France takes initial steps to ban the Burqa

112 posts / 0 new
Last post
Jabberwock

I don't think Burqas are unique to Afghanistan: they are worn by some women in Pakistan, India, Bangladesh, Saudi Arabia... I believe that they are common in the Sunni-Wahabi tradition.

I certainly believe that they are an instrument of subjugation.

 

But...I agree with those upthread that commented that this is being presented as a pro-feminist issue, when it is actually a sop to those who are anti-immigrant/anti-muslim etcetera.

 

And it appears that with the current economic climate, racism and anti-immigrant sentiment is again on the rise in Europe.

martin dufresne

Snert, the point is that the action taken against prostition in Sweden (and Norway and Iceland...) is not taken against women, but against the people prostituting them. (Indeed the 1999 Swedish legislation ended sanctions against prostitutes.) You choose to ignore that and go on presenting men's privileges as women's choice and action against these privileges as action against women. A familiar conceit, long-discredited here, so please pardon my ignoring any further taunts from your corner.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Michelle wrote:

I've known a number of men who have taken their wives' names (both took hyphenated names, for instance).  I also took my husband's name when I got married - a move I now regret, but I still believe it's a choice I should be allowed to make.

 

I totally disagree. Why should people have some special right to change their names just because of going through some marriage ceremony? Why not just on a whim? Why not just if you're best friends with someone and feel like trading family names?

I think it's astonishing that anyone could ignore that women taking their husband's name is a symbol of becoming that man's property - of breaking with her Father and joining a new family with her Husband. And the stories of men taking women's surnames remind me of National Inquirer stories about a goat born with three heads. Equality of men and women does not mean that women have an individual right to continue their subordination under the guise of freedom of choice. It means that society identifies and removes the historical barriers to equality.

For example, slavery is banned in this society. Even if I choose to enter into a personal contract with you whereby I become your slave, the law prohibits me from doing so. Individual rights do not exist in the abstract. They must be based on equality, society, and most importantly, genuine freedom. The "right" to abandon your rights is no right at all.

 

It is not a symbol of a woman becoming a man's property. It was at one time and maybe for some religious types it still is. For me, it is a symbol of wanting to start a family together. We agreed we were going to have one family name - either with a new creation or sharing one of the names we already have. Where do children get their family names from? usually from the father - does this indicate legally they are his property? No, they have clearly defined rights that the State protects. Same with women. (the State does a very poor job of this in many cases - but that is another thread topic).

Total thread drift though. I agree with others that a woman should have the right to wear a burqa and take a married name if she chooses. Others may agree or disagree as to the level of patriarchy/exploitation/male ownership of her life involved. It should be her choice though.

Ghislaine

I think you are right about that Cueball. If Iranian-Canadians blocked the Gardiner in a solidarity protest, we all know that the coverage would be very sympathetic and very different from the reaction to the Tamil protests.

Stockholm

"Not all Jewish males wear yarmulke, this does not me that banning them on one pretext or another would not be antisemitic, since they are only worn by Jews."

I believe that the French government has banned these and any other religious symbols from being worn in public schools...anyways my point is that many people on both sides of the debate tend to confuse what is religious and what is cultural. I can assure you that no where in the Koran does it say "All women must wear burqas" - this is a garment that is unique to certain cultures and women being subjected to various oppressive forms of dress goes to long before the time of Mohammed. In fact, anthropologists will proba bly tell you that many in women in what is now Afghanistan were wearing something very burqa-like before that area even became Muslim.

A friend of mine who is anthropologist was quite amused when this British woman converted to Islam and started wearing a burqa - given that wearing a burqa has nothing to do with being Muslim but implies that you succeeded in having a transfusion of your genetic code and became ethnically Afghan!

Stockholm

Ghislaine wrote:

I think you are right about that Cueball. If Iranian-Canadians blocked the Gardiner in a solidarity protest, we all know that the coverage would be very sympathetic and very different from the reaction to the Tamil protests.

I disagree

Cueball Cueball's picture

Jabberwock wrote:

And it appears that with the current economic climate, racism and anti-immigrant sentiment is again on the rise in Europe.

I was thinking about this the other day, and especially the "rioting" in France last year. I note with interest that when kids are turning over cars, holding demonstrations and causing a ruckus in places like France and Greece, we don't get a ground swell of support in favour of being "with the people", like we do in the Iranian case. In those cases, support, if there is any is muted, and usually mitigated by admontions that "the people" should protest peacefully. I have not seen a single post on Rabble over the last week, where people suggest that throwing rocks at the police, burning cars and so on and so forth might not be a legitimate form of protest.

Just think of how upset that people were when Tamil protesters blocked the hallowed Gardiner Expressway, suggesting that there might be better ways for the demonstrators to express their views than inconveniencing people going about their business, "blocking" the access to hospitals, and main thoroughfares.

Caissa

With apologies to lisa Raitt, then why is Iran sexier than Sri Lanka?

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

I totally disagree. Why should people have some special right to change their names just because of going through some marriage ceremony? Why not just on a whim? Why not just if you're best friends with someone and feel like trading family names?

I think it's astonishing that anyone could ignore that women taking their husband's name is a symbol of becoming that man's property - of breaking with her Father and joining a new family with her Husband.

To the first point: CAN'T you change your name jsut on a whim? I mean, if I really wanted my name to be, say, "Mike Johnson", couldn't I fill out some paperwork, send it in and get my name legally changed? Lots of people have. For religious reasons for example: Cassius Clay to Muhamed Ali, Lew Alcindor to Kareem Abdul Jabbar. My great grandfather immigrated from Poland and his last name was very hard to pronounce so he changed it to a more "Anglicized" version after living in Canada for a bit.  If I can do it for religious reasons or jsut aesthetic reasons, why not for family reasons?

To the second point: maybe according to you, a wife taking on her husband's name is "a symbol of becoming that man's property" but that's not how everyone feels and because you feel a certain way doesn't make it so. I'm sure if you asked my wife if she felt like she was my property, she'd have a long hard laugh.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Snert, the point is that the action taken against prostition in Sweden (and Norway and Iceland...) is not taken against women, but against the people prostituting them.

 

Whatever.

 

I'm pointing out that it's a blanket approach that relies on the assumption that ALL people working in the sex trade have been forced into it, just like banning the veil in France must necessarily assume that ALL women who veil are forced into it.

 

Get it? Excellent. Now I'm sure that somewhere there's a woman who needs you to save her from herself, so what're you standing around here for?

Jabberwock

I was thinking as well about the idiots in Belfast who drove a group of Romany out of their homes and into the streets, and the forced expulsion of 20,000 Romany in Italy.

Cueball Cueball's picture

They would call it a parade, and they would give it a police escort, and no one would complain in the slightest.

Ghislaine wrote:

I think you are right about that Cueball. If Iranian-Canadians blocked the Gardiner in a solidarity protest, we all know that the coverage would be very sympathetic and very different from the reaction to the Tamil protests.

But then they don't feel the need too since of course our government has quite well represented their interests publically in the international arena, whereas the Tamil cause was met with stone cold silence.

Star Spangled C...

Stockholm wrote:

anyways my point is that many people on both sides of the debate tend to confuse what is religious and what is cultural. I can assure you that no where in the Koran does it say "All women must wear burqas" - this is a garment that is unique to certain cultures

You are right but I don't think that's what's relevant in this case. It may not be explicitly outlined in the koran to wear a burqa - it's more like an injunction to "dress modestly" and this is how certain people interpret that. The Torah never explicitly says "wear a yarmulke - small, falt, round thing". There's a passage in talmud that says that it is customary to keep your head covered and different Jewish groups ahve interpreted this in different ways. There's certainly nothing in the Torah that mandates wearing some of the distinctive fur hats that some Hasidic sects wear - that custom came from eastern europe. But if someone wants to wear a giant fur hat, what's it to you?

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

You're the one who wants me to abandon my "right" to choose to have the same last name as my son.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting women taking their husband's family name is some expression of freedom? What planet did we just land on here?

Quote:
Or is Quebec so enlightened that all children automatically take their mother's name?

Thanks for asking. Here is a summary of the law. You'll find that we eliminated the bullshit about kids taking the father's name at the same time we eliminated the bullshit about the wife exchanging Daddy's name for Hubby's name. It may look complicated, but that's what was need to eliminate Male Supremacy on the front of family names. On this front, Québec is 30 years ahead of the rest of the country, and I strongly recommend that others take a good look at what we did:

Quote:

What names can we give our child?

Your child’s given name(s) must respect certain rules:

  • you may choose one or multiple given names; however, it is suggested not to exceed four given names;
  • the name that appears first in the “declaration of birth” must be the name you intend to regularly use;
  • if one of the given names is a compound name, you must insert a hyphen between the two names. If you do not, the two names will be considered as two distinct names;
  • one of the parent’s surnames can be used as one of the child’s given names;
  • an initial of one of the parent’s surnames can be used as one of the child’s given names.

If you and your spouse cannot agree upon a name to give your child, the Registrar of Civil Status will intervene. It will assign two given names to the child, one chosen by the mother and the other chosen by the father.

What surnames can we give our child?

Your child’s surname must respect certain rules:

  • the child can adopt the father’s surname, the mother’s surname, or a composite of the two names joined by a hyphen;
  • your newborn’s surname may differ from the surnames of your other children. This means that children born from the same mother and father can have different surnames;
  • a surname cannot contain only an initial (e.g.: B-Roy), because such a name does not meet the requirements of the Civil Code of Québec. The surnames of the mother or father must be written in full so that the child’s surname fully reflects either the maternal filiation, paternal filiation, or both;
  • the child’s surname cannot be composed of one of the parent’s first names;
  • when both parents have composite surnames, you must choose a name that contains only two parts. The child may bear the father’s composite surname or the mother’s composite surname or a surname made up from one part of the father’s surname and one part of the mother’s surname. Where both parents have composite names, sixteen combinations are possible.

For example, if the father's name is John Wagner-Laplante, and the mother's name is Sylvie Colombe-Ladouceur, then the parents must choose one of the following surname possibilities:

  • Wagner
  • Laplante
  • Colombe
  • Ladouceur
  • Wagner-Laplante
  • Wagner-Colombe
  • Wagner-Ladouceur
  • Laplante-Wagner
  • Laplante-Colombe
  • Laplante-Ladouceur
  • Colombe-Wagner
  • Colombe-Laplante
  • Colombe-Ladouceur
  • Ladouceur-Wagner
  • Ladouceur-Laplante
  • Ladouceur-Colombe

 

Can the Registrar of Civil Status ask us to change the given or family names we gave to our child?

If the name you gave to your child (either the composite surname or given name) is unusual and may invite ridicule or discredit the child, the Registrar of Civil Status may ask you to choose a less controversial name.

If you refuse to change the surname or given names you have chosen, the Registrar will still draw up an act of birth, but it will notify the Attorney General of Québec. The Attorney General may then ask the court, within ninety (90) days of the registration of the act of birth in the Register of Civil Status, to replace either the given name(s) or surname(s) chosen by the parents with one of the parent’s family names or with two common given names, as the case may be. It is the court that makes the final decision on the matter.

[url=Source.[/url]">http://www.educaloi.qc.ca/en/loi/parents/55/imprimer/][=green]Sourc...

You consider these measures - the elimination of "father rule" in family names - to be a sign of "patriarchy", Michelle? I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Stockholm

Its nothing to me and in fact the example of the giant fur hat is a good one. Its obviously a head covering that has some history from shtetls in eastern Europe where they have harsh winters. You sure don't see orthodox Jews in Baghdad wearing anything like that. I'm simply pointing out how when people go on these rampages against clothes or symbols that they associate with a particular religion - they often mix up what is religious with what is cultural.

In the virtually non-existent hypothetical situation where I were to decide to be religious and cover my head - i think my attitude would be - why not adapt what the Torah says to modern fashion and i would cover my head with a Blue Jays baseball cap or a French-style beret!

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:
Where do children get their family names from? usually from the father - does this indicate legally they are his property?

You toss this off as if kids taking their father's name is the most normal thing in the world.

Just think about it for a second. The woman conceives, bears, and nurtures the child. But from the moment of birth, its identity is defined by its "father"?? And this, according to some people here, has nothing to do with the inequality of women?

Give me a break.

In Québec, we have abolished that "usually" thing. It's gone. It seems some people here are surprised to learn that. Come visit and stay a while. When our kids were in school and introduced their friend as "Marie-Josée Fortier" or "Dylan Silverberg" or "Francine Rocher-Ouimet", you had no clue what the names of their fathers or mothers were. Isn't that shocking!!?? Our civilization is disintegrating.

It's called equality. But we have a very long way to go.

Cueball Cueball's picture

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Stockholm wrote:

anyways my point is that many people on both sides of the debate tend to confuse what is religious and what is cultural. I can assure you that no where in the Koran does it say "All women must wear burqas" - this is a garment that is unique to certain cultures

You are right but I don't think that's what's relevant in this case. It may not be explicitly outlined in the koran to wear a burqa - it's more like an injunction to "dress modestly" and this is how certain people interpret that. The Torah never explicitly says "wear a yarmulke - small, falt, round thing". There's a passage in talmud that says that it is customary to keep your head covered and different Jewish groups ahve interpreted this in different ways. There's certainly nothing in the Torah that mandates wearing some of the distinctive fur hats that some Hasidic sects wear - that custom came from eastern europe. But if someone wants to wear a giant fur hat, what's it to you?

The veiling thing was actually quiet common in Christian cultures for many centuries. I believe, even that it might have come to Europe as an emulation of the highest fashion eminating from the center of civilization and culture around the Mediteranean.

I believe, veiling as a practice is about modesty in general, but is also specifically referred to because this is the manner that the wives of Mohammed dressed, and as such, falls into the catergory of Sunna, follwing "the way" of Mohammed, even though the there is no express injunction regarding veils per se. Many hadiths, in Sunni Islam are interpretations of the Qu'ran, as the word of god, based in analyzing "the way" (Sunna, hence Sunni) Mohammed lived his life, which quite naturally, is considered to be a pure expression of how a believer should live out their life when following the word of god, as set out in the Qu'ran.

That is to say that I believe there is more basis for it in Islamic law in Hadith, as opposed to the Qu'ran directly.

Star Spangled C...

Stockholm wrote:

Its nothing to me and in fact the example of the giant fur hat is a good one. Its obviously a head covering that has some history from shtetls in eastern Europe where they have harsh winters. You sure don't see orthodox Jews in Baghdad wearing anything like that.

No, because the fur hat was never a custom of Sephardic Jews from Iraq. They have their own customs and modes of dress. Just like within European Jewery, there are variations in dress depending on what Hasidic group one might belong to, where ones family originated, etc.

You certainly DO see Jews in Jerusalem wearing the fur hats and long black silk coats in the middle of August when it's 100 degrees outside which strikes me as unbearable and makes me think that a garment that may make good sense when it's -20 degrees in Russia may not be the most practical garment when you live in a desert. Or in Toronto, Montreal, London, New York or many of the other places you may see people wearing such clothes.

I personally have no desire to walk around in a fur hat (or to have a long beard like many Jews have, for that matter) but if someone else wants to, I say "be my guest." And if a woman freely decides to walk around in a burka (or to adhere to some of the Jewish customs on female dress), again, I say "be my guest."

Stockholm

What if some women consent to having their feet bound in China or volunteer to undergo female circumcision in Africa? and what if some women in Canada insist on being butchered by those practices here in Canada? Should we let them?

Cueball Cueball's picture

I don't know? What if some women get off on being tied up and whipped?

Stockholm

These are important questions. Are there limits to what we can let people do to themselves? or not?

Cueball Cueball's picture

Actually, the proper question is, is there a limit of what we can allow the state to proscribe?

RosaL

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

I personally have no desire to walk around in a fur hat (or to have a long beard like many Jews have, for that matter) but if someone else wants to, I say "be my guest." And if a woman freely decides to walk around in a burka (or to adhere to some of the Jewish customs on female dress), again, I say "be my guest."

 

This "freely decides" thing is a liberal illusion. Our decisions are deeply conditioned by the societies (or "subcultures") we live in. The real question is what kind of society we want to have. I don't want a society where women wear burquas but I don't want to live in a society where women spend inordinate amounts of time and money trying to comply with prevailing norms of female attractiveness, either. (That's just one little example - there are many, many more.) My complaint is that the anti-burqa law makes no sense in a society that has no problem with all sorts of other ways of oppressing women - all "freely chosen" by women themselves, of course. If things were different, if women were truly treated with dignity and respect in France (or in Canada), I'd support the law. But they aren't. 

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

These are important questions. Are there limits to what we can let people do to themselves? or not?

 

I saw a web video of a guy who had bifurcated his penis (sliced it from end to root). He seemed to enjoy the bizarre, twisted result(s).

 

I suggest that that should serve as the extreme. If it's no wackier than slitting your dong like a garden cucumber then we let it pass.

 

Come to think of it, is that really any more ridiculous than those people who pierce their ears with ever-increasing disks, in the hope that one day their earlobes can hang from their head like stretched, soggy windowblind cords?

 

People do some strange things. Some say it's our only proof of free will. My only question or concern is "is someone forcing you to do this against your will?"

josh

Stockholm wrote:

These are important questions. Are there limits to what we can let people do to themselves? or not?

In your previous post you used the word "consent."  That's the distinguishing feature. 

Star Spangled C...

Stockholm wrote:

What if some women consent to having their feet bound in China or volunteer to undergo female circumcision in Africa? and what if some women in Canada insist on being butchered by those practices here in Canada? Should we let them?

I'm sort of torn on that to be honest. I mean, we let adults decide to get permanent ugly tattoos or to pierce various body parts or to brand themselves or do all sorts of things that I wouldn't personally choose. Is this altogether different in principle? One big factor is obviously whether or not they are adults at the time they make the choice. Obviously, parents shouldn't be able to make such a drastic choice for them (of course, I don't recall my parents asking me if i wanted my foreskin removed when I was a baby).

Personally, I can't see any women actually choosing those things. I CAN see women choosing to wear a burka. I don't know any personally but I know women who wear the Muslim headscarf. I also know Jewish women who wear wigs and skirts to their ankles all the time and Jewish men who wear heavy coats and black fedoras in the middle of summer and grow beards down to their chests. Not my choice but so what? The difference between those choices and something like female cicumcision is that they need not be permanent. Burkas can be traded in for jeans, beards can be shaven, etc. if they later decide they no longer want to follow that custom.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:
Where do children get their family names from? usually from the father - does this indicate legally they are his property?

You toss this off as if kids taking their father's name is the most normal thing in the world.

Just think about it for a second. The woman conceives, bears, and nurtures the child. But from the moment of birth, its identity is defined by its "father"?? And this, according to some people here, has nothing to do with the inequality of women?

Give me a break.

In Québec, we have abolished that "usually" thing. It's gone. It seems some people here are surprised to learn that. Come visit and stay a while. When our kids were in school and introduced their friend as "Marie-Josée Fortier" or "Dylan Silverberg" or "Francine Rocher-Ouimet", you had no clue what the names of their fathers or mothers were. Isn't that shocking!!?? Our civilization is disintegrating.

It's called equality. But we have a very long way to go.

So, are there any stats about what is still the usual option in Quebec? I would assume that the majority still take the father's name.

What you outlined as Quebec's law is exactly what my partner and I discussed in terms of naming in our soon-to-be family. We decided we wanted one name for all and spent a good deal of time deciding what we wanted that name to be. I have an aversion to hyphenated names, so that was out. The actual decison had less to do with patriarchal tradition and more to do with with surname we wanted to honour based on our own upbringings. We wanted simplicity as the idea of non-stop hyphens just does not appeal to me. I would rather choose the last name Rainbow or all than have hyphens.

As well, I would submit that the Quebec law does not properly get rid of patriarchal naming, as it does allow for the mother's (or father's mother's) maiden names to be used as the child's last name.

Unionist

Ghislaine wrote:

So, are there any stats about what is still the usual option in Quebec? I would assume that the majority still take the father's name.

I have no stats on children's names, but your assumption is very telling. I can, however, give you stats about the percentage of women who take their husband's name: Zero percent. Don't you think it's time the rest of Canada enacted laws to protect women's identity, instead of waiting for fathers and husbands to "allow" it?

[...]

Quote:
As well, I would submit that the Quebec law does not properly get rid of patriarchal naming, as it does allow for the mother's (or father's mother's) maiden names to be used as the child's last name.

I have no clue what you mean by that sentence.

 

martin dufresne

She probably means that the mother's maiden name is still a male's name, that of her father.

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

 Don't you think it's time the rest of Canada enacted laws to protect women's identity, instead of waiting for fathers and husbands to "allow" it?

Not allowing them to take their husband's name is "protecting women's identity"? I can't think of any women who when thinking about the many things that comprise their "identity" would point to their last name. And why is forcing them to keep a name so much more important to a man like you than it seems to be to a lot of women?

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:
Don't you think it's time the rest of Canada enacted laws to protect women's identity, instead of waiting for fathers and husbands to "allow" it?

 

We couldn't just let women who want to keep their own name say "sorry, but I'm not marrying you if I don't keep my own name"?

 

This sounds like a pretty paternalistic way to "save" women from The Patriarchy. Is it really the case that they need all of our help in making their own choices? I know so many women who've kept their own names, and didn't require the force of law to make that decision or anything.

Unionist

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

 And why is forcing them to keep a name so much more important to a man like you than it seems to be to a lot of women?

It's not important to "a man like me". It's important to Québec society, which at the urging of women's organizations, legislated this almost 30 years ago.

Could someone explain to me why the overwhelming majority of married women in the rest of Canada take their husbands' names - and how that's not one of the many manifestations of the second-class status of women?

Is there something mysterious about this phenomenon on a progressive discussion board?

I'd also like to know how children get their surnames in the rest of Canada. I've explained in detail how it works here - and it's not Daddy's name by default.

Snert wrote:
This sounds like a pretty paternalistic way to "save" women from The Patriarchy.

You think it was "paternalistic" for women's groups to stop the automatic name-change of women and children to match Daddy's name? That's not a view worth debating.

Star Spangled C...

Unionist wrote:

Could someone explain to me why the overwhelming majority of married women in the rest of Canada take their husbands' names - and how that's not one of the many manifestations of the second-class status of women?

I, personally, can't explain why because I'm not a woman who decided to take her husband's name. Why don't you ask some of THEM instead of presuming to speak on their behalf?

I know MY wife chose it because she likes the sense of tradition, she wanted us and the kids to all have the same name and because after several years of living together in a common law type of situation and then getting married, taking my name made us "feel more like a family" - that having the same name made our relationship something different than jsut two people who lived under the same roof, split the bills and enjoyed having sex together. That we were "starting something new" as one unit, not just as two individuals with mutual interests.

If the "overwhelming majority" of women choose to take their husband's name, could a possible explanation maybe, jsut maybe, be that they do so because that's what they prefer?? If the overwhelming majority of Canadians eat pizza on a regular basis that's probably evidence that they ENJOY PIZZA. Sometimes the simplest explanation is the right one.

And I'm sure if you asked my wife to describe herself, I highly doubt that a woman as highly educated, successful and happy as she is would consider herself anything close to "second class" because she chose to take my name.

Snert Snert's picture

Quote:

You think it was "paternalistic" for women's groups to stop the automatic name-change of women and children to match Daddy's name? That's not a view worth debating.

 

To make the option to retain one's birth name available? No, I'd agree that's a good thing. Choice is a good thing.

 

To legislate it so that even a woman who wants to take her husband's name cannot? That's paternalistic.

 

And while you may think it impossible that women in the modern era would want to do such a regressive thing, remember that in parts of the world, Canada included, we cut the tips of boys' penises off for no better reason, and yearly many of us gather 'round a dead, decorated tree to sing songs about "figgy puddings" and other anachronisms we'll never encounter in the real world. People seem to have some desire for these sorts of traditions, bizarre and anachronistic or not, and excluding circumcision, I'm a whole lot more comfortable leaving those choices up to individuals.

remind remind's picture

"tradition" = patriarchial indoctrination.

I agree snert, circumcision  should not be up to others to decide.

 

 

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

this made me lol france hmm where they ban it ok. Whats it really more excuses to fucc wit ppl in the suburbs of major cities cuz thats where the hood is. Cops are afraid to go in there cuz they get SOS. This just a rally taking advantage of the racist attitudes of the majority french population to turn it into votes beacuse in the majority of cases there would be no way to enforce it. For muslim women who work in corporations obv there would be and you would have ppl talkin behind the womenz bacc about it.

 

Does any1 here even know how the hijab and burqa started? It started in arab culture because of 2 mains things. 1. Beauty Standards and 2. War. The beauty standrads being that with their invansions a white skinned ppl were now in the desert but the beauty standard was still white skin in women. Nuff said. War being that men used to carry off on horsebacc the women they found attractive to add to their harem. That's what it is and they added modesty as the way to disguise it because they knew that otherwise it would be eventually given up or if they wanted islam to spread and dif cultures having dif beauty standards it wouldnt work. Str8 up

 

Like not eating pork. Main reason is because it spoils fast in heat. Say god told u not to n there u go.

 

edit - Wanted to add ye it is opression n that the reasons it started and is justified. I just dont like that only 1 group being targetted and would could be argued as being of the 2 minorities france hates the most (arabs and africans code word for both ends up being muslims)

Cueball Cueball's picture

Look. You can't legislate morality. You can't legislate attitude. It is that simple. What you can do is legislate concrete things that will create self respect by giving people the fundamental control over their daily lives by providing them with equal opportunities. Having those opportunities will give people personal power, and that power will force others who want to exploit and oppress people to respect other people.

Other changes, such as the normalized behaviours will change once society respects people, once that happens people will learn to respect themselves.

Star Spangled C...

remind wrote:

"tradition" = patriarchial indoctrination.

 

Remind, you've never met my wife. You don't know my wife. So how about you hold off the armchair psycho-analysis about how she's been "indoctrinated" by the "patriarchy"?  And how about you make your own decisions, she make her own decisions and realize that if you happen to disagree it's not a matter of one of you being 'right" or "wrong" but jsut two people freely making different choices?

Unionist

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Could someone explain to me why the overwhelming majority of married women in the rest of Canada take their husbands' names - and how that's not one of the many manifestations of the second-class status of women?

I, personally, can't explain why because I'm not a woman who decided to take her husband's name. Why don't you ask some of THEM instead of presuming to speak on their behalf?

Because I know the answer. They "chose" their husband's name for the same reason my mother did. They "chose" their husband's name for the same reason they "chose" to do the housework. They "chose" their husband's name for the same reason the family "decided" "freely" that Hubby should be the "breadwinner". They "chose" their husband's name for the same reason they "chose" to name the kids after the husband. And to stay home with the kids.

These are "freedoms" which are akin to the "freedom" of all citizens, rich or poor, to sleep under bridges. I oppose these freedoms. If a woman writes to Elections Canada and says, "I hereby wish to give up my right to vote in perpetuity", I would oppose any amendment to the law which would allow such a freedom.

I do not believe the equality of women is a matter of individual freedom. Either all women achieve equality with men in the eyes of society and the law, or the struggle is lost. If that means "affirmative action" to take away some so-called "freedoms" from some individuals (the freedom to be a second-class citizen), then that's a price we must pay.

 

Unionist

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:

remind wrote:

"tradition" = patriarchial indoctrination.

 

Remind, you've never met my wife. You don't know my wife. So how about you hold off the armchair psycho-analysis about how she's been "indoctrinated" by the "patriarchy"?

I don't think remind was analyzing your wife. I think she was analyzing you. You have provided a lot of material in your posts to enable some conclusions to be drawn. And I must say, I agree with remind's conclusions.

martin dufresne

Why don't you ask some of THEM instead of presuming to speak on their behalf?

SSC, am I right in observing that you presume the right to silence anyone speaking in support of political minorities except members of each specific minority? And I am sure that even then, you would try to silence that person if her opinions disagreed with yours (a fair bet), using the pretext that she can't speak for all other members of her group...

(I imagine that it isn't easy for you every day on Babble.Tongue out)

Jabberwock

Am I going to get piled on because I chose to take my husband's name?

Here is why:

1) I like it better than my maiden name. My maiden name is a little unusual and I got teased about it as a kid.  Also, it has alliterative and assonant resonance with my first name.

2) I thought it would be nice if my husband, my kids, and I all had the same name. It makes life easier. And I know there are alternatives. My friend and her husband had two sons. One took the mom's name, and one took the dad's. Now the kids get asked all the time if they are half brothers or "real" brothers. Yes, it is wrong on many levels that people assume this, but people do, and kids shouldn't have to fight that battle. BTW, all my friends who grew up with hyphenated names eventually dropped one name.

And that is it.

As far as circumcision goes, my husband is circumcised:   I thought he should make the decison, when our first son was born, as to whether we should have it done. He said no, absolutely not. And I am glad, cause by the time kid number two came around seven years later, he would have been circumcised over my dead body. My position has become more entrenched over the years.

 

Cueball Cueball's picture

A couple of friends of mine exchanged last names.

Star Spangled C...

martin dufresne wrote:

SSC, am I right in observing that you presume the right to silence anyone speaking in support of political minorities except members of each specific minority?

a) women aren;t a minority.

b) no, not presuming the "right" to silence anybody. I jsut don't like the idea of people taking away the RIGHT of women to decide on their own fucking name.

c) no one was "speaking on behalf" of women. There are millions of women in Canada. They ahve different views, different values, etc. Some probably recoil at the idea of taking their husband's last name. I would never "presume" to tell them that they HAD to take it. Other women like the idea. I would never "presume" to tell THEM that they COULDN'T take it.

martin dufresne

Women are a political minority, which is what I wrote. (Grasping at straws, are you?)

Unionist

Jabberwock wrote:

Am I going to get piled on because I chose to take my husband's name?

Certainly not.

But most women in Canada (outside Québec) take their husband's name. Do you think this is a coincidence?

 

Jabberwock

No.

But I wonder if what was once a patriarchal construct has become more a matter of convenience. Of course, I recognize and respect that some cannot swallow the patriarchal implications of taking one's husband's name.

If I was in a profession where my name recognition was important, I would likely have kept my own name, or perhaps kept it professionally and used my husband's last name socially.

Practically speaking, since my maiden name belonged to my father, and my children would bear my husband's name, hanging onto one man's name over another would not personally compromise my feminist principles.

Jabberwock

Edited for double post.

Unionist

Jabberwock, I was sincerely trying to move the discussion beyond your personal life. Do you know why women in Canada take their husband's name? It's a serious question. How can it be a matter of "convenience"? I don't understand that.

Ghislaine

Unionist wrote:

Ghislaine wrote:

So, are there any stats about what is still the usual option in Quebec? I would assume that the majority still take the father's name.

I have no stats on children's names, but your assumption is very telling. I can, however, give you stats about the percentage of women who take their husband's name: Zero percent. Don't you think it's time the rest of Canada enacted laws to protect women's identity, instead of waiting for fathers and husbands to "allow" it?

[...]

Quote:
As well, I would submit that the Quebec law does not properly get rid of patriarchal naming, as it does allow for the mother's (or father's mother's) maiden names to be used as the child's last name.

I have no clue what you mean by that sentence.

 

 

Under your example, both maiden names of the child's grandmothers are excluded from consideration.

I just understand why you refuse to allow women to have the choice? You support the choice of women to wear the burqa, which is surely more patriarchal. It involves the belief that 50%+ of the pop. should never feel the sun on their skin unless in a women-only enclosed space. I am just saying that such things should not be legislated.

I agree that parents should have the right to use whatever last name they want for children.  However, women should also be able to choose to keep their (father's) name, change to their mother's maiden name, take their husband's name or create a whole new name if they want.

I just don't get the Quebec position of not allowing a woman to take her husband's name (or vice versa). We don't have such a legal situation in PEI, however there are many women who keep their own names. Three of my close friends have done this. As I wrote about my brother who will be marrying a man, they are going to create a new last name. Marriage has evolved quite a bit and I prefer a legal scenario where each couple or family decides for themselves. The choice I making is being made quite freely and like jabberwck there were some important considerations that had nothing to do with patriarchal naming structures.

Pages

Topic locked