everything. Boys used to wear dresses, Pinks and blues are a recent marketing ploy.

.


We're all living under a false concept of "what's normal," mostly based on business marketing.

It's all fabricated bullshit, and we all buy into different things based on the sales energy put into it.


DeBeers, who monopolizes the diamond industry, was the one to make Engagement Rings and the bullshit "Two Months" salary rule to sell diamonds. It used to be one month, then upped to two months salary.

Most video games started out as gender neutral, often written by women... yet they are gendered male due to limited shelf space in retail stores. Nintendo was the one who started the video game gendering.

Car buying is just another bullshit ploy, a construct to sell product.

Religion is just another form of sales marketing to control people and maniputale them


.

[AllTooEasy]

138. Let people be adults and chose their own level of modesty

If they want to come to a beach nude...cool. Burkina? Ok. I'll glare at whatever you're willing show me. If you cover up, I'll glare at a less modest female. Easy.

As for the bullshit "Their forced by their families" argument that's rooted in Western ignorance and over generalizations, stop assuming that everyone thinks like you. "They want to wear a bikini like me. I know it. How could anyone think differently than me unless they are oppressed?" Get over yourself!

I lived in Malaysia for two years. My wife and I met plenty of Muslim, Catholic, and Hindu women who couldn't imagine why Western women would show cleavage, mid drift, thighs, or even their beautiful hair to any man other than their current or future husband. They were seriously dumbfounded. I guess the French would find them too.

[MineralMan]

3. What people wear and where they wear it

is none of my concern, and should not be of anyone's concern. The whole thing is silly. Let people dress as they choose to dress in whatever situation. Sheesh!

[TheBlackAdder]

91. Right on! Sometimes people have natural allergies to sunlight or took sun-sensitive medication.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. Men have no business telling women they can't wear burkinis or must wear burkinis.

Men have no business telling women what they can't or must wear -- within basic norms: exposed face for public service, no pubic area exposed in public -- same as for men. I even think women should not be harassed if they go shirtless in situations men go shirtless.

[lapislzi]

5. One wonders if the same standard would be applied

To a priest at the beach wearing his clerical collar and short pants. While this may be an unlikely scenario, it's not impossible to imagine.

What of large crucifixes, which have also been a subject of controversy? What of tattooed religious symbols on the body?

I'm not coming down on one side or the other. I'm just asking if the standard is being applied evenhandedly.

And, this is France, with problems unique to France that pertain to its history of colonialism and its history with Muslims.

[jberryhill]

24. No, it's not applied evenhandedly

And, yes, you are bang on with France's colonial legacy.

There is in-your-face Christian symbolism at every turn in France. While much of it is "historical" such as every other town being named after a saint, every town square having a church and the mayor's office, and crosses and shrines dotting the countryside, it is ridiculous to say, "Oh, well, that stuff is merely 'cultural' and not 'religious'" when it sure seems to suit the Christians.

Yeah... nothing "religious" going on in public in Lourdes... render unto me a f-ing break.

[lapislzi]

33. So..."Catholic" is part of the French identity...

...but "Muslim" is not. Henri IV had the right of it, then: "Paris is worth a mass."

Except that was 500 freaking years ago. And they wonder why they have a problem.

[MADem]

89. The shrine is a private and specifically religious location. It's not government - owned or run.

Lourdes, the town, benefits monetarily from tourists visiting the shrine, and then hanging around for a meal, or to buy gee-gaws, or stay in nearby hotels, but the shrine itself is the property of the very private Catholic Church.

That's like saying Gee, there's nothing religious going on in mosques, either.

Your comment makes no sense. Of course France has a Roman Catholic history and many who still practice that faith (though fewer as time goes by) --but the government is secular. That's how they play it. The French culture favors elements like history and tradition--they've made mistakes in their past and they step very carefully and deliberately as a consequence. Changing the historical name of a place isn't going to change the history of that place, and those Saint names for towns ARE part of their history. France is not about to deny its historical relationship to the Holy Roman Empire--their past to no small extent makes them what they are today.

[MADem]

69. Large crucifixes are against the law in French PUBLIC life.

You don't go wearing them to school or work. You can't wear yarmulkes, either.


The thing is, a priest is not likely to be working at a French office or school....unless, of course, it is a private, Catholic school.

[AllTooEasy]

135. Another reason why I'm glad I live in the US

I can dreas as religiously or as non-religiously as I like. That's called freedom

[MADem]

136. Freedom OF religion--but not freedom FROM it.

The secular nature of France would ensure that your cubicle mate at your office didn't regale you with religious tracts, or offend your ears with religious radio broadcasts/music.

I can see where both systems might have appeal, depending upon perspective.


We got some of our ideas from the French--we didn't take secularism as far as they did, though, seeing as our base population consisted of people who fled Great Britain in search of religious freedom.

[lapislzi]

162. Those fleeing Britain were religious nuts

Trying out out-pure the original Puritans. They must have been insufferable.

Clearly, all this religious one-upmanship is nothing new. Personally, I would like to place as much distance between myself and organized religion as humanly possible. That being said, some woman wearing a garment she's comfortable in at a public beach while minding her own business...I don't care. It's the in-your-face types that are the problem.

And you can be sure the in-your-face types will be using this kerfuffle to their advantage. And the Islamic in-your-face types are the ones who want to kill me. They said so, and I believe them. I don't need to be told twice.

I think it's possible to hold both positions: leave women alone about their clothing. Islam in its fundamentalist iteration is oppressive and belligerent. So is Christianity. However, I am not in France, where their mileage varies considerably.

[MADem]

167. They were--both religious nuts, AND insufferable. They threw people out of their little

New World communities for being late to prayers and not working hard enough. That had to be a bit daunting, I should imagine. I guess some of the locals were friendly so some people managed OK.

You're always going to find people taking advantage of a situation. It's human nature. I do find it telling that the overwhelming majority either agreed (60%) or didn't care (30%) with this ban. That leaves a very small ten percent who opposed it. Nonetheless, the courts ruled against the majority, but I think the mood of the nation has been re-certified, if it hadn't been already.

France has one of the largest immigrant populations of any nation in Europe. Until recent years, they've managed to fold newcomers into their society, mainly by saying, from the get-go, "Be More French." It's only been in this new century that they've really seemed to struggle--and the struggle has brought out all sorts, from the ones who want to maintain the culture, the measured and ceremonial meals, the fine wines, and the unhurried pace, up to and including the Le Pen types (who are using this tension to fuel their rightwing movement).

The real victims in all this are the women who are forced by their husbands or fathers to go out of their homes every day wearing a billboard for a religion that marginalizes and denigrates them in its most fundamentalist iteration. I do think the intent of the law was to give them cover to assimilate into the society, not to point at or mock them. The niqab (face masking) ban of over a decade ago had that effect, and after an initial outcry, people got over it and it's not even discussed anymore.

[lapislzi]

160. That was not my question.

Would a priest wearing a clerical collar on a public beach be asked to disrobe? Would he be publicly shamed? How about a school full of yeshiva kids on a beach holiday in their yarmulkes?

I think the answer is no, and I think so for a variety of reasons. Catholicism gets a "pass" because it's part of French "culture," and men get a pass because...men.

As Nawaz points out in his article http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/25/both-sides-are-wrong-in-the-burkini-wars.html, you can oppose the ridiculousness of the selective application of these laws, and you can oppose patriarchy at the same time. These are not mutually exclusive ideas.

[Lee-Lee]

6. I'm torn- a person should be free to wear what they want but almost always there is no real choice

because these are being forced on these women by oppressive, partriachal cultures and families.

How many of them would face violence or shunning or economic abuse after if they dared wear something revealing in public?

So on one hand the state should respect freedom of choice- but on the other hand a secular state shouldn't tolerate the oppression of women in the way the Islam so often does in a way worse way than any other religion of similar size.

Its a sticky situation- the state shouldn't tolerate abuse and oppression and these are signs of it, but also should respect freedom of choice.

I guess it comes down to- do any of the women actually freely choose that clothing absent the socia, cultural and familiial pressures and threats they get from all of those for not complying?

[lapislzi]

8. There's no cookie cutter answer to that question

I think it's a safe bet that some women choose religious attire all on their own, as a statement of their religious identity. That doesn't make the attire itself any less representative of the oppressive patriarchal culture that brought it about.

Let's spin the globe for a second and take a look at fundamentalist Mormons in polygamous communities. I'm sure many of the women will cheerfully agree that they "chose" their lifestyle (and bizarre modes of dress). That doesn't make them not brainwashed. In the US, they're free to dress how they like. It's not so clear-cut in France, which is a country with so much tied up in its own secular cultural identity, and what it means to be a "French" person in France.

I deliberately used an extreme example. If we are to wage constructive arguments against bad ideas, like religious extremism, we need to rally the support of moderates within the group. If we want the French to back off being the bathing suit police, we could and should expect that moderate Muslim clerics do their part to quell extremism and promote moderation. Right now, that's an unbalanced equation in France.

[AllTooEasy]

137. We need to stop assuming that all/most are forced

That's just Western ignorance and over generalizations.

From my experience, Most Muslim women truly want more coverering than Western women are comfortable with. They aren't threatened by their families, but rather they just dumbfounded as to why Western women would give any man other than her current or future husband a view of her cleavage, thighs, or mid drift. How do you respond to them? Fine them anyway?

I lived in Malaysia for two years. I knew several Muslim women who flat out told me or my wife that they have absolutely no desire for any man other than their current or future husband to see them uncovered. Hands, faces, and feet were all they were willing to show. They would tell me this with no men or other family members around...and I'm Catholic.

My Catholic Malaysian wife had Catholic cousins who wore long t-shirts and spandex to the beach for that same reason. They didn't wear hijabs, but they were certainly covered all the time!

She had other female cousins who barely, BARELY wore anything! My wife is in the middle. Different strokes for different folks.

[MADem]

149. You have to be carefully taught....

Not just to hate and fear, but to believe that as a woman, you are "less than," that you "deserve" to be forced to wear hot and uncomfortable clothing, to get little or no education, that your father can sell you into marriage, and that your body is a dirty, awful thing that causes men to want to commit rape.

Watch this little YT effort--look at what the LITTLE GIRLS are saying at the beginning of the piece.

You have to be CAREFULLY TAUGHT:

If you can stomach it, stick around for the interview where the men boast about harassing women on the street, and take delight in targeting the women who aren't sufficiently pure in terms of dress or the way they look at them--it's a real eye-opener.

[demmiblue]

7. These images, as a woman, make me feel very, very uncomfortable:

[Warpy]

10. Exposure to sun can make me a lot sicker

so note to self: stay away from French beaches.

[Person 2713]

30. Why Arent the 2 cops Forced to wear beach attire shorts ? Is it about what is right for the beach

Or not? Choice for some not others? Some of these beaches that banned do allow topless women

I am not against topless or Muslim practices just let people be at the public beaches

I said before I have seen people at the beach in what is clearly their underwear

Tacky ? Yes Ticket and harrassmemet from police ? Probably not as long as what is normally covered.

Ban the Amish From a day at the beach ?
They swim in pants and dresses so lets hope these kind of bans are not the American way
it opens up a gate or proves a direct discrimination


AMISH AT THE BEACH

AMISH IN THE WATER

[MADem]

143. I don't think the police are sunbathing. That's why they aren't wearing sunbathing costumes.

And Amish people at American beaches are just that.

They're not burkini clad women at French beaches.

Apples, oranges.

The French don't follow our rules. We don't follow theirs.

[Crunchy Frog]

61. The cops need to be in Speedos.

I'm offended by their attire.

[Warpy]

9. France has picked the wrong hill to die on

Picking on women for what they wear will cause immigrants to increase their resentment of the dominant culture and refuse to assimilate. This is just not smart.

I see women here in full veils moving to hijabs and eventually no head covering for some of them over time. No one here tells them what to wear or what not to wear and there are no religious police around to monitor them. They have a choice, some of them for the first time, and it's none of my business what they choose or why they choose it.

I can see why employers might want to ban some garb from the workplace, face coverings are off putting and flapping full body veils can be dangerous around machinery, but the government needs to stay out of this one.

[Pisces]

11. This is a stupid poll. People can and should wear what they want. We don't need clothing

Police or bathroom police. Leave people alone!!!

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. It may seem stupid, but the choices basically came from the reactions here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8120827

I'm pleased to see the "no difference" option is now leading.

[Donkees]

12. Wool Bathing Suits

[MADem]

123. Those costumes are too immodest.

They are showing all that luxuriant hair, which will drive the men wild.

There's far too much arm skin on display as well, and all that neck skin...much too tempting.

Further, the stockings adhere too tightly to the leg, accentuating the form of it, and the cinched waists on those dresses will cause a man to become excited. If he fails to control himself, and assaults one or more of those women, it is HER fault for failing to conceal herself appropriately!!!

[closeupready]

13. Her body, her choice. That's my position on it.

[Il_Coniglietto]

18. Bingo, it really is that simple.

The ridiculousness of the whole situation. "Men are forcing Muslim women to wear certain things! We must free these women from their oppression...by having men force them to wear certain things!"

Removed from all of this is what the woman wants.

And that's without touching on the blatant paternalism on display, particularly within the context of French colonialism in the Middle East and North Africa.

[underahedgerow]

118. But, it's not her choice. She is forced to cover up and conceal her body because of zealot

fundamentalist, archaic rules created by a patriarchal culture that despises women and treats them worse than they treat dogs.

And those rules have NOTHING to do with Islam. It's all about power and domination.

[closeupready]

131. Burden of proof, on a case-by-case basis, is on you

to prove that every single woman is being coerced to wear it. Otherwise, you can not strip away from every woman the right to dress as she chooses.

Because the right ultimately rests with the individual.

[underahedgerow]

145. Case in point, females don't HAVE the right to choose. They can't choose their husbands, they

can't choose to work, in some countries and cultures they can't choose to drive or go to school. Those choices are made for them, burying them under centuries old traditions and bizarre, repressed beliefs. Women in those cultures are NOT individuals. They're goods, no better than a mule, to be traded, used and exploited until they're dead and buried.

They're expected to marry their creepy uncles or cousins at age 14 and pop out hoards of kids and obey every wish and whim of the idiots that they're forced to marry, in addition to the commands of their fathers, brothers and uncles.

Any man who defies such archaic belief systems is shamed for allowing his woman to have power over him.

That isn't islam. Those are fundamental patriarchal cultural belief systems designed by males to remove any potential of the perceived threat by females.

You know, like they used to do in the western civilizations until the chicks decided not to put up with that crap anymore. This sexism isn't limited to arab cultures by any means.

It's hard to grasp the concept of being unable to escape the burden of cultural expectations, isn't it? I used to think 'well, they can just walk away'. But being forced into that belief system from birth makes it difficult and nearly impossible to think any other way.

[MADem]

148. +1,000,000! nt

[closeupready]

155. They certainly don't now, because French authorities demand blind obedience.

Obedience to a dress code designed to penalize muslim women.

Online discussions, I have to remember, take place in an alternate universe where, as you imply, muslims immigrate to France and set up sovereign, cloistered, self-contained municipalities free from the interference of French authorities, where the immediately impose strict Sharia law upon every muslim in their communities. Where adulterers are decapitated, thieves have their hands amputated, and women are prohibited from driving cars.

I repeat, you need to prove on a case-by-case basis that EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM WOMAN who is wearing the burkini is being FORCED to do so, against her will.

That's how it works in a free country.

[underahedgerow]

156. Ah but there's the rub, you see. Is it force when centuries old creepy cult beliefs cause anyone to

adhere to the mores set up for them?

Are the women willing victims? Perhaps there's another phrase that's more appropriate.

What I find difficult to understand is why someone would defend a patriarchy's 'right' to enforce such nonsense on females in the first place. In a sense, anyone who is suggesting that these women are happy in their burkas and that they have this other right to wear what they want totally doesn't get the big picture.

You see, they don't have the right within their culture, to not wear this garment of horrors if they decide they want to go to the beach or to the pool. See what I mean?

One can't possibly think it's a really great thing for these women to be SO liberated that wow, NOW they get to go to the beach like western women! Granted they have to be draped in sheets and blankets, but look at their amazing freedoms! They've come so far!

Rather a bit like liberating the slaves under Lincoln I think. 'Hey now, you're FREE! But you can't vote, walk down the same side of the street, own property, , travel in THIS car on the train, look at a white man or speak to a white woman until you're spoken to first, or go to school or have a job. But dammit, be grateful you're FREE.' Circa 1865....

Just sayin'.

[Iggo]

14. You're not showing enough skin! How dare you!

What the ever loving fuck?

[Orrex]

15. I won't wear them because I don't think that they look good on me.

[alarimer]

17. I wish they had the ability to refuse to wear them without repercussions.

I do see them as oppressive, because I don't think they really "choose" to wear it, even if some say they do. The repercussions may only be ostracism or disapproval from friends or relatives, but that is still powerful social pressure to conform. Let's face it, most people of any religion do not have the strength to stand up to social pressure of any kind.

[suffragette]

40. I'm with you. I also think there is quite a reactive situation going on with burkinis

In France.

Earlier in August a Muslim group had scheduled a private burkini swim party at a pool and specified minimum coverage for the event.

Following publicity, the event was cancelled.

I wonder if part of the reaction now stems in part from situations like these occurring earlier.

http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-88067292/

Its poster advertising the event stated it would be open only to women and children, including boys under 10, and requested that attendees wear clothing that covered “from the chest to the knees”.

It added that “exceptional” authorization had been obtained for women to wear burkinis and pool jilbab — swimsuits and poolside garments that cover most of the body — both of which are normally banned in public baths in France.

“We are counting on you to respect the AWRA (Islamic rule requiring parts of the human body to be covered) and not come in a two-piece (chest to knees must be covered). The minimum is a one-piece swimming costume with pareo or shorts,” the poster read.

On Smile 13’s Facebook page, which has since been taken down, the organization explained the clothing request was necessary because the pool has “mixed” staff.

France already has some unusual swimsuit laws, in particular that men must wear speedo-type swimsuits at public swimming pools. Shorts or trunks are not allowed there. That law is explained as for hygienic purposes since speedos aren't generally worn elsewhere.

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2009/aug/12/speedos-fashion
http://www.thegoodlifefrance.com/speedos-versus-trunks-in-swimming-pools-in-france/

[MADem]

45. I am amazed at the "enabling" of fundamental extremism concealed under the guise of "choice"

that in reality--as someone who has lived under a repressive culture and has seen it up close and personal--is not "choice" at all.

You give this kind of shit an inch, and it will take a mile.


Westerners do not "get" this--in their effort to be so "inclusive" and "understanding," they are enabling the patriarchal bullies who keep women repressed and unable to achieve their full potential.

These guys (and they are Persian) get it:

[underahedgerow]

127. Right? By suggesting it's the woman's choice, it's empowering the patriarchy instead of empowering

the female being forced to wear such atrocities.

Not doing anyone but the fundy fearful men a favor, is all this is doing.

[MADem]

129. How adeptly you voiced what I was trying to say!!!

[AngryAmish]

19. I am not French. Their country, their rules.

[treestar]

43. By that standard,

you'd have to allow Saudi Arabia their rules, too.

[AngryAmish]

44. Yes I would.

I make no claims that my beliefs should be the absolute standard for all humans .

I would not like Saudi life, so I don't go there.

Not everyone should have to bend to your will.

[Marr]

158. +1

[TexasMommaWithAHat]

20. Burkini, fine. Headscarf, fine. Burqa, NOT fine.

Anything but the face covering should be allowed in a free society.

I think these items are sexist pieces of garbage, but women should be free to wear them.

[Albertoo]

21. An Algerian expressed best why the burkini is insidious and wrong

Aldo Sterone, an Algerian blogger based in Britain, fled Algeria to escape the growing encroachment of Islamists on public life which began after the first Algerian mujaheddins came back from Afghanistan in the early 1980's.

Slowly, ever so gently, Islamists grew a stranglehold on most issues of public life where they felt the hadiths based Sharia had something to say. On details like today's burkini.

Fast forward to the summers of 2015 and 2016 in Algeria: women denied entrance to clinics or courtrooms on the ground their clothing was not conservative enough.


NB: there is absolutely zero justification for a face veil in the Quran. This stems from interpretations of the hadiths which themselves are unreliable grandmother fairy tales sponsored by the Abbasid Caliphs. It is the Abbasid Caliphs which inaugurated the confining of women to homes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbasid_Caliphate#Status_of_Women

[LWolf]

22. Burkinis and headscarves,

when they are freely chosen by women with no compulsion by males and/or patriarchal religions, are fine with me. Anywhere.

[maxsolomon]

173. how can you determine that is the case?

there is no separating the hijab from its cultural context.

I had a meeting with a Muslim woman in it yesterday. her hijab (with a built-in brim like a sunbonnet!) was utterly unnecessary, and occluded her vision. it "others" her from Americas of every other stripe but Muslim (well, maybe not Hutterites). it was like meeting with a nun from 40 years ago.

and she was very nice.

[LWolf]

180. I can't.

Which is why any individual wearing one is fine by me.

And it's why I'll stand in support of women who don't want the men in their culture or faith telling them what to wear, too.

I spent the 4th of July sitting blanket to blanket with a Muslim family, women in full gear. I didn't ask them if they were unhappy, lol. I did note that they were relaxed, and appeared to be comfortable and happy.

[Calculating]

23. Burkas are oppression

The women have merely been conditioned to accept this oppression and consider it 'normal'. Think about it logically. Who in the hell would actually WANT to cover up in hot clothing out at the beach? What If you conditioned women to think it was wrong to get an education and do anything other than raise children for their husbands? They might be "happy" with their choices to drop out of school and raise babies, but it wouldn't make it any less oppressive.

Islam has historically been extremely oppressive towards women. Just look at nations like Saudi Arabia. It's actually an extremely sexist/misogynistic thought process. Comes from the belief that the beauty of a woman is inherently evil and drives men to sin. Therefor it's up to women to cover up and not tempt men. Of course it wouldn't be up to the men to simply have a little self control. It's just as bad as the "she must have wanted to get raped because she dressed like a slut" attitude. It's all linked back to the fundamental misogynistic belief that it's the duty of women to save men from temptation.

[RobinA]

25. Couldn't Agree More

But it has to be up to the practicianers of Islam to deal with this issue. Imposing rules will not work and will create more problems than it solves.

[Person 2713]

31. Maybe we should work on sects started here in the United States first and get them in what you

think is comfortable for a women at the beach and educate them about lifestyles

AMISH AT THE BEACH
Yep somebody needs to "work on" these people and set them straight

[jberryhill]

36. We have Amish at the beaches in Delaware all of the time

They don't bother anyone, and nobody bothers them.

I couldn't imagine a good reason for forcing them to remove their clothing.

[Person 2713]

39. Lifestyle oppression and making others uncomfortable because they are clearly wearing clothes

associated with a particular religion ( you yourself could point to that they are Amish)
are what some people imagine are good reasons I guess
It's the F'ng public beach
I have been to Delaware beaches and they are quite beautiful. Enjoy!

[MADem]

46. They aren't, as a religion, trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of us...or are they?

[Person 2713]

64. I have never had any Muslims trying to impose anything but Yes Crazy Christians ALL the time

if thats who you are referring to........sorry if you experience that a lot I imagine the Muslims trying to convert you aren't much different than the crazy X preachers out here. We have a big Muslim population here but never seen them trying to convert
What part of the country are you posting from?

Amish do hawk bakery goods at the downtown train station but not their religion . Don't know if that's imposing
They don't use cars ( suspicious to the paranoid) but can travel by train and bring thier wares in to the city to make money. I asked them why they are not there in the evening, they just said they needed time to get back home so they only do the morning rush and lunchtime. Just as well, I don't eat bakery goods often but thier products are especially wholesome with good pure ingredients but it is still sugar

[MADem]

65. You've never been a victim of the Morality Police in Teheran!!!

Or seen them in action, I take it....

And someone yelling "Join our club" (as some Christian evangelists might do) isn't the same as being thrown in jail for violating some idiot's idea of what Islam is or being forced by a patriarchal figure to shroud oneself in garments so that men are not "offended" (i.e. driven to lust which makes them NOT responsible if they choose to indulge in rape) by the sight of their hair or figure.

We're not talking about baked goods, here:

Amish do not drive, FWIW, but they'll take a ride--I know, I've given them rides a time or two. They also use cellphones--but not IN THE HOUSE. With LEDs, their homes are brighter, and they have no problems with batteries.

They don't like wires for some reason....

[True Dough]

59. Sects on the beach?

Sounds a little kinky, but I'm down with that too.

[pampango]

38. Burkas are oppressive but Muslims in Indonesia (he largest Muslim country in the world) do not wear

it. Nor do they in other SouthEast Asian countries.

It seems to be more of an Arab cultural phenomenon rather than an Islamic one.

Why don't Southeast Asian Muslims wear a burqa, niqab or hijab as much as Muslims in Arab countries...?

I believe the answer to this question lies with the history of how Islam spread to Southeast Asia, mainly the Malay peninsula, the half (western part) of Indonesia, and Brunei Darussalam.

Unlike Persia or Egypt which had direct contact with the Arabian culture, where niqab or burqa is worn, Islamisation in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei took place without much involving the Arabs.

Islamisation in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Brunei is a result of hundred year long trade with Muslim traders from Gujarat (India) and China. History recorded that Muslim traders from those regions have visited Southeast Asian shores as early as the 14th century. The first Muslim grave found in Indonesia, belonging to Fatimah binti Maimoon, is dated from this era.

By the 15th century, many kings in coastal kingdoms, such as Aceh (Indonesia), Melayu (Malaysia), Champa (Vietnam), Demak (Java), and Brunei, have become Muslims. As these kingdoms grew bigger, stronger, and expanded into inland areas, conversion to Islam became common among the local populace.

If Islam hadn't been preached by Gujarati and Chinese traders, I doubt that Islam would have been accepted in Southeast Asia. The Gujarati and Chinese cultures became 'buffers' between the local Southeast Asian cultures, which had practised polytheistic Hinduism for nearly 1,5 millenia, and the Islamic Arabic culture which preached strict monotheism.

The heyday of Islamic proselytisation by chinese traders was when the Great Admiral Zheng He of the Ming dynasty, a Muslim, with a massive fleet of 317 chinese galleons and 28.000 crewmen visited Southeast Asia, India, and the Arabian peninsula for diplomatic missions between 1405 and 1433 CE. Half of the 'Wali Songo's, the well-known & venerated first Islamic preachers in the soil of Java, were of Chinese origin.

After the Ming dynasty fell, Chinese Muslim hegemony in Chinese internal politics and international trade declined. Chinese traders then became less and less associated with Islam in Southeast Asian coasts and more with Buddhism or Confucianism, as what they had always been in Southeast Asian inland areas, such as Cambodia, Myanmar, and Thailand. The homelands of Chinese Muslims in China are the chinese western provinces. The Niujie Grand Mosque in Beijing, constructed in 996 CE, gives testament to past Chinese Muslim influence in Chinese politics.

https://www.quora.com/Islamic-Culture-Why-dont-Southeast-Asian-Muslims-wear-a-burqa-niqab-or-hijab-as-much-as-Muslims-in-Arab-countries-or-even-in-Europe

[Nevernose]

51. Quota is totally wrong

They don't all wear the full burka, granted, but as Wahhabism has spread, so is has the burka. I've personally witnessed multiple Thai women in full black burka, from Bangkok to the Malaysian border. The southern Thai border, by the way, is heavily Muslim. I saw this within just the last few weeks.

Furthermore, my Father in Law is a Muslim convert, married to an Indonesian Muslim, and resides in Indonesia. She doesn't wear the burka, but extended members of her family (in the distant Aceh province) definitely wear the full gear.

I think maybe it's like a spreading fad among the fundies, sort of their way of saying, "Look how Muslim we are!" These are not groups of people with much in cultural common, except their religion, so that's the best hypothesis I've got.

[MADem]

66. Look how Iran changed after the revolution.

Most women I knew carried a scarf--but it was more of a "just in case" type thing, like "Just in case I want to use the phone or the bathroom at the local mosque" (this was before cellphones).

Now, you go to Iran and everyone who isn't in chador is in manteau. The burqua is an Afghan thing, by and large--I've never seen that characteristic blue color, the styling, or the weird spit-flecked screen they're forced to look out of in other countries, though I have seen some pretty aggressive coverings of other types.

[Odin2005]

154. Just like how Western women are "conditioned" to wear skimpy clothes to please men?

Ultimately all cultural standards of "appropriate dress" are completely arbitrary, and to think our Western standards are superior to any other is a form of cultural imperialism.

[maxsolomon]

177. i disagree.

the Burkini law in France is misguided and unenforceable, and now it is suspended by the courts. let's not confuse a French law with something that happened in America.

the freedom to NOT wear religiously-proscribed dress (and conversely, TO wear it) makes "western standards" objectively superior to those of at least 2 specific countries where such freedom does not exist: Iran (where the Basiji enforce morals), and SA (where the Mutaween enforce morals). I'd include others, but I don't believe there are state-sponsored morals police elsewhere. I'm probably wrong about that.

American women generally dress to please themselves and other women (and no, I'm not including FLDS, Amish, or Hutterites in that generalization). in general, they have the freedom to do as they wish - modestly, immodestly, comfort, impractical.

if American Muslim women use that freedom to dress like old-school nuns, fine, but don't piss on me and tell me its raining.

[Avalux]

27. What a person chooses to wear isn't my business, or that of the French government.

If women want to wear burkinis on the beach that is their choice. I understand the possible implications in doing so (from the French police's point of view), and I understand that some of those women might be wearing them to appease someone else ....but it's still their choice.

[MADem]

80. Oh, it IS the business of the French government--they are secular, and they frown upon

expressions of religiosity in public life. While we have freedom OF religion, they have freedom FROM religion--if you want it, you really have to seek it out.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La%C3%AFcit%C3%A9

French secularity (French: laïcité, pronounced laisite) is the absence of religious involvement in government affairs, especially the prohibition of religious influence in the determination of state policies; it is also the absence of government involvement in religious affairs, especially the prohibition of government influence in the determination of religion.[1][2] Dictionaries ordinarily translate laïcité as secularity or secularism (the latter being the political system),[3] although it is sometimes rendered in English as laicity or laicism by its opponents.[citation needed] While the term was first used with this meaning in 1871 in the dispute over the removal of religious teachers and instruction from elementary schools, the word laïcité dates to 1842.[4]
In its strict and official acceptance, it is the principle of separation of church (or religion) and state.[5] Etymologically, laïcité is a noun formed by adding the suffix -ité (English -ity, Latin -itās) to the Latin adjective lāicus, loanword from the Greek ?ᾱϊ?ό? (lāïkós "of the people", "layman&quot , the adjective from ?ᾱό? (lāós "people&quot .[6]
French secularism has a long history but the current regime is based on the 1905 French law on the Separation of the Churches and the State.[7]

Thing is, those women probably, if left to their own devices and without the influence of their cultural community, their husbands, fathers, brothers and sons, would likely not be wearing a hot nylon head to foot costume on a hot summer beach. It's not their "choice." It's an option they are given and they are "allowed" to wear it because this hot (and not hot as in sexy) costume is marketed to them--and more importantly, to their husbands and fathers who will give their "approval" -- as "Islamic." They are sold on "Islamic clothing" websites, and in "Islamic clothing" shops.

If they are appeasing husband or father or brother, it's not a choice. It's the only option open to them, save wearing full hijab on the hot stones/sand.

If they truly just want to "cover up" at the beach, and retain their modesty, or stay out of the sun, a jazzy caftan and a large hat will do the trick and no one will give them a 2nd glance. They'll be invisible. They could probably get that sort of outfit far cheaper than the price they'd pay for a "burkini" which run around seventy bucks and up depending on quality (the term, itself, is offensive, given that the burqua is probably The Most Repressive of all the articles of clothing used to subjugate women in the Muslim world).

[MurrayDelph]

28. My stance is very basic

1. They look bad on me, so I won't wear them, despite using other protection to prevent a return of my basal cell carcinoma.

2. As a dude, what a woman chooses to wear is none of my business (unless she chooses to make it so).

[eShirl]

29. As a cancer survivor I'm advised to sunblock and wear coverage while out in the sun for hours.

These burkinis look great to me.

[MADem]

99. I think once you wear one you will change your mind.

Ripstop nylon under a hot sun? Might as well wear a sauna suit.

[underahedgerow]

126. I have very fair skin and vomit when I'm in the sun too much. I wear linen during the summer

and literally avoid being in the sun as much as possible. I love linen, it's light and cool and always an absolute fashion classic.

I stay covered from head to ankle and cover my wrists, face, neck and feet in sunscreen. I wear sunglasses whenever I step outside, being blue-eyed. I would wear a hat, but I keep my long hair piled high on my head, which precludes hats.

I am a gardener, and enjoy being outside as much as possible, although it's hard in the summer, but I have the early mornings and evenings in the high heat to do my chores. Can't stand the mosquitoes though, but whatever.

I never, ever go to the beach except in winter, and being a bit of a nutcase, I can't imagine what pleasure is to be found in sitting on a beach, doing nothing, getting sand in all my bits, roasting, sweating and turning my skin into leather, and watching a billion other people doing the same thing. It's just not an activity I find appealing.

I prefer to sit on an outdoor, shaded terrace drinking gallons of Rosé rather than watching screaming kids whine, cry, moan and shriek. I look at the rows and rows of people basting themselves like roasting chickens on a bbq and I just don't get what is appealing about it!

We have a pool, but I hate it. I don't like soaking in chlorine and chemical sewage. I am looking to switch it over to a UV filtration system, but the technology hasn't quite caught up to my ideas yet.

That being said, approaching 60, I have no wrinkles, no skin discoloration and look half my age. Bonus!

(get offa my lawn!) Yeah, I'm a sarcastic bitch, no offense intended to the beach basters!

[Gormy Cuss]

32. I think it's a case of MYOB

and burkinis are ugly as sin but if they allow a women to enjoy the beach when otherwise she would not be able, so be it.

[leftstreet]

34. Are they banning ALL religious oriented garb?

[jberryhill]

35. Of course not

[MADem]

55. What a charming--and very VINTAGE--photograph!

I'm guessing that was, when--the fifties? Sixties? That wasn't taken last week. I don't know if many -- if any -- convents wear those costumes any more.


And of course, those poor women were part of a patriarchal system that oppressed them as well, deeming them impure and less imbued with the holiness required to be priests of their faith as a consequence of their religion's tenets, which determined that one had to be male to "talk to Jesus" and these handmaidens were there to HELP the priests do their work!

More to the point, those women could walk away from their vows of celibacy and religiosity without having to fear their father or husband coming after them and strangling them to death, or setting them on fire, or what-have-you.

I don't really see the equivalence, but that's just me...

[eissa]

56. You're awesome. That is all.

[MADem]

71. ....

[leftstreet]

63. Seriously?

I'm guessing that was, when--the fifties? Sixties? That wasn't taken last week. I don't know if many -- if any -- convents wear those costumes any more.

Uh, lots of nuns still wear traditional habits.

[MADem]

73. We've had color photography for many years, now.

And that's not the beach, is it? For all you know, these ladies don their Jantzens when they go down to the shore.

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the marginalization of women in this fashion--it's not winning me over, sorry.

And "lots of nuns" have been mustered OUT of their orders because the money spent on them is needed to pay for the sins of pedophile police. Further "lots of nuns" do NOT wear those foolish, anachronistic costumes because they are ridiculously expensive and uncomfortable to wear. In fact, "lots of nuns" who used to wear the "penguin costumes" now look more like THIS:




from an unrelated article about the decline of women choosing to enter that particular vocation: http://www.getreligion.org/getreligion/2011/03/fewer-children-then-fewer-nuns


I can't help but notice that you avoided responding to the difficult concept that nuns--unlike women who are trapped in a life of hijab wearing because their culture and male relatives demand it--can leave their orders and their "costumes" behind without fearing that Pope Francis will come after them and kill them for their shameless immodesty.

[Il_Coniglietto]

75. I await the ban on these nuns' habits.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/21/where-s-the-outrage-over-nun-beachwear.html

Now here's the real question. What if a French Muslim woman wants to scuba dive or surf and wears a wetsuit? Has she run afoul of the ban?

[MADem]

85. Italy (where your pic was taken) is a CATHOLIC country. France, OTOH, is SECULAR.

So, nice try, no cigar. Or, to put it more waggishly, right church, wrong pew!


And, from your link:

Another surprising advocate of the ban is Lorella Zanardo, a feminist advocate whose documentary film Il Corpo Delle Donne, the body of a woman, about sexism in Italian television, has helped change archaic atttidues towards women in this country. She actually donned a burqini and went to the beach to see what the buzz was about. She says she found it to be “hot, heavy and uncomfortable.”

Even though Zanardo has spent her career trying to make sure women are appropriately covered up in the often blatantly sexist Italian media, she believes, at least in this case, that the covers should come off.
“I defend the right of Muslim women to break free of their cages,” she says. “Immigration should be an introduction to the culture, to the knowledge of rights, customs and traditions of other people. When I travel in the Arab world, I dress simply with a light veil, jeans or trousers. Why is it here we see sad scenes of Muslim women in Italy completely covered up and sweaty beside their men who have adopted the local customs and wear light clothes and shorts. Is that freedom? We must not allow the fear of sounding anti-Islamic trump feminism and the struggle for women’s rights.”

Perhaps you don't understand what a "burkini" is made of--it's not a wetsuit. It's a ripstop nylon, fast-drying outfit, that includes a long tunic so no one can see "that area" of a woman where the legs meet the rest of the body. They're not cool garments (picture yourself wrapped in a head-to-toe MEMBERS ONLY jacket on a hot beach on a sunny day)--they're just slightly less uncomfortable than street clothes, and they dry quickly, so a woman isn't left sitting in heavy damp clothing.

Do you know any wetsuits that are constructed like this?





Most wetsuits I've seen are rather sexy and form fitting. The only resemblance is that they have the little hat thingy, but otherwise, a burkini is not a wetsuit.

Sixty percent of the French people agree with the ban, and about thirty percent Just Don't Care. I rather doubt France cares what the rest of the world thinks--they aren't going to make it easy for patriarchal expressions to become the norm in their land--they just aren't. They were successful back in 2004 with the "headscarf law" which eliminated religious expressions (from all faiths) from schools and places of public accommodation and disallowed hiding the face from view; we'll have to see if this law, too, is upheld as a consequence of the secular tradition of the nation.

Funny how everyone praises France for their "nanny state" work week, wages, and health care, but when they step in and say "No--we're not going to allow women to become billboards for a sexist, misogynistic POV" that people who call themselves liberals line up on the side of the ulema and, in effect, support the practice of imprisoning women in restrictive and bulky clothing in order to ease the carnal urges of men.

I guess you have to have actually seen the negative effects of this demand placed on women, this insistence that they are dirty, unclean, slutty, etc., if they don't wear that constricting costume, be it chador, hijab, manteau, chadieri, burqua, or cutesy "burkini" to say "Unnnh unnnh--I am not going to be part of a crowd that supports misogyny disguised as choice."

Now, here in USA, people have a right to wear what they'd like, because we have Freedom OF (not FROM) Religion...so here, in USA, all I can do is roll my eyes when I see some poor woman sweating like a stuck pig in ninety degree heat while her husband strolls two feet in front of her wearing a short sleeved shirt of the thinnest cotton.

[Il_Coniglietto]

88. And? Do you think there are no French nuns?

Are they now not permitted to go to the beach? And what about nuns visiting France? Are beaches now off limits for anyone wearing too much clothing?

Have you ever worn a wetsuit? They have to be pretty tight so I've never found them particularly comfortable, especially when dry. But do you honestly believe that tight fabric head-to-toe is fine, but looser fabric head-to-toe is deserving of banning by an entire country? If a French Muslim woman wore a wetsuit, that'd be okay? But a few extra centimeters of fabric isn't?

And "misogyny disguised as a choice" is an interesting turn of phrase to defend paternalistic misogyny disguised as progress.

[MADem]

92. No one seems to be able to show me a pic of French nuns in old-school habits

frolicking on the beach. For all you know, they're there in their Jantzens, soaking up the rays. Why do you assume French nuns don't know how to put on a bathing suit because there are a few pictures of elderly Italian nuns, in gray, knee-length dresses, exposing their gams to the sunlight, floating around who haven't managed it?

Why do you keep going on about wetsuits? Is there a church of the Sweaty Nether Regions where "the wetsuit" is a visibly ostentatious religious garment that makes it clear that the wearer belongs to a specific faith? If there isn't, then your point is not taken.

Most of France agrees with this ban, or has no empathy--and that "tough love" approach is the way to go. Women aren't forced to wear face coverings by their misogynistic fathers/husbands any more, because French law has forbidden it for more than a decade.

Have you ever worn hijab? Not a wetsuit, but HIJAB? NO? Well, why don't you take some guidance from men who have so done:

[Il_Coniglietto]

101. I have worn hijab so please don't assume.

Trying to prove that it is wrong to oppress women through control of their clothing by, shocker, controlling their clothing is quite simply stupid.

Although I am completely opposed to any religion (including Islam) telling women to feel ashamed of their bodies/sexuality, I respect that adults can make decisions for themselves. I would never wear a burqini. But if my family member or friend wore one, we'd still have fun at the beach. That is what matters, not the amount of fabric on someone's body.

The wetsuit is relevant because the exact same amount of skin is covered as with a burqini. The differences are negligible (one tighter, one looser). But one is arbitrarily banned while the other is not. So again, if a Muslim woman wears a wetsuit, is that okay? Or does it magically become a tool of oppression when a Muslim woman wears it?

Moreover, what does this ban really accomplish? Will these same Muslim women start wearing one pieces and bikinis now? Or is it more likely they simply won't go to the beach (ironically now more isolated from secular society than before)? They'll have been punished and the advocates of this ban will be proud.

Some progress.

[MADem]

104. Oh really? That's quite a user name you've got there, you hijab wearing male wabbit, you!

If you have in fact worn hijab, then you should KNOW BETTER.

Really.

The French have as a foundation of their rule of law an insistence upon secularity in public life--and that's how they like it. They believe in freedom FROM religion, not freedom OF religion. They aren't like us, they are much more monolithic a society, they prioritize their "Frenchness" and they don't particularly want their society diluted with anti-wine, anti-food, anti-lifestyle, Franglish-speaking, hijab wearing people who aren't willing to be FRENCH FIRST.

They like being FRENCH and they want to stay that way. The vast majority of the population is onboard with this view.

Since sixty percent of their population agrees with this ban, and thirty percent don't care, that leaves ten percent who don't agree with any degree of fervor. I say let democracy rule the day.

The day that women aren't forced to swaddle themselves in shame because "men can't control themselves" will be a day when I will be able to say "Some progress," but that's me....

[Il_Coniglietto]

109. LMAO!

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised. I bow down to you, you clearly know what's best for me!

Your little "French First" paragraph sounds far too much like someone who speaks of America First, who hates immigrants and the different cultures, languages and ways of life they bring. I mean, diluting society? REALLY?

So much so that I will assume you were being facetious.

[MADem]

110. I hate immigrants? Really?

You sure you want to die on that particular hill?


Now that's an LOL-worthy comment, for reasons I won't even bother to go into...suffice it to say that I come from a long line of "immigrants." Those who know me would find that remark rather laughable.

If you don't understand the French attitude on their culture (and quite obviously, you don't), don't blame me. That's your fault for not doing a little reading on the topic before jumping to accuse me of being a racist.

It's not MY fault that this is the way they approach life--but it is very weird that you "blame" me for what is fact, and then try to impugn me by suggesting I am an "America First" bigot. I mean, damn--that's downright uncivil of you, if it weren't so funny. I rather doubt those folks would have me--I don't fit their 'profile,' you see.

I think you need to work on your reasoning skills, because you made a leap that was much too ambitious, there. In your attempt to be cutting and cruel, you flopped, badly, to the point of amusement, actually.

You might want to work on your understanding of French culture, and let me help you with that--this site is wonky looking but it provides a fair starting point:

https://www.understandfrance.org/French/Issues.html

[Il_Coniglietto]

163. "...they prioritize their 'Frenchness' and they don't particularly want their society diluted..."

"...with anti-wine, anti-food, anti-lifestyle, Franglish-speaking, hijab wearing people who aren't willing to be FRENCH FIRST."

THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS.

I correctly pointed out the similarity between your defense of "French culture" and the same bull I've been hearing defending "American culture" by Trump. I said HE hates immigrants and HE hates different cultures, and the language he uses to do that is uncomfortably close to what I quoted you on above. I did so because I actually believe you AREN'T like that and was hoping to enlighten you on how you were coming across. But whatever, your over-the-top response shows that clearly ain't happening.

The link you posted is about French culture from the view of one French man and one American woman. Kay. That's their opinion. Here are some others:

(The whole video is great, particularly with discussing the effects of colonialism on immigration, but from 4:25 on she focuses specifically on Muslims in France.)

These videos are hardly representative of the whole of France. But they are just as important and worthy of acknowledgment as the link you posted.

The following video is surprisingly relevant to this entire thread. In it, a French woman yells at a French man simply for wearing a qamis:

She wants to ban his clothing as well, but she can hardly claim it's to fight misogyny. No, it's about some "sense of decency." Uh huh.

What stands out to me in all three of these videos is the isolating "otherness" if you are not French enough. The burqini was designed to help include women into their communities. The alternative is to...what? Don't say wear pants and a long shirt. That's not okay either:

However, the more important and dangerous point, Mr. Muhammad said, is that there is no legal definition of the burkini. Typically many Muslim women, who do not want to spend 40 to 125 euros for a burkini, wear a T-shirt and long pants. Some even take off their hijab, others put on a bathing cap.

He said that six Muslim women who complained to his center in the past week were asked to leave public beaches even though they were not wearing burkinis.

“One was wearing a long-sleeve T-shirt and pants with a head scarf, and another was wearing an actual competition bathing suit, like they wear in the Olympics, and a bathing cap, and she was taken off the beach,” Mr. Muhammad said.

However, he added, “her mother was wearing the hijab and was enjoying a picnic on the beach,” and the fact that she was Muslim and wearing a bathing cap was enough to cause local officials to ask her to leave.

In Cannes, where a ban on the burkini was enacted last week, at least six of 10 women who complained to a local Muslim association were simply going into the sea with their bodies covered.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/world/europe/fighting-for-the-soul-of-france-more-towns-ban-a-bathing-suit-the-burkini.html

However, great news! The burqini ban is no more:

After a month of intense national scandal and heightened international outrage, France’s highest administrative court, the Conseil d’État, on Friday overturned the so-called burkini bans in 26 of the country’s coastal towns and cities.

...

The court struck down both arguments for the bans: It ruled that the burkini is neither an insult to the equality of women nor a harbinger of terrorism. The attempts to ban it, the judges maintained, insulted “fundamental freedoms” such as the “freedom to come and go, the freedom of conscience and personal liberty.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/08/26/frances-top-administrative-court-overturns-burkini-ban/

Liberté, égalité, fraternité. Good.

[MADem]

164. They DO. Maybe you should have asked for a definition of "Frenchiness" before you lashed out with

such bilious commentary.


But no, you made an assumption that I was speaking of ethnicity rather than culture. A country that elects people named Sarkozy and has film stars from the North African littoral doesn't have a problem with ETHNICITY so much as they take issue with people who refuse to become FRENCH.


You probably do not know that the French have an entire "Academy" that is devoted to holding the line on all things "French" -- from food to language.


It's obvious, with your gish gallop of videos and your repeated Trumpian accusations, that you know nothing of France, and I'm done with your accusatory hate and vitriol.

So you have one of those "real nice days."

[closeupready]

165. +1,000,000. Thank you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

140. To be precise, that photo is from Rio's Copacabana beach

It's just been used as an illustration. Here's an original article, from 2013 - the nuns are Polish: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380138/Sunbathers-join-nuns-Rios-Copacabana-beach-million-Catholics-gather-evening-service-Pope.html

But, yes, French nuns go to the beach in full habit: http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-nuns-at-the-beach-hossegor-france-religieuses-novices-la-plage-hossegor-39081747.html (from 2011)

And so do visiting Ukrainian nuns (2008): http://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-an-orthodox-ukranian-nun-with-her-digital-camera-on-the-beach-in-nice-20490751.html

[MADem]

142. Ah ha!!!

The picture of the nuns in gray (who are showing way more leg than you'd see in a burkini) was said to be taken by the Imam of Florence and posted on his facebook page to "prove" that there was some unfairness going on. I guess the Imam was stretching the facts to suit his narrative? NONE of these photos are contemporaneous with this YEAR, never mind this month or any month since the many attacks in France that motivated the temporary ban.

And Brazil? That's a rather Catholic nation.

I imagine if the Pope showed up in Cannes to hold mass, you'd see some nuns on the beach in that case as well--but it's plainly not a daily occurrence. I don't think they'd be stretched out on the stones, either.

Those nuns that are depicted in the French beach photo aren't sunbathers, either--they're having a walk along the shore. They're on their pins, not lounging in the sand.

Nuns at the beach (Hossegor - France). These young novices of a South Eastern French congregation - take advantage of a stay in the Landes region - to serenely gaze at the sea and stroll. Religieuses à la plage (Hossegor - France). Ces jeunes novices d'une congregation du Sud-Est de la France - profitent d'un séjour dans les Landes - pour admirer l'Océan dans la sérénité et se promener.

And of course, this picture is five years old, before Charlie Hebdo and the truck massacre, as well.


The Ukranian nun, from the photo taken back in 2008, is taking a photograph and not sunbathing (there is a fully dressed couple strolling behind her as well and the day appears somewhat overcast).

We'll have to wait, I suppose, until a nun turns up at one of the beaches to sunbathe in full habit where the ban is in effect to see if the treatment of said nun is substantially different.

[muriel_volestrangler]

146. Have you considered getting an editor for your posts?

They're full of irrelevant dross. You could also do with a fact-checker:

"The picture of the nuns in gray (who are showing way more leg than you'd see in a burkini) was said to be taken by the Imam of Florence" - no. The article said he "has been posting photos of beach-going nuns in habits"; it neither said the photo used was one of them (it's marked 'Getty', a photo library), nor that the Imam took any of the photos he posted.

"I guess the Imam was stretching the facts to suit his narrative?" - it seems you've ended up stretching facts yourself. You haven't shown that he stretched any.

"NONE of these photos are contemporaneous with this YEAR, never mind this month or any month since the many attacks in France that motivated the temporary ban." So what? They are modern. They illustrate that nuns go to the beach in their habits, which you thought didn't happen. Up till now, you've been protesting about how women wearing headscarves or hijabs is a patriarchal subjugation of women that needs to be fought has disappeared, and now you're saying "everything has changed because of attacks by a few Muslims". Are you saying that makes it OK to punish a load of Muslims we know had nothing to do with the attacks? Or that nuns will have changed their behaviour because of the attacks?

"it's plainly not a daily occurrence." That's a non sequitur. What is 'plain' about it? You've shown no evidence for that. Type "nun beach france" into Google Images, and you get the Getty photo illustrating the new story (which mentions France, and is currently popular, so will turn up high in Google results), and then the 2 I gave. There are a lot more after that, but it wasn't worth linking to them all.

Why does it matter to you whether the nuns are walking or sunbathing? It doesn't matter to the beach rules. You said "I don't know if many -- if any -- convents wear those costumes any more"; and people have been showing you that they do. And they go to beaches too, whether or not the Pope's in town.

[MADem]

147. Wow, have you ever considered getting a Politeness Coach?

It would prevent you from flinging, willy-nilly, some of that rude "dross" that you're shoveling at me!




I saw an article where the gray nun picture was given a CREDIT to the Imam, which is why I credited it to him in the first place.

I ask questions, and you try to insist that my comments are declarative. Since when does "I don't know...." mean anything other than that? And how am I supposed to see the pictures before I make the comment that are only posted AFTER I make the comment...hmmm?

You really are trying much too hard to both disagree AND be disagreeable!

Yes indeed--nuns have on rare occasion gone to beaches in their habits. Show me the pictures of them going to beaches in habits since this ban has taken effect. You're the search engine whiz, after all!


I object to forced hijab, and it is a patriarchal and misogynistic mandate that women cover themselves in this absurd fashion. If you ever lived in a Muslim nation for years and years, not for a quick visit, where this kind of shit is an element of daily life, perhaps you'd have an appreciation of this issue. Your comments lead me to believe you don't have a grasp of the topic from any real personal experience of it. You just have an opinion, and we know what those are like.

But hey, you have one of those real nice days, now!

[leftstreet]

77. Oh please

Not sure why you're trying so hard to defend the marginalization of women in this fashion--it's not winning me over, sorry.

Nice try

It's a simple question anyone might ponder. Why are these particular women being targeted while others aren't, or haven't been?

You say "marginalization," I say harassment

[MADem]

83. Here, a little something to maybe make you think a bit harder on this issue.

I object to the indoctrination of young girls and women that they are dirty and shameful creatures whose sole function on this earth is to "entice" men to lust and motivate them to blamelessly rape them.

That IS the sales pitch--and it's just wrong.

I can't see how a liberal can bend so far backward to give aid and comfort to the ulema on this issue. I just can't. It's not a choice when your husband won't let you leave the house if you refuse to comply. It's not a choice if your father will beat you if you are seen in public in "immodest" dress.

I understand the French perspective--they are NOT America, they are SECULAR. They have freedom FROM religion; not freedom OF religion. This order is temporary, and it has much to do with the truck tragedy that took place on that very promenade in front of that beach. I'm not second-guessing the French government in their application of their laws--I will say that making it more difficult for men to order women to wear outlandish garb is one way to free those women from those absurd garments.

Here's how some Persian MALES view this very issue in the repressive nation of Iran--I agree with them, too:

[leftstreet]

97. ...which has nothing to do with the OP

French police make woman remove clothing on Nice beach following burkini ban

Authorities in 15 towns have banned burkinis, citing public concern following recent terrorist attacks in the country

Banning the only clothing these women can safely wear to the beach leaves them with two options:

1) wear unapproved attire and risk repercussions from the whacked men in their lives
2) stay home

which are the exact same options they have right now

[MADem]

108. Let me deconstruct your misstatement of fact.

Those women can effectively "wear hijab" without actually wearing hijab, and call absolutely NO attention to themselves. I explained this in another post:



http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8122362

You say two things that are rather troubling to me:

When you say "unapproved attire" I can't help but note that you don't let us in on who the "approving authority" is.

When you say "safely wear" you infer that these women are in DANGER if they stray from a mandated uniform.

The French object to "religious clothing" being, in effect, an advertisement for a faith that has strong elements of misogyny. I think they've got a point. I am not French, but I can appreciate their reasoning. I am also not a fan of forced hijab, even if husbands and fathers tell women to insist that it is their "choice."

If you couldn't take that point from the videos I offered, I will have to say I don't think you tried very hard.

[leftstreet]

115. and there it is...

...and call absolutely NO attention to themselves.

LOL

[MADem]

125. Yes, there it is.

They won't make any statement--politico-religious, or otherwise, and that will keep them from getting a ticket as a consequence of the ban.

Not sure why you think that's funny.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. So it seems: "Nuns cannot wear their habits on our beaches, says deputy mayor of Cannes"

Speaking to presenter Edward Stourton on the World at One on BBC Radio 4 yesterday, the Deputy Mayor, Rudy Salles defended the burkini ban and said: “What is the burkini? There is bikini and there is burka and the burka is forbidden. When you go to the beach you wear a bathing suit. You don’t go to the beach as you want. If I want to go on the beach naked it’s forbidden-I cannot.

“So if you want to go to the beach in a burkini it’s forbidden because it is a provocation. Religion and the state are completely separated. Religion is the affair of each one but each one at home, each one at church, not each one in the street.”

When Edward Stourton asked him: “What about a Catholic nun. Would she be allowed to appear on the beach wearing her habit?”

The deputy mayor replied: “No. The same.”

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/nuns-cannot-wear-their-habits-on-our-beaches-says-deputy-mayor-of-cannes/

[MADem]

150. I imagine that will disappoint some who really thought they had a winner with all those old pictures

then!

[muriel_volestrangler]

152. Your imagination seems to bear little relation to reality

so we're all going to ignore it. You comment is meaningless. You really do need that editor.

[Hekate]

37. Just another way to shame women about their bodies. I'm looking at YOU, France.

Leave women the hell alone about what they swim in and sun in.

[asiliveandbreathe]

41. Live and let live - for heavens sake -

The style in the 1920's for women would be banned I suppose???? - good morals or secularism??? - You want to talk about good morals??? - Oh never mind..I am floored during visits to the grocery store and see what some women wear - close to nothing at all..

I am NO prude..but jeez...give it a rest ladies..(or the Utube Walmart videos - (LOL)

[gratuitous]

42. How about, "It's none of my business"

But that's a complicated, nuanced argument more fitting to a graduate-level symposium than the raucous give-and-take of a public discussion.

[backscatter712]

47. If you're telling grown women what they can and can't wear...

...you might be an asshole!

[romanic]

48. Burkinis are ugly.

Oh and secularism and stuff. I don't think hijabs or headscarves are bad. Just don't agree with how Muslim women are made and forced to wear them.

[Warren DeMontague]

49. I think people should be allowed to choose for themselves what they wear. Period. Full Stop.

But, then, unlike some supposedly "progressive" people, I also don't think the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Issue should be banned.

[Person 2713]

106. I don't think so either.......seems like some of the same crowd offended by both ironically

[Warren DeMontague]

114. Yeah.

Honestly I spend more time than I'd like just picking out my own wardrobe. Why I should be in the business of picking out anyone else's, is beyond me.

[Throd]

50. Better than dudes in Speedos.

[CincyDem]

52. Com'on...there's nothing better than dudes in Speedos. Especially elderly portly, dudes.

As an elderly, portly dude...I get to say that !

[YOHABLO]

54. Why? Because they look ''gay''? Some of us can wear a speedo because we take care of our bodies.

Straight guys make me sick.

[bravenak]

57. probably because some people let themselves go, then wear the speedos anyways. my children cannot

NOT makes remarks. they are very young. Plus, I get sic of old dudes in speedos trying to get frisky with all their interests hanging out. i saw nobody say anything even resembling what you got out of that comment.

[MADem]

128. "....with all their interests hanging out!"

My mechanic calls speedo wearers "grape smugglers."

I laughed so hard I damn near choked!!!!

[bravenak]

130. Your mechanic is right!!

[Throd]

58. Bad memories of pale, portly German tourists on the beaches of Malaga in the 70's.

Just because you "can" wear a speedo doesn't mean you should.

[jberryhill]

119. They are not wearing them for your approval

[MADem]

74. LOL--don't always assume that the dislike of speedos has anything to do with homophobia!!!

I lived in Europe for many years, and some people, well, they just aren't good models for the brand, put it that way....the "grape smuggler" look isn't always very appealing, no matter what one's orientation--as illustrated rather amusingly (with a more thong-ish approach) by this SNL skit:

[Ilsa]

53. In the US, I don't think a burkini could be banned.

It's part of someone's religious preference, and as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else, they can do it, as far as I'm concerned.

The French can do what they want.

[MADem]

78. We have "freedom of religion." You can wear a cross as big as a Christmas tree and no one

will arrest you. You can dress up as the Pope or your favorite Ayatullah if you'd like. You can wear any and every religious costume that suits your fancy, here. You can even pester people with religious (or, shoe on other foot, ANTI-religious) exhortations with relative impunity.

You might get some side-eye, but that's just opinion.

France, OTOH, is a secular state--it's part of their history and culture, and they want to keep it that way.

[appleannie1]

60. They really are not that much different than what Amish women wear.

They wear wool stockings year round, ankle length dresses with long sleeves and cover their hair with caps.

[phylny]

72. True enough, and the men are equally covered and "plain." n/t

[Panich52]

62. Personally find them offensive (on 2 fronts) but ...

Feminist in me hates them because they're a sign of male blame-shifting (I can't control my sex drive so it's women's fault) & male-dominated religious dictates — which also bothers the atheist part of me.

But ... if a woman is fully willing to be so oppressed, it's her 'right' and religious & personal liberty should have more weight than irrational fear and bigotry.

[Buckeye_Democrat]

67. Nuns don't seem to be affected on French beaches.

http://globalnews.ca/news/2903036/people-share-photos-of-nuns-on-the-beach-in-response-to-burkini-ban-in-france/

I'm not sure what France's government is thinking.

Let the women decide how they dress.

[MADem]

96. Those are Italian nuns on an Italian beach!

Last edited Fri Aug 26, 2016, 05:17 AM - Edit history (1)

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/burkini-ban-simply-attempt-hide-europes-real-problems-says-italys-imam-izzedin-elzir-1577608

The nuns he photographed are showing a lot more skin than the 'burkini' allows, too--at least the nuns can feel the water on their shins!


Edit--turns out the Imam errrrrr....lied. Those are POLISH nuns on a beach in Rio, in town several years ago to see the POPE.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2380138/Sunbathers-join-nuns-Rios-Copacabana-beach-million-Catholics-gather-evening-service-Pope.html

In a Catholic (not secular) country...not France, though!

[kwassa]

70. Remember skinny dipping?

Being a child of the late 60s, and having swum nude at the original Woodstock and many other places, I really don't care what other people wear when they swim.

Anyone who has spent time in nude settings realize how ridiculous this whole issue is. Many Americans are prudes in their own ways, hence the Speedo conversations. It is only a matter of degree between this and burkinas.

[pbmus]

76. You have not been threatened by Isis to blow up beach goers

And anyone wearing a full body suit on the beach is a suspect....

[longship]

79. I am not going to play this game. nt

[Rex]

81. I don't care. Should be a free world.

[moondust]

82. Not for me to say.

Europe has a long history of overcoming extremism and conflict at enormous cost. Postwar Germany banned Nazi symbols. Geography makes Europe especially accessible and vulnerable to large numbers of people with no history of Western values. Given the history and context, I'm okay with whatever Europeans decide. If they consider the burkini too provocative or whatever and want to ban it, fine. Today I heard that polls have shown 64% of the French favor the ban.

A year ago there were reports that Saudi Arabia offered to build 200 mosques in Germany to serve all the refugees, which was later denied by the Saudis. Nevertheless, a person might wonder if some Muslims might use any means available to them to try spread the influence of Islam, similar to Christian missionaries trying to spread Christianity around the world.

[Arazi]

102. Yup. +1

[mwrguy]

100. No one has the right to tell women that they cannot choose hijab!

France will regret this.

[Warren DeMontague]

116. How, exactly? I'm curious.

How, exactly, will France 'regret this', do you think?

[mwrguy]

168. They will look back at this

and see a dark, oppressive time in their history, like their time of slavery and their reign of terror.

[Warren DeMontague]

174. well I'm sure we agree that telling people what to wear or not wear, do or not do is wrong!

I have no patience for those who feel entitled to tell others how to live their lives.

[Marr]

159. Jesus.

You've made the best argument for banning it yet.

A threat? Seriously?

[mwrguy]

169. You think I am threatening the nation of France?

They are acting badly and will regret it.

If I say the rethugs will regret nominating drumpf am I threatening them?

Settle down.

[Marr]

170. Oh, don't be coy.

The fact that it's just empty internet warrior swagger doesn't change anything. You were alluding to the potential response from the Muslim community of France.

[maxsolomon]

179. FFS, check yourself.

france already regrets plenty.

[Eko]

105. Its a cloth.

If a person is forced to wear something, anything, for something other than prescribed by law then that is totally different story.

[JI7]

120. i support the Burqa ban but the specific case in France just seemed wrong

even if she was being forced to do it by some male relatives. it's still punishing her for it.

[Binkie The Clown]

133. If we must ban something on the beach, make it accordions or bagpipes or both! n/t

[yuiyoshida]

144. TYT weighted in

[Odin2005]

153. People have a right to wear what they want.

I am 100% against the ban, it is Islamophobia and Western Culture Supremacism masquerading as enlightened secularism.

[closeupready]

157. Law has been overturned by France's top court.

(CNN) — Mayors do not have the right to ban burkinis, France's highest administrative court ruled Friday.

The Council of State's ruling suspends a ban in the town of Villeneuve-Loubet, near Nice, and could affect cities around the country that have prohibited the full-length swimsuit.

More than 30 French towns have banned burkinis, which cover the whole body except for the face, hands and feet.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/26/europe/france-burkini-ban-court-ruling/

[backscatter712]

166. Good. About time France's brain-damaged morons got smacked down.

Someone finally bought a vowel and solved the puzzle over there.

It's not OK for people to be telling grown women what clothes they're allowed to wear.

[closeupready]

175. Absolutely. If, on the other hand, a woman is being coerced

into wearing them when she wouldn't otherwise, then that can and should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. (As I would say if a man were being similarly coerced, although yes, in most muslim communities, it's the women who are powerless relative to men.)

[FigTree]

171. The day I'm allowed to swim naked, I'll support any type of garment for others. nt.

[Warren DeMontague]

182. But ... Thats different!!!!!!

because, reasons.

[citood]

176. This is all a conspiracy to fund Big Sunblock

[LiberalFighter]

178. If the woman is okay with it let it be.

I seriously doubt that anyone wearing those outfits would feel comfortable out in the hot sun or if out swimming with heavily soaked clothing.

[IVoteDFL]

181. I think it's ridiculous to start policing dress

Period