This has been bugging me.

Beating and mutilating people turns my stomach. However, I still respect the fact that the cultures are different. That is to say that if a man was to beat his wife or his family to mutilate his child that they should be held accountable to the laws of the country they reside in.

Complicated and maybe BS, but remember that most people that are conservative live in small villages and would probably never immigrate to the US or any other country. These practices are going the way of women tossing themselves on their husbands funeral pyres in India. Sooner the better, but until then we have to accept what they do and do our best to educate and not try to conform them to another lifestyle. :borg:

Ask Native Americans about conformity they will tell you about conformity.

Just a few random observations about some of the things I've seen in the thread so far:


I also had no idea that Victorian wear was due to a mandate.

It is my understanding that FGM is to keep females from experiencing pleasure during sex.

It's my understanding that, as a previous poster said, the women who cover themselves do so because the prevailing notion is that men cannot help themselves around uncovered women. Sort of the "she was asking for it" idea taken to the extreme.

The banning of the burquini (swimwear) is only part of a larger ban on many types of swimwear. To put it a different way, they are very restrictive about what you can wear in a public pool for hygienic reasons. (Men are required to wear speedo-style briefs.)

I'm surprised at the notion that the women rule in the home, lord of the kitchen, etc. (sorry for the poor paraphrasing). I've been told by some fairly conservative Muslims that the eldest male was The Man of the house, to be obeyed by all women therein. This can even mean a 12-year old boy if his father is away for some reason.

(Feel free to clarify whatever points I'm wrong about - it's how we learn.)

Quote:

---

This is purely a cultural bastardization of morals and should not be tolerated in any part of the world that calls itself free.

---

American freedoms are not the definition of freedom in other countries. In America we are supposed to have freedom to practice our religion (whichever that may be) and the freedom to observe our cultural customs. It is apparent that France does not share our ideals. I have long felt that it is arrogance for Americans to condemn other cultures for their practices, no matter how alien they are to the America way of life. We wouldn't accept the French, or any other country, telling us what freedoms should be allowed in America, so why should we think that we are free to tell another country how to run their government and their citizens' lives.

The American way is our prerogative in the U.S. but it is not to be forced on anyone. To do so is arrogant and is the same as dictators telling us how to run our country. There are limits to religious/cultural freedoms even in America. In one state a Muslim woman was denied a driver's license because she refused to uncover her face for the photo. It limits authorities ability to verify the identity of the licensee. In my home state, a driver's license is a privilege not a right. In another instance in America, a Muslim woman was denied access to her bank's lobby because she refused to uncover her face (policy at that bank required one to even remove their sun glasses when entering the lobby so identification on video surveillance equipment could be made more easily so it wasn't religious discrimination in this case either).

The exclusion of burkini's in public pools is supposed to be for hygiene reasons. I just don't see how a speedo will make a man more hygienic than swim trunks or a two piece bathing suit would make a woman more hygienic. In this instance, I think it was a way for the mayor to use his political power to exercise discrimination against Muslims and to harass this woman. But in a socialist society it is the good of the masses that is paramount and individual rights can be deprived arbitrarily by the authorities.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MinniesMate

The exclusion of burkini's in public pools is supposed to be for hygiene reasons. I just don't see how a speedo will make a man more hygienic than swim trunks or a two piece bathing suit would make a woman more hygienic ...

---

This is the argument being made:

Why the enforced parading of Frenchmen's bulges? "Hygiene," says Emmanuel Dormois, a head pool attendant in Paris's 11th arrondissement. "Small, tight trunks can only be used for swimming. Bermudas or bigger swimming shorts can be worn elsewhere all day, so could bring in sand, dust or other matter, disturbing the water quality. By banning them outright, we're not forced to stand there measuring what can be defined as swimming shorts. I accept that some men feel very ill at ease wearing small trunks, but others don't mind."

Similar reports of enforced Speedos come from traumatised English visitors to a Belgian water park where bigger swimming shorts were also banned.
(source)

Kind of makes some sense, in a way. On the other hand, when I think of reasons to be squeamish about public pools, it has a lot more to do with sweaty sunbathers and hordes of small children with poor bladder control.

If the Burquini were worn for other activities I could see the argument. However most people do not go wandering the neighborhoods in a swimsuit no matter how revealing.

Again bogus argument, just another show of power.

As far as the women being lord of the house. She is master of her domain and WILL entertain her husbands guests. Think Bewtiched. That funny little sitcom from the 60s. The women organized the dinner party, served drinks and cigars, cleaned the kitchen and put the dishes away. Only mingling if there were other wives.

Kinda the same thought. Like I said earlier, some husbands are stricter than others. But I dare any man to attempt to enter a Muslim woman's kitchen. The women will chase you out and the men will call you a sissy.

...but I'd like to chime in with one of the interesting "patterns" I see coming about from this discussion. :OT The idea of different views of what is right and melding of multiple cultures is what makes civil rights such a hard list to define (aside from different countries/cultures not wanting to cooperate with other countries). I took a whole class on civil rights in college a couple years ago and that was one of the main things that I took away was the difficulty in extrapolating a reason for/understanding of customs and beliefs and then further creating a common ground which is fair and safe for all.

I apologize for not contributing much to the main thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by singlewedge

If the Burquini were worn for other activities I could see the argument. However most people do not go wandering the neighborhoods in a swimsuit no matter how revealing.

Again bogus argument, just another show of power.

---

While I agree that the rule seems odd as far as hygiene goes, I don't quite get what you mean about the show of power. The Burquini was invented in Australia in 2007 -- after those French regulations were already in existence, so I think it's a mistake to assume that the rules were targeting Muslims (if that is indeed what you were suggesting).

I agree with you Tim. The closed minded attitude that attempts to justify a postion of superiority for one sex, or race or religion over another is the intolerance that inhibits social advancement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by northpaw

This is the argument being made:

Why the enforced parading of Frenchmen's bulges? "Hygiene," says Emmanuel Dormois, a head pool attendant in Paris's 11th arrondissement. "Small, tight trunks can only be used for swimming. Bermudas or bigger swimming shorts can be worn elsewhere all day, so could bring in sand, dust or other matter, disturbing the water quality. By banning them outright, we're not forced to stand there measuring what can be defined as swimming shorts. I accept that some men feel very ill at ease wearing small trunks, but others don't mind."

Similar reports of enforced Speedos come from traumatised English visitors to a Belgian water park where bigger swimming shorts were also banned.
(source)

Kind of makes some sense, in a way. On the other hand, when I think of reasons to be squeamish about public pools, it has a lot more to do with sweaty sunbathers and hordes of small children with poor bladder control.

---

I agree with your last observation, but, I guess the reason I think swim trunks (swim shorts if you will) and burkinis would be alright is that here in the U.S. health officials regulate public swimming pools and require that all public swimming pools must either be treated with chlorine to disinfect the water or have salt treated water (the system converts the sodium chloride into chlorine and the special filter system converts the chlorine back into sodium chloride thus being a closed loop always having the proper amount of chlorine in the water.). I guess Europeans don't subscribe to the same level of sanitation in their public swimming pools. I think I will leave my swim suit at home and just "people watch" the swimmers and sun bathers if I ever decide to go to Europe.