Watched a video on institutions in France today. Specifically police, I had no idea how terrible it is.
Video for context: Warning incredibly sad but its important to know how terrible people are so we don’t repeat history. youtu.be/jUxiTdRTPMg?feature=shared
France banned basically all religious symbols in public schools. This includes crosses or the Jewish kippah. It's now expanded to include the abaya dresses. Veils and headscarves were already banned.
I think it's stupid since the dress isn't necessarily religious. It's just commonly worn by Muslims. Might as well ban white buttoning down shirts at this point because that's what some christians wear, especially to church.
One one hand, it seems a little extreme, on the other hand, if they have a religious exemption to a school uniform and they are blocking religious items/clothing at school then it kinda makes sense.
French schools in France/French territories don’t have uniforms. But they ban any form of group/gang/religious symbols.
That included my baseball hat with a team logo on it. We actually had uniforms but that was due to the local country imposing it on the French school. France has set up French public schools all around the World.
I’m not saying I fully agree with their approach but they are consistent in their policy and not targeting any single religion/group.
Well that’s a 50/50 on the “not targeting any single religion/group” since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience). And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them. I also think that the abaya thing is a sign that they really fight against Muslims, since it is more cultural than religious,. But yeah, you’re kinda right in the sens that they just harass every other religions than cristians in general, and would probably ban a christian with a huge cross on a shirt too.
It’s probably hard to enforce such rules when teachers have their own biases. Ideally it should be all or nothing.
My experience was they were very secular. I had a small crucifix necklace (mother tried and failed to indoctrinate me) that I wore under my t-shirt so it wasn’t visible. Some sad Christian fundamental kid tried bringing his religious books during class break and was laughed into not trying again with his very hard sell of no-wank/no-sex until marriage religion.
yes, i agree with, my experience was close to yours. I think the difference here is people are secular in general while system/dirigeants are less clear about it, and tend to fight harder when it’s a non-christian religion, though it was not the case when Christian religion was still in control
since they accept crosses that are not too big, meaning necklaces and earrings (at least in my experience).
If thats the case, then we should fight for them to be banned. It is a good thing that education is separated from religion.
And since christian people tend not to wear specific attire except for cross-shaped jewelry, it’s like a whole exception just for them.
But they used to, even now the highest priests all cover themselves, they just dont force it to other people like muslims. Thats a good thing. A religion shouldnt force people to be dressed a certain way. A person can be religious without having to cover all but their face. And exactly this ban is helping with that.
Except muslims want to force women to dress in a certain way.
Well it is not that simple. I agree on the point education and religion should be separated, but just on what children learn, not how they just dress.
But i maintain that catholic common folks do not have any specific attire. In christian cultures, people just wore basic attire, like long skirts or dress for women. But it was not specifically religious, it just was a blend of habits, morals and fashion, so cultural things. At some point, religious people, who tend to be conservative on those subjects, did advocate those clothes because they matched some vague ideal of decency of their religion. That’s why now conservative catholics still ask their daugther to were those clothes. And it is exactly the same thing with the abaya : a cultural fact only slightly mixed with religion, and in both case people who tend to wear just long dress to cover their body. It is not proselytism, it’s just cultural .
On a second note, i do not understand how anyone could support such a ban and still think they are doing a favor to these people. Do you think it will really help indoctrinated people to ban them from school and universities ? I mean, either
the person wear it by choice, and then there’s no problem
the person was told to, and then they should be welcomed in schools and universities more than other, to make them see other options exist.
It’s also very weird that religion should not tell people how to dress, but a state can. It’s weird that people say “you can be religious and do whatever you like”, but at the same time they consider that “you cannot be democratic/republican and do whatever you like, there are rules to follow”.
Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion, it’s included in morals, cultures. Some muslims do not give a fuck the way women dress. Some atheist do force the women in their lives to dress in specific ways (and this includes people of the conservative tradition). This is not something you change by hating on a religion which is just a medium for this, and which is already discriminated a lot, this is something you change by including people in a free society and help them make a real choice about it. It’s absurd to ban people of a free society because they’re not free.
Btw it’s a common thing in france to want to control how kids dress. Religious, culturals outfits are banned, but also “indecent” clothes like crop-top. I even remember talks about forcing girls to wear bras, so their nipples are not visible (though i did not remember any political consequence for the bra part, but the crop top was explicitly banned). In some schools, coming disguised on specific days could be banned, and punished. I experienced that, along with critics against outfits like torn pants. It’s just people disliking some clothes, but some of those people become headmaster, and they ban what they dont like. And some of them become minister, and they ban what they dont like in every schools. “Secularism” and “Republican values” are always mentionned then, like they are absolute truth that enable you to prohibit things and still think you’re fighting for liberty.
But yeah sure. Religion bad. Muslim bad. What muslim wear bad. Ban bad. When done, only good.
The existence of a philosophy that makes women willingly want to cover themselves for men to think that they are pure is wrong. It is sexist and retrograde thinking.
You can say a thousand things and decorate it with whatever you want, it is still going to be wrong.
I agree that any philosophy that aims to control other’s people life is wrong to me. Based on that, a state philosophy which says “You cannot dress like this or like this” is a wrong one too. I do not like religion, i do not like muslims religion. But i do not hate on muslim people either. I do not support their -generally and imo- fucked up morals, but i support their right to live, their right to dress how they want, even if it is to respect a tradition, their right to access education and knowledge. I also acknowledge that they are historically and currently being repressed by the government and our allegedly secular society, which has just found in muslims what they had found in jews past century. I think the place where muslim people have the most chances to experience liberty and critical thinking is in a free school, not in one which represses their way of life without any further reflection than “Religion bad”. I also think that where non-muslim people have the best chance to undo their prejudices against muslims is in a school where muslim folks can come and dress freely.
Okay, so i 100% percent agree that religion are wrong when they are forced upon anyone, and that religious state, and muslim state first, are worse oppresions than state alone. I also agree that abaya is not banned in universities, mb on this one (though we could argue that if you ban someone from highschool, they most likely wont be able to go to university).
I am against anyone who prohibits women to show their hair, and i’m against anyone who prohibits women to hide them. Both are bad, and both are worse when endorsed by oppressives systems that are states and morals. In Egypt, muslim state is worse than atheists. In France, “atheist” and islamophobic state is worse than muslims. (all of this is strictly my point of view) I strongly believe that it is dumb to think that you can free someone by prohibiting things, like you can free someone from drugs addictions by jailing them, free someone of war by invading them.
You say “Muslim bad because they blame women who do not wear hijab instead of blaming killer”, and i agree. But this argument sounds illogical here, because you would blame women who wear hijab instead of blaming people who force them.
I strongly believe that it is dumb to think that you can free someone by prohibiting things
If you want a free society you cannot allow everything. Tell me of a free society that hasn’t banned slavery. Or are you going to ask me how can it be free society if it’s members aren’t free to do everything? If you want a secular society you cannot allow religious attire in the government places.
Btw, egypt just banned niqab from the schools. The french did it in 2010, and you are basically, parroting the same arguments then used. Even bin laden accused France of preventing “free women from wearing the burqa”. If we want progress someone needs to do it first and this is how we get social progress.
I am against anyone who prohibits women to show their hair,
No you are not. You endorse the behaviour by being permissible of it.
You previously said: Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion.
You seem to conveniently forget that islam is not just spiritual. You cannot dissociate the religion aspect from the culture and the politics, as i shown you with the egyptian president video.
But this argument sounds illogical here
This is just a way of forcing women to wear shit they don’t want. By fear: You put the blame on the victim and it passes the message that you need to wear it otherwise, who knows what it might happen to you.
Okay, my bad, i did not think it would be necessary for me to add “it is dumb to think you can free someone by prohibiting things that they do”. In the case of slavery, you cannot free a slave by prohibiting him from being a slave. He would just be under control of his master AND illegal. That’s dumb. You need to change the mind and the power of the master, that’s where the problem lies. Here it is exactly the same : we need to change the mind of the men that force women to do anything, including wearing specific clothes, including all the “muslim” bullshit. You do not help drug addict by banning them from hospitals, you do not help a bleeding person by opening the wound even more, you do not help any victim of domestic abuse by banning them from school and public administration. You do not fight criminality by fighting the victims, you fight it by fighting the criminals. If you cannot understand that, i dont know what to say anymore.
I maintain that the domestic abuse violence IS beyond religion, even though very very strongly linked with it. Because, very simply, some muslim do not do this hijab bullshit, and leave people free. So it’s not the essence of this religion to control women. Religion is a part of the problem, but it does not mean you can solve it all by erasing religion. Because even if you manage to prevent religious bullshit (which has always meant violence against people from this religion), you did not solve the moral part, which will live onf and still force women to wear some piece of cloth. BUT, if you manage to solve the moral part by changing the mind of people and help everyone make a conscious choice, the religion will continue without this moral rule of “women should cover their hair”. That is why it seems dumb and dangerous to me to fight a religion when you should fight morals.
Egypt and France are also very different examples. In one, almost every girl is concerned by the forced hijab problem, while in France it’s only a minority. More than that, they are subject to hard discriminations and harassment in France, and hateful speech from 2/3 of the political spectrum. So while it may be a correct replacement of true freedom in specific countries, it is still less than true liberty, and still a way of oppressing muslim people in france.
On the last part, you did not understand me. You say “Muslim put the blame on the victim”, and at the same time, you put the blame on the victim of forced hijab, by saying they should not be able to wear it. I say both islamist and french republican talk the same way. They pretend to fight for women dignity, and then force them to do thing they dont want to (put their hijab on/off). Both are bastards to fight against, because liberty should be in the hand of women on this matter, not of some random male politician pretending to fight for them.
If there is a real problem is some women, forced by his father to wear a hijab, and it is banned in school, she will be twice as much a slave. Slave of his fucker of a father when at home, slave of his fucker of a state when at school. I maintain : this is not how you free people.
By the way, we have only spoke of women that are actually forced by someone to wear it. But there are a lot of women who wear it by choice, and banning it is bad for them. It may be okay in Egypt or any other country where women are not harassed because they wear it in everyday life, but in France it’s just more discrimination against them, and they already get enough.
And an extra thought, if you think that a woman cannot at the same time wear a hijab AND be a free woman, you may have a problem with what “free” means. When we allowed abortion, we did not prohibit giving birth. When we allowed women to have their own bank account, we did not prohibit common bank account in a couple. When we allowed women to wear pants, we did not prohibit dresses and skirts. It should be the same here : true freedom is to choose, not to be forced in any way.
Here we go again with the back pedalling and false equivalences.
In the case of slavery, you cannot free a slave by prohibiting him from being a slave. He would just be under control of his master AND illegal.
Making it illegal the authorities it will free all the slaves that the authorities know about. It won’t free them all immediatly, but it will free a considerable amount. Eventually with time, all (statistically) the slaves will be known and they’ll be free. If we are waiting for the master to change minds, slavery would still be legal and if you don’t know it, traditional slavery ended by guns, when the british forced the last slave traders (the arabs) to stop the practice in the 60s!!!
That’s dumb.
Yes, let’s allow slavery again. It was dumb to forbid it. /s
That is why it seems dumb and dangerous to me to fight a religion when you should fight morals.
Why not both? Shitty ideas need to be fought as well.
So while it may be a correct replacement of true freedom in specific countries, it is still less than true liberty, and still a way of oppressing muslim people in france.
Where is the discrimination when the rules are the same for everybody?
But there are a lot of women who wear it by choice, and banning it is bad for them
First, the ban is about girls (which is the people who attend schools), not adult women and it affects only the school premises. Why is it bad for them? It offends their sky daddy? Why is it bad to look like everybody else around? Why then don’t they use large clothes without the religious connotations? They can use xxxl cloths, hell, they can even use a potato sack.
Egypt and France are also very different examples. In one, almost every girl is concerned by the forced hijab problem, while in France it’s only a minority.
And because it’s a minority it should be ignored? The law exists to protect the most vunerable ones. It doesn’t matter if it’s 1000 or 1000000.
When we allowed women to wear pants, we did not prohibit dresses and skirts. It should be the same here : true freedom is to choose, not to be forced in any way.
Again a false equivalence. This is getting boring. Tell me, can you enter a church in a bikini? Can i enter a mosque with shoes? Can you enter a factory (the production line) with a skirt? The abaya isn’t prohibited from the society. They can use it outside schools.
Parallel with slavery : you did not at all understand my statement. I meant that if you say that its illegal for someone to be a slave, slave will go to prison and wont be free. When we say “slavery is prohibited”, we say that HAVING SLAVES is illegal, not BEING A SLAVE. Same with muslim shit, forcing women to wear stuff should be banned, not women wearing stuff. And we agree, slavery ended up when people used violence against slave tarders, not against slave themselves (which is why the parallel with the hijab/abaya situation is absurd, because here people are taking actions against the women they claim to protect, and not the one who are forcing women).
You just misunderstood me again, please think about what i say before writing anything. Here, “That” does not refer to “abolishing slavery”, but to “make slaves illegal people” (which has never been made, on the opposite, they were given legal rights).
So you concede that the true problem comes from morals, and not religion. That is a good point. You can fight both, but they are to be fought in different ways, this is two different things. Religion is less shitty idea when it does not talk abouth enforcing thing on other people (when it does, well it’s morals or politics). Then, you can say that only-spiritual religion is bad too, but that’s your fight, not mine or everyone’s fight. As I care for everyone to be free, I want everyone to be able to choose what spirituality they want, including dumb believings from thousand of years ago. But sure, you can fight their ideologies with your personal bullshit. And to do so, you need them in public places to discuss with them, so they should go in schools to be able to go to university and all common places where citizens can discuss.
Are you seriously asking why arabic and muslim people are oppressed in France ? There litteraly were slaughter by the police, they kill more arabic people than anyone else, they are insulted in the streets, they are criticized for their clothes, there are victims of terrorist attacks from right wing. Plus the same rule for everybody does not mean no oppression. You can say : “No homosexual behavior, no communist action”, and it still is discrimination, even if you add “it’s not forbidden to be homosexual, but it is to act like one, so everyone is equal”. Refusing to see that this kind of shit targets a specific community is just bad faith or dumbness, you choose.
Some girls in highschool are adults (majority is 18 in France, you may reach it while highschool if born before june or if you repeat a year). The rule about clothes also applies to every people who works in the school : teachers, watchers, cooks, etc. Also you may be a kiddo and still make choices, especially in highscool. At that time i joined political and musical cultures, and was not told by my parents to do so. It was my choice and i was proud of it. I have friends who converted to islam when they were at highschool. Your religion may be your choice, and then it’s fine. The big problem is when it’s not. Why is it bad to look like everybody else around ? I dont know about you but at highschool i tried as hard as i could to come out from the mass. It’s okay not to be a sheep you know ? And it’s okay to be. What matters is that truly want to do what you do. Btw, common clothes are also banned if they are used for religious purpose. A girl switched her hijab for a bandana, and still got banned. It was confirmed by the highest juridical institution in the country, making it a case-law. They just want muslim to stop living how they want, that’s just it.
I did not say it should be ignored because it is a minority. I said the way of resolving the problem are not the same, and that the clothes ban was not a solution in France. In Egypt, the massive problem may require temporary massive solution, because helping each victim individually would be very long, and it is even harder to help them when being a victim is “normal” way of life. In France, the problem is very precise, so we could manage each case individually, and the fact that there is another “normal” way of life makes it easier to leave the one where you are forced to wear something.
Why a false equivalence ? My argument is “giving someone freedom to do X does not mean banning them from doing nonX”. You can replace X with aborting, wearing pants, showing your hairs, it’s always the same. If you missed this, well you missed a basic logical inference. All the rules you mentionned seems dumb to me, but they are made for specific places, run by specific people. It’s why they are ok, as long as their consequences are not serious. You can avoid entering in a church, in a mosque, in a factory, you can do pretty much the same in other places. But being banned from entering a school is a serious disadvantage, and that is precisely why we made a public school for everyone to come in. “But not if you’re a muslim girl (or arabic, we do not make a difference), because then you are of course indoctrinated by some man in your family, so we should have revenge on you instead of him” (at least that is still the only reason i can see to ban abaya which is still not a religious clothe but a cultural one, worn by non-muslims and not worn by all muslims).
You just make claim of back pedalling and false equivalence, without pointing to any of them appart from a basic and concrete logical equivalence, and then misunderstand half of my points, except the one you end up agreeing to. And then you are the one saying that it is boring. Come on, i dont ask you to start caring for muslims, i just want you to show you this is not protection but oppresion, it is not hard to conceive.
I stopped reading here. The last data that i have from 2021 says that there were 37 kills by law enforcement in France alone. Compare that with the 57 from canada (same year, 2021, and with a way smaller population).
I won’t be wasting more of my time with a muslim shill.
You are a wonder of pure bad faith. One argument of one part of one point amongst 7 seems off to you, and you stop reading, and you do not even answer what you have already read ? Like “Oh, 7 words of your answer are abusive, so i dont care about the 1000 others”.
And it’s not abusive. Everyone now admits there were slaughters by the police against arabic populations in france. Not in 2021 you are right, but i think you know there are multiple years in history. France committed series of historical slaughters against arabic people, mostly algerians, both in their countries and on the french ground. The most known about is the paris massacre of 1961. Nowadays, police still kills more people with arabic names than with any else culture. (Source here, at the end of the page, french only)
Now if you want to be taken seriously, you probably should stop avoiding every point i make by misinterpreting it or by just ignoring it. There is no muslim shill anywhere in this discussion, just some who cares for everyone’s liberty and some who hates on muslim because it is the last thing that make them think they still defend liberty when they just prefer the comfort of an oppressive state over the one of partly oppressive religion.
Ill try to make it clear one last time, not for you but for anyone passing by, my comments are always too long but i’ll try to make what i believe and defend concise.
Should women be free to show their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES. Should women be free to hide their hair ? YES. Should we fight against anyone who wants to force them otherwise ? YES.
Anyone who goes against their liberty is a bastard. Conservatives muslims are bastards. Conservative republicans are bastards.
That's the thing, an abaya doesn't cover your head. There might be some designs that do but in general it's just a maxi-dress with long sleeves. So that's why I think this is stupid. I can understand banning wearing it with an Hijab or other types of headscarves. But as it stand they are sending children home because their dress is too long.
Except that this is supposedly don’t because it’s seen as a religious thing. Don’t get me wrong, I’m against Islamic people forcing women to wear certain things. It is oppressive. But that’s not what this is. They are seeing it as a religious piece of clothing, and banning it for being a religious piece of clothing. And it’s not even strictly a religious piece of clothing.
It’s also just the dress. We aren’t talking about any sort of head or face covering. But the dress.
There’s a few layers to this, but none of it is “France is fighting against Islamic misogyny”
That’s the dumbest thing I’ve seen in these entire comments
Edit: Since I’ve got almost nothing going on at work, let me try and explain my point of view. It might be hard to follow an adult conversation, but maybe try.
They are not banning this for any moral reason about misogyny. To champion it for that reason is dumb because that’s not what’s happening. I’m personally a fan of talking about things happening as they are happening. We are not seeing France fight Islam and the way they oppress women. It’s them saying people can’t wear religious things. This includes things like a cross necklace, or a yamaka. Personally, I am agaisnt this. I don’t think it should be the schools decision on things like that. Secularism in a system doesn’t have to be against these things. It just means the rules are written without influence from them. I don’t think religious clothes hurt peope simply for being religious. I don’t get offended if someone wears a cross necklace or something like that.
But this also means it’s not them fighting for women. It’s just them being against religious articles of clothing over all
“So you’re pro women being forced to wear it?!”
No. I’m actually pretty anti-theistic. More so with the Abraham’s religions. I was actually raised Mormon, and while not as extreme as Islam, they do have very similar views on modesty with women that they don’t extent anywhere near to the same extent with men. So I have seen the harm things like this cause. And I agree that it is a choice, but also not really since they are taught this is the way to live and to not do so makes you a terrible person. That if they don’t cover their porn shoulders they’re gonna get pregnant and have STDs. Shit like that fucks with women.
However, I don’t think it’s the schools job to do that. I can understand and agree with head coverings. But if it’s just the dress, then no.
There’s also the aspect that, as others have pointed out, it’s not just religious. It’s also cultural. If you grow up in those regions, even if you’re not Islamic, you would likely still wear one. Because it’s just a part of their culture. Just like how jeans and t-shirts are fairly common in the US. I lived in Florida, and flip flops were fairly common. Moved up north, and not so much. Different cultures have certain types of clothing that are fairly common. It doesn’t have to be religious. So in that aspect I think it’s also a oversight in that some might not be wearing it for cultural reasons so much as it’s just what they wear.
None of this means I support misogyny. I just don’t beleive in an oppressive government doing things like this. If they don’t like it, then they should implement a law where students wear a uniform.
Where in the article is it mentioning that they covered their head? Do you mean the picture? They aren't even showacsing an abaya in the picture. Some of the girls are wearing sweaters and long sleeved shirts. And the head is covered by a headscarf. Yes, it will be very difficult to find any depiction of people wearing an abaya without a headscarf because it's mostly worn by muslims and they will cover their head with an additional headscarf. Just as it will be very rare to find any clothing displayed by muslim women without them covering their head.
At the end of August, the education minister announced that pupils would be banned from wearing the loose-fitting full-length robes
That is how they defined the abaya. A loose-fitting full-length robe. There is no mentioning of covering the head. The abaya is no more a religious clothing than any "church clothes" are. It's like black ties that are worn at funerals, like white button down shirts worn by certain missionaries. These items see use outside of their religious areas and so to abayas. They are worn to many occasions and not explictly religious.
No I am not assuming it literally says so. They banned the Abaya starting this year. The headscarf ban and stricter enforcing of religious symbols was back in 2004.
The French education minister has said that nearly 300 pupils arrived at school on Monday wearing the abaya, the long Muslim robe which was banned in schools last week.
Yes, it is very hard to differentiate between cultural and religious clothings in the Arabic world. And that's why banning the hardscarf while controversial is still supported by most. But things are starting to get ridiculous and is closer to "banning what is different".
I’m curious as to how they even define and abaya. Like… Other than being a loose fitting dress made of a square piece of cloth, theres not much to define it. Dresses that fit the description are also worn by “westerners.”
essentially a robe-like dress, worn by some women in parts of the Muslim world
It is common that the abaya is worn on special occasions, such as Mosque visits, Islamic Holiday celebrations for Eid al-Fitr and Eid al-Adha and also during the Islamic Holy month of Ramadan
I also wear a kippa on my head and a cross around my meck. But it’s not necessarily religious. I just like the design. /s
France is a secular country. It’s probably hard to understand for you free people of freedomland, but ALL signs of religion are banned from public institutions.
So let's ban underwear and shoes because those are also worn in the Muslim world. And anyone who is wearing a baseball cap or hat isn't allowed to take it off because taking off a hat inside has christian influence.
The abaya is just like a suit or a dress worn by people to church. And neither are banned in public schools. If a french girls wears an abaya few would even know it's an abaya. And ton of western style maxi-dresses are similar in style to an abaya.
Giving these girls a chance to enjoy school life without being subjected to indoctrination every minute of their lives by their parents is a good thing.
If even some of them see past the bullshit of religion and can function as normal people it will be of benefit.
Oh, like yeah most teenage girls can wear whatever they want, no parents will never ever say “where are you going dressed like that?”
Like literally whatever the standard of the parents is, they will enforce it on their teenagers in most cases, sure they can pick any clothes they want, as long as it fits the standard.
Oh, like yeah most teenage girls can wear whatever they want, no parents will never ever say “where are you going dressed like that?”
Like literally whatever the standard of the parents is, they will enforce it on their teenagers in most cases, sure they can pick any clothes they want, as long as it fits the standard.
Yes, because turning them away is such a good way to give them a chance to enjoy school life. You know what would have been good too? Let them in the school instead of putting them in the light like this and refusing entry for some of them.
But, I suppose we have a different view of “enjoy a school life”; my vision happens in the school, yours happens in the school without some people.
Because it is not particularly religious clothing? It is not exclusively used by religious people, it just happens to be mainly used by one group of people. Also, please, “no one in France is allowed to wear religious iconography”. Tell me you didn’t go to school in France without telling me you didn’t go to school in France. Some religion are overlooked quite often.
I’m all for banning religious iconography from schools; but if that was the real goal (hint: it was not), do it fully, and only do it for actual religious stuff. This is about banning a sleeved dress that have little to no connection with religion except that “some people off said religion sometimes wears it”. I’m sure they sometimes wear snickers too, should we also ban them?
The problem is, theres no definitive distinguishihg description of an abaya. It’s a loose dress. How do you distinguish someone who wants to be comfortable in a loose dress from a girl being oppressed by an abaya?
Maybe this will help: What is more important, allowing girls to feel comfortable in a loose dress or helping girls that are being opressed by an abaya?
There are better ways to prevent oppression than controlling what people wear (which is ironically exactly what their oppressors are doing). These girls and women should feel comfortable and free to wear whatever they want, without being forced by religion or the french government. The answer to oppression and authoritarianism isn’t more oppression and authoritarianism.
Yeah, the answr to opression and authoritianism is peace and love, go tell that to the ukranians, maybe if they surrender, Russia will threat them with love.
The solution of opression and authoritarianism is intolerance to them. The french government is not forcing people to wear something, they are enforcing the opressors to not force people to wear something.
Woooow. The mental gymnastics. Are you actually comparing the french government telling little girls what not to wear to the Ukrainian army forcing out a militant government trying to overtake them?
This so is incomparable I don’t even know where to start. First, the Ukrainians are choosing for themselves how and why to deal with their oppressors. I have never suggest you have to be nice and hold hands to fight authoritarianism. I only said that more authoritarianism is not the answer to authoritarianism.
What the french are tying to do is pander to the far right and distract form other issues within their government with culture war BS while willful idiots like you act like the government is playing white savior helping these poor girls from their oppressive clothes. This is actually peaceful AND AUTHORITARIAN at the same time. You do not need to be violent to be anti authoritarian or violent to be authoritarian. Your weird appeal to force to deal with everything… weird and makes no sense.
You don’t liberate people by being authoritarian. Yes, be intolerant of authoritarianism. Use violence when necessary even. But again, MORE AUTHORITARIANISM DOES NOT COMBAT AUTHORITARIANISM. Forcing people to combat authoritarianism under your control and terms does not work. If it did, the US would control a lot more of South America and the middle east. Instead, they just killed a lot of innocent civilians.
This is not some paradox of tolerance I am appealing to. Be intolerant of authoritarianism. Offer these girls mental health resources and a way to escape their families and religion. Offer them a way out of their oppressive situation. Offer them the power to overcome their oppressors on their own terms. Have consequences FOR THE OPPRESSORS if you want to be forceful. Because banning a “square shape” loose dress does nothing to the actual oppressors. What, you think they’ll send their daughters to school in jeans now? No, lol. They will send their daughters to school in a slightly different style of loose dress now. Nothing has happened to the oppressors forcing girls into the abaya.
But, forcing these little girls into “what is good for them” is not helpful. THEY should have the power to decide what is good for them. Everyone deserves that. They should decide what they want to wear. Not their parents. Not the french government.
I only said that more authoritarianism is not the answer to authoritarianism.
Come on, be real. Muslims and Islam force people into wearing x and y clothing. Dont come here and say they are not authoritarian. Yes, authoritarianism is the answer to authoritarianism. You are not going to win to authoritarianism with kind words.
Not their parents
Exactly. And they are the ones making a big deal out of this.
If a little girl wanted to dress as a unicorn to school, the parents would easily say: “no, you cannot dress to school, it is banned”, or do you think the parens would be like “WHY CANT MY LITTLE GIRL DRESS AS UNICORN TO SCHOOL. FRANCE IS FASCIST!”.
All these “but my daughter wants to cover her whole body, its her choice!!”, its coming from their parents.
All these “but my daughter wants to cover her whole body, its her choice!!”, its coming from their parents.
I think this is a very western take on feminism. There are many Arab atheistic women who write on the liberty of wearing clothes that cover their bodies without it having anything to do with shame or religion. Look into Leila Ahmed for example, a professor in Women’s Studies and Religion at the Harvard Divinity School. She is very against women’s oppression in Islamic tradition and majority countries. She’s based an entire career on it. She once opposed veils on women as an oppressive symbol, but has further dissected it’s role in western society where women are not oppressed by their religion and how it even represents freedom in a way. Because that’s how some western Muslim women feel when they wear it. Its their choice to decide what these clothes represent to them.
Some girls are forced and I won’t deny it. And I don’t think we should be tolerant of it. I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy. I wish we saw more of that.
But, acting like a girl living in France choosing to wear an abaya in a healthy Arab family setting (Or any loose dress popular in any culture) is any different from a girl choosing jeans in a healthy western family setting is disingenuous. We are all shaped by our upbringing, but that doesn’t inherently make it some kind of brainwashing or force or abuse.
Also, like… kids wear funky things to school. I don’t know enough about unicorn costumes in France specifically to say anything. But, depending on the costume I assume it would be left alone or stopped if it impeded normal school activity. This seems like a strange example.
An edit for your edit:
Yes, authoritarianism is the answer to authoritarianism. You are not going to win to authoritarianism with kind words.
Part of me barely wants to entertain this. I already explained how anti authoritarianism could be violent and how I wasn’t appealing to kind words or tolerance of intolerance. I offered tangible non authoritarian and even aggressive alternatives. Its scary that, even with this explanation, you think the answer to people behaving the way you don’t like is to control those that they abuse.
It was clearly a strange example to give a point, to which you didnt make any comment.
some girls are forced and I won’t deny it
So in your opinion, how are we going to help these girls that being forced into it? or is your opinion that they dont mind and we should only focus on the girls that want to dress conservative because they want? You mention a system of support for muslim girls… why are muslims not fighting for that? Its strange that they are only enraged, when the government decides to ban the abaya dress, but I wonder if they are also enraged by the fact that some girls are being forced into it.
acting like a girl living in France choosing to wear an abaya in a healthy Arab family setting (Or any loose dress popular in any culture) is any different from a girl choosing jeans in a healthy western family setting is disingenuous.
The difference here is that there is not a group/religion forcing girls/women to wear jeans. Sure, little girls see their moms wearing jeans and they also want to wear jeans, but there is not a religion telling women to wear jeans. With abaya dresses/other coverings, there is a religion telling women to wear them, so saying that little girls wear them because their moms wear them has a different connotation.
Thats the whole point here! Like it or not, this religion is brain washing women to cover their bodies because ELSE!, and they are taught that since childhood.
It was clearly a strange example to give a point, to which you didnt make any comment.
What would I comment on when there is little to no relation between your example and the issue at hand?
So in your opinion, how are we going to help these girls that being forced into it?
i think, at this point, I will just re quote things I’ve already said since it seems you’re just not reading?
" I really think there should be a system of support for Muslim girls in western societies so they can deal with and navigate these issues on their own terms and with their own autonomy."
"Offer these girls mental health resources and a way to escape their families and religion. Offer them a way out of their oppressive situation. Offer them the power to overcome their oppressors on their own terms. Have consequences FOR THE OPPRESSORS if you want to be forceful. "
why are muslims not fighting for that?
You’re saying this like they don’t? There are support systems in western countries too for Muslim women by Muslim women. People can be mad about multiple things at once. And, you will find that many Arab and Muslim women do fight as hard as possible for women in countries with Muslim governments that try to oppress them. Just like they fight the French government who tries to control them in the opposite direction. People don’t like authoritarianism in either direction. I don’t know what to tell you.
but I wonder if they are also enraged by the fact that some girls are being forced into it.
Yes. Yes they are.
The difference here is that there is not a group/religion forcing girls/women to wear jeans.
France is not Afghanistan. Girls are not being forced by religion in France the way they are in the middle east. You are not saving the little girls in Afghanistan by bullying the ones in France. Again, there’s a lot of feminist writing on how these clothes have a very different meaning in the west compared to the middle east. These women often wear these clothes for different reasons.
Hmm no? Please tell me how to distinguish a “regular” dress from a “religious” dress, when they have roughly the same coverage and no specific patterns. That would be helpful to enforce this new restriction without relying on the wearer’s religious belief.
Well, a bunch of men are certainly forcing them not to wear it now. I find it interesting that your answer to men controlling women is to have different men control the same women.
Edit: Honestly, fuck people who use religion as an oppressive tool. But, I find it really frustrating that people are acting like they’re liberating women and girls by controlling what they wear. That’s not liberation. These kids should be given access to confidential in school therapy and resources to report and deal with abusive parents if we’re actually worried about them being oppressed. But that’s not really what this is about.
Additionally, banning the abaya doesn’t prevent oppression. If these girls are being forced to dress modestly and being made ashamed of their bodies, they will just be forced to dress modestly in a vaguely different way now. Acting like this will bring meaningful change to these girls lives is just theater.
Do you actually have anything to argue what I said though? Like… really. Your best answer to oppression is more oppression? And that makes me an idiot?
This will probably lead to them being pulled out of state school and attending a Muslim school where they will truly get 100% indoctrination every second.
Any islamic subject is a very good way to drive people attention away from other subjects. Each time the government wants to avoid to talk about a given subject they found something new to make scandals. For example, they don’t have enough teachers anymore, thousands of them are needed but the most important subject that the whole country should discuss is a few hundred people wearing abayas.
The first weeks after a sperm fertilises an egg is a period of dramatic change - from a collection of indistinct cells to something that eventually becomes recognisable on a baby scan.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells - reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body.
Despite the late-night video call, I can hear the passion as Prof Hanna gives me a 3D tour of the “exquisitely fine architecture” of the embryo model.
The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body’s organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases.
There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Prof Alfonso Martinez Arias, from the department of experimental and health sciences at Pompeu Fabra University, said it was “a most important piece of research”.
The original article contains 817 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
🤖 I’m a bot that provides automatic summaries for articles:
Click here to see the summaryThe first weeks after a sperm fertilises an egg is a period of dramatic change - from a collection of indistinct cells to something that eventually becomes recognisable on a baby scan. Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells - reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body. Despite the late-night video call, I can hear the passion as Prof Hanna gives me a 3D tour of the “exquisitely fine architecture” of the embryo model. The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body’s organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases. There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy. Prof Alfonso Martinez Arias, from the department of experimental and health sciences at Pompeu Fabra University, said it was “a most important piece of research”. — Saved 79% of original text.
The first weeks after a sperm fertilises an egg is a period of dramatic change - from a collection of indistinct cells to something that eventually becomes recognisable on a baby scan.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells - reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body.
Despite the late-night video call, I can hear the passion as Prof Hanna gives me a 3D tour of the “exquisitely fine architecture” of the embryo model.
The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body’s organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases.
There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Prof Alfonso Martinez Arias, from the department of experimental and health sciences at Pompeu Fabra University, said it was “a most important piece of research”.
The original article contains 817 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
The first weeks after a sperm fertilises an egg is a period of dramatic change - from a collection of indistinct cells to something that eventually becomes recognisable on a baby scan.
Instead of a sperm and egg, the starting material was naive stem cells - reprogrammed to gain the potential to become any type of tissue in the body.
Despite the late-night video call, I can hear the passion as Prof Hanna gives me a 3D tour of the “exquisitely fine architecture” of the embryo model.
The hope is embryo models can help scientists explain how different types of cell emerge, witness the earliest steps in building the body’s organs or understand inherited or genetic diseases.
There is even talk of improving in vitro fertilisation (IVF) success rates by helping to understand why some embryos fail or using the models to test whether medicines are safe during pregnancy.
Prof Alfonso Martinez Arias, from the department of experimental and health sciences at Pompeu Fabra University, said it was “a most important piece of research”.
The original article contains 817 words, the summary contains 174 words. Saved 79%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
Does this really solve the ethical wicket of human embryo testing? Is tricking stem cells into forming an embryo really that different from fertilizing an egg with a sperm cell to form an embryo? Like, would this still develop into a functional human being if implanted into a womb?
From a biological standpoint, a re-juvenated stem cell and a freshly fertilized stem cell are identical. But how you interpret this is a completely different question.
Just think about the implications: a clump of your cells are “you”, if you want to kill them, you’re free to do so. However, if someone grows a human from these cells, are you still allowed to do that? Is that suicide or homicide? There’s a line between these two examples and where to draw that is an open question.
Today’s science has become so advanced because of unethical things that done in the past. I don’t think this one is ethical either, also sounds like some form of cloning.
Probably the same reason they use the word “model” instead of just calling it an embryo. They don’t want to make it sound like they’re experimenting on an actual human embryo (even though that’s basically what it is). That’s the real ethical question here. At what point does this become experimentation on humans? This also steps into basically the same problem as the abortion debate, which is more heated than I’d like to get here.
“The researchers stress it would be unethical, illegal and actually impossible to achieve a pregnancy using these embryo models - assembling the 120 cells together goes beyond the point an embryo could successfully implant into the lining of the womb”
Maybe at some point, but what they have now likely wouldn’t become a person.
Since these reasons for being upset are made up arbitrarily in the first place, whether these new developments trigger them is probably also pretty much arbitrary.
The researchers stress it would be unethical, illegal and actually impossible to achieve a pregnancy using these embryo models - assembling the 120 cells together goes beyond the point an embryo could successfully implant into the lining of the womb.
Please explain what is unethical about this kind of embryo testing where cell differentiation did not happen. It is my understanding that opposition to the actual embryo testing comes from religion. But religion says nothing about this.
The article says the embryo models have a 99% failure rate, and also that it would be impossible to achieve pregnancy with it. Sounds like the process to coax the cells to form an embryo and miscellaneous parts takes too long.
Does this really solve the ethical wicket of human embryo testing?
Subjectively, no. Objectively, yes. Just because it has enough properties to do things similar to an embryo, it has been shown that it is in fact NOT an actual embryo.
Is tricking stem cells into forming an embryo really that different from fertilizing an egg with a sperm cell to form an embryo?
Yes, very much so. Sperm and egg method is you get what you get and you don't throw a fit. Which is less than ideal if a very narrow line of cells is all that you were interested in. Think of the ethical implications of taking a fetal tissue and indicating, "Oh well 90% of this isn't what I wanted. Let's slice that off and focus on this 10% I do want. Oh and freeze that shit I sliced off, someone may want it before it goes bad." The tricking stem cells allows us to focus efforts so that the yield is much higher on what researchers want.
would this still develop into a functional human being if implanted into a womb?
No. It does not. No one has tried with humans but it's been tried with primates. The uterus takes the embryo and plays along for a bit of time but after that, the body figures out the ruse and the whole thing comes apart, usually in fetal resorption. So while this method can produce particular lines of cells quite well, there is obvious things that are massively missing form our understanding of ovum to make this remotely successful. Can we overcome that technical deficit? ABSOLUTELY. Will we? Nah, it's not likely.
Synthetic embryos serve a particular sticking point researchers have about human cell lines. Most governments allow human cell lines to exist for about five weeks (there's particular exceptions to this that have more asterisks than the TOS for most social media sites, I'll not go into them, we're just going to stick to in general here). Thereafter, they must be destroyed. The problem is that if you need a particular line of cells that develops much later in the development stage, you need donor tissue which is much more expensive. With synthetic embryos you can "jump" right to what you need.
So this brings us back to the ethical part of this. Objectively, these cell lines being created by this process come very differently than what we harvest from actual donors. And there's little likelihood that this process is going to develop much further than great for single targeted cell lines, piss poor for complex tissue/organs/actual humans. So objectively speaking, synthetic embryos today have very little chance to be confused for actual human embryos. Today's synthetic embryos are just way too dissimilar to actual embryos that I think any ethical concerns are overblown. Yes, it has the name embryo in it, but that is solely a technical distinction and confusing it with actual embryos is a gross misunderstanding of the details.
Subjectively speaking, if I build a ship out of things that look like wood, act like wood, and feels like wood but is indeed not wood, did I build a wood ship? There's a point where I can make fake wood look real enough that it would be hard to tell if it was wood or not. Likewise, it wouldn't be impossible to develop synthetic embryos to a point that the body would know no difference between it and a real one. The only problem is that much like our wood thing, there are trees that are way cheaper to just grow and harvest than to sit here literally trying to reinvent the tree. The whole sperm/egg thing is just something nature has had a lot of time to perfect and it's going to be a very pretty penny to mimic that. And everyone will find that there are very few takers that want to blow that kind of money.
What synthetic embryos solve is a need for particular lines of cells much later in the development phase of a human life. Those cells are expensive to obtain. Synthetic embryos are a cheaper means to getting SOME of them. But if the goal is an actual embryo, you still cannot beat the cost and effectiveness in your run of the mill fertilization. Additionally, if your goal is large amounts of tissue/full organs, likely that 3D printing is going to beat out this technology but until either one of them wins, we still have the expensive and complex system of being an organ donor and waiting till you get a fatal head injury. So synthetic embryos seem to only be able to serve the niche that they are more affordable than the current method. Could they do more? Oh yeah. Will they? Probably not. It was pretty expensive getting to where they are currently at, and going further there just seems to be better methods for the use cases they would serve.
bbc.co.uk
Oldest