this post was submitted on 27 Aug 2023
21 points (100.0% liked)

Europe

8324 readers
1 users here now

News/Interesting Stories/Beautiful Pictures from Europe ๐Ÿ‡ช๐Ÿ‡บ

(Current banner: Thunder mountain, Germany, ๐Ÿ‡ฉ๐Ÿ‡ช ) Feel free to post submissions for banner pictures

Rules

(This list is obviously incomplete, but it will get expanded when necessary)

  1. Be nice to each other (e.g. No direct insults against each other);
  2. No racism, antisemitism, dehumanisation of minorities or glorification of National Socialism allowed;
  3. No posts linking to mis-information funded by foreign states or billionaires.

Also check out [email protected]

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yeah, the western value of telling women what they can and cannot wear... In this regard the male relatives you speak off are very well integrated according to this logic.

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are altering facts. We are not talking about women, we are talking about little girls. Whatever your opinion is, you still have to remember this

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (2 children)

what constitutes little girls to you? Normalment this kind of attire is worn for religious reasons starting with puberty, so 12+. And even then the question still stands, why the state should decide what girls must not wear

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Considering 12 years olds as women is insanity. The legal boundary is 18

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Considering 12 years old to not have any form of self consciousness and decision making is insanity. Also what kind of pedo-stuff is it to force teenage girls to wear clothes that are deemed revealing enough?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who the hell said children had no form of self consciousness and decision making? It's funny to see you trying to reverse the implicit accusation I made in my last comment. Doesn't make sense btw

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago

That is the implication when you say it is necessary to ban them from wearing certain clothes bevause you falsely assume they'd all be forced to wear it and never could wear it out of their own decision

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because it is an excellent tool to oppress and separate woman and girls from, for example, non-believers. It's also a way to make them remember the religious nonsensical rules all the time. That's the whole reason these veils exist.

[โ€“] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

So we should try to appeal to them for our values by doing the same thing, making opressive rules about what they can and cannot wear?

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Yes, I think when rules can counter opression that's a good thing.

[โ€“] [email protected] -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

opressive rules do not countrr opression. They just change the opressor

[โ€“] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Not every rule is oppressive. For it to be considered oppressive the result has to be harmful. Why is it harmful when girls don't cover their bodies?

If they really chose to cover their bodies freely, so not because they are scared or because they were told that's wrong, where's the harm in not wearing it at school?