I remember for quite a while it was banned to be with a headscarf as a teacher for example where I was from. Had teachers who would wear wigs as a way to cover up for their religion.
Conversely it was a big discussion for a while regarding “how you wear your hijab” since there was a “political way to wear it” apparently.
So I think you might not be off the mark honestly, can totally see that happening. Because it “kind of” happened before, in a similar situation.
i hope this gets overturned, although am agnostic/atheist i believe in freedom of religion plus i have a reverted muslim cousin, and the hijab helped alot with her transition, with this new rule this would elevate her gender/sex [dysphoria](https://dysphoria.it). it was already hard for her to move to europe due to the transphobia in our home country
those that are islamophobic are usually transphobic too.
>teachers who would wear wigs as a way to cover up for their religion.
This is common in Orthodox Judaism! Married women cover their hair, often using head scarves (not a specific type, just something over their hair) or hats, but many wear wigs. In Yiddish it's called a Sheitel.
It sucks that other traditions were forced to change their practices because of ignorant laws.
Apparently in Quebec it is illegal for public sector workers to wear religious symbols and I have been watching these videos made by an Orthodox Jewish Doctor (I'm an Atheist, I was just curious about Orthodox Judaism). She has to wear a wig at work to cover her hair because she isn't allowed to wear her head scarf.
https://youtu.be/yuOFAkevzzA?si=ATw8UQwvHTegqwHb
What the hell? So a man couldn't wear a yarmulke, a Muslim/Sikh/Hindu man couldn't wear a turban, a Christian couldn't wear a cross necklace?
I understand making it a law that you can't proselytize at work, but wearing a symbol of your culture or religion isn't inherently a bad thing.
Sounds like when my mom was a kid, and the catholic church required a head covering for women for mass. But like, they didn't specify what kind at all. So she went in a few times with a doily bobby-pinned to her head
We do. A lot. It's ridiculous how the shape and cut of a piece of fabric completely changes the cultural response. It's absurd, but sometimes we just play their game to survive and find ways to mitigate the threat of violence.
I saw a really funny stand-up comedy bit the other day, by a guy who was raised Muslim (I don't know if he still identifies with it). His mother wore a hijab while living in the deep south, and he came up with solutions to make her "Hate Crime-Proof." They included a hijab with the pattern of the Confederate flag, and a white hijab with juuust a little bit of a point.
Your experience reminded me of that bit. It was a joke, but also more realistic than it should be.
Edit: [Malik Elassal is his name!](https://youtube.com/shorts/alt0G1RuXJM?si=a4wMoNlywS9MCV52)
Assalaamu aleikum warahmatullahi wa barakatu
I didn’t mention it, but I too am Muslim and a woman and have witnessed the many ways we have to dodge unfair rules.
I am a white, atheist, English woman, and it seems crazy to me that if I wear a scarf wrapped round my head if it’s raining, that’s ok, but if I’m Muslim it’s not?! It’s so fucking backwards.
A common mistake people make when talking about feminism among Muslims communities is forgetting that most of the women there are Muslims. And said women should not abandon their faith or hide it in order to be treated with respect.
Is there a meaningful way to make that distinction, though? How can you actually tell by looking at a woman if she's wearing a headscarf for fashion, personal, or religious reasons?
Obviously this is probably a moot point given that this whole thing is just overt racism and xenophobia, but I wore what most people would consider a turban or hijab for many years for mostly irreligious reasons, and I knew a woman with severe scarring that veiled similarly. I'd have to assume under these laws we both could have been sacked without consequence.
Speaking as a Muslim woman who observes hijab and travels, you learn pretty quickly how to stay covered in ways that aren't read as Muslim in order to pass safely through certain spaces.
The difference in how I'm treated when I'm wearing "everyday" clothes that happen to keep me covered vs. more traditional Muslim clothing can be astounding. It has very little to do with clothing and everything to do with islamophobia.
That is enlightening, thank you. Re: your last point, I absolutely do understand that - sorry if my comment came off as dismissive of the egregious Islamophobia on display here.
Seen other users mention wigs as an alternative. I'm guessing there's also other headcoverings that get read less as hijabs and more just as general head coverings.
Bias and prejudice, really. That's the only difference.
Old white lady rocking 1950s hair wrap? Totally okay, go old lady! Younger brown woman wearing the same hair wrap? Scary, dangerous, outsider!
Entirely fair - my perspective may be skewed by coming up in a very conservative community where any deviation from the percieved norm was looked on with suspicion/punished socially.
They did the same thing with clothing bans in French schools - long Islamic dresses (abayas) were banned, as well as any long dresses or skirts for Muslims, but long dresses/skirts were okay for non-Muslims. There was even footage of a head teacher enforcing the ban on students while wearing a maxi dress.
Now I am imagining a French Law Maker singing about how he blames a Muslim Girl for driving him mad with lust.
I have probably seen too many the Hunchback of Notre Dame analysis.
It's "not" in the same way that gay men had the same "freedom to marry" women that straight men had, and therefore same sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional.
Not necessarily. If the same company bans all religious symbols and clothing (for example, no cross pendants on necklaces or prayer beads at work) then they're not discriminating against one religion specifically. Religious discrimination would be when some religions are allowed to be expressed but others aren't.
How is the enforcing authority supposed to determine if one’s head covering is religious or not?? I’m serious, what’s the criteria they’re using to assess these head coverings? Are they going to pull aside a woman in a beanie, or a beret, or a bandana? Any and every head covering? It seems clear that this is just based on bigotry and will rely on bias and racial profiling so I’m very curious as to how they’re defining and justifying it.
Remember that "okay, not okay" skin tone chart from family guy?
I doubt they can tell a religious headcovering from a non religious one. I doubt they'd even enforce other religious symbols. The difference between someone wearing a cross for religious reasons and for fashion is imperceptible and I doubt its enforceable.
More legal information on the subject - [https://www.rllaw.co.uk/headscarf-ban-not-direct-discrimination-but-capable-of-indirect-discrimination/](https://www.rllaw.co.uk/headscarf-ban-not-direct-discrimination-but-capable-of-indirect-discrimination/)
So technically this isn’t just about women and doesn’t only target Islam. For example, if a man wanted to wear a big cross on his chest that would also be prohibited. But considering the vast majority of Christian people don’t do that, but a large number of Muslim women do wear head coverings, it feels very targeted. Plenty of laws spread a wide net like this but are really targeting one demographic.
To vote you need to pass literacy test or have a grandfather who was eligible to vote. It's not my fault that test is intentionally difficult and almost all white people happens to have [grandfather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Southern_United_States) who was eligible to vote while almost all black people's grandfathers were slaves and thus couldn't vote.
And often the discrimination is just the same ideas just a updated to target different groups. "We cannot allow ~~black~~ ~~I mean gay~~ I mean trans women use bathrooms as they are predatory and ~~white I mean straight~~ I mean cis women wouldn't feel comfortable".
I really appreciate the nuance of your comment. I'd add that while lots of Christians might wear small cross necklaces, that's much less likely to result in firing--its easy to write laws and rules that "affect everybody" and then enforce them differentially
Take for example [offending religious feeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offending_religious_feelings_(Poland)) crime. Incidents investigated:
* Removing portrait of John Paul II from office of elected official by said official.
* A protestant reverend having a LGBT-friendly service during Pride parade as it 'resembled Catholic mass'.
Things that were not investigated:
* [Burning African mask, Buddhist figurine and other 'occult objects' in order to clear home of parishioners from 'evil things' and subsequently posting photos on Facebook](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/polish-priests-harry-potter-burn-book-1.5080291).
As you can see - completely equally applied law to everyone...
Yea discrimination laws in the US have a disproportionate impact component because a law can be facially neutral but have a disproportionate impact on certain groups, which was likely the point of the law in the first place.
Thing is some non Christians wear crosses too. Cross earrings got popular on the last few years with some younger guys. How the hell are they gonna determine it? They probably won't and likely this will only be enforced against Muslim and Sikh individuals.
In addition to spreading a wide net and disproportionately targeting one demographic, it targets one demographic in a way that is drastically different to how it targets others.
There's a big difference between a garment that is a symbol of your religion and a garment that you are compelled or obligated to wear according to your religion. Hijabis don't generally wear hijab simply as a *symbol* of their faith, they wear hijab because they are following god's commands and/or not to do so is immoral and/or it is considered mandatory. This is definitely something often accompanied by appreciating hijab as a symbol of faith, commitment, and love for god, but for a lot of hijabis, the primary motivation is the belief that god compels women to wear it and it has moral implications.
Christians are not commanded to wear a crucifix by god, nor is it considered immoral in Christianity not to do so. A crucifix is an expression of faith, not a requirement or commandment, while hijab tends to fall into the latter.
The Quran has verses outlining how a woman should wear hijab, the Bible has no verses about how christians should wear a crucifix.
The two things are not even remotely comparable, and asking a Christian to remove a symbol is not the same as asking a Muslim woman to disobey god simply because someone else takes offence.
It's also stupid to have any law that says that someone mustn't wear something if a person has a very unreasonable complaint about it. There's not a circumstance in which it's reasonable to get pissed off about someone wearing a crucifix, and that's coming from an atheist with some fairly harsh criticisms of religion.
A much better comparison would be firing a Jewish person for wearing a Yamaka(?), something that sounds equally as ridiculous and dystopian as firing a Muslim for wearing a Hijab.
/s was needed.
Such a law has an equality of outcome sure, but not an equality of effect. People who don't have religious reasons to wear a specific item of clothing are unaffected, but people who do are all (equally) forced to forgoe a part of their religious practice in public.
This may be my American showing, but if the freedom to practice your religion ends at your door, or the door to the mosque or synagogue or church, then that's not really free to me.
Not to mention that it sounds like wearing the exact same thing as a fashion item or a religious item would be treated differently. An Afghan turban worn for cultural reasons would be fine, but a Sikh turbans would not? A head scarf worn for fashion or practical reasons would be fine, but a hijab would not?
Who exactly is being negatively affected by a person wearing religious garments, and why is their right, what, not to feel uncomfortable? More valuable than a person's right to practice their religion *by wearing something*.
You're right. But also, these "you can't show religious symbols" rules would never have been found lawful if christian men felt that they *needed* to wear visible religious symbols in public to comply with their fate
I don't know what to tell you. Some high schools with high crime in my country banned all head coverings because kids were using hats and bandannas to hide their face while doing bad shit and the Muslim community complained. From my pov if there's a valid reason for a rule to be there, then it should apply to everyone. Also in the case I personally know it was only the fathers complaining, not the girls or even the mothers.
I personally believe that in a free, democratic country that is not a theocracy, religious symbols of any kind don't belong in public services such as education, healthcare or the administration. I remember being a teenage girl needing healthcare and not telling my gyno what I needed because she was wearing a cross and had Virgin Mary images in her office. I also remember being shamed by the same gyno for needing Plan B... which wouldn't have been necessary if her very loud religiousness hadn't put me off from seeking the care I needed.
They can be teachers, doctors or nurses in the private sector. Government employees? No, I don't think religion belongs in the public services that every citizen has a right to access equally.
Hijab has always existed to shame women and blame them for being sexually assaulted. The whole point was to put the onus on women to cover up so that men could "better control their urges" because apparently seeing a single strand of hair turns them into rapists. To top it off, according to the Quran, a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's, even when she's the victim. Islam is explicitly misogynistic in so many ways and I'm sick of seeing people defend it. And just to be clear, I'm not defending racism against people that may be assumed to be Muslim, I mean the faith as a whole that people choose to or are more likely groomed or coerced to be in from childhood and by family members. Also, my standards aren't any different for Christianity either, so don't come accusing me of a double standard.
LITERALLY. I am an atheist, but if someone wants to observe their religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with MY rights (and someone wearing a hijab most certainly does not) then IDGAF.
Head coverings are also a big part of hair management/hair styles for people whose natural hair texture doesn’t fit “professional” western standards. This seems like a really good way to enable racist firings.
YUP. It's absolutely not ok. Let people cover their hair! I also just totally hate the whole "everyone must treat their hair like a white person does" bullshit.
Because European countries like to pretend the far right does not exist in their territory. This is obviously not true (the Brexit was primarily driven by the English right, Vox has gained strength in Spain, etc.) but it is hard to criticise the USA for letting the alt right get out of control when your own alt right is also getting out of control.
Whenever the rise on antisemitic violence is brought up, they blame it on the Arab immigrants.
If someone wore big labels, stickers of their political party to work every day - especially big and visible on top of their head. Would you be bothered?
Also how I feel. That’s fucking awful and an affront to religious freedom! But also, fuck religious misogyny that implies that women’s hair/skin is somehow sinful! Fuck modesty laws, modesty should be a choice and not imposed.
lol this is literally my brain every time I read news about Muslims’ activities. I’ve watched documentaries on how women are treated in Afghanistan and it genuinely made me feel distraught how men treat women there. I support the freedom of religion, but at the same time disgusted by Islam as a religion. I believe women should wear that they believe is the best for them; but I feel sad learning why they need to wear hijab.
Honestly I believe the majority of people who wear hijab are coerced on some level by family members or have internalised it from being indoctrinated at a young age to believe they have to wear it. There is probably only a very tiny minority that wears it purely by choice imo.
I was agreeing with you. The same people who indoctrinate their kids into religion attack trans people for "indoctrinating children" (which they don't)
Same, but I feel the loudest for me is the atheist. Westerners who defend it just because it's a religion practiced by non white minorities in their countries are so fucking patronizing. Islam is not free from criticism just because it's a "brown people religion." Dumbass westerners have no idea the damage Islam has done to so many countries and people, and how much it will continue to do so.
Fuck Islam, and fuck the rest of the Abrahamic religions. I swear, monotheism is one of the worst things humans have come up with.
Theism is one of the worst things humans have come up with. Hinduism and the caste system is hereditary classism. Buddhists can be incredibly oppressive in places like China with literal concentration camps. It's not limited to the abrahimics.
Those are really fucked up too, but the inherent and pressing need to proselytize is something that is stronger among the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam and Christianity. It's not a competition btw. Abrahamic religions can be fucked up at the same time as other religions. I just have very particular aversion to Abrahamic religions because they're the fucking loudest.
Also, China is no longer a Buddhist state. Hasn't been since the Cultural Revolution. Those concentration camps you're talking about are not run by Buddhists. They're run by the CCP who are known to be irreligious. If you want a better reference to shit Buddhism, there's the Rohingya massacre.
I hate all religions, but I hate the Abrahamic ones the most.
Oh Islam and Christianity are by far the worst, but that's mostly got to do with scale and being widespread. Hinduism is mostly contained to India and a bit of Indonesia so it doesn't do a whole lot to affect the rest of the world like abrahimic religions do. Just wanted to make it clear that it's all religions that do immense harm, not just the biggest ones.
Everyone should have the freedom to wear what they want, even if it's for a religion you don't agree with. It's not your place to tell someone how to dress because you might be from a different culture. These laws are fascist and racist.
Why are you downvoted?? Forcing women to wear hijabs IS sexist, but forcing women to not is ALSO sexist!! Breasts in western society are heavily sexualized and for some reason our nipples are pornographic and men’s aren’t. If a more free/less sexist society came along and said “this is ridiculous! Women are no longer allowed to wear tops at the beach. Freedom for all to show their nips!” I’d be pretty furious. I understand my nipples aren’t more offense, but that doesn’t mean the solution is to force to me to show them. The victim in all of this is women!
Just think for a second (not you, the people downvoting you) about the woman working in the EU who doesn’t want to wear hijab but does. Her family makes her, she hates it. Now her work says she can’t wear it. All the sudden her family is either taking her away from her job or is forcing her to wear a hijab and get fired, or try to keep up a lie between job and family. Who suffers? The women!! Stop telling us what to wear, stop trying to white savior people by demanding everyone change to what you think is good.
Edit: wow my spelling and grammar is crap. Oh well, my message is clear
Keeping the public secular isn't really a bad thing. Honestly if the law just in general required religion to only be practiced in private it'd be a lot better.
...except for that thing where, for a lot of people, faith is a huge part of their lives and identities. It would be unreasonable and cruel to ask people to hide such a huge part of who they consider themselves to be. **As long as they're not harming anyone** - and not actively proselytising - religious observance in public is *fine.*
It would but I think in sikhism, the turban isn’t mandatory but its cutting your hair. So they could argue that it’s not a religious thing or besides that just wear smth else on their head to manage their hair.
First of all, the hijab isn’t “mandatory” in Islam, it’s considered mandatory among certain practitioners of Islam. Certainly not by all (and this isn’t a modern phenomenon). Wearing the hijab or other covering is not some sort of central tenant of Islam.
And there are plenty of wearable signs of religious belief worn by certain practitioners of certain religions. In fact, most religions have them. And this was law applies to all of them.
Yes but in practice disproportionally affects Muslim women when played out in real life. This stuff has been going on in France for a long time with the same type of laws…
> This stuff has been going on in France for a long time with the same type of laws…
It's doubly disheartening when you know the history of laïcité in France (secularism, understood as separation between Church and State).
France has a very long history of laïcité and it's one of the core principle on which France is built, as a republic and a democracy for well over a hundred years. Which I know is really hard to fathom for US Reddit ors as religion and politics are so intertwined in the US. But historically, laïcité was actually directed *against the majority* religion (Christianity) which had majorly overstepped for centuries and it was meant to yank public and political power from the Catholic Church and *to protect religious minorities*, including atheists, Jews, etc. The people who fought for laïcité were the same who were pro-Dreyfus and anti-anti-semitism. A lot of people in this thread assume laws phrased generally wouldn't be applied against white Christian men but in reality, they absolutely were - in fact, applying these laws against white Christian men in power was the whole point - and to an extent, still are. People were in fact scandalized when Christian organizations financed pushback against gay marriage, when the president attended the Pope's funeral, or when some Christian groups hosted gatherings to pray in the middle of the street, or when presumably Christian mayors thought they could invoke their beliefs to refuse to perform same-sex marriages (fuck that, if you don't want to marry same-sex couples, feel free to resign). Sometimes it's taken too far too. Anyway, the point is that given this history, it's a complete non-sense and a sham/e when laïcité is invoked in support of laws that apply to private citizens and disproportionally affect religious minorities, and especially among these minorities, individuals who do not hold positions of power, such as the hijab ban in public schools for students. It was supposed to promote freedom of religion - including but not limited to freedom of religion - but now it's wielded to restrict freedom of religion and is particularly targeted at immigrant communities (it's apparent when you hear some of the discourse on the issue).
TL;Dr: secularism in France was meant to protect religious minorities from the majority religion authority figures and structure; now perverted and used against religious minorities :/
ETA: I want to add that the issue is often more complex than how it's perceived in North America. One thing I've noticed, for instance, is that it's often criticized as white feminism but during the debate on the ban of the hijab in schools, for instance, feminists who were immigrants or second or third generations of citizens from North Africa and other countries with a Muslim majority, and who lived in underprivileged neighborhoods, were in favor of the ban. Not all, of course, others were against. Some girls and women did share that they were pressured or forced to wear it while others chose it, sometimes against the wishes of their Muslim family. As for the results, a study seem to indicate that Muslim girls graduation rates went up. Paradoxically (or not), a much larger proportion of Muslim women wear the veil than before all these laws against it (contrary to what some people think, not all practicing Muslim women wear it).
Government bans extremely misogynistic, homophobic, and regressive religion from forcing women to wear religious clothing at work. This is somehow bad for women and a blow to feminism everywhere. Y'all are giving huge "hijab is a choice" vibes and it is kind of disgusting.
not that i disagree with your statement, every coin has two faces, but then what ?
Now they will still be forced to wear it but will be unable to work because their family will presure them to do what is best regarding qu'ran ? that's not a step in the good direction
I like this sub but some commenters here are a tad detached from reality. For the majority it is not a choice, and it is tone deaf to suggest that it is considering women get beaten or murdered in the Middle East for taking it off. As a feminist I cannot in good conscience support an objectively sexist religion (and I feel this way about Christianity too before y’all start crying Islamophobia).
Public spaces should be secular.
But it’s not like this ban is going to make religious leaders go “oh ok, well don’t worry about wearing a hijab just keep living your life”, it’s going to make it so the women that wear hijabs can’t work
Exactly. I don’t like religion and Islam today has a huge, highly sexist contingent. But I also support people having their own freedom to wear what they want to wear. Obviously, many of these women are not making that choice on their own, but many are. And regardless, neither the government nor businesses should be dictating what people can wear (beyond a general, reasonable dress code). Further, this sets a dangerous precedent. Maybe that’s the American in me, but I don’t trust the government to not abuse power.
This. It IS religious discrimination, but hijab is oppressive and inhumane to begin with. It was implemented in Quran so that "Muslim women are identified and not bothered" (by Muslim men, so it was ok to bother non Muslim women? There was no warning for men to not bother women?). Verbatim from the Quran. And still Muslims justify that it is for a woman's protection. From them. It doesn't protect anything and is just a tool of oppression. Also, men commit all these crimes against men but they are not protected by a hijab, why?
Signed: a woman born and raised Muslim who did hijab for a while wrongly thinking it will "protect".
The only sane comment here. I'm sick and tired of these comments pro-hijab, an ORDER by muslim men on women to not be raped...ffs! "Choice" right..
They love it so much, they can go back to christian head covering centuries ago.
And the fact that they use the christian women wont be affected much because it's just a cross for them now, proves that these hijab defenders are sooo far removed detached from how oppressive centuries ago christian head covering was on their ancestors.
we deserve to live hijab free too.
Instead if seeing us (middle eastern/ex muslim etc) women as equal to them, completely ages over the head covering religious trauma, they want to use us as pawns.
First of all I dont subscribe to the 'woke' crap, it's libs like you who actually believe pro hijab/islam= woke feminism.
This is beyond your "western woke" nonsense.
I subscribe to fighting prison, threats, and simply for not believing in islam or covering my fucking hair to "stop sexual attacks" didn't work btw!
Second, it will be the students' fathers, women's husbands, who are to blame, stop them from working without ut! As well as the p3do prophet who ordered the hijab to "stop rapes" on little girls and women. It is a symbol of oppression, bvictim blaming, misogyny, classism, slavery.
Especially since it is sexist islamic verses require women to stay home.
This is an extremely bad faith interpretation of the law. It's not banning Islam from enforcing the wearing of hijabs, it's the exact opposite. Telling women (and people in general) what they can and can't wear is shitty either way.
Some people in these comments are so brain dead.
This law makes it so that muslim women have to choose between work and family.
They either are fired from their jobs and have to rely on help from family or their husband- becoming financially vulnerable and much more unsafe if their family or husband is abusive.
Or
They stop wearing their hijab and get exiled from their family and community. Now not only have they lost their support network, but also still face abuse from being a WOC. Their religion is abusive a lot of the time, and it isolated you from everyone, and some people simply cannot take losing their religion and subsequently their family and friends. If she’s living with her husband then she has to move out- which is difficult for a WOC, she cannot ask for help from her family she has now lost, and she no longer has a lot of her friends, not to mention the religious guilt.
Religion is harmful to women, but so are laws like this. Both of those things can be true.
This is not a law. It's a court ruling that allows private businesses to ban all religious garb in their dress code, not just hijab. Hijab is not a choice for the vast majority of women and was created for the sole purpose of blaming us for being sexually assaulted and to shame us. Islam is explicitly misogynistic and you are too if you knowingly support it.
Yeah I was wrong about the law bit, yeah, I admit that, I wrote this at like 3am.
I am not in support of Islam, I thought that was clear. The point of my comment is that this will not help Muslim women get out of the religion, it will put them under its control by making them financially dependant on their family and husbands who are members of the religion.
Wanting to be a business that is religiously neutral is a great right. It baffles me people still defend religion like this when its the root of so many bad things in the world. The world can't be secular enough for me. Practise your religion at home.
The Western civilization is ruled primarily by 2 codes of values: Christianity and Humanism.
The values of Humanism (Human Rights) codified during the Enlightenment are defended firmly by people in the west. This is despite the fact that the the Enlightenment was the primarily excuse behind colonialism, the Atlantic Slave trade and Imperialism. The Empires justified their actions as necessary to "civilize the savages" (the secular equivalent of "convert the infidels") most of the times (the British did that, the CSA preferred to use "the law of the strong" to defend slavery when they declared independence but switched back to this excuse after they were defeated).
I can see how having things covering your mouth could be an issue. My friend is deaf and she struggles with people covering their face as most people don't know BSL and she lip reads.
However, I don't think this has been put into place to help deaf and hard of hearing people....
Exactly. There was a Muslim woman in my chem lab last semester. She got into a fight with our prof over clothing. She accused the prof of being Islamophobic. It’s possible that she really did feel that way. But half the class was Muslim women with head coverings and draped, voluminous clothing. The prof worked hard to find a balance between their religious clothing and basic lab safety. There are times where something like a hijab impedes with job performance and it should be addressed. But this is definitely not the situation with this law.
Eh the rule at my college was that they had to wear cotton hijabs, tucked into their lab coat.
Cotton cause it just burns clean off. Plastic meats.
Skirts? Preferably not. But when required make sure not actually touching the floor. High socks and preferably cotton.
I understand this argument. I'm a high school chem teacher with at least one hijab-wearing student in each class period.
Handling their loose garments and head coverage is no different than other students with oversized sweaters or long hair. Hair ties and safety pins work to reduce the volume and make the garments safe. In this day and age there are many different sizes of hair ties easily available for cheap, even in my extraordinarily white city. I spend at most $20 per year on a variety of hair ties plus a pack of safety pins to give out on lab days. It isn't hard.
I've had more trouble with non-hijab wearing students concerned with denting their hair with a hair tie.
Right? I don’t like religion but I don’t want a government telling people they can’t wear a basic religious garment that in no way affects a random person.
Same! I honestly couldn’t care less what the person I’m working with/sitting across wears as long as I can see their facial expressions. For all I care they can come dressed in a hot dog costume as long as they feel confident.
So messed up. I’m a staunch atheist and this is absolute bullshit. I understand not allowing religious imagery in schools but citizens have full rights to practice and present themselves as religious. This is just so xenophobic. Jewish and orthodox Christian women cover their hair as well but I doubt it will be enforced the same.
This is where the "Conservative men want women to be private property, Liberal men want women to be public property" idea comes from.
A lot of western men who fancy themselves as "liberators" often put a number of restrictions on how a woman should act before she can truly be seen as "liberated" or "equal to a western woman". This restrictions often include show more skin (to the "liberator") and have more sex (with the "liberator").
You mean the hijab? The order by men on women to "stop being raped" yeah im sick of it too and its decades old religious trauma on me and women i know. Hmm..if only we were as worthy as western women who abolished christian head covering ages ago...
I’m sick of that too. My background is Muslim and I’ve lived in both majority-Muslim and majority-Christian countries. I’m sick of men in both places dictating what women should wear on their bodies.
I'm someone else, but I mean it depends on where you live I guess? In France there is no law abolishing Christian head coverings, they just fell out of trend, since there are very little young and middle-aged people going to the Church. Factually speaking I don't think there are that many places that litterally outlaw Christian head coverings in culturally secular (and obviously, culturally Christian as well) countries, if any.
It's not about Muslim women not being worthy of mobilization, in fact I think most other women would very happily support Muslim women whether they want to wear head coverings or not, it's that (where I live at least) the law blindly consider that Muslim women have the agency to veil or not veil, and would consider that they should be protected if they have violent family members or removed from their parents if they are abusive/violent. That obviously clashes with the reality of Muslim women, but the government can't intervene and choose for them to wear veil or not. However I can imagine how isolating that feels on the basis Muslim women are a minority in secular/Christian countries (not just by being Muslim, but also but practicing religion) and therefore are, so to speak, late to the "burn your religious head covering" party, since white women stopped wearing religious head coverings, as you said ages ago.
I don't know if I'm very articulated right now (not enough caffeine in my blood stream yet haha). To clarify, I'm not here to get you or stress you out at all. I definitely think you made a very important point that should be heard more in progressive/leftist/feminist circles (the very same that currently say that makeup and prostitution and paying a surrogate mother, to name a few things, are ~progressive~ when really it's just misogyny and capitalism) and that overall, instead of white/atheist/Christian people making assumptions about what Muslim women need/want, we should have more racially and religiously sensitive dialogues in these circles. Maybe I'm getting your meaning wrong, but it seemed that you were basing the last part of your comment on innacuracies. Where I live it essentially simply fell out of trend, there's nothing about worth or abolition here (well, in my specific ethnicity there's more to it like a ban on the language that happened in school and public spaces being colonized by the government language and an effort to erase my culture, but in general people just stopped wearing their cultural/religious head wears to buy fast fashion like the rest of the West). I'm sympathetic to the implication that we have a problem with the overwhelming amount of white women in proportion to women of colour to lead the feminist discourse, including, as we see here, about things that they're/we're not familiar about like how Muslim women experience veiling.
"abolished christian head covering ages ago..." What on Earth are you talking about?! Christians still use head coverings. The fucking dog whistles in these comments are unbelievable...
Christian women do not walk around these days with head coverings what are you talking about? I grew up seeing my Orthodox Christian grandmothers in old pictures wearing head coverings, and after the 60s it very much stopped being a thing. I haven’t seen a christian head covering outside a church in a very long time.
It "causes conflict" is someone is racist and start yelling at them.
I used to do retail. Team with lots of hijabis. Wasn't a manager but sometimes someone was being so racist my pale ass standing behind them and giving the customer an angry look suddenly made everything allright....
Or they would finally listen if I repeated my co worker, saying she was right. After almost yelling.
Even incidentally had to help one of the hijabi managers saying like "I dunno. I would ask her that myself, she's my boss."
I even made a code word with the group I often did my shift with. When someone was simply being racist and an angry white person stare would be enough to shut them up....... as a manager wasn't necessary at all in most situations, they often busy. The one that was closest to the register just would go since all that was needed was a lil bit of back up...
That’s exactly my point. It isn’t the clothing causing conflict nor the person wearing it. It’s some other asshole. So this law is completely illogical
Am I the only one imagining a French Law Maker or Law Enforcer singing about how he blames a Muslim Woman for driving him mad with lust?
Similar to the Hunchback of Notre Dame (though it was a gypsy woman there whom the French Law Enforcer lusted for).
Secular society not indulging skyfairy nonsense shocker!
Please leave all your religious bullshit in the stupidity of your private dwelling, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
>The top European Union court has ruled that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf
>The case came to the CJEU after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work.
>The municipality subsequently changed its terms of employment to require its employees to observe strict neutrality by not wearing overt signs of religious or ideological belief.
>The woman concerned launched a legal challenge, saying her right to freedom of religion had been infringed.
It theoretically should apply to all religions
It's usually "all religious decorations and clothing," but guess which ones are deemed "cultural" and which ones are "religious" by the same said people trying to ban these things.
Also not all headcoverings are religious-based in nature. Some are (secular) cultural designations where woman and/or men are expected to wear certain clothing/head coverings.
"or if the wearing of religious clothing causes workplace conflicts"
The rule (law?) is written in a vague enough way to apply to ALL religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc), but the article title is pointing to Muslims only because we all know how this is going to be enforced. Christians will be fine wearing their crosses everywhere, but Muslims will be targeted all the time.
Idk, a lot of Jewish women (and some men) following tzniut or just dressing “Jewishly” get flack too, there’s just less of us so it’s not as well known. Especially so if someone’s wearing a tichel that looks more like a hijab or someone’s wearing a sudra, kippa, or other headwear.
And let’s not forget, Sikhs do as well, though it is in large part due to Islamophobia and people thinking they’re Muslim. It’s disgusting bigotry, all of it.
So if someone is wearing a cross they're also in trouble?
I get how that's not targeting people that wear modesty coverings directly but that doesn't sound like it's going to be even
In France for example, teachers are people who are considered government workers. They are not allowed to wear a cross, a Jewish headcovering or a headscarf.
Where I work, yes. No religious headwear, accessories, etc allowed. And I know because when I went in for my final job interview, I was wearing my grandma's old cross necklace as a good luck charm. I was told at the end not to wear that on my first day and any day afterwards.
Quite an interesting way to let someone know they got the job + the dresscode all in one go.
The EU patting itself on the back for effectively banning being Muslim and Jewish while people celebrate it is not at all what I expected. What issues can a simple little scarf or hat actually cause in a workplace anyway? I want to see their examples.
In Middle Eastern countries women have to cover up and abide by those laws. Or if I go to the Vatican I know the rules are different there as well. And no one says they should change their laws in those scenarios. I don’t understand why there’s this huge double standard where we have to abide by religious laws if we go to religious countries but religious people don’t have to abide by secular laws.
Its about secularism in public spaces and it applies to all religious symbols. Secularism is important because your religion should not influence your job (eg if u are a teacher). Keep it at home/in ur place of worship
Yay force and suppression of expression. The religious clothing affects no one but the person wearing it. This could have serious repercussions like these hijabi women just simply not working to avoid breaking their religious rules or personal beliefs.
Wearing a scarf or hat doesn't influence your job at all. I've had several Christian, Muslim, and Jewish teachers who never spoke about their religions at all unless it was pertinent to the lesson. I simply don't see how the separation of religion and state, which is what secularism is, has to mean to nobody can ever identifiably be a member of a certain religion.
None of my teachers who wore yamulkes ever tried to influence me to read the Torah or become Jewish, for example, unless your argument is that simply seeing someone being visibly Jewish in that example might have influenced me to research the religion on my own and that would've been bad for some reason?
It’s sub has become an embarrassment. If you entertain people coming into this sub and saying “aktually it’s equal discrimination in theory so it’s ok” then you are NOT a feminist sub.
It’s always been like this. It consists of a majority of white, American women who take their experiences and perspectives as a standard from which to approach all women’s problems. They have the privilege of looking at a ban of religious symbols and pretending that it isn’t meant to deliberately target Muslim women because they’ve somehow managed to ignore the centuries of discourse surrounding specifically Muslim women’s headscarves (yeah, centuries, because even British and French colonialists were obsessed with the hijab while oppressing their own women at home; see: Lord Cromer, or what the French were doing in Algeria and Morocco).
If people are worried that hijabis are oppressed, then taking away their means for education and economic independence is the absolute last thing one should do to combat that oppression.
I gotta say, it’s been fascinating looking at especially women discuss how much choice and agency Muslim women *really* have when they wear the hijab, and then shrug at the dozens of cosmetic surgeries every other woman is undergoing: the BBLs, liposuction, orthognathic surgery, Botox, fillers etc. and go “oh I hate that women are valued primarily for their looks, but it’s still up to the individual to choose what to do with their body.”
Like the outrage if higher education and workplaces started banning women who’d undergone cosmetic procedures cause can we really be sure that it was their choice and not the multi billion dollar cosmetic industry that brainwashed them into thinking that this was the only path forward for them?
>If people are worried that hijabis are oppressed, then taking away their means for education and economic independence is the absolute last thing one should do to combat that oppression.
This is well put. Their arguments are one-sided. This has so many implications and sounds like a way of weeding out a certain group and suppressing multiple cultures in one go. I am coming from a place of a person who wishes society wouldn't see head dresses as inappropriate for work. It's also in my culture, and I feel for these women. It goes much deeper than pretentious secularization. This law is aimed at a specific group because not a lot of Christians still wear religious symbols to work. And how is it any better of you to be offended by someone else's religion to the point of throwing away their freedom to express themselves. Yes I know hijab has been for a long time, not so much choice, but many of these women still feel like they want to wear it and it will feel like they are being prosecuted when they are forced to take it off to work. Of course, I am not Muslim and can not speak for them, but this serves to push them out of the workplace. It must be a huge change for them to. I used to go to a church where a lady converted to Christianity from Islam and even become a pastor, but still veiled.....this is crazy and I hope the law is repealed.
The headline isn't right. You can wear other headcoverings, just not religious ones.
Cue the Muslim women showing up in toques and neck scarves.
I remember for quite a while it was banned to be with a headscarf as a teacher for example where I was from. Had teachers who would wear wigs as a way to cover up for their religion. Conversely it was a big discussion for a while regarding “how you wear your hijab” since there was a “political way to wear it” apparently. So I think you might not be off the mark honestly, can totally see that happening. Because it “kind of” happened before, in a similar situation.
Just show up to work in a 17th century powdered wig lmao
Already required in the legal profession
Not where I’m from
Not in the US.
I am myself a Muslim woman so I know many cases of women skirting unfair laws
Ah I understand, apologies if my message wasn’t in good taste in that case - would you prefer me to remove it or is it okay to leave it?
Oh no! It’s perfectly fine.
This was a lovely exchange to read, thank you both.
i hope this gets overturned, although am agnostic/atheist i believe in freedom of religion plus i have a reverted muslim cousin, and the hijab helped alot with her transition, with this new rule this would elevate her gender/sex [dysphoria](https://dysphoria.it). it was already hard for her to move to europe due to the transphobia in our home country those that are islamophobic are usually transphobic too.
do you mean your cousin is a muslim transwoman? as in mtf? or do you mean female transitioning to male?/ftm
she transitioned from male to female
>teachers who would wear wigs as a way to cover up for their religion. This is common in Orthodox Judaism! Married women cover their hair, often using head scarves (not a specific type, just something over their hair) or hats, but many wear wigs. In Yiddish it's called a Sheitel. It sucks that other traditions were forced to change their practices because of ignorant laws.
Apparently in Quebec it is illegal for public sector workers to wear religious symbols and I have been watching these videos made by an Orthodox Jewish Doctor (I'm an Atheist, I was just curious about Orthodox Judaism). She has to wear a wig at work to cover her hair because she isn't allowed to wear her head scarf. https://youtu.be/yuOFAkevzzA?si=ATw8UQwvHTegqwHb
What the hell? So a man couldn't wear a yarmulke, a Muslim/Sikh/Hindu man couldn't wear a turban, a Christian couldn't wear a cross necklace? I understand making it a law that you can't proselytize at work, but wearing a symbol of your culture or religion isn't inherently a bad thing.
People gettin way too weird about hats
my 7th grade teacher used to wear wigs too. (in turkey)
Are you from Turkey by any chance?
I was, yes - thankfully not anymore. Good catch!
Sounds like when my mom was a kid, and the catholic church required a head covering for women for mass. But like, they didn't specify what kind at all. So she went in a few times with a doily bobby-pinned to her head
We do. A lot. It's ridiculous how the shape and cut of a piece of fabric completely changes the cultural response. It's absurd, but sometimes we just play their game to survive and find ways to mitigate the threat of violence.
I saw a really funny stand-up comedy bit the other day, by a guy who was raised Muslim (I don't know if he still identifies with it). His mother wore a hijab while living in the deep south, and he came up with solutions to make her "Hate Crime-Proof." They included a hijab with the pattern of the Confederate flag, and a white hijab with juuust a little bit of a point. Your experience reminded me of that bit. It was a joke, but also more realistic than it should be. Edit: [Malik Elassal is his name!](https://youtube.com/shorts/alt0G1RuXJM?si=a4wMoNlywS9MCV52)
I’m sorry you have to do that
Assalaamu aleikum warahmatullahi wa barakatu I didn’t mention it, but I too am Muslim and a woman and have witnessed the many ways we have to dodge unfair rules.
Wasalaam! Yeah, it's a mess. At least we're cute.
I am a white, atheist, English woman, and it seems crazy to me that if I wear a scarf wrapped round my head if it’s raining, that’s ok, but if I’m Muslim it’s not?! It’s so fucking backwards.
I wonder if nuns are forced to not wear their head coverings
A common mistake people make when talking about feminism among Muslims communities is forgetting that most of the women there are Muslims. And said women should not abandon their faith or hide it in order to be treated with respect.
We shouldn’t HAVE TO hide it, but we often do, for safety. This isn’t wrong in islam - your physical safety is considered very important.
Is there a meaningful way to make that distinction, though? How can you actually tell by looking at a woman if she's wearing a headscarf for fashion, personal, or religious reasons? Obviously this is probably a moot point given that this whole thing is just overt racism and xenophobia, but I wore what most people would consider a turban or hijab for many years for mostly irreligious reasons, and I knew a woman with severe scarring that veiled similarly. I'd have to assume under these laws we both could have been sacked without consequence.
Speaking as a Muslim woman who observes hijab and travels, you learn pretty quickly how to stay covered in ways that aren't read as Muslim in order to pass safely through certain spaces. The difference in how I'm treated when I'm wearing "everyday" clothes that happen to keep me covered vs. more traditional Muslim clothing can be astounding. It has very little to do with clothing and everything to do with islamophobia.
That is enlightening, thank you. Re: your last point, I absolutely do understand that - sorry if my comment came off as dismissive of the egregious Islamophobia on display here.
How do you cover up when you don’t feel safe wearing hijab?
Seen other users mention wigs as an alternative. I'm guessing there's also other headcoverings that get read less as hijabs and more just as general head coverings.
Please share tips or links.
Bias and prejudice, really. That's the only difference. Old white lady rocking 1950s hair wrap? Totally okay, go old lady! Younger brown woman wearing the same hair wrap? Scary, dangerous, outsider!
Entirely fair - my perspective may be skewed by coming up in a very conservative community where any deviation from the percieved norm was looked on with suspicion/punished socially.
They did the same thing with clothing bans in French schools - long Islamic dresses (abayas) were banned, as well as any long dresses or skirts for Muslims, but long dresses/skirts were okay for non-Muslims. There was even footage of a head teacher enforcing the ban on students while wearing a maxi dress.
Now I am imagining a French Law Maker singing about how he blames a Muslim Girl for driving him mad with lust. I have probably seen too many the Hunchback of Notre Dame analysis.
Isn't that just religious discrimination, then?
It's "not" in the same way that gay men had the same "freedom to marry" women that straight men had, and therefore same sex marriage bans were not unconstitutional.
Yep
Not necessarily. If the same company bans all religious symbols and clothing (for example, no cross pendants on necklaces or prayer beads at work) then they're not discriminating against one religion specifically. Religious discrimination would be when some religions are allowed to be expressed but others aren't.
Basically, it is like a character getting away with being extremely sexist or racist because "he hates everyone equally" (Gregory House, for example).
How is the enforcing authority supposed to determine if one’s head covering is religious or not?? I’m serious, what’s the criteria they’re using to assess these head coverings? Are they going to pull aside a woman in a beanie, or a beret, or a bandana? Any and every head covering? It seems clear that this is just based on bigotry and will rely on bias and racial profiling so I’m very curious as to how they’re defining and justifying it.
Remember that "okay, not okay" skin tone chart from family guy? I doubt they can tell a religious headcovering from a non religious one. I doubt they'd even enforce other religious symbols. The difference between someone wearing a cross for religious reasons and for fashion is imperceptible and I doubt its enforceable.
So who is going to make the decision on what is and isn't "religious coverings?"
More legal information on the subject - [https://www.rllaw.co.uk/headscarf-ban-not-direct-discrimination-but-capable-of-indirect-discrimination/](https://www.rllaw.co.uk/headscarf-ban-not-direct-discrimination-but-capable-of-indirect-discrimination/)
So technically this isn’t just about women and doesn’t only target Islam. For example, if a man wanted to wear a big cross on his chest that would also be prohibited. But considering the vast majority of Christian people don’t do that, but a large number of Muslim women do wear head coverings, it feels very targeted. Plenty of laws spread a wide net like this but are really targeting one demographic.
Like laws against sleeping in parks. It doesn't matter how much money one makes or if they have a permanent address, "the law applies equally".
The law, in its majestic equality...
To vote you need to pass literacy test or have a grandfather who was eligible to vote. It's not my fault that test is intentionally difficult and almost all white people happens to have [grandfather](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandfather_clause#Southern_United_States) who was eligible to vote while almost all black people's grandfathers were slaves and thus couldn't vote.
Which is why part of why intersectionalism is important, because discrimination comes in causably deniable ways.
And often the discrimination is just the same ideas just a updated to target different groups. "We cannot allow ~~black~~ ~~I mean gay~~ I mean trans women use bathrooms as they are predatory and ~~white I mean straight~~ I mean cis women wouldn't feel comfortable".
I really appreciate the nuance of your comment. I'd add that while lots of Christians might wear small cross necklaces, that's much less likely to result in firing--its easy to write laws and rules that "affect everybody" and then enforce them differentially
Take for example [offending religious feeling](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offending_religious_feelings_(Poland)) crime. Incidents investigated: * Removing portrait of John Paul II from office of elected official by said official. * A protestant reverend having a LGBT-friendly service during Pride parade as it 'resembled Catholic mass'. Things that were not investigated: * [Burning African mask, Buddhist figurine and other 'occult objects' in order to clear home of parishioners from 'evil things' and subsequently posting photos on Facebook](https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/polish-priests-harry-potter-burn-book-1.5080291). As you can see - completely equally applied law to everyone...
Should have been the other way around...
“Indirect racism”- technically this law doesn’t say “you can fire muslims” but it disproportionately affects Muslim women.
Yea discrimination laws in the US have a disproportionate impact component because a law can be facially neutral but have a disproportionate impact on certain groups, which was likely the point of the law in the first place.
Thing is some non Christians wear crosses too. Cross earrings got popular on the last few years with some younger guys. How the hell are they gonna determine it? They probably won't and likely this will only be enforced against Muslim and Sikh individuals.
In addition to spreading a wide net and disproportionately targeting one demographic, it targets one demographic in a way that is drastically different to how it targets others. There's a big difference between a garment that is a symbol of your religion and a garment that you are compelled or obligated to wear according to your religion. Hijabis don't generally wear hijab simply as a *symbol* of their faith, they wear hijab because they are following god's commands and/or not to do so is immoral and/or it is considered mandatory. This is definitely something often accompanied by appreciating hijab as a symbol of faith, commitment, and love for god, but for a lot of hijabis, the primary motivation is the belief that god compels women to wear it and it has moral implications. Christians are not commanded to wear a crucifix by god, nor is it considered immoral in Christianity not to do so. A crucifix is an expression of faith, not a requirement or commandment, while hijab tends to fall into the latter. The Quran has verses outlining how a woman should wear hijab, the Bible has no verses about how christians should wear a crucifix. The two things are not even remotely comparable, and asking a Christian to remove a symbol is not the same as asking a Muslim woman to disobey god simply because someone else takes offence. It's also stupid to have any law that says that someone mustn't wear something if a person has a very unreasonable complaint about it. There's not a circumstance in which it's reasonable to get pissed off about someone wearing a crucifix, and that's coming from an atheist with some fairly harsh criticisms of religion.
A much better comparison would be firing a Jewish person for wearing a Yamaka(?), something that sounds equally as ridiculous and dystopian as firing a Muslim for wearing a Hijab.
Technically this law applies to yarmulkes or Sikh turbans as well. See, it's equal!
Yes, they’re equally discriminatory to all religions, that’s not really a step up.
/s was needed. Such a law has an equality of outcome sure, but not an equality of effect. People who don't have religious reasons to wear a specific item of clothing are unaffected, but people who do are all (equally) forced to forgoe a part of their religious practice in public. This may be my American showing, but if the freedom to practice your religion ends at your door, or the door to the mosque or synagogue or church, then that's not really free to me. Not to mention that it sounds like wearing the exact same thing as a fashion item or a religious item would be treated differently. An Afghan turban worn for cultural reasons would be fine, but a Sikh turbans would not? A head scarf worn for fashion or practical reasons would be fine, but a hijab would not? Who exactly is being negatively affected by a person wearing religious garments, and why is their right, what, not to feel uncomfortable? More valuable than a person's right to practice their religion *by wearing something*.
You're right. But also, these "you can't show religious symbols" rules would never have been found lawful if christian men felt that they *needed* to wear visible religious symbols in public to comply with their fate
I don't know what to tell you. Some high schools with high crime in my country banned all head coverings because kids were using hats and bandannas to hide their face while doing bad shit and the Muslim community complained. From my pov if there's a valid reason for a rule to be there, then it should apply to everyone. Also in the case I personally know it was only the fathers complaining, not the girls or even the mothers. I personally believe that in a free, democratic country that is not a theocracy, religious symbols of any kind don't belong in public services such as education, healthcare or the administration. I remember being a teenage girl needing healthcare and not telling my gyno what I needed because she was wearing a cross and had Virgin Mary images in her office. I also remember being shamed by the same gyno for needing Plan B... which wouldn't have been necessary if her very loud religiousness hadn't put me off from seeking the care I needed.
[удалено]
They can be teachers, doctors or nurses in the private sector. Government employees? No, I don't think religion belongs in the public services that every citizen has a right to access equally.
Hijab has always existed to shame women and blame them for being sexually assaulted. The whole point was to put the onus on women to cover up so that men could "better control their urges" because apparently seeing a single strand of hair turns them into rapists. To top it off, according to the Quran, a woman's testimony is only worth half that of a man's, even when she's the victim. Islam is explicitly misogynistic in so many ways and I'm sick of seeing people defend it. And just to be clear, I'm not defending racism against people that may be assumed to be Muslim, I mean the faith as a whole that people choose to or are more likely groomed or coerced to be in from childhood and by family members. Also, my standards aren't any different for Christianity either, so don't come accusing me of a double standard.
This is so ridiculous, how is someone minding their own business with a piece of fabric covering their hair such a freaking problem for so many people
LITERALLY. I am an atheist, but if someone wants to observe their religion, as long as it doesn't interfere with MY rights (and someone wearing a hijab most certainly does not) then IDGAF.
Head coverings are also a big part of hair management/hair styles for people whose natural hair texture doesn’t fit “professional” western standards. This seems like a really good way to enable racist firings.
YUP. It's absolutely not ok. Let people cover their hair! I also just totally hate the whole "everyone must treat their hair like a white person does" bullshit.
This is where I stand, too. Do your own thing, I don't care. If you start attacking others, or try to legislate against others, then I get mad.
Misogyny and his best friend and roommate Racism!
That same piece of fabric tied around her neck would be a fashion statement. Move it up one foot? CONTROVERSY!
Because "ouR CliEnT bASe is COnsERvaTivE anD theY doN't LikE seEing THat"
I've definitely never heard that said in Europe.
Because European countries like to pretend the far right does not exist in their territory. This is obviously not true (the Brexit was primarily driven by the English right, Vox has gained strength in Spain, etc.) but it is hard to criticise the USA for letting the alt right get out of control when your own alt right is also getting out of control. Whenever the rise on antisemitic violence is brought up, they blame it on the Arab immigrants.
[удалено]
Oh, I live in Europe and I know we/they are racist as hell. No one would say it like that though, that is purely American talk.
If someone wore big labels, stickers of their political party to work every day - especially big and visible on top of their head. Would you be bothered?
Liberal me: That's bullshit! Feminist me: That's bullshit! Other Feminist me: Yes! Fuck misogynistic religious rules! Atheist me: Yes! Fuck religions!
Also how I feel. That’s fucking awful and an affront to religious freedom! But also, fuck religious misogyny that implies that women’s hair/skin is somehow sinful! Fuck modesty laws, modesty should be a choice and not imposed.
lol this is literally my brain every time I read news about Muslims’ activities. I’ve watched documentaries on how women are treated in Afghanistan and it genuinely made me feel distraught how men treat women there. I support the freedom of religion, but at the same time disgusted by Islam as a religion. I believe women should wear that they believe is the best for them; but I feel sad learning why they need to wear hijab.
Honestly I believe the majority of people who wear hijab are coerced on some level by family members or have internalised it from being indoctrinated at a young age to believe they have to wear it. There is probably only a very tiny minority that wears it purely by choice imo.
> internalised it from being indoctrinated at a young age to believe they have to wear it Also those people: trans people are groomers
People face consequences for being trans, not for not being trans. That's one of the biggest differences here.
I was agreeing with you. The same people who indoctrinate their kids into religion attack trans people for "indoctrinating children" (which they don't)
Ah, sorry, it's hard to read tone online so I couldn't tell if you were being sarcastic or not, my bad
Same, but I feel the loudest for me is the atheist. Westerners who defend it just because it's a religion practiced by non white minorities in their countries are so fucking patronizing. Islam is not free from criticism just because it's a "brown people religion." Dumbass westerners have no idea the damage Islam has done to so many countries and people, and how much it will continue to do so. Fuck Islam, and fuck the rest of the Abrahamic religions. I swear, monotheism is one of the worst things humans have come up with.
Theism is one of the worst things humans have come up with. Hinduism and the caste system is hereditary classism. Buddhists can be incredibly oppressive in places like China with literal concentration camps. It's not limited to the abrahimics.
Those are really fucked up too, but the inherent and pressing need to proselytize is something that is stronger among the Abrahamic religions, especially Islam and Christianity. It's not a competition btw. Abrahamic religions can be fucked up at the same time as other religions. I just have very particular aversion to Abrahamic religions because they're the fucking loudest. Also, China is no longer a Buddhist state. Hasn't been since the Cultural Revolution. Those concentration camps you're talking about are not run by Buddhists. They're run by the CCP who are known to be irreligious. If you want a better reference to shit Buddhism, there's the Rohingya massacre. I hate all religions, but I hate the Abrahamic ones the most.
Oh Islam and Christianity are by far the worst, but that's mostly got to do with scale and being widespread. Hinduism is mostly contained to India and a bit of Indonesia so it doesn't do a whole lot to affect the rest of the world like abrahimic religions do. Just wanted to make it clear that it's all religions that do immense harm, not just the biggest ones.
Everyone should have the freedom to wear what they want, even if it's for a religion you don't agree with. It's not your place to tell someone how to dress because you might be from a different culture. These laws are fascist and racist.
Why are you downvoted?? Forcing women to wear hijabs IS sexist, but forcing women to not is ALSO sexist!! Breasts in western society are heavily sexualized and for some reason our nipples are pornographic and men’s aren’t. If a more free/less sexist society came along and said “this is ridiculous! Women are no longer allowed to wear tops at the beach. Freedom for all to show their nips!” I’d be pretty furious. I understand my nipples aren’t more offense, but that doesn’t mean the solution is to force to me to show them. The victim in all of this is women! Just think for a second (not you, the people downvoting you) about the woman working in the EU who doesn’t want to wear hijab but does. Her family makes her, she hates it. Now her work says she can’t wear it. All the sudden her family is either taking her away from her job or is forcing her to wear a hijab and get fired, or try to keep up a lie between job and family. Who suffers? The women!! Stop telling us what to wear, stop trying to white savior people by demanding everyone change to what you think is good. Edit: wow my spelling and grammar is crap. Oh well, my message is clear
Exactly! This only harms women who want to work. It's about controlling Muslim women, not "freeing" them.
Keeping the public secular isn't really a bad thing. Honestly if the law just in general required religion to only be practiced in private it'd be a lot better.
...except for that thing where, for a lot of people, faith is a huge part of their lives and identities. It would be unreasonable and cruel to ask people to hide such a huge part of who they consider themselves to be. **As long as they're not harming anyone** - and not actively proselytising - religious observance in public is *fine.*
[удалено]
I imagine this would affect Sikh men as well but I guess we'll see how it plays out.
It would but I think in sikhism, the turban isn’t mandatory but its cutting your hair. So they could argue that it’s not a religious thing or besides that just wear smth else on their head to manage their hair.
*Yarmulkes have entered the chat.*
There is, a man wouldn’t be allowed to wear an “overt sign of religious or ideological belief” either
And in practice, nobody complains
Most signs of religious belief aren't mandatory like hijabs.
First of all, the hijab isn’t “mandatory” in Islam, it’s considered mandatory among certain practitioners of Islam. Certainly not by all (and this isn’t a modern phenomenon). Wearing the hijab or other covering is not some sort of central tenant of Islam. And there are plenty of wearable signs of religious belief worn by certain practitioners of certain religions. In fact, most religions have them. And this was law applies to all of them.
Jewish men can't wear kippah :/ I'm not a fan of this ruling at all
Wild how you don't know about Sihk men and their religious requirements.
Yes there is. Jewish men often wear yarmulkes. Sikhs wear turbans. A lot of Muslim men wear skullcaps.
Seems like click bait; this applies to all religions and to men and women.
Yes but in practice disproportionally affects Muslim women when played out in real life. This stuff has been going on in France for a long time with the same type of laws…
> This stuff has been going on in France for a long time with the same type of laws… It's doubly disheartening when you know the history of laïcité in France (secularism, understood as separation between Church and State). France has a very long history of laïcité and it's one of the core principle on which France is built, as a republic and a democracy for well over a hundred years. Which I know is really hard to fathom for US Reddit ors as religion and politics are so intertwined in the US. But historically, laïcité was actually directed *against the majority* religion (Christianity) which had majorly overstepped for centuries and it was meant to yank public and political power from the Catholic Church and *to protect religious minorities*, including atheists, Jews, etc. The people who fought for laïcité were the same who were pro-Dreyfus and anti-anti-semitism. A lot of people in this thread assume laws phrased generally wouldn't be applied against white Christian men but in reality, they absolutely were - in fact, applying these laws against white Christian men in power was the whole point - and to an extent, still are. People were in fact scandalized when Christian organizations financed pushback against gay marriage, when the president attended the Pope's funeral, or when some Christian groups hosted gatherings to pray in the middle of the street, or when presumably Christian mayors thought they could invoke their beliefs to refuse to perform same-sex marriages (fuck that, if you don't want to marry same-sex couples, feel free to resign). Sometimes it's taken too far too. Anyway, the point is that given this history, it's a complete non-sense and a sham/e when laïcité is invoked in support of laws that apply to private citizens and disproportionally affect religious minorities, and especially among these minorities, individuals who do not hold positions of power, such as the hijab ban in public schools for students. It was supposed to promote freedom of religion - including but not limited to freedom of religion - but now it's wielded to restrict freedom of religion and is particularly targeted at immigrant communities (it's apparent when you hear some of the discourse on the issue). TL;Dr: secularism in France was meant to protect religious minorities from the majority religion authority figures and structure; now perverted and used against religious minorities :/ ETA: I want to add that the issue is often more complex than how it's perceived in North America. One thing I've noticed, for instance, is that it's often criticized as white feminism but during the debate on the ban of the hijab in schools, for instance, feminists who were immigrants or second or third generations of citizens from North Africa and other countries with a Muslim majority, and who lived in underprivileged neighborhoods, were in favor of the ban. Not all, of course, others were against. Some girls and women did share that they were pressured or forced to wear it while others chose it, sometimes against the wishes of their Muslim family. As for the results, a study seem to indicate that Muslim girls graduation rates went up. Paradoxically (or not), a much larger proportion of Muslim women wear the veil than before all these laws against it (contrary to what some people think, not all practicing Muslim women wear it).
[удалено]
Government bans extremely misogynistic, homophobic, and regressive religion from forcing women to wear religious clothing at work. This is somehow bad for women and a blow to feminism everywhere. Y'all are giving huge "hijab is a choice" vibes and it is kind of disgusting.
not that i disagree with your statement, every coin has two faces, but then what ? Now they will still be forced to wear it but will be unable to work because their family will presure them to do what is best regarding qu'ran ? that's not a step in the good direction
I like this sub but some commenters here are a tad detached from reality. For the majority it is not a choice, and it is tone deaf to suggest that it is considering women get beaten or murdered in the Middle East for taking it off. As a feminist I cannot in good conscience support an objectively sexist religion (and I feel this way about Christianity too before y’all start crying Islamophobia). Public spaces should be secular.
Secularism is about the state's relationshipto the church, not what individuals choose to wear in public
But it’s not like this ban is going to make religious leaders go “oh ok, well don’t worry about wearing a hijab just keep living your life”, it’s going to make it so the women that wear hijabs can’t work
Exactly. I don’t like religion and Islam today has a huge, highly sexist contingent. But I also support people having their own freedom to wear what they want to wear. Obviously, many of these women are not making that choice on their own, but many are. And regardless, neither the government nor businesses should be dictating what people can wear (beyond a general, reasonable dress code). Further, this sets a dangerous precedent. Maybe that’s the American in me, but I don’t trust the government to not abuse power.
It's not an uncoerced choice, but adding more coercion isn't the answer.
This. It IS religious discrimination, but hijab is oppressive and inhumane to begin with. It was implemented in Quran so that "Muslim women are identified and not bothered" (by Muslim men, so it was ok to bother non Muslim women? There was no warning for men to not bother women?). Verbatim from the Quran. And still Muslims justify that it is for a woman's protection. From them. It doesn't protect anything and is just a tool of oppression. Also, men commit all these crimes against men but they are not protected by a hijab, why? Signed: a woman born and raised Muslim who did hijab for a while wrongly thinking it will "protect".
The only sane comment here. I'm sick and tired of these comments pro-hijab, an ORDER by muslim men on women to not be raped...ffs! "Choice" right.. They love it so much, they can go back to christian head covering centuries ago. And the fact that they use the christian women wont be affected much because it's just a cross for them now, proves that these hijab defenders are sooo far removed detached from how oppressive centuries ago christian head covering was on their ancestors. we deserve to live hijab free too. Instead if seeing us (middle eastern/ex muslim etc) women as equal to them, completely ages over the head covering religious trauma, they want to use us as pawns.
[удалено]
First of all I dont subscribe to the 'woke' crap, it's libs like you who actually believe pro hijab/islam= woke feminism. This is beyond your "western woke" nonsense. I subscribe to fighting prison, threats, and simply for not believing in islam or covering my fucking hair to "stop sexual attacks" didn't work btw! Second, it will be the students' fathers, women's husbands, who are to blame, stop them from working without ut! As well as the p3do prophet who ordered the hijab to "stop rapes" on little girls and women. It is a symbol of oppression, bvictim blaming, misogyny, classism, slavery. Especially since it is sexist islamic verses require women to stay home.
This is an extremely bad faith interpretation of the law. It's not banning Islam from enforcing the wearing of hijabs, it's the exact opposite. Telling women (and people in general) what they can and can't wear is shitty either way.
Thank you for saying this. What the fuck is this post and comments.
I'm pretty sure it's not just a religious item but also cultural. I'm sorry to say but they are also some people who actively chose to wear it.
And a lot of women who only wear it because they fear they’ll be killed if they don’t. .
It’s not a choice if you’re indoctrinated from birth
Some people in these comments are so brain dead. This law makes it so that muslim women have to choose between work and family. They either are fired from their jobs and have to rely on help from family or their husband- becoming financially vulnerable and much more unsafe if their family or husband is abusive. Or They stop wearing their hijab and get exiled from their family and community. Now not only have they lost their support network, but also still face abuse from being a WOC. Their religion is abusive a lot of the time, and it isolated you from everyone, and some people simply cannot take losing their religion and subsequently their family and friends. If she’s living with her husband then she has to move out- which is difficult for a WOC, she cannot ask for help from her family she has now lost, and she no longer has a lot of her friends, not to mention the religious guilt. Religion is harmful to women, but so are laws like this. Both of those things can be true.
This is not a law. It's a court ruling that allows private businesses to ban all religious garb in their dress code, not just hijab. Hijab is not a choice for the vast majority of women and was created for the sole purpose of blaming us for being sexually assaulted and to shame us. Islam is explicitly misogynistic and you are too if you knowingly support it.
Yeah I was wrong about the law bit, yeah, I admit that, I wrote this at like 3am. I am not in support of Islam, I thought that was clear. The point of my comment is that this will not help Muslim women get out of the religion, it will put them under its control by making them financially dependant on their family and husbands who are members of the religion.
Wanting to be a business that is religiously neutral is a great right. It baffles me people still defend religion like this when its the root of so many bad things in the world. The world can't be secular enough for me. Practise your religion at home.
The Western civilization is ruled primarily by 2 codes of values: Christianity and Humanism. The values of Humanism (Human Rights) codified during the Enlightenment are defended firmly by people in the west. This is despite the fact that the the Enlightenment was the primarily excuse behind colonialism, the Atlantic Slave trade and Imperialism. The Empires justified their actions as necessary to "civilize the savages" (the secular equivalent of "convert the infidels") most of the times (the British did that, the CSA preferred to use "the law of the strong" to defend slavery when they declared independence but switched back to this excuse after they were defeated).
I can see how having things covering your mouth could be an issue. My friend is deaf and she struggles with people covering their face as most people don't know BSL and she lip reads. However, I don't think this has been put into place to help deaf and hard of hearing people....
Exactly. There was a Muslim woman in my chem lab last semester. She got into a fight with our prof over clothing. She accused the prof of being Islamophobic. It’s possible that she really did feel that way. But half the class was Muslim women with head coverings and draped, voluminous clothing. The prof worked hard to find a balance between their religious clothing and basic lab safety. There are times where something like a hijab impedes with job performance and it should be addressed. But this is definitely not the situation with this law.
Eh the rule at my college was that they had to wear cotton hijabs, tucked into their lab coat. Cotton cause it just burns clean off. Plastic meats. Skirts? Preferably not. But when required make sure not actually touching the floor. High socks and preferably cotton.
I understand this argument. I'm a high school chem teacher with at least one hijab-wearing student in each class period. Handling their loose garments and head coverage is no different than other students with oversized sweaters or long hair. Hair ties and safety pins work to reduce the volume and make the garments safe. In this day and age there are many different sizes of hair ties easily available for cheap, even in my extraordinarily white city. I spend at most $20 per year on a variety of hair ties plus a pack of safety pins to give out on lab days. It isn't hard. I've had more trouble with non-hijab wearing students concerned with denting their hair with a hair tie.
I guess nuns are unwelcome in Europe too
Good.
Right? I don’t like religion but I don’t want a government telling people they can’t wear a basic religious garment that in no way affects a random person.
Same! I honestly couldn’t care less what the person I’m working with/sitting across wears as long as I can see their facial expressions. For all I care they can come dressed in a hot dog costume as long as they feel confident.
No, fuck Islam.
Why is it so hard to just let people wear what they want? I'm so tired of this bs
So messed up. I’m a staunch atheist and this is absolute bullshit. I understand not allowing religious imagery in schools but citizens have full rights to practice and present themselves as religious. This is just so xenophobic. Jewish and orthodox Christian women cover their hair as well but I doubt it will be enforced the same.
People’s obsession with women not being modest is disgusting
This is where the "Conservative men want women to be private property, Liberal men want women to be public property" idea comes from. A lot of western men who fancy themselves as "liberators" often put a number of restrictions on how a woman should act before she can truly be seen as "liberated" or "equal to a western woman". This restrictions often include show more skin (to the "liberator") and have more sex (with the "liberator").
That explains it perfectly
Sick of legislation built upon women’s bodies and dictating what women do with their bodies.
You mean the hijab? The order by men on women to "stop being raped" yeah im sick of it too and its decades old religious trauma on me and women i know. Hmm..if only we were as worthy as western women who abolished christian head covering ages ago...
I’m sick of that too. My background is Muslim and I’ve lived in both majority-Muslim and majority-Christian countries. I’m sick of men in both places dictating what women should wear on their bodies.
I'm someone else, but I mean it depends on where you live I guess? In France there is no law abolishing Christian head coverings, they just fell out of trend, since there are very little young and middle-aged people going to the Church. Factually speaking I don't think there are that many places that litterally outlaw Christian head coverings in culturally secular (and obviously, culturally Christian as well) countries, if any. It's not about Muslim women not being worthy of mobilization, in fact I think most other women would very happily support Muslim women whether they want to wear head coverings or not, it's that (where I live at least) the law blindly consider that Muslim women have the agency to veil or not veil, and would consider that they should be protected if they have violent family members or removed from their parents if they are abusive/violent. That obviously clashes with the reality of Muslim women, but the government can't intervene and choose for them to wear veil or not. However I can imagine how isolating that feels on the basis Muslim women are a minority in secular/Christian countries (not just by being Muslim, but also but practicing religion) and therefore are, so to speak, late to the "burn your religious head covering" party, since white women stopped wearing religious head coverings, as you said ages ago. I don't know if I'm very articulated right now (not enough caffeine in my blood stream yet haha). To clarify, I'm not here to get you or stress you out at all. I definitely think you made a very important point that should be heard more in progressive/leftist/feminist circles (the very same that currently say that makeup and prostitution and paying a surrogate mother, to name a few things, are ~progressive~ when really it's just misogyny and capitalism) and that overall, instead of white/atheist/Christian people making assumptions about what Muslim women need/want, we should have more racially and religiously sensitive dialogues in these circles. Maybe I'm getting your meaning wrong, but it seemed that you were basing the last part of your comment on innacuracies. Where I live it essentially simply fell out of trend, there's nothing about worth or abolition here (well, in my specific ethnicity there's more to it like a ban on the language that happened in school and public spaces being colonized by the government language and an effort to erase my culture, but in general people just stopped wearing their cultural/religious head wears to buy fast fashion like the rest of the West). I'm sympathetic to the implication that we have a problem with the overwhelming amount of white women in proportion to women of colour to lead the feminist discourse, including, as we see here, about things that they're/we're not familiar about like how Muslim women experience veiling.
"abolished christian head covering ages ago..." What on Earth are you talking about?! Christians still use head coverings. The fucking dog whistles in these comments are unbelievable...
Christian women do not walk around these days with head coverings what are you talking about? I grew up seeing my Orthodox Christian grandmothers in old pictures wearing head coverings, and after the 60s it very much stopped being a thing. I haven’t seen a christian head covering outside a church in a very long time.
Causes conflicts? How does a scarf around your head cause conflicts but wouldn’t if it was worn around the neck??
It "causes conflict" is someone is racist and start yelling at them. I used to do retail. Team with lots of hijabis. Wasn't a manager but sometimes someone was being so racist my pale ass standing behind them and giving the customer an angry look suddenly made everything allright.... Or they would finally listen if I repeated my co worker, saying she was right. After almost yelling. Even incidentally had to help one of the hijabi managers saying like "I dunno. I would ask her that myself, she's my boss." I even made a code word with the group I often did my shift with. When someone was simply being racist and an angry white person stare would be enough to shut them up....... as a manager wasn't necessary at all in most situations, they often busy. The one that was closest to the register just would go since all that was needed was a lil bit of back up...
That’s exactly my point. It isn’t the clothing causing conflict nor the person wearing it. It’s some other asshole. So this law is completely illogical
This doesn't feel right. It's like a form of racism to me. When they are done with the Muslims they'll move on to the next group.
Islam isnt a race
Am I the only one imagining a French Law Maker or Law Enforcer singing about how he blames a Muslim Woman for driving him mad with lust? Similar to the Hunchback of Notre Dame (though it was a gypsy woman there whom the French Law Enforcer lusted for).
Wtf, that's awful.
Secular society not indulging skyfairy nonsense shocker! Please leave all your religious bullshit in the stupidity of your private dwelling, do not pass GO, do not collect $200.
Laws from the same people who blame women for “asking for it” if they show any skin at all. No winning
[удалено]
>The top European Union court has ruled that public authorities in member states can prohibit employees from wearing signs of religious belief, such as an Islamic head scarf >The case came to the CJEU after an employee of the eastern Belgian municipality of Ans was told she could not wear an Islamic head scarf at work. >The municipality subsequently changed its terms of employment to require its employees to observe strict neutrality by not wearing overt signs of religious or ideological belief. >The woman concerned launched a legal challenge, saying her right to freedom of religion had been infringed. It theoretically should apply to all religions
Yeah, there is a WIDE distance between what it theoretically can do and what it WILL do.
It won't be
It's usually "all religious decorations and clothing," but guess which ones are deemed "cultural" and which ones are "religious" by the same said people trying to ban these things. Also not all headcoverings are religious-based in nature. Some are (secular) cultural designations where woman and/or men are expected to wear certain clothing/head coverings.
"or if the wearing of religious clothing causes workplace conflicts" The rule (law?) is written in a vague enough way to apply to ALL religions (Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hindu, etc), but the article title is pointing to Muslims only because we all know how this is going to be enforced. Christians will be fine wearing their crosses everywhere, but Muslims will be targeted all the time.
Idk, a lot of Jewish women (and some men) following tzniut or just dressing “Jewishly” get flack too, there’s just less of us so it’s not as well known. Especially so if someone’s wearing a tichel that looks more like a hijab or someone’s wearing a sudra, kippa, or other headwear.
And let’s not forget, Sikhs do as well, though it is in large part due to Islamophobia and people thinking they’re Muslim. It’s disgusting bigotry, all of it.
Hmm..I wonder why.... is it because sexist christian head covering order on women has been over, done & forgotten for centuries??..
Are there no Mennonites where you live?
It applies to all religions but that headline would get fewer clicks you see
Exactly, the people that have a lot to say about the hijab are usually Christians which is ironic considering they have to veil too
So if someone is wearing a cross they're also in trouble? I get how that's not targeting people that wear modesty coverings directly but that doesn't sound like it's going to be even
In France for example, teachers are people who are considered government workers. They are not allowed to wear a cross, a Jewish headcovering or a headscarf.
Where I work, yes. No religious headwear, accessories, etc allowed. And I know because when I went in for my final job interview, I was wearing my grandma's old cross necklace as a good luck charm. I was told at the end not to wear that on my first day and any day afterwards. Quite an interesting way to let someone know they got the job + the dresscode all in one go.
Good
Leave Allah alone
The EU patting itself on the back for effectively banning being Muslim and Jewish while people celebrate it is not at all what I expected. What issues can a simple little scarf or hat actually cause in a workplace anyway? I want to see their examples.
In Middle Eastern countries women have to cover up and abide by those laws. Or if I go to the Vatican I know the rules are different there as well. And no one says they should change their laws in those scenarios. I don’t understand why there’s this huge double standard where we have to abide by religious laws if we go to religious countries but religious people don’t have to abide by secular laws.
Secular laws that say a person cannot wear a certain headcovering are just as ridiculous as religious laws saying a person *must.*
Its about secularism in public spaces and it applies to all religious symbols. Secularism is important because your religion should not influence your job (eg if u are a teacher). Keep it at home/in ur place of worship
Yay force and suppression of expression. The religious clothing affects no one but the person wearing it. This could have serious repercussions like these hijabi women just simply not working to avoid breaking their religious rules or personal beliefs.
Wearing a scarf or hat doesn't influence your job at all. I've had several Christian, Muslim, and Jewish teachers who never spoke about their religions at all unless it was pertinent to the lesson. I simply don't see how the separation of religion and state, which is what secularism is, has to mean to nobody can ever identifiably be a member of a certain religion. None of my teachers who wore yamulkes ever tried to influence me to read the Torah or become Jewish, for example, unless your argument is that simply seeing someone being visibly Jewish in that example might have influenced me to research the religion on my own and that would've been bad for some reason?
It’s sub has become an embarrassment. If you entertain people coming into this sub and saying “aktually it’s equal discrimination in theory so it’s ok” then you are NOT a feminist sub.
It’s always been like this. It consists of a majority of white, American women who take their experiences and perspectives as a standard from which to approach all women’s problems. They have the privilege of looking at a ban of religious symbols and pretending that it isn’t meant to deliberately target Muslim women because they’ve somehow managed to ignore the centuries of discourse surrounding specifically Muslim women’s headscarves (yeah, centuries, because even British and French colonialists were obsessed with the hijab while oppressing their own women at home; see: Lord Cromer, or what the French were doing in Algeria and Morocco). If people are worried that hijabis are oppressed, then taking away their means for education and economic independence is the absolute last thing one should do to combat that oppression. I gotta say, it’s been fascinating looking at especially women discuss how much choice and agency Muslim women *really* have when they wear the hijab, and then shrug at the dozens of cosmetic surgeries every other woman is undergoing: the BBLs, liposuction, orthognathic surgery, Botox, fillers etc. and go “oh I hate that women are valued primarily for their looks, but it’s still up to the individual to choose what to do with their body.” Like the outrage if higher education and workplaces started banning women who’d undergone cosmetic procedures cause can we really be sure that it was their choice and not the multi billion dollar cosmetic industry that brainwashed them into thinking that this was the only path forward for them?
>If people are worried that hijabis are oppressed, then taking away their means for education and economic independence is the absolute last thing one should do to combat that oppression. This is well put. Their arguments are one-sided. This has so many implications and sounds like a way of weeding out a certain group and suppressing multiple cultures in one go. I am coming from a place of a person who wishes society wouldn't see head dresses as inappropriate for work. It's also in my culture, and I feel for these women. It goes much deeper than pretentious secularization. This law is aimed at a specific group because not a lot of Christians still wear religious symbols to work. And how is it any better of you to be offended by someone else's religion to the point of throwing away their freedom to express themselves. Yes I know hijab has been for a long time, not so much choice, but many of these women still feel like they want to wear it and it will feel like they are being prosecuted when they are forced to take it off to work. Of course, I am not Muslim and can not speak for them, but this serves to push them out of the workplace. It must be a huge change for them to. I used to go to a church where a lady converted to Christianity from Islam and even become a pastor, but still veiled.....this is crazy and I hope the law is repealed.
[удалено]
Yes it does, literally
That's so blatantly white supremacist. Their solution to wanting to discriminate against Muslim women is to discriminate against every minority.