- cross-posted to:
- globalnews
- cross-posted to:
- globalnews
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/1476531
Archived version: https://archive.ph/r4ZKz
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230815100118/https://www.euronews.com/culture/2023/08/14/muslim-women-harassed-at-northern-italian-beach-for-wearing-modest-clothing
You must log in or register to comment.
I think burkinis are dumb, personally, but I don’t give a damn what people wear. This is just typical ingroup-outgroup postering fueled by a proto fascist government, standard stuff really. Also, hygiene? Bro, it’s the ocean, a layer of clothing extra ain’t gonna make a difference.
Burkinis are great for anyone wanting to protect their skin without reapplying SPF 50 every 2 hours.
Exactly, they are really practical and they allow more people to enjoy the beach.
Great marketing argument to sell freedom suppressing items. What’s next? Winter is cold and burkas are great at keeping you warm?
Are scarfs “freedom suppressing items” too? Beanies? A burkini is literally just a wet suit with an overskirt & hijab (although most diving suits also have head coverings). Comparing that to a burka is bonkers and you know it. The idea of something suppressing freedom that is worn out of their own free notion is completely ridiculous. Telling others what to wear is exactly the problem here, and that goes in both directions.
It’s not neoprene, it’s made of the same stuff swimsuits are made of. It just keeps the sun off more parts of you.
I was obviously referring to its visual properties?
Oh okay sorry. I am thinking about getting a burkini or rash shirt/shorts now that the hole in the ozone is getting worse again, so I’m kind of focused on its practical properties.
No religion is demanding that women specifically wear scarfs or beanies. Denying that this mandate (burkinis and other items) is a religious one, wose ultimate purpose is to separate women from men is at least a denial, at most a support for totalitarian propaganda
What do you think a hijab is? The whole point of it is to be covered, not to be pedantic about it, like you are right now. The difference is whether someone dictates you to cover up, or whether you cover up on your own free will. And guess which one is freedom of choice?
A hidjab serves the same purpose as the burkini, to artificially differentiate women from men and create a segregated society where women have fewer rights. Individual choice or not, the end result is the same.
I’ve seen freedom of choice when a social group pushes their norm on everyone. Either you carve or you leave. This is a very powerful tool to impose norms on people, women particularly. What freedom of choice do you have when you are a 15 yo girl with parents, brothers, cousins, etc who tell you that you have to wear “modest” clothing (fuck that phrase by the way, are men modest with their shorts and t-shirts?)? Either you carve or you break with your social group.
Lmao. How is it freedom suppressing if they choose to wear it? Look, in my opinion all religions are made up nonsense anyway (especially Christianity) but people are allowed to believe what they want and as long as they’re not harming others then what the fuck does it matter? You make it sound they’re trying to force nonmuslims to wear their outfits, which they are not. Meanwhile, at least in the US, God is thrown in our faces every which way. It’s in our fucking pledge of allegiance. I’d say that’s much more freedom suppressing than some women wearing burkinis at a beach. Plus most muslims I’ve met are wonderfully open and lovely people compared to nasty bigots in Christianity.
I am not going to argue which religious group is better than the others. In my view, they all support fairy tales and want others to respect or even support these tales.
I’m sorry but it’s silly to suggest that someone who chooses to buy an item of clothing is magically having their freedom suppressed by it. That’s not how any of this works.
If we get a hot summer this year I will most likely wear a rash shirt or burkini. New Zealand and Australia have the highest skin cancer rates in the world, because we live next to the hole in the ozone.
The hole opened early this year, it will be bigger than usual.
Yeah, and how many lmen wear burkibis on those beaches?
The burkini was invented in Australia to help people integrate into Australian culture. Interesting article here.
The male equivalent is the rash shirt and pants. All these things are becoming more common for people to wear because of melanoma.
If I choose to cover up for whatever reason, that’s my choice and it isn’t anyone else’s business.
I don’t even know where you’re going with this.
As these things were invented and trademarked in Australia and nearly half of them are bought by non-muslims for exact that reason, it is indeed great marketing.
And you are just spouting none-sense…
How many men are wearing them?
How many men are wearing bikinis?
You know very well that the equivalent of bikinis are speedos, your comment is not made in good faith.
Winter is cold and burkas are great at keeping you warm?
I mean if someone wears a burka for that reason who are you to tell them no?
Of course, then why don’ men wear them, if burkas are not a tool to separate people based on their genders and establish a segregated society where people of different gendes have diferents rights?
Why don’ men wear skirts or dresses?
If you are arguing that anyone should be able to wear whatever they want, regardless of gender or religion, I agree with you. But I know that’s not what you’re saying.
I am all for men wearing skirts and dresses. No law is forbidding them to do so, at least in Europe.
How many men are wearing them?
Well, the hole in the ozone is getting worse again so as someone who lives near it, I’m looking at burkinis/rash shirts for the coming summer.
I don’t want skin cancer.
This.
Also, these men trying to dictate what women wear never seem to consider just how uncomfortable they make us in public spaces and that many (of all, if any religion) choose to cover up to avoid their gaze (as well as other reasons). They also never seem to have an issue with nuns… 🤔🤔🤔Catholicism had its fair share of totalitarian rules. Europeans fought back for 200 years in order to free themselves from their freedom suppressing ideology. Nuns attire serves the same purpose of oppressing women and I holdbthemnin the same contempt.
Ok but what about Christian monks, does the habit they wear serve the purpose of oppressing men.
Of course it doesn’t, because that would involve @henrivolney, a man throwing a tantrum over women choosing to wear a bathing suit, being capable of critical thinking.
In a way they do. Their costume is a way to say that they put their life under the authority of a fictional character. The difference is that monks, Christians, Buddhists or Muslims, live apart from society in monasteries. Hidjabs and burkinis are a way to separate women on a daily basis among their secular peers, inside their social fabric.
They look like derpy wet suits. Although some are definitely worse looking than others.
Hygiene is indeed a weird argument when you swim in a giant fish toilet.The hygiene part made me laugh, given the photo. That beach is full of children most likely peeing in the water and there’s a container ship in the distance, discharging god knows what into the sea.
Someone whose swimsuit has a bit more material in it is not a threat.
I read a survey once that had a large number of adults pee in the water too. It’s not just children.
Now that you mention it, I do myself, but not if there are people nearby.
That beach looks like a hellscape to be honest, there are just way too many people there. I bet the water has things like sticking plasters floating in it.
I just stay out of the sun. As an ignorant Italian in my youth I already caused who knows how much damage being taken to the beach by my parents all the time. I will cover up and wear a very large brimmed hat but mostly just stay indoors. Fuck cancer.
Saying burkinis are dumb is a really dumb thing to say.
For some bucket hats are dumb, but some people wear them. Not your place to judge. Also, it allows people of certain believes to have an equal access to commodities like going to a beach and go for a swim in a public.
In this regards, I would say, they are pretty smart.
Burkinis are absolutely a human horror that contradict every advamcement of women emancipation. They are the symbol of a society of apartheid in which women have fewer rights than men. But yes, people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, including nothing if it is their choice.
If somebody is forced (!) to dress in a specific way, that’s wrong. But if somebody chooses (!) to wear them for religious reasons, who am I to judge that?
My point is, there is nothing inherently wrong with burkinis - the context in which some individuals are wearing them might be wrong.
I 100% agree with you, that nobody should be forced to wear something that they don’t want to.
if somebody chooses (!) to wear them for religious
Not how totalitarianism works. How many Germains chose to be nazis un the 1930s? How many Russians chose to be communists in the 1950s? Totalitarian is a force that negates individual choice with a set of rules, anathemas and violence, with the ultimate objectve of a uniform society where everybody adheres to the exact same ideology. Burkinis are one of the tools used to enforce said ideology.
It isnt really a choice if the other option is being sent to prison.
Being a Nazi and wearing a specific kind of bathing suit are two wildly different levels of social impact. Please argue in good faith next time.
OK, see you on the beach with your Nazi uniform, we’ll continue this conversationthrn
TIL believing in a woman’s freedom to choose her swimwear makes me a Nazi.
I think you took it too far.
I won’t agree with you, and I don’t think there is anything positive you want to share.
You’re right. Nothing positive to say about totalitarianism.
Are you being unyieldingly obtuse on purpose or are you actually this fucking stupid?
I think Crocs are a human horror…
But that’s just my opinion. Other people can wear whatever the fuck they want. I won’t judge… (out loud).
Hell, judge all you want, even. Just don’t go harassing people for wearing them and you’re well within your rights.
40% of people who buy it aren’t even Muslim,
But yes, people should be allowed to wear whatever they want, including nothing if it is their choice.
except those who choose to wear burkinis, apparently.
Not what I wrote. I wrote it is a tool for totalitarism, not that I wanted it banned.
But it’s not. It was invented by a Lebanese woman living in Australia. She had the choice to make it and no Muslim woman is forced to wear one.
You called them a human horror. What person calls something a human horror and proceeds to do anything but advocate for a ban? What we can do is acknowledge that burkinis were created for one purpose and now people are using them for sun protection and/or personal comfort almost as much as religious suppression. Acknowledging nuance is ok, we don’t need to try to force everything to be so black and white.
What you wrote doesn’t actually matter, all the rest of us can see is:
“WHaAAa!!1 wheN WilL IT bE mY TurN To hAraSs WoMEN wHO HuRt NO onE bUt mY TINy YEt mASSiVElY overinfLATEd frAgIlE eGo”
So you can pretend to care about women all you like, but when your only argument is that you want to be the one controlling them and dictating what they wear, not those other men, you’re never actually going to fool anyone in the believing you. 🤷♀️
You tone is turning nasty, I am blocking you.
let them judge. as long as they don’t force their opinion on others; that’s good enough. Cultural difference, that’s it.
“How dare muslims tell women what to wear, we want to be the ones who tell them what to wear.”
Pretty much my thoughts. Who the hell is gate keeping a public beach? Europeans are whacked out. Banning burkinis was beyond moronic, and now this?
I don’t think this is about “Europeans” so much as it’s about ignorance.
Europeans actually working in the space of migrant women’s human rights have pointed out that mainstream society imposing restrictions on their clothes just makes it harder for them to participate in social spaces and be part of the wider society.
Europeans have every right to fight a totalitarian ideology that is actively trying to destroy their chore values. Also, a majority of Muslims don’t wear burkinis.
destroy their chore values.
Death to Western chores! Allah Akbar
The one Islamic tenet I can get behind. No more washing dishes! Death to the act of taking out the trash!
Not sure if you are joking, not sure if people who were run over in Nice or blown up in Madrid would find it funny either
This is not how you do that.
Being authoritarian about other people’s clothing is not a modern European core value.
That’s why I am not advocating for a ban, simply pointing that it is a tool to spread a totalitarian ideoligy
It’s different things to different people. Banning it is authoritarian.
Europeans have every right to fight a totalitarian ideology that is actively trying to destroy their chore values.
Which I will do by blocking you for that piece of right-wing totalitarian idiological propaganda bullshit…
The value of chores shall not be diminished! Those dishes are going to be sparkeling!
This is just prejudice mixed with ridiculousness. Yes covering head to toe seems weird based on western culture. But it doesn’t hurt anything at all, there are certainly no hygiene issues. Do these people know what’s in the ocean? Everything, that’s what, you name it, it’s in there. A bit of cloth isn’t going to affect the ocean .00000000000001%.
Except… That’s not how the ocean works? There are localized effects to pollution. You can test this by spilling oil in your nearest ocean. Watch how it disperses, and watch how it doesn’t actually disperse that far away from you because of currents and whatnot.
Not justifying the OP, but your statement is really inaccurate.
How much pollution do you expect to get off a piece of cloth that’s presumably been washed versus a regular person’s body? Is it really inaccurate to say it isn’t a concern pollution wise? Is it worth bringing up in this context? Despite your disclaimer, aren’t you giving fuel to the idea that the complaints had some merit?
That’s 100% correct though I’d like to add the caveat that you shouldn’t swim in clothing – Burkinis are made for swimming, of course, and they’re fine, but the article says nothing about what the woman actually wore, if you’re about to go swimming in loose-fitting ordinary cloth yes you should absolutely be stopped.
We got basic rescue swimmer qualifications in school (DLRG Bronze) and part of that was swimming in clothing (in particular, age-old ill-fitting flecktarn they picked up somewhere) and then undressing while in water, it is not easy even if you’re a stellar swimmer, if you can barely hold yourself over water without panicking (that’s like the default skill level of people who can supposedly swim) you’re done for. Doubly so on the fucking beach with waves and undertow and everything.
You can test this by spilling oil in your nearest ocean.
Okay, but I’m telling the authorities it was your idea.
Funny. Normally right-wingers are trying to force women to wear more clothing. These same knuckle draggers were no doubt beside themselves in outrage when the bikini was first invented.
chauvinist wojack: they don’t know they’re being oppressed
When did beachwear rules become more than “if you are of age, cover your private parts (unless its a nudist beach)”? What the age is and what “private parts” mean changes from culture to culture, of course.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
The right-wing mayor of the small town of Monfalcone in Friuli-Venezia Giulia wrote a letter to the Muslim community saying the territory shouldn’t accept the “Islamization” of their customs and to respect the region’s rules on beachwear.
The Italian constitution guarantees full freedom to its citizens but several governments, largely in the north of the country, have attempted to ban various types of head coverings over the years.
In 2006, the Regional Administrative Tribunal of Friuli-Venezia Giulia ruled that the mayor of Trieste could not ban head coverings for security reasons under the 152/1975 because it violated people’s religious freedoms.
The 152/1975 anti-terrorism law states that people cannot wear masks or motorcycle helmets in public to evade identification.
This law has been cited multiple times as cause for banning religious head and face coverings in the northern regions of Friuli-Venezia Giulia and Lombardy, whose regional and local governments have historically been controlled by either the right-wing Forza Italia party or the far-right Lega party.
In 2021, the European Court of Justice ruled that people who work with the public who refuse to remove their hijab or other religious or ideological clothing could be fired from their job in order to present a “neutral image towards customers or to prevent social disputes.”
I’m a bot and I’m open source!
i live in a country of clowns
Hey guys, hey, guys, guys hey.
Maybe, hear me out guys.
Maybe we should, guys, maybe we should stop fighting amongst ourselves and all turn our hatred and frustrations to the ones actually making our lives harder?
deleted by creator
Burkas need to go. Women should have equal rights to men. Modern Islam interpretations don’t believe in equal rights and many women are forced to cover up. Fuck that. As more people come into the west seeking something better, they need to abandon some of their culture that is retrogressive. Burkas as retrogressive. It’s weird how many in the west, particularly on the far left, think it’s important to maintain burkas. I think a person should be able to wear whatever they want, fundamentally, but I’m confident that many of these women didn’t choose to cover up their whole life.
I know it’s just an anecdote, but I’ve know quite a few Muslim women that prefer to wear it. I’ve also met many who don’t like to wear them. Is it really fair to ban it for the ones that actually choose to wear it?
Women choosing to dress conservatively isn’t exactly something foreign to Italians. Let’s not forget that nuns also wear very similar clothing and cover their hair. That’s not so different from a hijab.
Banning the burqa is limiting agency just as much as mandating it. Yeah, I think veiling etc. is honestly a stupid and ridiculously misogynistic custom, but I don’t think the fix is just another rule to limit women’s autonomy, but in a different way than before.
But we should ban leopard print clothing.
And mandate overalls. Just overalls. Nothing underneath.
hijabs are cute ngl, people are dumb
plus it gives you a great excuse to avoid washing your hair for a day or two while still looking snazzy
I’m happy to ban religious veils like nun hats (whatever they are called) and burkas/burqas as problematic religious symbols of misogyny. These religious relics are embedded deep into a culture and that part of the culture is misogynistic and discriminatory.
I don’t know, but I would bet many of the women that “prefer” wearing them prefer it because they believe they would be shunned otherwise from their support system. They “prefer” it in part because they don’t know anything different, and their own community has enforced it as soon as they went through puberty. What does it even mean to prefer something when you haven’t ever experienced not wearing it for an extended time without all your local support group shunning you? Is that really a preference?
But you can’t tell me these things are always comfortable. They look miserably uncomfortable in many situations and must cause a lot of undue heat and such. But the culture that forced these women to wear them runs deep. That part of culture needs to be eradicated.
We should also ban long hair.
I’m sure plenty of women only prefer to have long hair because they think they would be shunned or stan out if they cut it short.
I’m all for people getting to wear their hair like they want, but I’m confident that many women would actually prefer to wear their hair short, and so can’t be trusted to make that choice for themselves or express an honest opinion about it.
The first step in women’s liberation is making it clear that they lack agency and that other people know what’s best for them.
We’re all subject the cultural norms of the society that we live in. Particularly with religious norms, maintaining them can be coercive.
But that doesn’t mean that burkas, in and of themselves, are regressive.
Shouldn’t the goal be to create a space that is free of coercion so people can actually choose to wear it if they want to? Outright banning them is just enforcing a different cultural norm.
I think a person should be able to wear whatever they want, fundamentally, but I’m confident that many of these women didn’t choose to cover up their whole life.
Why don’t you go talk to some Muslim women and actually seek their opinions on these things instead of just assuming what they want?
As more people come into the west seeking something better, they need to abandon some of their culture that is retrogressive. Burkas as retrogressive.
No, actually. If they’ve had to come to the West because the West keeps bombing the shit out of their homes, they owe the West jack shit. Whether or not the Islamic community wants to change some of its cultural practices to adapt to the West is for Muslims to decide and Muslims only.
This is just sexpat white saviorism 101 wrapped up with progressive language.
Internalized Sexism.
“The exact same conclusion as Islamophobic chuds, except I’m being feminist. Trust me.”
It’s possible to be right for the wrong reasons. Don’t let what “chuds” think define your moral code.
Chuds, like broken clocks, are occasionally correct. The key is that if you think you’re looking at a broken clock, you need to check that the clock is working.
We do that by looking at how we got to that conclusion that resembles a chud conclusion and examining the differences between our conclusion and theirs as well.
In this case, the user I was replying to clearly had not talked to many (or any) Muslim women and is simply assuming that women don’t like Islamic clothing because it looks uncomfortable. By that same reasoning, we should also ban neckties and high heels.
If the user got to the same conclusion as the chuds using such poor reasoning, I think it’s valid to point out that they might be chud adjacent.
The west is not some evil entity as you make them out to be. Sure, the west has done some bad shit, but it is far more progressive than many Islamic states that actively enforce misogyny.
It seems to be in vogue these days, especially with people that lean left, to shit on the US and the West. I find it unfortunate that so many privileged people in the west shit think it’s so cool to make their own culture out to be the aggressors and bad guys. They think that, by describing the west in a negative light, they can elevate themselves out of it or something.
I agree that banning shit is not a good idea, fundamentally, but when a culture brings in dumb shit, people should resist that dumb shit and adopt the good stuff. That’s the idea of a melting pot.
Most of the West by land area is built upon the graveyard of peoples slaughtered for their land and on the backs of people enslaved for their labor, but yeah that’s just “some bad shit”.
How about you Westoids deal with your own litany of unspeakable crimes against humanity by giving back your stolen lands and paying full restitution to the surviving descendants of your victims before you get on your high horse about how the Islamic world you’ve continuously bombed for the last two decades isn’t “progressive” enough.
Maybe people wouldn’t have to flee their homes and bring their “dumb shit” with them if you didn’t keep blowing their shit up.
Ah the classic stolen lands argument. You seem to think that the lands were widely populated with a dense civilization by people that had a concept of land ownership. You might be surprised to know that the americas were not densely populated in the slightest and most of the people who migrated to the americas through Siberia (the “natives,” who are actually just early migrants from the Middle East like all early Homo sapiens) don’t always have a concept of land ownership because they lived nomadic lives.
Your arguments are juvenile.
Ahh I see. So genocide is a-okay as long as the victims weren’t densely populated and didn’t think of land in line with the European sense of ownership.
Really, if they didn’t want to be brutally murdered, there should have been more of them and they should have created bits of paper saying who owned what land.
Makes sense.
Your argument is in fashion, but it’s simply not the reality. I suppose your argument is so popular and widespread because the history curriculum has not done a good job educating people.
Ah yes, we should liberate women by restricting their freedom to wear what they want to wear
the western white knight is here to let Muslim women know they don’t know what they’re doing because they’re small-minded and brainwashedAlso, weird how you bring up burqas under an article that doesn’t mention burqas. And you make it sound like only far-leftists are against a burqa ban when most liberals/moderates tend to be too.
High heels are actively and permanently injurious to the bodies of women in a way hijabs and burkas aren’t. I never see these “feminists” argue for the banning of high heels.
I wonder why
Who gives a shit what people wear? Just because you don’t like something doesn’t mean it should be banned. People like to cry about the nanny state and then go all in for regulating things that personally offend them yet ultimately cause no harm.
Devil’s advocate, but by that logic you’d be good with people wandering around with swastikas proudly displayed?
For my opinion, I don’t think banning clothing or telling women what to wear is the answer but religious items are definitely symbols of sometimes very sexist ideologies. I just wish true equality was achievable so these stupid conversations and laws didn’t exist. Honestly, I don’t spend a whole lot of time thinking about it, though.
Good.
Wisdom: If you’re the only one wearing a burkini you’re the immodest extremist in the mix drawing attention to yourself.
The definition of “modest” changes over time and is highly cultural and situational.
Harassing a woman to dress like everyone else as to avoid attention is no better than telling a woman what she has to wear. You’re literally just doing the exact same thing as is done to these women but in the reverse. Just let people wear what they want to wear.
As long as it doesn’t infringe on anyone’s rights people should be free to wear whatever they like without being harassed. Plus too much sun heightens the risk of skin cancer so covering up is actually the smart choice.
yeah. as long as you arent putting yourself, and thus rescue personal, at risk it shouldnt matter. like if someone wanted to swim in a down jacket id hope people would try and stop them as thats dumb.
