Answering the burqa problem.

Western governments have failed to respond to the problem of patriarchy, both from within and from without, for obvious reasons; 90% of the power elite is male (with most of the females involved in secondary roles) and therefore its interests lie in the continuation of male supremacy.

There have been minor exceptions, such as the French ban on niqabs and burqas. Liberals have tried to turn this into a human rights issue, that we should have the right to wear whatever we want. First of all, this is an extremely disingenuous position for liberals to take, since they support a capitalist system which most definitely does not give people the right to wear whatever they want; if they were serious about such a position, they would be advocating a ban on corporate-imposed clothing and uniforms as well.

Secondly, for someone who really believes that the niqabs and burqas are mandated by the Quran, which is the word of Allah, the wearing of the niqabs and burqas cannot be said to be “voluntary” in any meaningful sense (although nothing in the Quran mandates such clothing, but that never stops religious fanatics). So the idea that “voluntary” niqab or burqa wearing should be allowed is nonsense on its face, since there can be no such thing. And again, this is a disingenous position for statists to take, since they take pleasure in banning a wide variety of voluntary actions.

Patriarchy is the real issue under question. Women are told that they must wear these cloth tombstones because men are such beasts that they will rape women who show their face in public. This is merely a fanatical version of gallantry, where men take it upon themselves to “protect” women from non-existing dangers, repressing women’s freedom in the process. In this case, women are figuratively killed (to the world) so men can have all the space to themselves without feeling sexual attraction (because they follow a faggot ideology).

Some people dismiss these concerns as “cute.” I am not sure how being outraged against extremist patriarchal hate speech is “cute.” The patriarchy needs to be exterminated. You may argue with my methods, and that’s fine. You may argue that it is not the State’s role to ban such clothing, and I agree with you completely. However, I still think it is better for the State to ban them than for the State to not ban them, in the same way that I’d rather the State ban murder than not ban murder (sadly, they don’t, at least not consistently). I am not saying gradualism is great, because it’s absolutely not. I am merely making a theoretical statement. In practice, I want the State to be destroyed.

The continuation of the patriarchy is founded on the failure of civil rights movements in reforming society. Instead of demanding equal rights, the marginalized demanded opportunities to obtain the same power that the privileged possessed. This has led to the spreading of power lust and power competition across all social strata.

Our heteronormative system has completely and absolutely failed. Homosexuality, which is the superior mode of sexual relations, has been dragged through the dirt of heteronormativity, and now the goal of homosexual marriage is widely accepted as “progressive,” despite its utterly regressive and depraved nature; marriage only exists because our heteronormative society demands monogamy, and monogamy is unsustainable. This is one of the paradoxes which exposes our system as regressive nonsense.

Because they are self-hating faggots, Christians vehemently argue that homosexuality is unnatural. To this, atheists rightly respond that homosexuality exists in hundreds of species of mammals, birds, fish, reptiles, amphibians and insects. But we can go further than this. Consider that, before they begin sexual activity, children will generally have masturbated hundreds of times. Therefore, they become very familiar with their own genitals, while remaining unfamiliar with those of the opposite sex. In fact, most men will always be more familiar with penises than with vulvas, and most women will always be more familiar with vulvas than with penises. We can therefore claim, as a generality, that homosexuality is more natural than heterosexuality.

So it is nonsense to say that homosexuals should be made to conform to the power structure, adopt the trappings of heterosexuals such as marriage and monogamy, and integrate within heteronormative institutions. It is heterosexuals who should be made to integrate within homosexual patterns. It is the heterosexual concepts which are regressive. This is the fatal error of the liberals, who still firmly try to integrate homosexuals within the bankrupt heteronormative framework.

Why am I talking about this specific issue? Because all answers, without exception, given by statists to patriarchal issues are predicated upon the belief that women must be made to integrate at all costs within the oppressive institutions already in place, which must be minimally modified to admit women and give them the opportunity to pursue the power they control. It really doesn’t matter what form of bigotry we’re talking about, their answer always follows the same framework, and they inevitably call this regressive, primitive philosophy “progressive.”

The only valid alternative is to wipe out all forms of oppression and segregation based on invalid distinctions: not merely to ban niqabs and burqas, but to ban all segregated forms of clothing. Heteronormative institutions could not survive the destruction of gender. The ultimate goal should not be to make women be more like men, or to make men be more like women, but to erase all concept of man and woman, just as the solution to power lust is not to make power more available but rather to eliminate or disperse all power.

This is not an extreme solution, as it is well known that gender is a social construct. If society has made it, then society can unmake it. Segregated clothing such as dresses, high heels, suits and ties are clearly part of the construction of gender, therefore their removal should participate in the unmaking of gender. In doing so, we would participate in the extermination of patriarchy.

And there is not really any need to anger the liberals and arouse their “human rights” arguments: by banning the manufacture and importation of these articles, but not their wearing, individuals need not be oppressed for their fashion choices. These patriarchal articles would simply be gradually weeded out of society as they wore out. This would have the unfortunate consequence that they would become scarce and their price would shoot out, meaning that only rich people could afford them for a while, but this is an unfortunate consequence of the fact that we live in a class society where only the rich get what they want, not a consequence of my proposed policy.

116 thoughts on “Answering the burqa problem.

  1. bloggerclarissa August 27, 2011 at 20:49

    What an absolutely brilliant post.

  2. Gomi August 27, 2011 at 20:59

    First off, “faggot?” That’s really the language you want to be using?

    Secondly, as an anarchist opposed to restrictive clothing mandates from both government and state, I oppose the government telling women they aren’t allowed to wear a burqa, *if they choose to do so of their own free will*. Why you’d attack free agency by supporting statist clothing bans, I simply don’t understand.

    Thirdly, awareness of our own genitalia makes homosexuality “more natural” than heterosexuality? To the degree that you actually argue that heterosexuals should be made to integrate into “homosexual patterns?” More attacks on free agency, rather than just letting people do what they want to do. If a gay couple wants to get married, let them. If a straight couple wants to have an open, non-monogamous relation, let them. Your arguments for abolishing something simply because one group, which heavily overlaps with the power structure, does it, is illogical and itself oppressive.

    Also, I’m more familiar with my own hand than the genitals of other men. Apparently masturbation is the most natural than any sexual activity with other people, and therefore everyone should be made to conform to “masturbatory patterns” and all sexual activity between people should be urged against.

    • Francois Tremblay August 28, 2011 at 00:21

      “First off, “faggot?” That’s really the language you want to be using?”

      Yes… do you have a counter-argument to my analysis of Christianity as a manifestation of repressed homosexuality, or are you just going to complain about my wording?

      “Secondly, as an anarchist opposed to restrictive clothing mandates from both government and state, I oppose the government telling women they aren’t allowed to wear a burqa”

      There is a logical problem with what you’re saying here. If you are opposed to “restrictive” clothing mandates, then you should be arguing against the burqa religious mandate, not against me.

      “Why you’d attack free agency by supporting statist clothing bans, I simply don’t understand.”

      I said clearly that I don’t think it’s the State’s role to do so, but that I’d prefer if it did than if it didn’t. I suppose anti-sexist and anti-religious clothing bans no matter who enforces them.

      “Thirdly, awareness of our own genitalia makes homosexuality “more natural” than heterosexuality? To the degree that you actually argue that heterosexuals should be made to integrate into “homosexual patterns?” More attacks on free agency, rather than just letting people do what they want to do.”

      What attacks on free agency do you think I am waging? I don’t advocate forcing anyone to do anything. I am saying that we need to reform our institutions. Why are you supporting an institution that not only stratifies society, but stratifies society in the worse way possible? Great Anarchist you are.

      “If a gay couple wants to get married, let them.”

      No. Fuck stratification, fuck marriage, and fuck you.

      “Your arguments for abolishing something simply because one group, which heavily overlaps with the power structure, does it, is illogical and itself oppressive.”

      What? This doesn’t make any sense. I don’t advocate abolishing marriage because heterosexuals do it. Whether heterosexuals or homosexuals get married, it’s still wrong.

      “Also, I’m more familiar with my own hand than the genitals of other men. Apparently masturbation is the most natural than any sexual activity with other people, and therefore everyone should be made to conform to “masturbatory patterns” and all sexual activity between people should be urged against.”

      How old are you? I am kindof embarassed that I have to explain this to a grown person, but… masturbation is not a sexual orientation. You can either be heterosexual, homosexual, some combination of the two, or asexual. That’s it.

      • Gomi August 28, 2011 at 05:05

        “There is a logical problem with what you’re saying here. If you are opposed to “restrictive” clothing mandates, then you should be arguing against the burqa religious mandate, not against me.”

        Well, when you specifically edit out ” *if they choose to do so of their own free will*”, sure, you can make it seem like I’m ignoring the religious mandate. When you quote dishonestly, that’s what can happen. However, if you had quoted honestly, you’d see I put a very specific requirement on the statement. Religious mandates to wear clothing are as bad as corporate or state mandates. But if I choose to wear a piece of clothing, do you think the state, corporation or religion should be able to deny it to me? A state ban is universal, not distinguishing between religious mandate and personal choice. Maybe if you truly started from an understanding of free agency, you’d recognize that people’s personal choice should not be restricted by the state, as you support here.

        “How old are you? I am kindof embarassed that I have to explain this to a grown person, but… masturbation is not a sexual orientation. You can either be heterosexual, homosexual, some combination of the two, or asexual. That’s it.”

        Wow. Okay, apparently I’m old enough to understand the concept of sarcasm. Are you? You based your argument for the “greater naturalness” of homosexuality on masturbation, so I took that to an extreme to show how stupid it really is.

        • Francois Tremblay August 28, 2011 at 12:38

          “Religious mandates to wear clothing are as bad as corporate or state mandates.”

          Ah. There you have it…

          “But if I choose to wear a piece of clothing, do you think the state, corporation or religion should be able to deny it to me?”

          No to all cases- however, again, in the cases of religious or sexist mandates, I’d rather the State do it than not do it, just like I’d rather the State ban murder than not ban murder (sadly, it doesn’t do so consistently, and even when it does, it does so very poorly).

          “A state ban is universal, not distinguishing between religious mandate and personal choice. Maybe if you truly started from an understanding of free agency, you’d recognize that people’s personal choice should not be restricted by the state, as you support here.”

          Excuse me? That is a moronic argument. Of course I support restricting personal choice, when it interferes with the choices of others, as sexism does. Are you a “voluntaryist”? Voluntaryism is not Anarchism. I have already debunked your ideology. See:

          https://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/03/25/the-voluntaryist-delusion/

          Also, you did not address your self-contradiction on marriage, which is again based on voluntaryism, not Anarchism.

          “Wow. Okay, apparently I’m old enough to understand the concept of sarcasm. Are you?”

          Look, I know you’re trying to save face, but it’s still embarassing. Sometimes it’s better for you to shut up than to expose the depths of your ignorance, you know?

          “You based your argument for the “greater naturalness” of homosexuality on masturbation, so I took that to an extreme to show how stupid it really is.”

          Again, masturbation is not a sexual orientation.

          • Gomi August 28, 2011 at 13:36

            “Of course I support restricting personal choice, when it interferes with the choices of others, as sexism does.”

            Then maybe you can tell me how a piece of clothing, distinct from external religious mandate, interferes with the choice of others? If a woman chooses to wear a burqa for her own reasons, how is she interfering with the choices of others? If she’s forced to wear it by religious (or other) authorities, then *her* choice is being interfered with. But if she chooses, then whose choice is being interfered with?

            It’s not voluntaryism. It’s the idea that the individual has the right to determine their own existence. The idea that you, as a man, can’t slap a burqa out of her hand and claim you’re battling sexism by denying that woman, at that time, to make her own decision.

            State bans, as with anything statist, are universal, generally without distinction. That’s what happens when the state takes the decision of clothing away from the individual. Now, if the ban was specifically an issue of religious mandate, rather than focusing on the clothing, that would be a different issue.

            But by supporting statist clothing bans, you’re banning individual choice as much as your banning authoritarian religion. You’re taking the same patriarchal position as any statist, that you know better than the individual what clothing they should wear and why. Who are you to know better than that person making their own choices? By what “divine right” do you have power over them?

            Marriage is the same thing. There are statist rules that benefit married couples specifically. Banning marriage (as an expression of pair-bonding which has existed for millenia, in various forms) is telling people what they can or can’t do because you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you know better than they. If you were specifically targeting the statist preferential treatment, that would be different. But, instead, you’re taking the same basic position as a statist, by declaring you know how people should live and dictating the norms they should conform to.

            If people want to stand up, in front of their friends and family, and declare intentions to bond their lives to each other, who are you to deny that to them?

            Banning clothing and banning marriage are too broad attacks on personal agency, rather than targeted attacks on the hierarchies that use clothing and marriage as tools for oppression. It’s replacing one oppression with another.

            That’s not voluntaryism. That’s recognizing that, as much as the state doesn’t know how you should live, you also don’t know how others should live.

            • Francois Tremblay August 28, 2011 at 13:51

              “Then maybe you can tell me how a piece of clothing, distinct from external religious mandate, interferes with the choice of others?”

              What piece of clothing is that? It’s not the burqa, because the burqa is not distinct from religious mandates.

              “If a woman chooses to wear a burqa for her own reasons”

              Fantasy scenario. You can only dissociate the burqa from religion if you ignore the whole context of people’s actions! That’s like saying that women have children for their own reasons. Obviously you can only say such things by looking at the action in a vacuum- which AGAIN proves that you are a voluntaryist, even though you vehemently deny it.

              “It’s not voluntaryism. It’s the idea that the individual has the right to determine their own existence.”

              No… if that was the case, you wouldn’t be supporting freely chosen sexism, and you wouldn’t be trying to examine actions in a vacuum.

              “The idea that you, as a man, can’t slap a burqa out of her hand and claim you’re battling sexism by denying that woman, at that time, to make her own decision.”

              Again, this is a fantasy world where actions exist in a vacuum that you live in. Not reality. In reality, the burqa is religiously mandated.

              “But by supporting statist clothing bans, you’re banning individual choice as much as your banning authoritarian religion. You’re taking the same patriarchal position as any statist, that you know better than the individual what clothing they should wear and why. Who are you to know better than that person making their own choices?”

              Again, more voluntaryist hypocrisy. I never claimed to “know better”; I am arguing from what I believe is right. I don’t need to claim to “know better” than a murderer to tell him that eir actions are wrong. I don’t need to consider myself better than others to come to the conclusion that some things are wrong.
              People who disagree are free to disagree, but they must show why I am wrong. You are nowhere near doing so.

              “Marriage is the same thing. There are statist rules that benefit married couples specifically. Banning marriage (as an expression of pair-bonding which has existed for millenia, in various forms) is telling people what they can or can’t do because you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you know better than they.”

              Same answer as previously. I don’t need to fool myself into anything to know that marriage is a form of stratification. You have decided to ignore the facts of reality so you can feel superior to me, ironically by stating that I am arrogantly considering myself superior to other people.

              “If people want to stand up, in front of their friends and family, and declare intentions to bond their lives to each other, who are you to deny that to them?”

              Again, you are just repeating the same nonsense. We all believe that certain actions should be forbidden, so voluntaryism is nonsense. Who are you to deny the rapist his thrill? Who are you to deny the CEO his usury? Same bullshit.

              “That’s not voluntaryism.”

              Sorry buddy, but you fit the entire profile. Stop the hypocrisy, all right? Morality is not subjective. Facts exist. We can tell that something is right or wrong. It’s not rocket science. Stop making it into some kind of impossible quagmire.

              “That’s recognizing that, as much as the state doesn’t know how you should live, you also don’t know how others should live.”

              I never claimed to say how others should live. I am however claiming how others should NOT live- by interfering with others’ freedom, by subjecting others to themselves, by objectifying others. That’s called Anarchism, you dummy.

              Go read about Anarchism for a while, and then come back, all right? I am tired of answering the same bullshit “who are you to say X?” questions. I am a person with a brain who can observe reality and come to conclusions. That’s who I am. Again, if you disagree, bring substantial arguments to the table, not voluntaryism, which I’ve already disproven. If you really can’t do that, I’ll have to stop the discussion here because nothing substantial is being brought to the table.

              • Gomi August 28, 2011 at 14:27

                A ban on burqas is a ban on a piece of clothing, not a ban on sexist oppression. It’s mistaking the object for the use of that object. As a result, it’s a too broad restriction that covers both individual choice and sexist removal of choice.

                If a woman, for her own reasons and using her own will, chooses to wear a burqa, is she wrong? I would say no, because that’s her right to choose her clothing. If a woman is forced by others to wear a burqa, is that wrong? Obviously we agree yes, because it’s denying her choice. But a statist ban on burqas makes no distinction between her choice and religiously based sexism robbing her of choice.

                By making the object the subject of the ban, motivation becomes irrelevant, and personal agency is trampled.

                And by supporting such statist bans, you are similarly ignoring personal agency that gets covered by such a broad ban of an object.

                As for your equating marriage with rape, you’re also ignoring the difference between what people choose for themselves (like marrying someone else) and oppressive actions against the individual (like rape or murder). We can ban rape and murder because we recognize that raping or murdering *someone else* is wrong. On what basis do you decide marriage is wrong, and therefore justify your restrictions of others behaviors?

                All of this has nothing to do with voluntaryism. It’s about broad bans on objects or actions, without regard of how it tramples individual choice as well as hierarchies and oppression.

                “I never claimed to say how others should live. I am however claiming how others should NOT live- by interfering with others’ freedom, by subjecting others to themselves, by objectifying others. That’s called Anarchism, you dummy.”

                An individual wearing a burqa for their own reasons isn’t interfering with others freedom. They aren’t subjecting others to themselves. They aren’t objectifying others. Deciding their choice is wrong and banning it for them at the state level isn’t anarchism. It’s replacing the petty dictatorships that would force burqas on them with your own petty dictatorship that would force burqas away from them. That’s not anarchism.

                Anarchism can’t be applied without distinction for the difference between individual will and suppressed will. Statist bans, like those on the burqa, make no such distinction. By supporting such bans, you’re not making that distinction either.

                But, if you’re afraid to recognize how you’re oppressing by the same actions you’re using to fight oppression, then I can understand you want to stop listening. Your choice.

                • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 00:07

                  You have failed to give any substantive answers. Instead, you have repeated the same voluntaryist arguments (while still denying you’re not a voluntaryist). This discussion is over.

                  Provide a substantive, logical, argument in favor of stratification (which you are openly supporting by supporting marriage) and sexism (which you are openly supporting by supporting burka-wearing) and then we’ll talk. Until then, any further comments from you will be ignored.

              • Gomi August 28, 2011 at 15:09

                Or to put it another way:

                Here are women who have their personal agency removed by a religious patriarchy. Does a state ban on certain clothing free their personal agency, or just replace it with another edict from a different patriarchy, the state?

                • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 00:09

                  I’ve already answered this to you directly twice, as well as in my entry. You are wasting my time.

  3. Roderick T. Long August 28, 2011 at 00:02

    I remember a Young Turk in 1923. He was young, and passionately admired everything western. … [H]e demanded an edict forbidding Turkish women to wear veils. Mustapha Kemal issued that edict later; Turkish women felt as American women would feel if a nudist dictator ordered the police to permit no woman to wear any clothes in public. That edict was called, “freeing Turkish women.” It shut a generation of them into their houses for the rest of their lives.

    — Rose Wilder Lane, Discovery of Freedom

    • Francois Tremblay August 28, 2011 at 00:22

      And you attribute their dysfunction to the lack of burka, a piece of fabric, instead of the crushing brainwashing effects of religion? I don’t think you have your head straight on this one.

  4. OK Now August 28, 2011 at 14:15

    Hmm. Exterminating patriarchy? Gender is a social construct which which should be unmade? I’m all for it, but you…

    Weren’t you a masculist?

    • Francois Tremblay August 28, 2011 at 14:17

      What the fuck are you talking about?

      • OK Now August 28, 2011 at 15:16

        I see I was mistaken. I think I saw masculism mentioned somewhere and you were right there and it kind of got stuck in my head that you were one.

        • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 00:10

          Wow, no. I have never been a masculinist. I have no idea how I could ever be associated as such.

  5. OK Now August 28, 2011 at 15:41

    BTW, why do you think homosexuality is “the superior mode of sexual relations”? I don’t necessarily wholly disagree http://factcheckme.wordpress.com/the-intercourse-series/ . But that still made me raise my eyebrows a little.

    • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 00:11

      From reading the link, I think you already know the answer. It’s all in there.

  6. David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 10:15

    “However, I still think it is better for the State to ban them than for the State to not ban them, in the same way that I’d rather the State ban murder than not ban murder (sadly, they don’t, at least not consistently). ”

    I disagree with that, I don’t think this should be banned by the State, except for state public service purpose. Maybe the worst disagreement we never had.

    But in general, it’s a great post.

    • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 12:14

      David, do you agree, on the whole, that it would be better for the State to ban murder, than the current situation, where only certain specific kinds of murder are punished?

      • David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 12:39

        Yes, because murdering is criminal regardless of the reasons (except self-defense).

        But I don’t think “conscious” or “accepted” wearing of a religious sexist symbol by adults is a crime like murder (I think it’s a horrible stupid vice), so it shouldn’t be banned by the State because the State will be more repressive with this ban than without it.

        P.S.: I support criminalizing parents who make their children wearing the burqa and I support wearing burqa’s women who complaints to the police for domestic violence against their husband. Also, I support a ban of burqa for State public service purposes, because it imposes a criminal harm to clients.

        • gomi August 29, 2011 at 12:45

          Since Francois is censoring all my comments now, you won’t see this, but I agree with you. Replacing one repression with another is still repressive.

          • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 13:02

            Actually, I let it pass because you actually didn’t try to BS anyone this time. So, are you going to follow my request this time, or are you just going to passive-aggressively complain that I’m censoring you, even though I clearly told you what was going on and why?

  7. David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 10:29

    “Homosexuality, which is the superior mode of sexual relations,”

    I don’t think the same way. Homosexuality is not inferior, nor superior to heterosexuality. I see these as different sexual orientations. We could argue that bi-sexuality is the superior mode, but I don’t think that way too.

    But you know what? Your arguing against heteronormative Christians (when you use masturbation of own-sex genitals) is so awesome that I don’t see a big deal about this. In fact, if we use the very Christian standard, you’re absolutely right!

  8. David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 12:04

    Gomi, marriage should not exist.

    • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 12:13

      David, how dare you say that? Don’t you know it’s all about people choosing to be superior and keep other people inferior? Of course such stratification is perfectly compatible with Anarchism. LOL.

      • David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 12:40

        ;)

        And I agree with your anti-marriage stance (even if I think homosexuals should have the same fiscal privilege than heterosexuals.)

  9. David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 12:17

    I don’t think it’s ethical to anyone to wear a tie, but I’m against a state ban on wearing ties to prevent these idiots to wear that.

  10. David Gendron August 29, 2011 at 14:58

    François, are you in favor of a State ban on prostitution?

    • Francois Tremblay August 29, 2011 at 22:27

      … why?

      • David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 07:45

        Can a woman decide to become a prostitute voluntarily?

        • Francois Tremblay August 30, 2011 at 12:11

          Well, yes. Especially in places where prostitution is legal.

          • Gomi August 30, 2011 at 12:19

            I think the point of his question is whether it should be legal, not whether someone can become a prostitute where it’s already legal.

            • Francois Tremblay August 30, 2011 at 12:23

              I don’t really see the relation between whether a woman can choose to become a prostitute, when it is illegal in almost all places, and whether it should be legal. Obviously the scenario of legality would bring with it a new set of decisions. Anyway, I am just answering David’s questions, I assume he has some kind of point.

              BTW, I’ve put you on probation until you decide to seriously answer the questions I’ve posed to you. One more evasion and I’m banning you.

            • David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 13:24

              Absolutely!

  11. David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 07:44

    Can a woman decides to become a prostitute voluntary?

  12. David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 13:23

    Okay, let’s suppose that adult prostitution is legalized for the moment. In that case would you prefer that the state bans it, or not?

    • David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 13:35

      Gomi, could you define “marriage”, please?

      Also, could you explain to us why burqa could turn out not to be a sexist apparatus?

    • Francois Tremblay August 30, 2011 at 16:12

      No, of course not. Why would it be banned?

      • Gomi August 30, 2011 at 22:02

        Because prostitution objectifies and furthers a sexist perception of women as sexual playthings.

        • Francois Tremblay August 30, 2011 at 22:04

          Two words: male prostitution.

          You are an imbecile.

          • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 05:59

            And you’re still not quick to pick up on sarcasm.

          • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 08:55

            Okay, prostitution is not sexist (in fact, there are more and more women that are clients for male prostitutes, especially in Caraibs), but do you consider prostitution as a voluntary concept?

            • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 12:56

              “Voluntary”? Sure. But I don’t hold voluntaryness as a standard of anything. Consensual? In some cases, but definitely not in all.

              • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 13:39

                In some very uncommon cases, a fortiori if you take all monogamous couples (monogamy relationship is the most regressive form of prostitution) in consideration.

                Unless we consider all sexual relationships (a market sex-for-sex exchange between two individuals) as acts of prostitution (a market sex-for-something exchange between individuals). These cases are really consensual ones, clearly.

                Note for others: I’m against a ban on prostitution.

  13. David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 13:42

    “If a woman, for her own reasons and using her own will, chooses to wear a burqa, is she wrong? I would say no, because that’s her right to choose her clothing.”

    Voluntaryist (I called it “ethical voluntaryism”, in opposition to “non-repressive voluntaryism” which I support) nonsense Gomi, she’s wrong and you know it! But contrary to François here, I’m against the state ban of this wrongdoing.

    • Gomi August 30, 2011 at 15:15

      I think she’s trapping herself in archaic constructs of repression, but I have no standing, as a man, for deciding her clothing choices for her.

      It comes in close to voluntaryism, but it’s the idea that, unless women are able to choose for themselves, then it’s just another patriarchy telling them what they can and can’t do. So, when a woman chooses a burqa, of her own accord and will, I can think she’s wrong, but I can’t dictate her clothing choices.

      Saying it’s the choice of the individual isn’t the same as voluntaryism. I don’t think you can dismiss all arguments that women should control their own identity as “voluntaryism.”

      • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 09:01

        “I think she’s trapping herself in archaic constructs of repression, but I have no standing, as a man, for deciding her clothing choices for her.”

        So her father, her husband and her fucking MAN imam should not decide clothing choices for her!

        “So, when a woman chooses a burqa, of her own accord and will, I can think she’s wrong, but I can’t dictate her clothing choices.”

        Again, so her father, her husband and her fucking MAN imam should not decide clothing choices for her!

        • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 11:27

          Yes, exactly. Her father, her husband and her imam shouldn’t be forcing her to wear a burqa. That’s what oppressive patriarchy is. I entirely agree.

          If the state’s going to pass laws, the laws should be tailored to address the repression inherent in that patriarchy. In this case, that’s dealing with the father, husband and imam. Not just creating a new patriarchal command choosing women’s dress.

          Since the state is a patriarchy, and since burqas are women’s clothing, that’s what a state ban on burqas is.

          • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 12:58

            Well then, propose a better solution that addresses the patriarchy directly, instead of waffling for two weeks and refusing to answer my questions.

            • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 13:22

              Here’s a proposal:

              1) Parenting is invalid, so we can criminalize anybody (especially fathers, and schools for uniforms) who forces a child to wear any set of clothes. Burqa is a trivial case of this.

              2) Obligating your wife to wear any set of clothes should be considered as a criminal charge for domestic violence.

              3) Ban burqa and other religious signs for all workers who serve the public in state organizations.

              4) State, if there any, should be secular. It should not subsidize nor participate in any religion in any manner.

              5) Abolish state-approved marriage.

              6) Abolish procreation-oriented welfare and decriminalize abortion.

              Whis all this, there’s no need to use the fucking patriarchal state police to enforce a burqa ban on the streets!

              • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 13:28

                4, 5 and 6 go without saying, although they’re not really related. 1, 2 and 3 are good also. But then you run into problems with 2. Women in those households are basically battered wives: they’re not going to say that they were forced to wear the burqa. And in some cases they may not even be lying (i.e. they may actually believe that they are not forced to do so). So how do you determine whether they fall under rule 2 without theetie-wheetie liberals like Gomi screaming bloody murder?

                • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 13:32

                  It’s like any other incidence of domestic violence. You see evidence of the battery, and target the batterer, not the victim.

                • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 13:54

                  4,5,6 are indirectly related. These measures are here to fight against religious and parenting powers.

                  I didn’t pretend that my 2) is perfect (in fact, it’s the least efficient measure of all), I just think this would send a good message to address this problem.

                  “Women in those households are basically battered wives: they’re not going to say that they were forced to wear the burqa.”

                  I agree, but the main problem is that they’re battered wives, not just that they wear this fucking sexist cloth. We must address mainly the first problem.

                  “And in some cases they may not even be lying (i.e. they may actually believe that they are not forced to do so).”

                  I prefer to see them in the streets with their burqa than no to see them, sent in their private jail by their faggot husband….or to see them in some conformist hypocritical appartus that makes us think that they’re living free.

                  At least burqa send this message to us: “Look at me, I’m oppressed by my husband! (or by other authorities).

                • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 14:02

                  I don’t mean that they are literally battered wives (although they might be: disrespect for women leads to abuse), but that they would act like battered wives on that issue, in that they would take the husband’s or imam’s side, even when the husband or imam is in the wrong.

                • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 14:08

                  That’s more an issue with how spousal abuse should be prosecuted than something specific about burqas themselves.

                  Take burqas out of the equation and see a woman on the street with a black eye. Was she abused by her SO, or did she really trip and hit a door? You interview her, you interview the SO, you check out relatives or neighbors, etc. If she doesn’t bring charges, you can likely still establish a case of assault, to some degree.

                  Now, put the burqa back into the equation, in place of the black eye. For one thing, it’s more obvious than the black eye. And, for another, you can still prosecute him for forcing her to wear it, even if she does take his side.

              • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 13:30

                I would agree with all of these. It doesn’t criminalize the burqa itself, but the forcing of people to wear certain clothes (or forcing them not to wear certain clothes). And it doesn’t abolish marriage, but targets the state segregation related to marriage.

                • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 13:37

                  Finally you’re seeing reason. I am removing you from my hold list because you’ve shown a capacity to agree with good ideas.

                • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 13:44

                  I’m not “finally” seeing anything, Francois. David’s proposal addresses the very issues I was arguing with in the first place. He just found out how to solve them without swearing and censoring disagreement.

                • Francois Tremblay August 31, 2011 at 13:45

                  Don’t try to portray me as the bad guy here. You are the one who was talking irrationally, not me. But the fact that you’ve changed your mind to me shows a willingness to compromise.

                • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 13:51

                  I haven’t changed my mind, Francois. Nothing I said in my agreement with David’s proposal is any different from what I was saying earlier.

                  But fine, if it makes you feel better, I’ll be the irrational bad guy who was supporting statist abuse, who you’ve now redeemed into doctrinal correctness. Well done, you’ve done a good deed.

      • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 09:09

        “Saying it’s the choice of the individual isn’t the same as voluntaryism. I don’t think you can dismiss all arguments that women should control their own identity as “voluntaryism.””

        Thus, you agree with François, women should have the same to choose their own clothes, which is not the case right now! So we don’t dismiss that, in fact!

        Like you, I disagree with François when he prefers this state-ban, but your arguments against that are fucking stupid!

      • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 09:09

        “Saying it’s the choice of the individual isn’t the same as voluntaryism. I don’t think you can dismiss all arguments that women should control their own identity as “voluntaryism.””

        Thus, you agree with François, women should have the right to choose their own clothes, which is not the case right now! So we don’t dismiss that, in fact!

        Like you, I disagree with François when he prefers this state-ban, but your arguments against that are fucking stupid!

  14. David Gendron August 30, 2011 at 13:47

    @Gomi

    “Marriage is the same thing. There are statist rules that benefit married couples specifically. Banning marriage (as an expression of pair-bonding which has existed for millenia, in various forms) is telling people what they can or can’t do because you’ve fooled yourself into thinking you know better than they.”

    Marriage is a product of state-legislation. Why we should not abolish this? Nobody here wants to state-ban contracts between two individuals!

    • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 13:48

      I had a lengthier response to this earlier, David, but it seems to have magically disappeared.

      Anyway, marriage isn’t a product of state legalization. It long pre-dates the state and similar hierarchical structures.

      The state imposes things based on marriage, but marriage itself isn’t a creation of the state.

  15. David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 14:18

    “Anyway, marriage isn’t a product of state legalization. It long pre-dates the state and similar hierarchical structures.”

    You’re right, I was inaccurate. I’m an idiot.

    But I don’t think many people would marry if this state-approved marriage is abolished, unless for partying or “impress those losers!” purposes.

    • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 14:57

      My wife and I didn’t marry for any state benefits. It was a symbolic gesture for us and our friends and family.

      Frankly, I don’t know anyone among my married friends who married for any state-related reasons (granted, a few married for religious reasons, but most of us are atheist or pagan). And I know quite a few gay couples who want to get married (and some are, in different US states) just as a romantic ritual.

      It’s not for partying or impressing losers. And it’s not for state approval (for many people).

      • David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 15:14

        This form of marriage is invalid on a anarchist point of view.

        • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 20:16

          Well, I think that might depend on the flavor of anarchist you happen to be (anarchism’s a pretty wide field, after all), but okay, why is a marriage unconnected to the state or religion, and having no impact on anyone but the people married invalid in an anarchist POV?

          It’s a symbol between two people, and a celebration with loved ones. That’s really all it amounts to. It’s love.

          How is love invalid in anarchism?

          • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 09:48

            Marriage isn’t love.

            • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 09:49

              Obligated monogamism isn’t love.

            • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 10:55

              Marriage can very often be an expression of love. A manifested expression of it, a ritual marking it.

              And not all marriages are “obligated monogamism.” I know multiple open marriages, and polyamorous couples that married. They love one person centrally, but have no issue with external relationships.

              Not to mention that if two people (or three or four, etc) choose to be intimately loyal to each other, that can still be love. Any “obligation” they feel is their own interest, their own desire, in staying with one (or two or three, etc) other people.

              So, unless you can tell me how expressions of love, or personal desire to be with only one person, are invalid in anarchism, I still don’t see how the marriages I mentioned are invalid.

              Sure, there are bad marriages, obligated marriages, marriages done for the sake of monetary, social or other benefit, yes. But that’s not the only kind of marriage out there.

              • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 11:26

                You made some good points here, but not this:

                “Not to mention that if two people (or three or four, etc) choose to be intimately loyal to each other, that can still be love. Any “obligation” they feel is their own interest, their own desire, in staying with one (or two or three, etc) other people.”

                There’s no such thing. Choosing to fake loyalty exists, not for real!

                “So, unless you can tell me how expressions of love, or personal desire to be with only one person, are invalid in anarchism”

                YOUR desire, maybe! But, loving only one person without open potentially your love for others is invalid in an anarchist perspective. And there no such thing as bilateral personal desire to be with only one person. (unless for habitation purposes) That way of thinking is very naive!

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 11:49

                  So your argument is that marriage for love is invalid in anarchism because while one person may desire to be only with another, there’s no such thing as bilateral desire to be with one other.

                  Basically, marriage is invalid because you can never have two people who honestly want to be with each other. True monogamy is impossible, because there’s no such thing as two people monogamous with each other.

                  First of all, that tosses all polyamorous and open marriages without cause. And secondly, you may call my view naive, but I think your view is overly cynical.

  16. David Gendron August 31, 2011 at 14:28

    “And, for another, you can still prosecute him for forcing her to wear it, even if she does take his side.”

    I don’t think the State should substitute an adult victim. But at least, you can prosecute him and try to make the woman changing his mind.

    • Gomi August 31, 2011 at 15:00

      One way or another, if you’re going to use the mechanisms of the state to attack sexist oppression, you’re going to need to substitute the state for an adult victim now and then. The state would have to insert itself into each conflict, on behalf of a symbolic female victim, if the real victim won’t stand up.

      It’s like prosecutions for civil rights, etc. That’s how the state operates. Passing laws against the perpetrators of sexism (or racism, etc), since the victims are inherently an oppressed group.

  17. Randolph Carter August 31, 2011 at 16:38

    Out of curiosity, what is everyone’s views on the mandatory laws in the USA and other 1st world countries that require women to wear “burqa” tops in public places. There is absolutely no difference whatsoever in forcing a woman to hide her face in public and forcing her to hide her tits at the beach or at the mall. The reasoning behind both is exactly the same and making a distinction on degree is rather silly and irrational.

    It reminds me of 1st world people who rage about genital mutilation in third world countries but justify or ignore circumcision in their own even though it is the same thing, but that is another topic entirely…

    • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 00:27

      No… the two forms of circumcision ARE equally evil, while the two clothing requirements are not equally evil. The burqa is clearly evil, while it is not at all clear that requiring women to wear tops in public places is evil. But if we require women to wear tops, then men must also be required to wear tops. If we refuse to require men to wear tops, then we cannot require women to wear tops. This is just basic logic.

      In view of the fact that our objective is the elimination of sexism, I think that the clothing imperative should be to impose tops on everyone.

      • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 05:25

        While the “no shirt, no service” kind of rules apply to everyone, he has a point that, socially, toplessness is acceptable for me, but not women. A man in public, in media, etc, without a shirt is considered fine (if underdressed), while a woman in the same circumstances is considered naked. The clothing imperative is unequally applied.

      • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 09:52

        Tops are sexist. Islamists men are not required to wear burqa.

        • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 10:00

          So the non-requirement of tops is less sexist than his requirement.

      • Randolph Carter September 1, 2011 at 11:49

        —-“The burqa is clearly evil, while it is not at all clear that requiring women to wear tops in public places is evil.”

        What rational argument can be made to make women cover their breasts that isn’t rebutted in your own essay about them covering their faces? Substitute the word face with breasts in your fourth paragraph for instance. Coercing a woman to wear a bikini top at the beach is figuratively chopping off her tits for her own protection.

        —-”In view of the fact that our objective is the elimination of sexism, I think that the clothing imperative should be to impose tops on everyone.”

        Then why ban burqas as per your essay? Simply remove the male exception and mandate them for everyone. Problem solved, right?

        Such Bergeron-esque equality is no equality at all. It’s just throwing the baby out with the bath water.

        • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 11:51

          “Such Bergeron-esque equality is no equality at all.”

          Well said.

          • David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 12:12

            And what’s your problem about Bergeron-esque equality in general?

            This is not an anarchist position, this is a voluntaryist one!

            • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 12:18

              Bergeron-esque equality refers to forcing everyone to a median position. Imposing restrictions on capacity and quality in order to force everyone to a common denominator.

              That’s not voluntaryist. This is something that requires a hierarchy to determine and enforce limits on individual qualities.

              Some people are stronger than others. Some adhere closer to a socially determined standard of beauty. Some are better at music, or art, or math, or poetry. That’s just normal variation within the population. Trying to impose standards to normalize those differences isn’t anarchist, not to mention that it requires organizational structures generally considered distinctly not anarchist.

              The point is to make sure everyone’s position in society is equal, and their political and economic power isn’t oppressing others. Not to make sure everyone meets the same standards of attractiveness.

        • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 13:57

          “What rational argument can be made to make women cover their breasts that isn’t rebutted in your own essay about them covering their faces?”
          I don’t know. Why don’t you present them?

          “Substitute the word face with breasts in your fourth paragraph for instance. Coercing a woman to wear a bikini top at the beach is figuratively chopping off her tits for her own protection.”
          What the holy fuck. Are you fucking. Talking about?
          Bikini tops have nothing to do with chopping tits or protecting them from men. It’s there to keep people from seeing women’s sexual organs. The head of a woman is not a sexual organ. Whether you agree with the tops or not, you can’t make the same argument.

          “Then why ban burqas as per your essay? Simply remove the male exception and mandate them for everyone. Problem solved, right?”
          Burqas are sexist by their very nature. That’s the whole point of having burqas. How would mandating them for everyone improve the situation, you dumbass?

          “Such Bergeron-esque equality is no equality at all. It’s just throwing the baby out with the bath water.”

          You are confusing logical consistency with enforced equality of capacities. This is a confusion that exists entirely in your own head, I’m afraid.

          • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:18

            “Bikini tops have nothing to do with chopping tits or protecting them from men. It’s there to keep people from seeing women’s sexual organs. The head of a woman is not a sexual organ.”

            Technically, they aren’t sex organs. They’re secondary sexual characteristics, like male chest hair. Sex organs are primary sexual characteristics, like genitals.

            Our culture imposes a sexual value on breasts and puts a social stigma on their exposure. In that regard, it’s similar to the burqa, or even older social taboos against women’s ankles.

            It’s because of the sexual taboo about breasts that breastfeeding, a non-sexual activity, gets stigmatized in public.

            • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 14:25

              “Technically, they aren’t sex organs. They’re secondary sexual characteristics, like male chest hair. Sex organs are primary sexual characteristics, like genitals.”
              Believe me, if you’re a heterosexual male, technical or not, they are sex organs. Not my fault, I wish they weren’t, but they are.

              “Our culture imposes a sexual value on breasts and puts a social stigma on their exposure. In that regard, it’s similar to the burqa, or even older social taboos against women’s ankles.”
              Or underwear. If you’re arguing for nudism, that’s fine, but nudism is not the solution to sexism. Nudism can be healthy but it can also breed a lot of sexism and abuse, against children especially.

              “It’s because of the sexual taboo about breasts that breastfeeding, a non-sexual activity, gets stigmatized in public.”
              Yes, no one here is arguing against breastfeeding. I don’t think it’s unreasonable to say that babies have a right to receive breast milk, even if they are in public.

              • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:38

                “Believe me, if you’re a heterosexual male, technical or not, they are sex organs. Not my fault, I wish they weren’t, but they are.”
                They’re *sexualized* organs. There was a time when a glance at an ankle had the same thrill as particularly deep cleavage today. Did ankles used to be sex organs? No, they just became a sexualized part of the female body.

                I am a straight guy, and believe me, I recognize the sexual nature of breasts in our culture. I appreciate them as much as most straight men (or many gay women, for that matter). But I also logically understand that their sexual nature is created by our culture.

                There are cultures throughout the world that don’t sexualize the breasts. They might view them as sexually attractive, but no more so than a beautiful face or anything else in our culture.

                Men have to conceal their genitals in our culture. That’s it, just the primary sexual characteristics. Women, however, have to conceal their genitals and their breasts. We’ve created the fiction that breasts are inherently sexual body parts, and therefore view their concealment as necessary.

                I’m not arguing for nudism. But a recognition that we impose a value on breasts that’s disproportionate for women than it is for men.

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 14:40

                  I’m not. I’m saying we need to either impose tops on everyone, or impose tops on no one. This is simple logical consistency.

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:47

                  But, as Randolph originally said, an objection to burqas should logically lead to an objection to women having to wear tops.

                  In cultures that enforce burqas, all of a woman’s body is sexualized, leading to a social “necessity” to conceal it from the public. And, as you argued eloquently in this blog post, it’s ultimately a sexist (and sexual) repression. But it’s a repression based on the cultural fiction of sexualization.

                  Similarly, in our culture, breasts are sexualized artificially. So, there’s a social necessity to conceal them from the public. Hence, tops.

                  Now, if you’d argue to ban burqas (not make men wear them too), then why argue for men to also wear tops, rather than ban them? Like you said in responding to Randolph, you’d prefer to see tops enforced on everyone, because you think breasts are sex organs.

                  But isn’t that what someone would say when arguing for enforced burqas? They don’t want to apply it equally to both sexes, you’re right, and you are being egalitarian by wanting to enforce tops for both sexes. But you’re using the same logic to argue for tops that they would use to argue for burqas. And if their logic is faulty for burqas, then isn’t yours also faulty for tops?

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 14:49

                  Again, people’s heads are not sexual organs. That is Islamic propaganda. You are mixing up propaganda with reality.

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:52

                  Yes, I know it’s Islamic propaganda (well, technically, not “Islamic” but a very particular subset of Islam). But that’s the point: it’s *propaganda*.

                  The breast is not a sex organ either. Our culture imposes value on them as sex organs, same as the value imposed on women’s whole bodies by those who argue for burqas.

                  You’re confusing our own cultural propaganda for reality.

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 15:03

                  Well, whether it is a cultural construct or not, it is a fact of life right now, so we have to live with that. If you have suggestions on how to deprogram ourselves from sexualizing breasts, I would welcome it very much. Until then, there’s no point in waffling about it.

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 15:08

                  “Well, whether it is a cultural construct or not, it is a fact of life right now, so we have to live with that.”

                  Burqas are a fact of life right now in some Islamic communities, but you’re arguing we shouldn’t have to live with that, right? If we shouldn’t have to live with their propaganda, then why should we have to live with our own? What makes our propaganda sacrosanct?

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 15:10

                  Again, the solution to the burqa is simple: ban it. The solution to breasts being sexually attractive? I don’t know what it is. Give me the fucking solution or stop waffling about it!

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 15:15

                  I’m not waffling about anything, Francois. My position is firm and unchanged. Like the burqa, the issue is a single gender being forced to wear tops. And, like the burqa, it’s silly to fix that by forcing everyone to wear tops. And, also like the burqa, I don’t feel it’s the job of the state to ban clothing. As much as the state should be used for anything, it should be used to target the sexism, the patriarchial imposition on women to wear a certain type of clothing to appease men’s sensibilities.

                  That’s not waffling, but a logically consistent position, covering both burqas and tops.

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 15:22

                  Your position is not logically consistent because there is no logically consistent reason to ban tops on the basis of banning the burqa.

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 15:34

                  Well, I disagree with your argument to ban burqas, so I’m not arguing to ban tops either.

                  Like burqas, I’m arguing for the abolition of the cultural enforcement of clothes on a gender based on artificial sexualization.

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:41

                  I pointed out breastfeeding, by the way, not because anyone here is arguing against it, but because, in discussions of breastfeeding, invariably, someone objects to public breastfeeding as women “showing their tits” or “I don’t want to have to see boobs.” The artificially sexualized nature of breasts has an impact on what would otherwise be a normal process of child rearing.

                • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 14:47

                  That’s fine, but then we should abolish urinals. Who wants to see someone’s penis?

                • Gomi September 1, 2011 at 14:50

                  When I’m standing at a urinal, I’m inches from the wall, and sometimes have little dividers between me and any neighbors. Seeing penises while at a urinal isn’t really an issue, unless you make a lot of effort to see them.

                  But I’m not arguing for abolishing breastfeeding because of the potential view of the breast. I’m saying *other* people argue against breastfeeding because of the potential view of the breast, because of the sexualization of breasts in our culture.

          • Randolph Carter September 1, 2011 at 16:27

            —“What the holy fuck. Are you fucking. Talking about?
            Bikini tops have nothing to do with chopping tits or protecting them from men. It’s there to keep people from seeing women’s sexual organs. The head of a woman is not a sexual organ.”

            What part of “figurative” don’t you understand, particularly considering I referenced a specific part of your essay where you say burqa wearing is equivalent to killing women. Shall I feign an equal amount of “strawman” disgust about how ludicrous such a statement is by ignoring your use of the word figurative as well?

            You know damn well that nothing in my post had to do with cutting women’s breasts off, but with concealing them in order to suppress their sexuality “so men can have all the space to themselves without feeling sexual attraction (because they follow a faggot ideology).” and to protect them “because men are such beasts that they will rape women who show their …” breasts “…in public.”

            Still going to deny the sexuality of a woman’s face when I just quoted you saying it was sexual in your own essay or are you recanting that fourth paragraph now? If a woman’s face is sexualized as you have PUBLICLY stated, then a bikini top serves the exact same function as a burqa, even if in your culture it isn’t considered as severely oppressive.

            —“Burqas are sexist by their very nature. That’s the whole point of having burqas. How would mandating them for everyone improve the situation, you dumbass?”

            Banning women from showing their breasts is, by its very nature, sexist. How does mandating everyone wear shirts improve the situation?

  18. David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 12:05

    François, If you support state-ban of burqa, you should support the state-ban of tops for the same sexist reason.

    I’m against both.

    • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 13:49

      Not following you. There’s no religious mandate for people to wear tops. So obviously it’s not the exact same reason.

      What is the sexist reason in your view?

      • David Gendron September 2, 2011 at 08:32

        Not actual religious mandate, but previous religious mandate. (and yeah, this is different than the burqa, I admit)

  19. David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 12:07

    Really, it’s the worst disagreement we have had from the beginning of your “mutualist turn”, at least. But we have so much positions in common than I shouldn’t make a great deal about this.

    • Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 13:59

      Why not disagree once in a while? It’s healthy. If you and I never disagreed, then we’d just be farting in the wind. What progress can we make from that?

      • David Gendron September 2, 2011 at 08:32

        You’re absolutely right! And in fact, I think this is my last comment on this post. Anyway, your last post is about a related topic, and I’ll probably comment there.

  20. David Gendron September 1, 2011 at 12:09

    What about chirurgically enhanced breasts?

  21. Francois Tremblay September 1, 2011 at 16:39

    I am not denying the fourth paragraph I have written. It has nothing at all to do with women or men having tops. No one is saying that if women show their breasts then men will become beasts and rape them. This is a false view of the world.

    “Banning women from showing their breasts is, by its very nature, sexist.”

    You have not read what I have been writing. I am not for banning women, but not men, from showing their breasts. You have to be logically consistent. To ban women but not men IS sexist, yes.

  22. Quotebag #51 | In defense of anagorism September 5, 2011 at 13:02

    […] “There have been minor exceptions, such as the French ban on niqabs and burqas. Liberals have tried to turn this into a human rights issue, that we should have the right to wear whatever we want. First of all, this is an extremely disingenuous position for liberals to take, since they support a capitalist system which most definitely does not give people the right to wear whatever they want; if they were serious about such a position, they would be advocating a ban on corporate-imposed clothing and uniforms as well.”—François Tremblay […]

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: