Why are feminists not against hijab?

Post Reply New Topic

But why is it a issue if a young christian female wants hijab or when a catholic want a hijab?

Muslims have been on center stage since 9/11. You typically hear about popular subjects. People only have opinions when things are brought to their attention. Remember Kony?

It isn't an issue. They can, as long as it is their own choice to do so. Get it?

Yep. But feminists do have a problem with it, thats the funny part.

Its not a strawman, i never seen any feminists talk about opression against a religion which is not islam, please prove me wrong.

But what is even more mindblowing for me is not this, it is the fact that left/feminists are making arab christians looking like the bad guys in the middle east even thought arab christians are few and they have no political power. in my eyes what left is doing is giving an "okay" for persecuation of christian arabs in middle east. most feminists and leftists still deny that armenian genocide happend.

I don't think 99.9% of them do. You can find anyone who believes any weird thing on the internet, but they aren't representative of anyone but themselves.
If you actually care to find out what feminists think, I strongly recommend talking to one in real life and asking for her opinions. But I know you aren't going to do that. You saying all feminists are against headscarves on Christians is absurd, and it's exactly the same as someone on the left saying that all Trump supporters are Nazis; obviously, 98% of Trump supporters are not Nazis, so it would be absurd to let that tiny fringe speak for everyone else.

I am not just talking about USA-feminists, i am talking about feminist-movement around the world. I can speak 5 different languages.

I've never heard a single left or feminist person claim that there is discminiation against minorites in muslim nations, can you show me? 4 %...ok, still very few. You say they face tremendous persecution, but then why do the left and feminists say that armenian christians and arab christians and assyrian christians are not opressed and that they are the oppressors of muslims in muslim nations? makes no sense for me. yes, anti-semitism is big in middle east. left is deadly quiet about that too, why?

you want examples?
here:
https://www.expressen.se/kultur/goran-r ... rs-bar-du/
https://www.svt.se/opinion/jag-vill-hel ... istendomen

That's just it though, I think there's a keen separation between the types of people you're talking about (1st and 2nd wave feminists) who are probably also fans of Camille Paglia and Christina Hoff Sommers, and feminists in the Berkeley, Twitter, or hashtag sense. It's almost impossible for someone to be for Ayaan and not be for feminism being extended to the middle east. Similarly the types of feminists who try to publicly embrace Islam as pro-feminists are the same who'll be significantly outclassed by Ayaan and are embarrassed, comparatively, that people like her exist.

Also I've been wondering lately whether the more center or center-right feminists are desiring the label anymore, considering how far left that brand has shifted.

Here's a story from the left-leaning Al Jazeera, on Christian persecution in the Middle East, from a couple days ago:

The first story you link to doesn't make the argument that minorities aren't persecuted. Rather, it points out that most of the victims of Jihadist attacks are themselves Muslims. That's an objective fact. You are able to comprehend the fact that Christians AND Muslims have been the victims of these attacks, and that pointing out one doesn't negate the other, right?

As for feminist commentary on religious persecution around the world, tons of people are speaking out against anti-Hindu persecution in Sri Lanka, and I'm sure many of the people speaking out are feminists. But it's a human rights issue, not necessarily a feminist one, so people aren't focused on the gender component. They're also concerned about anti-Muslim persecution in Myanmar. Again, it's a human rights issue.

I don't know why you're telling me how many languages you speak, but that's very nice for you. I only speak 3.

Dude what are you talking about, Al-jaazera is not left, its a muslim liberal newschannel.

The first link, he is saying that giving sympathy for christian arabs is racism against muslims. He is trying to tune down that arab christians have it hard and switch the subject to that muslims are the ones who are opressed not arab christians, and you agree with this type of talk (not shocking for me that you do).

Why even bringing up that muslims are victims of the attacks aswell? Christians are a small minority in middle east and the whole left-movvement want to put the focus on the muslim majority instead.

with your logic, everytime islamophobia is brought up in USA, we also need to talk about christianityphobia becuse the bigggest victims of right wing facism in usa are afro american chrsitians, not muslims, thats a fact.

Show me where feminists and the left speak out of the opression of arab christians and hindus.

Btw you never commented on my second link, that link cleary shows that left-people see all christians as the same persons (privliged and can not be persecuted). he is famous in sweden and of course got good respond from feminists and the left for that article, not a single negative respond, says alot about the genocide mentality that you people have.

I love her. I can confirm that most liberal feminists either ignore her, or they suspect she's a shill for the right. That's been my observation, having followed feminism for as long as she's been a famous activist. It's stuff like this that made me reject liberal feminism.

The liberal environment you're surrounded by is a consequence of secularism winning the argument and influencing religious communities (which needed to adapt or become unpopular). You have secularists to thank for that, not religious doctrine. In places where religious communities are allowed to be themselves without censure from a wider secular culture, things are very different.

There's a split in feminism which runs like this: the feminists who are all about giving women choices, and think empowerment is all about the opportunity to make choices (not an entirely invalid position), and the feminists who are all about dismantling oppressive power structures (or separating women from them).

Both positions have some validity, but the liberal one tends to betray women who are trapped by patriarchal culture (for fear of giving offence). The radical position tends to alienate men, and it has some crazy ideas on its fringes (but this is greatly exaggerated by antifeminists). I think betraying women is a greater crime.

Your last post is just nonsensical. It's worth showing that muslims are victims of Jihadist attacks as well, to combat the idea that it's "us against them."

If you've spent any time on planet Earth since the 1960s, you'll know that the phrase "left-leaning" is a popular phrase meaning left-liberalism, the same way "right-leaning" refers to conservatism. It's intellectually dishonest for you to pretend not to understand that.

I don't have a "genocide mentality."

Your comparison doesn't make sense, and I'm not going to unpack it.

I didn't click on your second link because to read the first one, I had to put it through a translator in the first place. The fact that you would send an American articles in Swedish shows that you didn't really care to show them in the first place.

Talking to you is like talking to a wall. It's clear that for you these threads are just solipsistic exercises, so I'll leave you to it. Have fun!

That makes sense on an ideological level, but where I question you and potentially disagree with you is on numbers. Liberal feminists who avoid criticizing oppressive Islamist laws are common in media, but they're not the people I meet in real life. Most of the "moderate" or liberal feminists I meet IRL are supportive of people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and are critical of oppressive theocratic laws abroad; they would argue that they criticize anti-Muslim sentiment in the US more than foreign theocracies, because they're Americans, and they feel greater agency and a greater sense of responsibility to have an impact in their home country.
At the same time, you may be right that they should show more support to feminist movements in countries like Iran and Pakistan, and in regions like East Africa. The irony there, though, is that most of the feminists in those countries are themselves liberal feminists, advocating for free choice and equality. I know Sarah Haider, the head of Ex-Muslims of North America and a Pakistani-American, is herself a liberal feminist.

I don't think it's that the media feminists are super-uncommon but prominent. I'd say that they're regionalized, tend toward living near, attending, and teaching at liberal arts universities, and you might find that there are plenty of places where you wouldn't immediately think you'll find them but you will or places you'd think you'd find them but won't - I think that has more to do, in those cases, with local history and culture as well as whose made stands both for or against 3rd-wave feminism at larger levels and how successfully.

Otherwise though, considering the intensity of their ideology it would make sense that you'd either see them all around you or wouldn't see them at all. They either successfully take over the culture in a particular place, get ejected immediately as a toxin, or if they find allies in a position of power typically the people who find them toxic (and identity politics) slowly leave on their own.