Sarkozy - The naked truth

[Outlandish]

POLITICAL opportunist Nicolas Sarkozy forgot three fundamental lessons when he decided to denounce the burka.

The first one is that men should stay well clear of becoming embroiled in expressing opinions on women’s clothes, unless of course you happen to be called Lacroix, Gaultier, Lagerfeld or Ghesquiere.

This was a lesson learned the hard way by former British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw who was pilloried when he questioned the nikab after asking a female constituent to lift her veil so he could see her face.

Could you imagine him making the same request of any female members of the Saudi royal household during one of his galloping missions to the Middle East?

Foolishly Scotsmen Gordon Brown and John Reid, hailing from a country where men wear pleated skirts and paint their faces blue, then waded in with the grace of a couple of dancing bears.

Even the Bishop of Rochester - a man who wears a pointy hat and a purple dress - chipped in his dislike of the nikab, full face veil or burka.

Of course they were all despatched very quickly by Muslim women in Britain who proved themselves to be anything but oppressed, subjugated creatures. And just to show there'’s real solidarity across women of faith and no faith, quite a few western feminists expressed their disdain at Straw and co while standing shoulder to shoulder with their Muslim sisters.

The second lesson is try and be sincere if you are taking up a cause. Sarkozy feigned his utmost respect for women by saying he felt the burka represented the unacceptable symbol of women'’s enslavement - today I can unveil him to be a purveyor of weasel words.

If he really cared about the subjugation of women he would seriously tackle the appalling levels of domestic violence French women suffer at the hands of French men - two million are victims of bullying, violent partners ... a staggering 400 are murdered by their spouse.

So how many women in France actually wear the burka? The answer is a very tiny minority - so much so that when the BBC'’s Emma Jane Kirby went to interview a burka-wearing woman in Paris she couldn’t find a single one!

The former BBC’'s Europe correspondent went to the Muslim quarter in the capital but all she could find were lots of women of North African origin wearing hijabs. She was given blank expressions and shrugs of the shoulder when she asked if any of them knew women who wore burkas - and the local Islamic dress shops didn’t stock any.

So why would Sarkozy launch such an onslaught on the burka, describing Muslim women who wear it as ' “prisoners behind a grille, cut off from social life, deprived of their identity'?
As pointed out by one Islamic observer: '“The irony is that many Muslim women would say the current headscarf ban in France has created exactly this situation for them”'.

Well the real reason had nothing to do with the burka and everything to do with Sarkozy putting pressure on the Liberal Left, throwing a few cheap shots at the expense of Muslim women while trying to pick up a few votes at their expense as well.

Sarkozy, like many male politicians, is pretty gutless so in a pathetic attempt to disguise his real motivations in wanting to pick up votes, he invents a proposed ban of the burka as a defence of women's rights. This, he knows will go down well with the French electorate who see veiled women as a threat to their liberal self esteem.

Using women to win votes is a common political ploy - I remember when Tony Blair and George W Bush claimed their invasion in Afghanistan was in defence of women’s rights and designed to liberate Afghan women.

Those two even used and pushed their own doting wives to stand in front of the world'’s media to justify their husband'’s invasion of the country - on a recent visit I can tell you there are few career women emerging from the rubble of Kabul.

So next time a politician tries to drive through any form of controversial measure or make a spectacular announcement, please don’t fall for the mealy-mouthed excuse that they'’re doing it for the liberation of women and/or ethnic minority groups.

Reading the weekend newspaper opinion pages and columnists, I was amazed at how many supposedly intelligent, feministas fell for the Sarkozy bull. But they did - hook, line and sinker exhibiting an astonishing shallowness in their writing.

I genuinely have a feeling Sarkozy is one of these weak-kneed, lily-livered men who trembles at the thought of empowered women. And I think the sight of a woman in a burka makes him=2 0feel inferior.

Could it be that because his wife - as beautiful as she is - has bared all for every man on the planet to ogle, that the very sight of a burka-clad female makes him feel insecure in his own relationship?

As any European schoolboy can testify from the pictures Blu-tacked to his ceiling, to the crumpled, sticky torn out, somewhat crusty pages of last year’'s GQ hidden under their bed, France'’s First Lady is the stuff of male fantasies.

I suppose there must be some men around who might get a kick out of the thought of pre-pubescent boys fumbling over pictures of their wife in the buff ... or even dirty old, syphilitic men playing with themselves, but I wonder if the pocket-sized French Leader (a mere 5ft 5ins tall) is secure and confident in his marriage to a much younger woman?
Consider this, if a woman chooses to be veiled rather than show her face to a man, is she doing so to protect her husband’s feelings, in which case she could be seen as being compliant and servile, or - more importantly - is she doing so to protect her own face from the violation of a man's eyes?

Could it be that some of these women, when peering out of their burkas at the French leader, feel so special that they do=2 0not want the likes of him staring at all of their features?

And this, I believe, is what disturbs Sarkozy because if burka-clad women don’t want to be peered or leered at by men like him then this would be seen not as a show of subjugation but a sense of female superiority.

Could it be that because every bloke on the planet who wants to, can study in detail every curve and crevice of his naked young wife, that the very sight of a burka-clad female makes him feel uncomfortable in his own relationship?

After all Mrs Sarkozy can be viewed in all her naked glory by anyone who can access the internet or a copy of last year’s GQ.

And then someone paid $91,000 for a naked portrait at a Christie’s auction in New York.

On top of that it appears someone stole hundreds of “highly intimate” images of France’s First Lady and an ex-lover a couple of months ago.

A 0Fascinating stuff, but let’s not dwell too long on this subject, I'’ve yet to raise the third lesson Sarkozy needs to learn and that is: People in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.

A quick scratch beneath the thin veneer of public office reveals the French leader to be a sauteur.*

And the source of this information is non other than the long-suffering Cecilia Sarkozy, who had to put up with 18 years of being married to a man with behavioural problems including being mean, cold and a serial womaniser.

In the book Cecilia, published by Flammarion in January 2008, she said of her husband: "He has a ridiculous side. He is undignified. Nicolas doesn't come over like a president. He has a real behaviour problem ... He needs someone to point it out to him. I did it for 18 years and I can't do it any more. I am the last person who can do it."

These, and other, extracts incensed Sarkozy and his estranged wife'’s lawyers sought an injunction to prevent publication on the grounds that the book had invaded the former first lady's privacy – not that it was inaccurate. The former French first lady Cécilia Sarkozy, divorced in October 2007, is quoted as criticising her ex-husband's morals, his parenting skills and his fitness to be president.

That must have been extremely crushing and hurtful for France’s little emperor’. But no more hurtful than attacking and scapegoating harmless Muslim women. I wonder if he feels as though they are judging him from behind their veils?

Well we'’re all judging France'’s ‘Little Emperor’ now and the verdict isn’t a good one.

*Sauteur: A vulgar term for a serial womaniser

* Yvonne Ridley is a broadcast journalist and author who presents a weekly political show called The Agenda for Press TV. Her website is www.yvonneridley.org

http://yvonneridley.org/yvonne-ridley/articles/anarchy-in-the-uk-7.html

[Jim]

tl;dr:-(1234567890

[Zero™]

If he really cared about the subjugation of women he would seriously tackle the appalling levels of domestic violence French women suffer at the hands of French men - two million are victims of bullying, violent partners ... a staggering 400 are murdered by their spouse.

So how many women in France actually wear the burka? The answer is a very tiny minority - so much so that when the BBC'’s Emma Jane Kirby went to interview a burka-wearing woman in Paris she couldn’t find a single one!

Well, well Mr Sarkozy. You have many problems before the "Burka" I see. :quite

[The Pink Ninja]

In summary:

The usual arguement that sex is bad and thus veils protect women.

I don't agree with banning it, but trying to pretend burkas and headscaves are anything but oppression and the usual religious sex-a-phobia is awful.

[horsdhaleine]

And the source of this information is non other than the long-suffering Cecilia Sarkozy, who had to put up with 18 years of being married to a man with behavioural problems including being mean, cold and a serial womaniser.

In the book Cecilia, published by Flammarion in January 2008, she said of her husband: "He has a ridiculous side. He is undignified. Nicolas doesn't come over like a president. He has a real behaviour problem ... He needs someone to point it out to him. I did it for 18 years and I can't do it any more. I am the last person who can do it."I see he has some problems. :quite

The first one is that men should stay well clear of becoming embroiled in expressing opinions on women’s clothes, unless of course you happen to be called Lacroix, Gaultier, Lagerfeld or Ghesquiere.I agree. :quite

Sarkozy wears heels, btw. :quite

[Shinobi Mugen]

Freedom of Speech FTW! Unless you're Muslim....

[Jim]

In summary:

The usual arguement that sex is bad and thus veils protect women.


that's just silly.

[maj1n]

Thats one of the biggest efforts of Ad hominems i have seen in the media.

[Zero™]

Thats one of the biggest efforts of Ad hominems i have seen in the media.

maj1n talking about Ad hominem :rotfl

oh wow *wipes tear* :lmao

[dummy plug]

in b4 Le Male :zaru

anyway, it was a very daring move, to say the least :quite

[Amaretti]

That was a lot of text to read to get to the author's point: Sarkozy is short and his wife is a 'slut'.

So he banned burkas because he wants muslim women to be leered at by teenage boys and dirty old men the same way they are supposedly leering at Bruni? Empty speculation. Blah. Boring. I don't see why Sarkozy's motives for banning the burka are any different from the other supporters of the ban - they think removing the symbol of fundamentalist islam from public sight makes the fundamentalism go away, and if you can dress it up as concern for women's rights, you can kid yourself it's true too.

[Le Male]

Wow, the writer of this article seem very angry on Sarkozy. Burqa is definitly unpopular in France. Sarkozy just use it's unpopularity to be more popular.

[Diceman]

What a BS article:lmao

[Pilaf]

The burqa is a fundamentally evil symbol and alien to western values because it promotes the idea that women alone are responsible for being raped or not raped.

[Shinobi Mugen]

The burqa is a fundamentally evil symbol and alien to western values because it promotes the idea that women alone are responsible for being raped or not raped.

No they aren't, Burka's are lingerie! Kind of like an erotic mystery box...

[horsdhaleine]

That was a lot of text to read to get to the author's point: Sarkozy is short and his wife is a 'slut'.Pocket-sized president, yo! :nuts



Gonna catch 'em all! :suave


So he banned burkas because he wants muslim women to be leered at by teenage boys and dirty old men the same way they are supposedly leering at Bruni? Empty speculation. Blah. Boring. I don't see why Sarkozy's motives for banning the burka are any different from the other supporters of the ban - they think removing the symbol of fundamentalist islam from public sight makes the fundamentalism go away, and if you can dress it up as concern for women's rights, you can kid yourself it's true too.

This.

Symbol =/= meaning. Islamic fundamentalism will not disappear even if all Muslim women in world would cease to wear burqa. They should focus on the real roots of the problem, not on the symbols alone.

[Le Male]

Pocket-sized president, yo! :nuts



Gonna catch 'em all! :suave




This.

Symbol =/= meaning. Islamic fundamentalism will not disappear even if all Muslim women in world would cease to wear burqa. They should focus on the real roots of the problem, not on the symbols alone.

They deported foreign extremist imans and form imans in France but i know there are others problems.

[Amaretti]

The burqa is a fundamentally evil symbol and alien to western values because it promotes the idea that women alone are responsible for being raped or not raped.

So? Banning 'symbols' doesn't erase the underlying culture that created them. You can call the burqa evil and alien all you like, the choice to wear them still has to remain with the women.

And it's not like using clothing as a measure to judge how much blame a woman should bear for being raped is limited to islamic culture. Just look at the thread posted months ago about the US woman fighting for her right to go topless like men, and the subsequent replies saying she was asking to be raped by dressing in such a way. The idea that women alone are responsible for being raped or not raped because of the clothes they wear, or don't wear, is not alien to western values at all.

[Cardboard Tube Knight]

Didn't they ban wearing crosses or something too? So why the hell should the burka stay. It's just oppressive and acting like its not is just silly. I agree the things are offensive, maybe its their right to wear them, but until other religious items are allowed back, fuck em. You can't have one religion getting away with stuff.

[maj1n]

So? Banning 'symbols' doesn't erase the underlying culture that created them. You can call the burqa evil and alien all you like, the choice to wear them still has to remain with the women.

In this case the burqa itself is detrimental to the one wearing it.

the 'choice to wear them' is a flawed argument since this issue has to take into account pressure from Muslim groups/community.

And anyone wearing the full veil did it because of pressure/indoctrination.

The fact this phenomenon is almost solely restricted to Islam/Muslims proves this.

If the Burqa was simply an anonymous item of clothing without pressure to be worn, there should be equal distribution amongst people of all faiths and races wearing it.

Let me give you an almost exact example of this ban that everyone knows was good and benificial to society.

In (at least) Australia, women in the past were discriminated and couldnt easily get jobs, the Government passed a short term legislation to force businesses to hire x amount of women in relation to their workforce.

This legislation is discriminatory in that it privileged women over men, but it was done to counter the larger evil of the culture against women.

Everyone in australia agrees this was a good act by the Government, but according to your logic, this was an evil act.

And it's not like using clothing as a measure to judge how much blame a woman should bear for being raped is limited to islamic culture. Just look at the thread posted months ago about the US woman fighting for her right to go topless like men, and the subsequent replies saying she was asking to be raped by dressing in such a way. The idea that women alone are responsible for being raped or not raped because of the clothes they wear, or don't wear, is not alien to western values at all.
Can you give me a basis for western values?

seems to me your just using some silly vague 'anything a Westerner believes is a Western value'.

[Watchman]

What a poor article. The writer of it could have cut it in half to get to the point she was trying to make, and done without her constant attacks on the male gender. :lmao

From the gist of what I read, it's that banning the burkha won't improve women's rights and Sarkozy is just trying to get some cheap support, which I'd say is pretty much correct.

[Teren_Kanan]

In summary:

The usual arguement that sex is bad and thus veils protect women.

I don't agree with banning it, but trying to pretend burkas and headscaves are anything but oppression and the usual religious sex-a-phobia is awful.

This pretty much nailed it.

[Rescuebear]

I have to be honest and say that if France wants to ban it, then good on them. You don't like it? Don't go to France.

[Rob`]

Didn't they ban wearing crosses or something too?

I think that was just in schools though.

[Diceman]

Some interesting things about the author:
At the "Muslimer i Dialog" conference in Copenhagen in September 2005, Ridley was asked if she didn't see it as a problem that militant Islamists distribute recruiting videos of Iraqi insurgents killing hostages.She replied that it was necessary for Muslims to have these videos at home as an alternative form of news to what she perceived as the propaganda of Western media. At the same meeting she compared British Prime Minister Tony Blair with Pol Pot.
At a meeting of the Respect party on 6 June 2006, following a controversial police raid in Forest Gate, East London, on 2 June 2006, Ridley urged all Muslims in Britain to "boycott the police and refuse to co-operate with them in any way, shape or form until the boys are released," attacking Sami Yusuf including "asking the community copper for directions to passing the time of day with a beat officer." But at the time George Galloway, leader of the RESPECT Coalition to which Ridley belongs also distanced himself from her comments, saying "Our policy is not that we should withdraw co-operation from the police."
Critics have accused her of defending the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his campaign of violence in Iraq and Jordan, describing the victims of the 9 November 2005 Amman bombings in Jordan, which saw 60 persons killed and 115 injured, as Iraqi collaborators, Saudi, Indonesian and Chinese intelligence officers and the upper echelons of society. The outpouring of public outrage manifested in spontaneous demonstration she described as staged and the work of "Jordanian troops out of uniform" and "government lackeys" together with "Christian and Muslim Bedouins" who had all been commandeered or paid to demonstrate by the Jordanian government and the CIA.
After the Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev (accused of the Moscow theater hostage crisis and blamed for the Beslan school massacre) was killed, Ridley wrote an article referring to Basayev as a "shaheed", despite a noted Hadith of the Prophet Muhammad where the deaths of 'enemy' children were denounced, and that all children who have yet to reach maturity are considered to be on the natural path (Fitrah) in Islam

Though I am not suprised Outlandish picked her,you gotta have alternative news for the eeebil westerners:zaru

[impersonal]

they think removing the symbol of fundamentalist islam from public sight makes the fundamentalism go away, and if you can dress it up as concern for women's rights, you can kid yourself it's true too.
The first part is true and valid criticism; the second part doesn't make sense: one of the scary things about fundamentalists is their extreme opposition to women's rights in any shape or form.

[Toby]

The sole argument that anyone with a reasonable mind can cook up to defend wearing a religious symbol is that we all retain the freedom to express ourselves. This article however isn't interested in making that argument. It has a whole different purpose to it.

I actually took offence to the joke about Scots. I'm so fucking tired of this debate, and this article's argument is just pathetically awful. It makes sense of all reasons for why moderate individuals not only reer away from Muslims in public debates, but also those leftist commentators. When an idiot like this gets attention, you actually would think their whole argument is just a series of attacks on your society. It's a giant hot-ridden personal attack on Sarkozy, completely unfounded, and just as scary to the average person as a radical conserative article.

[Rob`]

I agree with Merlin, how the fuck did she manage to avoid making the only real argument for allowing the burqa?

[Amaretti]

In this case the burqa itself is detrimental to the one wearing it.

the 'choice to wear them' is a flawed argument since this issue has to take into account pressure from Muslim groups/community.

And anyone wearing the full veil did it because of pressure/indoctrination.

The 'brainwashed' argument shouldn't be used as often as it is. I'm not going to deny that the creation of the burqa is a manifestation of some sick attitudes to women and a lot of the women 'choosing' to wear it do so only because its what their mothers wear, or what their peers wear, or what the media portrays. Still. Pretty much everything I 'choose' to wear is because of what those around me wear.

So the 'brainwashed' accusation can be fired right back at western women. While muslim women are pressured to cover up, western women are pressured to expose themselves. Is it really women's choice to go out in cosmetics and high-heels and shirts with plunging necklines and skirts so short you can catch a flash of their infragluteal folds, all things designed to boost their attractiveness to men, even when all they're doing is going to work or going shopping? Or is this just the result of a society pressuring women to always appear sexually receptive for men at all times, even when they're unavailable? If the choice of muslim women to wear a burka is an illusion, then the choice of western women to revealing clothes can also be said to be an illusion.

Are you going to suggest cosmetics be banned? They too are a manifestation of a very old, very degrading attitude to women that continues to ensure women are judged by their looks above their other qualities. I consider myself a feminist, but I still wear make-up to work and I still feel that I'm pressured to do so because of lingering prejudices against women who don't care about their appearance. Am I brainwashed? Probably. Who isn't indoctrinated and pressured by their society to conform to unnatural and harmful ideals in some way? I like feeling prettier with make-up on, but I still wonder why the fuck I have to parade around in facepaint all day in order to feel like that.

What I find pretty insulting is the suggestion that you know what is better for these women than the women themselves do. Men forcing women out of burqas is no less a violation ofto women's rights than those that force women into them. If muslim women are protesting - and they are protesting - who is anyone to deny them the right to express themselves as they choose? You cannot dictate freedom to people who do not believe they're oppressed, and its arrogant to assume that all who wear these clothes are oppressed, and that they are oppressed by the clothing of all things. If they are oppressed, it is by the men in their culture, not by cotton. Those that are oppressed, who really are forced to wear burqas and have no choice in the matter are the ones who will be worst affected by a ban. As I've said before, banning the burqa doesn't mean oppressed women will suddenly be allowed out to walk the streets in cute sundresses. All that will happen is that they won't be allowed out at all. They'll be prisoners in their own homes and communities. The notion that the only thing holding these women down are their clothes was always a stupid one.

The fact this phenomenon is almost solely restricted to Islam/Muslims proves this. If the Burqa was simply an anonymous item of clothing without pressure to be worn, there should be equal distribution amongst people of all faiths and races wearing it.

Not a good argument. Clothing is often unique to cultures. That the burqa is not worn much outside the middle-east could easily mean nothing more than the fact that the kimono is rarely worn outside Japan or the sari outside India.

Let me give you an almost exact example of this ban that everyone knows was good and benificial to society.

In (at least) Australia, women in the past were discriminated and couldnt easily get jobs, the Government passed a short term legislation to force businesses to hire x amount of women in relation to their workforce.

This legislation is discriminatory in that it privileged women over men, but it was done to counter the larger evil of the culture against women.

Everyone in australia agrees this was a good act by the Government, but according to your logic, this was an evil act.


I don't see how this bears any resemblance to the current discussion. Removing women's right to wear the burqa is not the same as enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Women can choose to wear the burqa, but they do not choose to be discriminated against.


Can you give me a basis for western values?

seems to me your just using some silly vague 'anything a Westerner believes is a Western value'.

Read the context then. If you want to know the basis of western values, ask the person who brought them up. My impression was that they were introduced to the debate in a vague, silly way, so I'm not going to break my back being pedantic over definitions.

The first part is true and valid criticism; the second part doesn't make sense: one of the scary things about fundamentalists is their extreme opposition to women's rights in any shape or form.

It makes sense once you realise that the clothing is not what is oppressing these women. It's a symptom, not a cause; banning the burqa does for women's rights what breaking the thermometre does for a fever. Those who want to ban it have nothing to say about the actual physical oppression that goes on within muslim communities - the domestic abuse, the limitation of legal rights, parental rights, freedom of movement, the arranged marriages and spousal rape - that will simply retreat into invisibility once veiled women are forced out of sight and out of mind.

[dummy plug]

Wow, the writer of this article seem very angry on Sarkozy. Burqa is definitly unpopular in France. Sarkozy just use it's unpopularity to be more popular.

typical :zaru

[maj1n]

The 'brainwashed' argument shouldn't be used as often as it is. I'm not going to deny that the creation of the burqa is a manifestation of some sick attitudes to women and a lot of the women 'choosing' to wear it do so only because its what their mothers wear, or what their peers wear, or what the media portrays. Still. Pretty much everything I 'choose' to wear is because of what those around me wear.

Muslims who wear the full veil,almost always are indoctrinated or pressured, there is a line between 'just another piece of clothing' and covering yourself up completely with a tent that totally separates you from the outside world.

That you try to equate normal pieces of clothing to this shows how disingenuous your argument is.

No one would ever say those who wear the full veil are somehow simply wearing it like someone wearing a hat.


So the 'brainwashed' accusation can be fired right back at western women. While muslim women are pressured to cover up, western women are pressured to expose themselves. Is it really women's choice to go out in cosmetics and high-heels and shirts with plunging necklines and skirts so short you can catch a flash of their infragluteal folds, all things designed to boost their attractiveness to men, even when all they're doing is going to work or going shopping? Or is this just the result of a society pressuring women to always appear sexually receptive for men at all times, even when they're unavailable? If the choice of muslim women to wear a burka is an illusion, then the choice of western women to revealing clothes can also be said to be an illusion.

Even if we presume both 'brainwashing' exists, and it does exist, the difference is the Western 'brainwashing' isn't as bad, and it can help women be comfortable with their bodies, while the full-veil inherently makes women not comfortable with their body.

Another point, as you outlined, is that the women did it to appear more attractive, it is a thing they do for themselves, the full-veil's sole purpose is for the husband.

Nor do i agree with you this is inherent in western culture, it is inherent in business/marketing of women where their attractiveness is a selling point, but western culture does not, as any rule or social norm, want women to be exposed.

How do i know this? try walking down the street naked, you won't be praised, you would be ridiculed.
Western culture in many place is still fairly conservative (christian).


Are you going to suggest cosmetics be banned? They too are a manifestation of a very old, very degrading attitude to women that continues to ensure women are judged by their looks above their other qualities. I consider myself a feminist, but I still wear make-up to work and I still feel that I'm pressured to do so because of lingering prejudices against women who don't care about their appearance. Am I brainwashed? Probably. Who isn't indoctrinated and pressured by their society to conform to unnatural and harmful ideals in some way? I like feeling prettier with make-up on, but I still wonder why the fuck I have to parade around in facepaint all day in order to feel like that.

Yeh you definitely are brainwashed, western culture and society definitely does not look down upon you if you don't wear make up.

Simple test, don't wear make up, go and work or go out and buy something, your not going to be treated badly

Try and not wear the full-veil in saudi arabia or Afghanistan or Iran, totally different story.

Again your arguments are disingenuous.
If your not even going to argue with a basis on reality, your not going to make any headway in our discussion.
To try and equate Western culture of women (which isn't perfect but fucken no way as bad as the Islamic one and in relation to the full-veil), is so insincere its obvious your arguing with a severe bias and not with any rationale reason.

Btw, cosmetics is largely, now, a female controlled area, the full-veil is still something CONTROLLED BY MEN, try saudi arabia.
Again, your argument is ridiculous.


What I find pretty insulting is the suggestion that you know what is better for these women than the women themselves do.

What i find insulting is women who think men cannot understand females, try and get that old-fashioned thinking out of your head.

It is as bad as the thinking that women cannot understand and are inferior to men.

obviously what you have is a prejudice against men.
I despise feminist nazi's, they are as bad as the oppression they try to fight against.


Men forcing women out of burqas is no less a violation ofto women's rights than those that force women into them. If muslim women are protesting - and they are protesting - who is anyone to deny them the right to express themselves as they choose? You cannot dictate freedom to people who do not believe they're oppressed, and its arrogant to assume that all who wear these clothes are oppressed, and that they are oppressed by the clothing of all things. If they are oppressed, it is by the men in their culture, not by cotton.

A society/country has the natural right to dictate what they want on the populace.

ever heard of democracy


Those that are oppressed, who really are forced to wear burqas and have no choice in the matter are the ones who will be worst affected by a ban. As I've said before, banning the burqa doesn't mean oppressed women will suddenly be allowed out to walk the streets in cute sundresses. All that will happen is that they won't be allowed out at all. They'll be prisoners in their own homes and communities. The notion that the only thing holding these women down are their clothes was always a stupid one.

Sorry your wrong, try Turkey,they banned it, and they are known as a progressive muslim country rather then one that made the situation worse (women held in their homes more).

This is a case where your argument, is flatly denied by reality, because banning the Burqa was done in Turkey by Ataturk.

Therefore, don't make this argument again, because we KNOW what will happen, and it is the opposite of what you say.


Not a good argument. Clothing is often unique to cultures. That the burqa is not worn much outside the middle-east could easily mean nothing more than the fact that the kimono is rarely worn outside Japan or the sari outside India.

Indeed clothing is unique to cultures, that it is unique to Islamic culture means the meaning in that culture still has relevance for it, it is WORN for that meaning.

And that meaning is demeaning to women and oppresses them.
Try and not evade or turn a blind eye to the reason why Islam mandates it to be worn ok? it makes you seem callous.


I don't see how this bears any resemblance to the current discussion. Removing women's right to wear the burqa is not the same as enforcing anti-discrimination laws. Women can choose to wear the burqa, but they do not choose to be discriminated against.

Then you need to think about it.

In Australia, legislation was put into place to FORCE WOMEN INTO THE WORKPLACE BY PRIVILEGING THEM OVER MEN, this was done to counter the culture that women were inferior and should not work.

It VIOLATED THE RIGHTS OF EQUALITY BY GIVING WOMEN PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT OVER MEN. BUT IT BENEFITTED SOCIETY GREATLY BY EVENTUALLY MAKING WOMEN ACCEPTABLE IN THE WORKPLACE.

Do you understand? with your argument, based solely on rights, Australia should NEVER have done this, and that they did it means they did something evil, so why is an evil practice benefitting society so much?

Exactly the same situation with this burqa ban, the issue is whether its effective, not rights.


It makes sense once you realise that the clothing is not what is oppressing these women. It's a symptom, not a cause; banning the burqa does for women's rights what breaking the thermometre does for a fever. Those who want to ban it have nothing to say about the actual physical oppression that goes on within muslim communities - the domestic abuse, the limitation of legal rights, parental rights, freedom of movement, the arranged marriages and spousal rape - that will simply retreat into invisibility once veiled women are forced out of sight and out of mind.
If women are indoctrinated into believing men will rape them if they don't wear the full-veil, forcing them into not wearing the full-veil and subsequently seeing they WILL NOT BE RAPED.

Will help them understand that the Islamic belief is unfounded.

Now this is a perfect rebuttal to your argument.

Do you now understand why i brought up the Australian analogy?

Lets look at that analogy with your argument, putting women in the workplace won't address the underlying cause (men think their inferior) because women not being in the workplace is a symptom of this culture.

But we know it DID help, by showing men women can be just as capable.

[impersonal]

It makes sense once you realise that the clothing is not what is oppressing these women. It's a symptom, not a cause; banning the burqa does for women's rights what breaking the thermometre does for a fever. Those who want to ban it have nothing to say about the actual physical oppression that goes on within muslim communities - the domestic abuse, the limitation of legal rights, parental rights, freedom of movement, the arranged marriages and spousal rape - that will simply retreat into invisibility once veiled women are forced out of sight and out of mind.
I agree that the burka is a symptom; it's also a symbol, which is another reason why it is being targeted instead of the core of the problem. I'm with you in concluding that banning the burqa is a bad idea.

(Perhaps I wasn't clear enough: )
[FIRST PART]they think removing the symbol of fundamentalist islam from public sight makes the fundamentalism go away[/FIRST PART],[SECOND PART] and if you can dress it up as concern for women's rights, you can kid yourself it's true too.[/SECOND PART]
The first part is true and valid criticism; the second part doesn't make sense: one of the scary things about fundamentalists is their extreme opposition to women's rights in any shape or form.



Men forcing women out of burqas is no less a violation ofto women's rights than those that force women into them.
It's not men who are forcing women out of burqas.

[zuul]

Men have to take care of their looks, too... and judged by them above their other qualities. Even at work, although admittedly women can have a harder time depending on the Big Boss's attitude.

Not as much as women...
Look at TV, most of the women there are more or less good-looking while the men are more on the ugly side...:wink


On topic. Sarkozy is a cheap populist. He knows a good part of the population despises religious fundamentalists and consideres the wearing of the Burqa has an heinous act against women. So he wants to forbid it, it's easier than attacking the root of the problem aka the growth of fundamuntalist Islam in France :iik.

Or maybe does he hope those extremists will choose to leave because they cannot hide their women anymore and settle in England.:zaru

A more valid argument against Burqa, would be the use delinquants and robbers could make of it.

Men should wear Burqa too. Because women are also perverts who likes to check their asses. :pek

[Rikudou]

Bullshit article, written by a butthurt fag and posted by a biased muslim.

Seriously Outslandish, this is fuckin pathetic.

[xenopyre]

Well many muslims countries had banned Burqa For more than 60 years or so now , so why cant France ?

[Sesshomaru]

Amaretti, you are not realizing that these so called "symptoms" are also present in western society.

[Toby]

She kind of does. She acknowledged our own backwards trends which are still kept alive today.

[Sesshomaru]

She kind of does. She acknowledged our own backwards trends which are still kept alive today.

My mistake. Point is that look at the treatment of women in poverty stricken areas and the sad fact that women are now reduced to a marketing tool.

[Saufsoldat]

My mistake. Point is that look at the treatment of women in poverty stricken areas and the sad fact that women are now reduced to a marketing tool.

Last time I checked, nobody forced the women to do any of that.

[Sesshomaru]

Last time I checked, nobody forced the women to do any of that.

They were brainwashed by the media + employers take advantage of the fact that these women need money.

[maj1n]

They were brainwashed by the media + employers take advantage of the fact that these women need money.
In what way were they brainwashed and how were they taken advantage of?

Specifically what are you talking about?