Ban the burka?
Look under the mask - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TlkxlzTZc48
(http://eyugoslavia.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/burka-womenjpg.jpg)
Ughh! Pat Condell video! He's a total reactionary! He's very un-dude dude!
:P
Quote from: Dave on January 15, 2012, 12:26:10 PM
Ughh! Pat Condell video! He's a total reactionary! He's very un-dude dude!
:P
The whole burka thing going on; that's just like his opinion, man.
I actually do agree with some of what he said.
Except that covering the face does have something to do with Islam.
The wives of Mohamed covered their faces.
It was done for practical reasons. Anonymity was a matter of security and privacy.
It was adopted by the culture as a norm and fashion.
It is not in the Qur'an or part of the religion. It is cultural.
That said I agree with much of what he said. In essence I think it's reasonable to outlaw hiding a person's identity regardless of religion. And it is certainly reasonable to ban forcing women to hide there faces. But sadly this is actually not usually the case. Islamic woman typically want to hide their faces and would feel naked without doing so. It's cultural. Perhaps a reflection of a misogynistic culture but none the less fully engrained. The extent of it differs by society though. In some societies the woman only wear a head scarf and don't cover their faces. Either way it is backward but in many Islamic cultures it's not compulsory. Sort of like how the courts have found that woman have the right to go topless here in the US. Sadly it hasn't caught on though.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 17, 2012, 09:50:25 AM
I actually do agree with him.
Except that covering the face does have something to do with Islam.
The wives of Abraham covered their faces.
It was done for practical reasons. Anonymity was a matter of security and privacy.
It was adopted by the culture as a norm and fashion.
It is not in the Qur'an or part of the religion. It is cultural.
That said I agree with much of what he said. In essence I think it's reasonable to outlaw hiding a person's identity regardless of religion.
I'm with you there BD. Reverse religious discrimination has gone too far... to the point that my own country, Canada, has bent over backwards too far. A Canadian iconic institution - the RCMP - has even been over-run by political correctness.
http://www.nriinternet.com/CANADA/POLICE/Manjit_Singh/index.htm
Call me a racist if you want, but I see that as watering down our own culture for the sake of politeness.
It's complicated isn't it?
I'm for maintaining a certain culture at home that others are expected to conform with.
In our country the Bhurka is abhorrent. IMHO they need to respect our culture or stay home.
It is tradition for sure not religious. I lived in Abu Dhabi and Dubai for ten years and it was mainly the older women who wore a form of burqa ie a black dress and a gold face mask...here's the latest trend!
http://observers.france24.com/content/20091207-hot-new-trend-burqa-shaped-sunglasses-dubai (http://observers.france24.com/content/20091207-hot-new-trend-burqa-shaped-sunglasses-dubai)
A lot of the younger girls wear an almost translucent black dress and underneath ...whow...it's all designer clothes and risque tops!
Peace
I'm sure there is some type of kink associated with it.
Yup just googled "burka porn".
OH HELL YEAH!
GOOD STUFF!
BRING IN THE BURKA PORN!
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/gallery/burqa/brq37.jpg)
This one not so hot.
http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/gallery/burqa/brq15.jpg (http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/gallery/burqa/brq15.jpg)
Eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewwwwwwwugh! :(
I guess they cover up for good reason!
sorry fellers but the administrators felt that the miss afghanistan pic was racist. but we're all for freedom of speech so i'm changing the pic to a link. hope you don't think that's us being too fascist. let your thoughts be known here and if there's enough outrage, we'll consider reversing our stance.
Sorry been actually doing my day job for a couple of days so not been on line (bummer).
I would also mention that this sort of image doesn't help our (negative) reputation for being a bunch of misogynists (or a basically phallocentric religion/group).
one of the problems inherent in dudeism is that by and large we're nice people who don't like to cause offense, but on the other hand we're also partially tricksters and provocateurs and ironists. and we reject sacred cows.
that tension is also what makes it lively, though. i think that many of the arguments in this forum reflect that inherent dichotomy and the difficulty of knowing where the "line" should be. IMDO.
Quote from: forumdude on January 18, 2012, 05:00:43 AM
sorry fellers but the administrators felt that the miss afghanistan pic was racist. but we're all for freedom of speech so i'm changing the pic to a link. hope you don't think that's us being too fascist. let your thoughts be known here and if there's enough outrage, we'll consider reversing our stance.
Soooo, then showing boobies is OK, but body hair is not. Hm. The "arguementative" people (not me) would ask for an explanation as to why an erotic picture is okay where the woman is objectified (...she DOES have a nice rack ;) ), but not the one that perhaps is what the average Persian woman actually looks like. Deciding what is and isn't in bad taste is of course your prerogative as the forum admin, but IMDO either let them both fly, or censor them both.
Meekon: I think if we have a negative reputation of being a group of phallocentric knucklewalkers, then do we really care about those making that observation? It's not like dudeism needs to have a puritanical, squeeky clean image for the purposes of mass appeal... to judge us as a bunch of misogynists would be both ill-informed, and narrow minded; just read our forums. To explain my opinion, I come from a background of religiosity where most people were more concerned with how we looked to outsiders, than just being ourselves, warts and all. I understand the concern; I just think being and acting natural is okay for this crowd; I think we're all fairly well balanced people who are good ambassadors to dudeism. IMDO, the odd "nudge-nudge - wink-wink - look at that rack" kind of boyish behavior is forgivable.
IMDO... :)
Edit: If there's going to be any censorship, I agree that making such pics just links is probably the better choice over complete deletion of the post.
Please don't get me wrong I am all for the increase in public nudity and the removal of the taboo around it, but:
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2012, 09:10:59 AM
Soooo, then showing boobies is OK, but body hair is not....but IMDO either let them both fly, or censor them both.
I completely agree, in fact I would be more for censoring the boobies and not the hair (as ganetalia are covered)
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2012, 09:10:59 AM
Meekon: I think if we have a negative reputation of being a group of phallocentric knucklewalkers, then do we really care about those making that observation? It's not like dudeism needs to have a puritanical, squeeky clean image for the purposes of mass appeal... to judge us as a bunch of misogynists would be both ill-informed, and narrow minded; just read our forums.
Again I agree, but then also look at some of the posts around "Moving Dudeism forward"
But it's all very well standing in the middle of the playground shouting we don't need any friends, until the rest turn on us.
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2012, 09:10:59 AM
To explain my opinion, I come from a background of religiosity where most people were more concerned with how we looked to outsiders, than just being ourselves, warts and all. I understand the concern; I just think being and acting natural is okay for this crowd; I think we're all fairly well balanced people who are good ambassadors to dudeism. IMDO, the odd "nudge-nudge - wink-wink - look at that rack" kind of boyish behavior is forgivable.
IMDO... :)
Yes and I am not thinking in a prudish way. But I would like to be able to actually open the forum pages at work and have them running in the background rather than being accused of spending all my work time on the religious equivalent of YouPorn.
;D
Quote from: Hominid on January 18, 2012, 09:10:59 AM
Edit: If there's going to be any censorship, I agree that making such pics just links is probably the better choice...
In fact both pictures are a sacking offense here in the museum, perhaps links and a hint like the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag.
I also notice that it is the male Dudes that are discussing this and there is no input from the female Dudes.
Quote: In fact both pictures are a sacking offense here in the museum, perhaps links and a hint like the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag.
I would agree as i generally access the site when i am in the office and while i wont complain on the content, it could be difficult to explain to the MD when he pops his head through the door as to why i am looking at "burka porn". some how i dont think participating in a online socio-religious discussion group would cut it!
QuoteIn fact both pictures are a sacking offense here in the museum, perhaps links and a hint like the NSFW (Not Safe For Work) tag.
Yup, I can see that one! As a telecommuter, I forget sometimes the luxury I have to view whatever I want. Though, that depends what room my special lady is in. ;)
I really don't think anybody is paying attention anyway.
But I guess it's possible that a band of hairy afghan women could raise a stink.
Well I have lowered the standards to the level of a teenage boys locker room once again.
My work is done.
i was under the impression that the afghan woman pic was photoshopped? hence the implied insult.
I hope it was Photoshopped!
Quote from: BikerDude on January 18, 2012, 04:39:25 PM
I really don't think anybody is paying attention anyway.
But I guess it's possible that a band of hairy afghan women could raise a stink.
Well I have lowered the standards to the level of a teenage boys locker room once again.
My work is done.
No harm intended, mang.
Some balanced information on Pat Condell.........
Check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Pat_Condell.jpg/240px-Pat_Condell.jpg)
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on January 20, 2012, 03:04:46 AM
Some balanced information on Pat Condell.........
Check out - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Condell
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e7/Pat_Condell.jpg/240px-Pat_Condell.jpg)
Warms me up to him a bit... I'm partial to anyone exposing the dark side of any religion. I just think that the atheist/theist argument is a false dichotomy, but I do tend to be a little left of center on the whole subject. Anyways, good for him for exposing and bringing to light the bullshit.
Political correctness=tyranny with manners.
Quote from: BikerDude on January 17, 2012, 06:40:13 PM
I'm sure there is some type of kink associated with it.
Yup just googled "burka porn".
OH HELL YEAH!
GOOD STUFF!
BRING IN THE BURKA PORN!
(http://plancksconstant.org/blog1/gallery/burqa/brq37.jpg)
I'd give her some fun and games...
QuoteIslamic woman typically want to hide their faces and would feel naked without doing so. It's cultural.
It may sound funny, but as a white European woman I actually felt calmer and safer when I bought a face mask because of the pandemic. I mean - not (only) in the sense that (perhaps) the virus would not attack but in the sense that I am allowed to stare at everybody and nobody cares what my current facial expression is.
Something like the Dude's sunglasses here (most of those are too dark to me).