Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Nov-2025 13:04:27 JST Marie 🇸🇪

   The senate has been suspended after P Hanson wore a burga in the chamber, repeating a stunt she pulled back in 2017. The One Nation leader walked into the chamber during a division wearing the head covering. Hanson has been trying to introduce a bill to have burgas & face coverings banned in AU.
   ”Whatever our own beliefs may be, the sort of disrespect you are engaging in now, is not worthy of a member of the Australian senate & it should not be allowed to stand.

   - Penny Wong, Foreign Minister.

   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Nov-2025 13:04:24 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @djsumdog @smlx4 65 years ago in the USA women willingly doing this shit was correctly recognized this “choice” as internalized oppression and now idiots parade it
     djsumdog likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Nov-2025 13:04:25 JST djsumdog

     in reply to
     I don't understand your reasoning. Isn't the burka a symbol of oppression in an of itself showing women are the property of their families with no right to even show themselves to anyone else?
     
     I don't understand what's disrespectful about the point she's trying to make. Now I'm not for the state coming in and banning things, but Australia is a rampant authoritarian state, so it shouldn't be out of their wheelhouse to ban clothing as they have mandated clothing in the past.
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Nov-2025 17:34:10 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Blurry Moon
     define agency
   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Tuesday, 25-Nov-2025 17:34:11 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon

     @sun @djsumdog your argument assumes that all Muslim women lack agency. It’s simply not true. Calling their choices “internalized oppression” erases the voices of women who say they choose their clothes for faith, identity, or personal comfort.
     Criticizing patriarchy is very valid, but definitely not to use it to righteously target or humiliate a minority group in parliament. It’s possible to oppose oppression without supporting tricks that stigmatize real people.

   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 00:40:30 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     @smlx4 @djsumdog the muslim world is extremely patriarchal which muslim women have reduced or no agency in connection with, even when distant from literal patriarchal theocracy countries. I don't know why anyone would go out of their way to defend burqas specifically because it is the extreme example of this, compared to like, hijab, which still is but at least isn't humiliatingly covering the entire body.
     
     maybe the stunt was stigmatizing in form, if it was I don't defend that, muslim women deserve respect and to not be joked about but I stand by my opinion that feminism correctly identified the problem in our own culture a very long time ago and now people are trying to reverse it out of misguided cultural sensitivity. the practice is bad.
   • Embed this notice
     mothball蛾玉 (西洋巣酸の木) (moth_ball@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 01:47:25 JST mothball蛾玉 (西洋巣酸の木)

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     @sun @smlx4 @djsumdog The reason for wearing the hijab is always "dad will be upset if I don't" and since mom is allied with dad it's hard to see it as ever being a genuine choice.
     Blurry Moon likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Blurry Moon (sun@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 01:48:10 JST Blurry Moon

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • mothball蛾玉 (西洋巣酸の木)
     @moth_ball @djsumdog @smlx4 don’t forget when it’s used as a rejection of the values of the country that graciously took them in as an immigrant/refugee
   • Embed this notice
     djsumdog (djsumdog@djsumdog.com)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:52 JST djsumdog

     in reply to

     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     choice

     You keep using that word. I don't think you understand it.

     What's interesting is that clothing itself is the most basic form of a completely irrational belief. It's the oldest shared, collective obsessive compulsion. Most people feels fear and anxiety if we don't conform to wearing clothing, but no one understand why. You can say "it's evolutionary; we slaughtered animals and wore their skin which helped some humans survive the winter; so those humans shamed others that didn't to encourage the behavior change" or whatever evolutionary theory and you realize two things: 1) it's a retroactive explanation no one rationally conceptualized when it happened and 2) it's kinda a fucked up and horrific thing that became normalized because it benefited our survival.

     I've written about how we've seen this irrationality unfold rapidly and in a very short time span within very recent history. Clothing by itself is a means of culture building.

     Do you really have the "agency" to chose to wear clothes? Not really. You get put in prison if you don't confirm. Indecent exposure laws and such.

     This grows into much larger arguments about culture and people. Choice and free will. Do people choose to wear the hijab? Do they make the choice to wear silly hats or participate in the way their society works?

     But assuming that all women who wear these garments, regardless of country, situation or personal reasons, are oppressed or dehumanized is to simplify a very complex reality.

     You want to separate out things that are inseparable. Let's not talk about the millions of woman who are forced versus the millions of women who just happen to be in the same type of culture but are not forced. It's literally as silly as when Christians say, "God loves the sinner but not the sin," as if the actions and the individuals are separable.

     Where are the logical bounds between the woman who wears the clothing with agency and the one who is forced to wear it without? Is that bound real, or a mythos?

   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:53 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     @sim @djsumdog @sun my short answer would be, criticism of oppression is right. Generalizations about millions of people are not.

     Sure that coercion, violence & patriarchal laws in some countries (too many) are deeply problematic & must & should be criticized. I insist again that it’s important to distinguish between authoritarian societies & choice in democratic countries. ->

   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:53 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     @sim @djsumdog @sun -> women who choose to wear the garment must be heard, otherwise we are doing the same thing that ancient patriarchal systems have done & still do: speaking over & for them.
     Criticising oppression is necessary. But assuming that all women who wear these garments, regardless of country, situation or personal reasons, are oppressed or dehumanized is to simplify a very complex reality. ->

   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:54 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     @sim @djsumdog @sun safety concerns shouldn’t be used to justify targeting a whole group or turn their clothing into a political stunt. Millions of Muslim women choose these garments freely & assuming they’re all controlled or abused erases their voices & intelligence.

     Abuse should always be condemned but it doesn’t solve the problem by blaming the clothing or the women wearing them. ->

   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:54 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     @sim @djsumdog @sun -> A lot of the fear & opinions around this is really about preference, unfamiliarity & prejudice rather than actual evidence.

   • Embed this notice
     sim@shitposter.world's status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:54 JST sim

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     @smlx4 @djsumdog @sun What of the women living in countries where this is mandatory? Do we just ignore them, given that many of them are not even permitted to be outside and when they are, it has to be with a chaperone and wearing garments that actually rob them of their humanity so that the men around them don't catch lustful thoughts? That is the reasoning behind garments that cover everything. It's always a control thing. How do we stop thoughts of lust? Blame women, make them cover up, showing their skin is shameful. That is what this garment actually represents and we shouldn't forget it.
     
     I think safety concerns are acceptable to say that someone should be uncovered in certain areas so that we can see their faces and read their intentions. It's an important part of human socialisation. Cutting them off from this socialisation dehumanises the women wearing these garments and denies their inclusion in social society. It makes it harder to interact with them. Some people need to be able to read faces too so covering the face up as some of these garments do will isolate those people. There is so much wrong with it. I could maybe see why some women might choose to cover their hair, but not to cover their whole face. To dehumanise and shame themselves like this.
     
     It is about preventing lust. And I understood this clearly from a conversation someone had with a muslim man. That is where his thoughts went. Although he seemed horrified at the thought that he should cover himself up because some men will have lustful thoughts about his beard. Like he hasn't heard of gay men before. I have not forgotten how gay men are treated in muslim societies. I heard a gay man who escaped one tell his story of constantly being beaten up whenever he went in public. He feared for his life. That being gay is shameful. Gay conversion therapy, where he was even forced to jerk off to magazines of naked women while his mother watched. These are the stories we should remember. Because this is actually bigger than western countries and even those countries now have these problems in these communities which few are willing to properly discuss.
   • Embed this notice
     sim@shitposter.world's status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 10:35:55 JST sim

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     @sun @djsumdog @smlx4 I don't know why you would want anyone walking about in public completely covered up. It's a huge safety problem since they are unidentifiable. You don't know if they are a woman or not. You can't read their body language as well, especially the face. But it is a huge shame problem. I remember a case where I think it was the uncle that got beaten up for his niece accidentally showing skin in public. If you want to avoid being beaten up then it is easier to keep women inside when you think about it based on that alone. Entire families literally keep women inside through shame. Even the women themselves.
   • Embed this notice
     sim@shitposter.world's status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 11:01:03 JST sim

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     @smlx4 @djsumdog @sun Choice in democratic countries? I don't think this is about democracy. It is about shame and religion. Even in the west, women are living under this system through faith. It is coercion. They are still being oppressed in the west because they come from deeply religious sects that oppress them. We have no idea how deep this goes and it doesn't help that every time we criticise we are met with how we shouldn't generalise, we are effectively tone policed. It is deeply problematic in western countries now because it has been imported.
     
     This shame culture makes it acceptable to rape women that don't wear these garments. To blame them for how they are dressed. To blame them for the lusts of men. This perpetuates it.
     
     I am listening to the women. To women in the other countries where in one example, one young woman (I think, not sure if teen or young adult) ended up being beaten up because some skin accidentally showed in public as she was buying something. The police that deal with this caught her and then beat her uncle up for this when he came for her. In western countries, these girls are being married off young. The entire culture is here under sharia courts. It doesn't matter if they are in a democratic country. Not wearing this garment is considered shameful to the family. The family end up oppressing young girls and women into this. We have acid attacks, honour killings, FGM, the lot of it.
     
     But we're not allowed to generalise while these girls and women are being failed by us in the west? How about we actually resolve these problems first before running cover for the people that keep them going? I don't see how it can be a choice to wear the face covering, that it can be a choice when you simply cannot control the thoughts or lusts of other people around you? It is about lust and control once again.
     djsumdog likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     Marie 🇸🇪 (smlx4@mastodon.nu)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 11:01:04 JST Marie 🇸🇪

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim

     @sim @djsumdog @sun -> It makes all those women invisible despite that they themselves describes their faith & identity in other ways. What do we really & truly know about them & their lives.
     Safety regulations in certain environments should be discussed - objectively. But that’s completely different from using clothing as political markers to blame entire groups. It lacks dignity., in my opinion.

   • Embed this notice
     Ree (ree@shitposter.world)'s status on Wednesday, 26-Nov-2025 22:11:12 JST Ree

     in reply to

     • djsumdog
     • Blurry Moon
     • sim
     @smlx4 @sim @djsumdog @sun >freely
     Yeah whatever
     djsumdog likes this.