It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler
I guess your article lied about her saying this too though.
I didn't say you, or your article lied. I said that the article you linked (and you) misrepresented her position in a petty manner.
Actually, abayas can be quite stylish and many western women have no problem with wearing them in public. But, as I said, I can understand why she declined to attend.
en-sa.namshi.com...
originally posted by: ketsuko
I hear there were slave owners who were actually quite humane and treated their slaves quite well too, but that doesn't change the fact that not a single one of their slaves never actually chose to be a slave to begin with.
Perhaps rather than looking at ways in which what someone is forced to do against their will might actually be not so bad, we should focus on whether or not they should be forced to do it in the first place?
originally posted by: elysiumfire
angeldoll:
What if we hosted the tournament here, and said Saudi women could participate provided they wear a bikini?
That's a dog that won't hunt. No Chess Tournament would ever stipulate such a sexist rule. They could as part of the tournament's regulations stipulate a dress code based entirely on formal appropriateness for the game, which they do, but never base anything on a religious code.
Your strawman argument is pretty much inappropriate for this thread.
It's not a strawman argument.
originally posted by: elysiumfire
angeldoll:
It's not a strawman argument.
Of course it was a strawman argument. You created a scenario that would never exist to make a point. It wasn't an analogy, because it isn't analogous to anything.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xenon129
She actually looks more sexy to me with the head covering.
This goes right to the heart of the issue. These clothing laws/rules are not about making women look less-sexy...it's about forcing them to submit which makes them MORE sexy to men who demand submission and want the control over women.
That the forced submission of women is "sexy" to anyone....I cringe.
I look at those pics and I think primarily about the fact that she's a chess champion and she must have a fabulous mind. When I evaluate her physical beauty...she is gorgeous in the way that she CHOOSES to present herself.
***
I just want to add that I don't judge you, WillTell, and I don't assume that you find submission sexy. I assume you find the look to be pleasing aesthetically, for whatever reason, and maybe don't view it under the lens I view it.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
originally posted by: Willtell
a reply to: xenon129
She actually looks more sexy to me with the head covering.
This goes right to the heart of the issue. These clothing laws/rules are not about making women look less-sexy...it's about forcing them to submit which makes them MORE sexy to men who demand submission and want the control over women.
That the forced submission of women is "sexy" to anyone....I cringe.
I look at those pics and I think primarily about the fact that she's a chess champion and she must have a fabulous mind. When I evaluate her physical beauty...she is gorgeous in the way that she CHOOSES to present herself.
***
I just want to add that I don't judge you, WillTell, and I don't assume that you find submission sexy. I assume you find the look to be pleasing aesthetically, for whatever reason, and maybe don't view it under the lens I view it.
My great-grandmother was of Russian stock from Poland (last known European address was Polish, anyway) She had her hair covered in the old photos we found, nary a hair in sight. Very, very modest Catholic Pole, flat refused to show hair outside the house or in pictures.
And what a surprise, with that scarf, was she smoking hot for the era. I had no idea great-grandma had such a sultry come-hither look down like that without even trying. That scarf may have signaled Old World religious modesty to her, but many women wear them with as much grace and elegance as Diana did with her everyday clothes. Don't just bash a head scar because it's a head scarf, they can be hot as f#, it's just a matter of perspective, and the attitude of the wearer. IMO, bashing the use of it in any culture/religion is about as dumb & hapless as ripping someone for wearing pants. You don't get to decide what they find modest enough to wear or not wear.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Well, you missed the point entirely.
If your great grandmother chose to wear a head scarf...then good for her.
Nothing wrong with head scarfs...the only thing wrong is men FORCING women to wear them when they don't want to or face punishment.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
Well, you missed the point entirely.
If your great grandmother chose to wear a head scarf...then good for her.
Nothing wrong with head scarfs...the only thing wrong is men FORCING women to wear them when they don't want to or face punishment.
No, it was religious indoctrination from the early 1900's. I'm reasonably certain her own parents made her wear one growing up as well. My late grandmother bemoaned fighting with her all throughout her childhood and teenage years for NOT covering her hair like a good Catholic girl. The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it. I've never met someone wearing religious clothing who didn't do so willingly.
The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If it was a willing decision, then fabulous. I have no issue with someone wearing a scarf they want to wear.
However, this article is about someone who did not want to wear certain *religious* clothing and had to forfeit for refusing.
But she is pictured in this thread acquiescing despite not wanting to wear the head scarf.
You wrote:
The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.
That's my position, too.
originally posted by: Guardian10
A Forced Religion is not Religion, but a Cult.
Either you're free or you're not.
originally posted by: Nyiah
originally posted by: MotherMayEye
If it was a willing decision, then fabulous. I have no issue with someone wearing a scarf they want to wear.
However, this article is about someone who did not want to wear certain *religious* clothing and had to forfeit for refusing.
But she is pictured in this thread acquiescing despite not wanting to wear the head scarf.
You wrote:
The point is, I don't really care who wears why and why, so long as THEY prefer it.
That's my position, too.
Right. I also said I don't care about the what & why as long as they're happy to do so, too. That's what you seem to not be able to grasp because you keep crying it's forced.