LIR RESPATI BUMIDAYA
Imposing such harsh penalties and potential jail time for those who attempt to force others to cover their faces (as is the case in many traditional islamic families) is absolutely the right thing to do. The fact that this penalty is much higher than the one for a woman who refuses to remove her veil to reveal her identity sends absolutely the right message.
I recognise the argument that everybody should be free to wear whatever they want, whether covered up, or bare, but let's be frank.
The burka is not a symbol of female empowerment. The burka is symbolic of female suppression. Suppression of individuality, and more importantly, suppression of sexuality.
The central idea of the burka is female modesty. The central idea of female modesty is that women must refrain from arousing men and leading men into sin. If they arouse men, then men cannot be held responsible for what they do to 'uncovered' women.
No, really. That last sentence is what a Sheikh here in Sydney said about women (ew). He likened men to animals and women as pieces of 'uncovered meat', stating that the animals cannot then be held responsible for eating the meat.
The mind boggles, doesn't it?
I can't help but wonder why, if as some muslims insist, the burqa is for the protection of women, the women are the ones with the limitations and restrictions placed upon them.
Surely, if it is the men who are harbouring the lustful, sinful thoughts, they are the ones that should be required to be fitted with blinkers or blinders to stop them from looking at women. Surely, the onus should be placed on the offender to not offend, rather than on the victim to police the offender's behaviour. I can't help but think that this would be the case if womens' well-being was the focus.
The entire concept of female modesty as a 'protection for women' is repulsively misogynistic, as it implies that if one is not 'modest', one is willfully endangering oneself and therefore is then partially to blame for any harassment or assault that may then occur.
I do also recognise the argument that 'westernised' women are equally conditioned to bare more skin, to expose their sexuality, to the extent where appearance is valued so much that mental disorders like anorexia nervosa and bulimia become more frequent within the society.
I rail against the sexualisation of women, too. Very much so. But the western perception of female sexuality is dichotomous; the Madonna-whore complex. For example, the west has a conversational equivalent of the burqa, and that is; the word 'slut'. Calling women derogatory names, in an attempt to police 'inappropriate' (whatever that is) sexual bevaviour. The thought process behind calling a woman a slut, is almost the same as the one that makes people want to force women to hide their faces. However, it's a slightly more nuanced issue, that I will tackle at whatever point I can make enough sense of it to provide a coherent, cohesive argument against it.
Furthermore, and arguably, more importantly, it is a security risk to have people roaming around hiding their identities.
I, personally, will not feel safe in a community where people are allowed to, and do run around covering their faces, leaving me unable to identify them in the case of an assault, or robbery, or any crime. That is not a safe environment to be in. I think that even when the time comes, that burkas have ceased to be widespread as a symbol of female suppression (way, waaay into the future), it still would not be right to allow groups of people to roam around in face-hiding garb.
In sum, I absolutely do not think that sexist practices should be tolerated anywhere, but especially in civilised nations, simply by virtue of them being a religious aspect of a foreign culture. Tradition and religion are not valid reasons for the continuation of a behaviour.
Imposing such harsh penalties and potential jail time for those who attempt to force others to cover their faces (as is the case in many traditional islamic families) is absolutely the right thing to do. The fact that this penalty is much higher than the one for a woman who refuses to remove her veil to reveal her identity sends absolutely the right message.
I recognise the argument that everybody should be free to wear whatever they want, whether covered up, or bare, but let's be frank.
The burka is not a symbol of female empowerment. The burka is symbolic of female suppression. Suppression of individuality, and more importantly, suppression of sexuality.
The central idea of the burka is female modesty. The central idea of female modesty is that women must refrain from arousing men and leading men into sin. If they arouse men, then men cannot be held responsible for what they do to 'uncovered' women.
No, really. That last sentence is what a Sheikh here in Sydney said about women (ew). He likened men to animals and women as pieces of 'uncovered meat', stating that the animals cannot then be held responsible for eating the meat.
The mind boggles, doesn't it?
I can't help but wonder why, if as some muslims insist, the burqa is for the protection of women, the women are the ones with the limitations and restrictions placed upon them.
Surely, if it is the men who are harbouring the lustful, sinful thoughts, they are the ones that should be required to be fitted with blinkers or blinders to stop them from looking at women. Surely, the onus should be placed on the offender to not offend, rather than on the victim to police the offender's behaviour. I can't help but think that this would be the case if womens' well-being was the focus.
The entire concept of female modesty as a 'protection for women' is repulsively misogynistic, as it implies that if one is not 'modest', one is willfully endangering oneself and therefore is then partially to blame for any harassment or assault that may then occur.
I do also recognise the argument that 'westernised' women are equally conditioned to bare more skin, to expose their sexuality, to the extent where appearance is valued so much that mental disorders like anorexia nervosa and bulimia become more frequent within the society.
I rail against the sexualisation of women, too. Very much so. But the western perception of female sexuality is dichotomous; the Madonna-whore complex. For example, the west has a conversational equivalent of the burqa, and that is; the word 'slut'. Calling women derogatory names, in an attempt to police 'inappropriate' (whatever that is) sexual bevaviour. The thought process behind calling a woman a slut, is almost the same as the one that makes people want to force women to hide their faces. However, it's a slightly more nuanced issue, that I will tackle at whatever point I can make enough sense of it to provide a coherent, cohesive argument against it.
Furthermore, and arguably, more importantly, it is a security risk to have people roaming around hiding their identities.
I, personally, will not feel safe in a community where people are allowed to, and do run around covering their faces, leaving me unable to identify them in the case of an assault, or robbery, or any crime. That is not a safe environment to be in. I think that even when the time comes, that burkas have ceased to be widespread as a symbol of female suppression (way, waaay into the future), it still would not be right to allow groups of people to roam around in face-hiding garb.
In sum, I absolutely do not think that sexist practices should be tolerated anywhere, but especially in civilised nations, simply by virtue of them being a religious aspect of a foreign culture. Tradition and religion are not valid reasons for the continuation of a behaviour.
You might also like:
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar