• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    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.

    (Do the French do school uniforms?)

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      16
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      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.

      • @Takapapatapaka
        link
        English
        111 year ago

        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.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          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.

          • @Takapapatapaka
            link
            English
            31 year ago

            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

        • @electrogamerman
          link
          English
          21 year ago

          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.

          • @Takapapatapaka
            link
            English
            11 year ago

            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.

            • @electrogamerman
              link
              English
              21 year ago

              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.

              • @Takapapatapaka
                link
                English
                11 year ago

                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.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              people to ban them from school and universities

              The abaya ban It’s only in schools. Not in universities.

              Muslims do not want to force women to dress in a certain way, it’s beyond religion,

              You are a muslim shill. Look at the egypt!

              Today the debate is less over whether women should adopt Islamic dress — as many as 90 percent of women cover at least their head

              Or this: https://www.algemeiner.com/2022/07/28/an-egyptian-womans-brutal-killing-sparks-renewed-hijab-debate/

              Instead, they blamed the victim, arguing that Ashraf was killed because she didn’t wear a hijab.

              The bold is mine. It’s for you to not miss it!

              • @Takapapatapaka
                link
                English
                01 year ago

                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.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  11 year ago

                  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.

                  • @Takapapatapaka
                    link
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    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.