Who agrees with Boris?

[Freddie]

I agree, up until you say it needs to be judged case by case. The coercion is the same in almost every case and it is the control of the individual (woman) by patriarchal structures. Feminism should condemn this on every occasion, but it does not. It will condemn western men over the smallest of infractions, whilst letting far greater impingements of liberty slide when the perpetrator is of a non-western culture, even coming to the defense of said men against those who will criticise the person/culture as oppressive towards women.

Why the double standards?

[pwa]

Considerably OT, but it has been my understanding that it was as a result of pressure from Jinnah and the Muslim League that India was split between Pakistan (East and West) and India at the time of independence, with the British hoping that could be avoided.

The pressure from the Muslim League was response to a situation encouraged by the British in the first place. They began supporting Hindu princes on the subcontinent who took power from the waning (Islamic) Mogul Empire. They encouraged religious friction to establish their own political power. The British deliberately recruited high caste Hindus to the army, and the Indian units recognised Hindu festivals.

After years of developing festering resentment among Muslims and Sikhs, the police were conveniently given holiday when the Muslim League planned large demonstrations, in the only district where they held a majority in the provincial governments. The result was war on the streets of Kolkata (Calcutta). Read about 'Direct Action Day'.

I had an uncle (now dead) who was Punjabi. His family migrated from the Pakistani part of the Punjab to the Indian part because they were Hindu. My Punjabi uncle was convinced that if the British had not used the religious differences to their own financial and political advantage; and if they had not left in such haste, Pakistan and India would, today, be a single country. It was the British who began to define communities along religious lines, and attach political representation to them. Both Jinnah and Gandhi were British educated.

The rapid withdrawal from India happened partly because after WW2 the UK and the Empire were in such a weakened state that there were no resources for hanging on a bit longer. We were borrowing dosh from the USA just to feed ourselves, without trying to run a failing empire as well.

[random37]

Good question. I suppose part of that comes from banning face covering in establishments where a face covering poses security problems. Shops for example. A face covering makes things a lot easier for shoplifting, so anyone with a shop will not feel easy about face covering. A ban in all shops would make sense. Banks, obviously.

How does it make shoplifting easier? And where did you get the idea that facial coverings make shopkeepers uneasy?

I had a shop for a while. I didn't mind what people wore if they bought things from me. Lots of people had beards and sunglasses. I didn't refuse them service either, even though I had no idea what they looked like without them.

[bovlomov]

I agree, up until you say it needs to be judged case by case. The coercion is the same in almost every case and it is the control of the individual (woman) by patriarchal structures. Feminism should condemn this on every occasion, but it does not.

Judged case by case, not condemned case by case.

[pwa]

Good question. I suppose part of that comes from banning face covering in establishments where a face covering poses security problems. Shops for example. A face covering makes things a lot easier for shoplifting, so anyone with a shop will not feel easy about face covering. A ban in all shops would make sense. Banks, obviously.

How does it make shoplifting easier? And where did you get the idea that facial coverings make shopkeepers uneasy?

I had a shop for a while. I didn't mind what people wore if they bought things from me. Lots of people had beards and sunglasses. I didn't refuse them service either, even though I had no idea what they looked like without them.

You stand even less chance of identifying a shoplifter from direct sighting or CCTV if you never got to see their face in the first place.

[Freddie]

Judged case by case, not condemned case by case.

If Feminism is about women's freedom and right to choose, in what cases shouldn't coercion of women be condemned?

[meic]

in what cases shouldn't coercion of women be condemned?

When it is done by Feminists for the other women's own good, even against their wishes.

There are Feminists and there are feminists.
Then there are Liberals and liberals.
Then there are libertarians.
There is Afghanistan and the UK and you have mixed them all up in a thoroughly ambiguous soup that defies any answer to any question you derive from it.

[bovlomov]

Judged case by case, not condemned case by case.

If Feminism is about women's freedom and right to choose, in what cases shouldn't coercion of women be condemned?

Judged case by case. We can hardly condemn something we have no evidence for. Or are saying that every burqa wearer is coerced?

[reohn2]

in what cases shouldn't coercion of women be condemned?

When it is done by Feminists for the other women's own good, even against their wishes.

There are Feminists and there are feminists.
Then there are Liberals and liberals.
Then there are libertarians.
There is Afghanistan and the UK and you have mixed them all up in a thoroughly ambiguous soup that defies any answer to any question you derive from it.

Aint that the truth!

[Freddie]

in what cases shouldn't coercion of women be condemned?

When it is done by Feminists for the other women's own good, even against their wishes.

So by that logic, when a women is beaten up by her husband and a feminist or Feminist (whichever you prefer) coerces her into leaving the man and going to a refuge, even though the abused woman thinks she 'can change him', this is a bad thing? The woman has a right to maintain her abusive relationship, even into broken rib and black eye territory, because it is her choice...?

There are Feminists and there are feminists.
Then there are Liberals and liberals.
Then there are libertarians.
There is Afghanistan and the UK and you have mixed them all up in a thoroughly ambiguous soup that defies any answer to any question you derive from it.

That or you just don't want to answer ask difficult questions. Most feminists, as liberals and libertarians even, are more similar than they are dissimilar. The feminism that is prevalent on the BBC/Channel 4, in the newspapers and so on is of one mind, and that is defense of patriarchy as long as it is non-western, and in particular muslim patriarchy. They are not so much in favour of western patriarchy, you know, the type that gives them the ability to voice their divergent opinions without imminent threat of violence. Anyone who claims to be a feminist/liberal, but doesn't toe the line, is denounced as 'no true feminist/liberal/insert ideology here' and summarily cast into the outer darkness - witness Germaine Greer and her opinion on transsexual MTF not being true women for an example of this.

The whole 'kaleidoscope of beliefs' is not true. Most people who adhere to a particular ideology, especially in this day and age of strong pressures to conform, believe in largely the same things.

Judged case by case. We can hardly condemn something we have no evidence for. Or are saying that every burqa wearer is coerced?

Correlation is not causation, but it is also not necessarily not causation. In Afganistan prior to fundamentalist Islam of the Taliban, women had many more freedoms and very few wore the burkha. Now there is fundamentalist Islam enforced by the Taliban, they do not have those freedoms and the burkha is far more often worn than previously.

Where there is more Islam, there are fewer freedoms, particularly for women. If Feminism/feminism is about freedom for women (the feminist claim) it should oppose Islam just as much as it opposes Christianity, as an impingement on women's liberty, but it does not.

As I said, correlation is not necessarily causation, but in the case of Afghanistan there seems to be some pretty good evidence of an increase in burkha wearing correlating with a more fundamentalist Islamic state.

[bovlomov]

Correlation is not causation, but it is also not necessarily not causation. In Afganistan prior to fundamentalist Islam of the Taliban, women had many more freedoms and very few wore the burkha. Now there is fundamentalist Islam enforced by the Taliban, they do not have those freedoms and the burkha is far more often worn than previously.

Where there is more Islam, there are fewer freedoms, particularly for women. If Feminism/feminism is about freedom for women (the feminist claim) it should oppose Islam just as much as it opposes Christianity, as an impingement on women's liberty, but it does not.

As I said, correlation is not necessarily causation, but in the case of Afghanistan there seems to be some pretty good evidence of an increase in burkha wearing correlating with a more fundamentalist Islamic state.

You asked

How do you ascertain something is not done under coercion?

I replied

it needs to be judged case by case.

It seemed an uncontroversial thing to write.

[meic]

That or you just don't want to answer ask difficult questions

Both. I did start trying to answer it but just about every sentence needed another three to remove ambiguity and it was just a no-hoper. Especially as it would only lead to another exponential increase of workload from a subsequent reply to it.

You can raise all the complicated, interleaved scenarios that you like but I cant see much point in wasting hours of my time doing your bidding.

[Freddie]

You asked

How do you ascertain something is not done under coercion?

I replied

it needs to be judged case by case.

It seemed an uncontroversial thing to write.

So you don't believe in systems of oppression then? Systematic racism and what have you. Every interaction in the world is unique and there is no such thing as a cultural behaviour or averages, good or bad. Everything is a blank slate, uninformed by culture or average behaviour/mentality...

You can raise all the complicated, interleaved scenarios that you like but I cant see much point in wasting hours of my time doing your bidding.

OK, no problem, that is better than the thing of pretending to not understand what the other person is saying that is so prevalent on fora these days. I will try and make it simple.

Feminism and Islam are mutually exclusive ideologies. One can favour one or the other, but no both, yet many feminists defend practice which correlates (not necessarily causation) with the removal of the right to choose (wearing of the burkha). No such accommodations are made for Christianity, nor, given the ideology of feminism, should you expect them to be made. Why do they accommodate Islam, and most mainstream feminists/Feminists do it, even going as far to defend it and the burkha as a 'symbol of empowerment'.

It is absurd, but then perhaps the belief system is not what it first seems. You explain it to me, or don't, up to you. It makes no sense if we take feminism at face value though. I hope that is not too interleaved.

[bovlomov]

You asked

How do you ascertain something is not done under coercion?

I replied

it needs to be judged case by case.

It seemed an uncontroversial thing to write.

So you don't believe in systems of oppression then? Systematic racism and what have you. Every interaction in the world is unique and there is no such thing as a cultural behaviour or averages, good or bad. Everything is a blank slate, uninformed by culture or average behaviour/mentality...

I don't know how you arrived at that.

But to put the question back to you, how do you ascertain that something is done by coercion? The law of averages won't do, even if you knew what the averages were.

[meic]

I am neither a muslim nor a Feminist, so I dont decide or defend their standpoints.
What is more I dont even know what they are.

I just belief in freedom to do as you choose so long as you dont hurt others.
If somebody wants to wear a Burka, I dont care if they have the approval or disapproval of their "church", Feminists or even my own approval. It is their choice and suggestions that somebody else is coercing them are not enough reason for me to support "positive coercion" the other way to counter it.

Firstly because such claims are notoriously not given in goodfaith and secondly because it would be addressing the symptoms rather than curing the disease.