what constitutes little girls to you? Normalment this kind of attire is worn for religious reasons starting with puberty, so 12+. And even then the question still stands, why the state should decide what girls must not wear
Considering 12 years old to not have any form of self consciousness and decision making is insanity. Also what kind of pedo-stuff is it to force teenage girls to wear clothes that are deemed revealing enough?
Who the hell said children had no form of self consciousness and decision making? It’s funny to see you trying to reverse the implicit accusation I made in my last comment. Doesn’t make sense btw
That is the implication when you say it is necessary to ban them from wearing certain clothes bevause you falsely assume they’d all be forced to wear it and never could wear it out of their own decision
Because it is an excellent tool to oppress and separate woman and girls from, for example, non-believers. It’s also a way to make them remember the religious nonsensical rules all the time. That’s the whole reason these veils exist.
Not every rule is oppressive. For it to be considered oppressive the result has to be harmful. Why is it harmful when girls don’t cover their bodies?
If they really chose to cover their bodies freely, so not because they are scared or because they were told that’s wrong, where’s the harm in not wearing it at school?
Why is it harmful when girls don’t cover their bodies?
It is harmful to force them to either. That your personal opinion is that it is not harmful is not more or less valid than the personal or religious opinion of people who think it is. You are doing the same thing as the people who force their children to wear these clothes by projecting your feelings on their body and freedom, disrespecting their right to choose.
, where’s the harm in not wearing it at school?
In forcing them to do so and also singling them out for that ruling as other kids are not affected. Also have you been among teenagers? Issues with unwanted sexual attention or struggles with the own body image are quite normal at that age and why should you or anyone else force them to expose themselves more than they are comfy with?
Also in the same wake you would need to argue that hoodies are problematic and should be banned too, as they kinda also hide the body and head, when the hood is worn. Why stop there though? An oversized T-Shirt could be also influenced by religious peers to circumvent the ban, better make everyone wear skin-tight outfits?!
In any way it remains arbitrary and inconsistent, which means it is not about protecting those students, but to attack them for their religion.
That’s exactly why hoodies, loose fitting close, etc. are not banned in schools. Because they aren’t religious symbols. And the kid can hopefully decide for themselves if they wear a wide hoodie or a tight shirt.
Parents don’t make their daughters wear an abaya or a headscarf because they think then she will be more comfortable. They demand their daughters to wear this because they believe in a magical person and magical rules that make it necessary for girls and women to cover their bodies.
I can’t believe you actually don’t see the difference in these?
It’s also quite interesting because I think a lot of the people here screaming “but it’s their freedom!” would agree that parents, for example, shouldn’t forbid their kid from colouring their hair, wearing a short skirt or whatever.
But it’s suddenly okay when parents demand a body cover. People need to realise this both stems from ultra conservative beliefs.
You again assume that the teenagers would all be forced to wear it and not make that choice by themselves. But you assume that from afar and you want to make all the teenagers suffer, that choose for themselves to wear it.
It is typical western self rightousness, where the assumption is to know everything better for everyone.
Of course parents shouldnt force their teenagers to wear certain clothes. But you won’t stop that like this. Also how should that be done practically? Send the kid home, so it doesnt receive education? Or forcefully undress it? Either way the kids suffer, so people can wank off on how they dont believe “magical persons and magical rules”.
The real answer here would be to provide easily reachable social care for children, who suffer from opressive religious parents. But that costs money, is social and might actually help some kids, that are deemed to have the wrong skin colour by the french majority society. So instead the kids are made to suffer.
what constitutes little girls to you? Normalment this kind of attire is worn for religious reasons starting with puberty, so 12+. And even then the question still stands, why the state should decide what girls must not wear
Considering 12 years olds as women is insanity. The legal boundary is 18
Considering 12 years old to not have any form of self consciousness and decision making is insanity. Also what kind of pedo-stuff is it to force teenage girls to wear clothes that are deemed revealing enough?
Who the hell said children had no form of self consciousness and decision making? It’s funny to see you trying to reverse the implicit accusation I made in my last comment. Doesn’t make sense btw
That is the implication when you say it is necessary to ban them from wearing certain clothes bevause you falsely assume they’d all be forced to wear it and never could wear it out of their own decision
Because it is an excellent tool to oppress and separate woman and girls from, for example, non-believers. It’s also a way to make them remember the religious nonsensical rules all the time. That’s the whole reason these veils exist.
So we should try to appeal to them for our values by doing the same thing, making opressive rules about what they can and cannot wear?
Yes, I think when rules can counter opression that’s a good thing.
opressive rules do not countrr opression. They just change the opressor
Not every rule is oppressive. For it to be considered oppressive the result has to be harmful. Why is it harmful when girls don’t cover their bodies?
If they really chose to cover their bodies freely, so not because they are scared or because they were told that’s wrong, where’s the harm in not wearing it at school?
It is harmful to force them to either. That your personal opinion is that it is not harmful is not more or less valid than the personal or religious opinion of people who think it is. You are doing the same thing as the people who force their children to wear these clothes by projecting your feelings on their body and freedom, disrespecting their right to choose.
In forcing them to do so and also singling them out for that ruling as other kids are not affected. Also have you been among teenagers? Issues with unwanted sexual attention or struggles with the own body image are quite normal at that age and why should you or anyone else force them to expose themselves more than they are comfy with?
Also in the same wake you would need to argue that hoodies are problematic and should be banned too, as they kinda also hide the body and head, when the hood is worn. Why stop there though? An oversized T-Shirt could be also influenced by religious peers to circumvent the ban, better make everyone wear skin-tight outfits?!
In any way it remains arbitrary and inconsistent, which means it is not about protecting those students, but to attack them for their religion.
That’s exactly why hoodies, loose fitting close, etc. are not banned in schools. Because they aren’t religious symbols. And the kid can hopefully decide for themselves if they wear a wide hoodie or a tight shirt.
Parents don’t make their daughters wear an abaya or a headscarf because they think then she will be more comfortable. They demand their daughters to wear this because they believe in a magical person and magical rules that make it necessary for girls and women to cover their bodies.
I can’t believe you actually don’t see the difference in these?
It’s also quite interesting because I think a lot of the people here screaming “but it’s their freedom!” would agree that parents, for example, shouldn’t forbid their kid from colouring their hair, wearing a short skirt or whatever.
But it’s suddenly okay when parents demand a body cover. People need to realise this both stems from ultra conservative beliefs.
You again assume that the teenagers would all be forced to wear it and not make that choice by themselves. But you assume that from afar and you want to make all the teenagers suffer, that choose for themselves to wear it.
It is typical western self rightousness, where the assumption is to know everything better for everyone.
Of course parents shouldnt force their teenagers to wear certain clothes. But you won’t stop that like this. Also how should that be done practically? Send the kid home, so it doesnt receive education? Or forcefully undress it? Either way the kids suffer, so people can wank off on how they dont believe “magical persons and magical rules”.
The real answer here would be to provide easily reachable social care for children, who suffer from opressive religious parents. But that costs money, is social and might actually help some kids, that are deemed to have the wrong skin colour by the french majority society. So instead the kids are made to suffer.