What's new

Muslim girls wearing Hijab barred from classes at Indian college

Quite right.

Nobody should have to tell women what to wear and what not to wear.

I completely support Bella Hadid's reaction. She is a glorious example of an emancipated woman.

Define emancipation...

Trojan horse, disingenuous or naive...

It obviates in fact obfuscates the role men play in the society ...
Men are known to share a woman for a sum as long as the consequence of their copulation with opposite gender remain with her...(oldest profession, some say)

Hadid or any such ... emancipated, on the throne, trailblazers... represent curated and choreographed narrative carefully presented as uninhibited and nonchalant "role models"!
Of course living captive to their own narrative... only to become victims to it!
Remember "me too"?

Who then gets the blame?
Why those who peddled the first wave/stage feminism then back peddle or retract as aspects play out and come full circle... only to show remorse and find pitfalls in their own narrative followed subsequently in it's second and third iteration(and who by the way enlightens the larpers that we are now playing the third act in countries like India?).
Victims of all this remain nameless and speechless with no recourse, their grievances muffled and lives destroyed... except the namesake trailblazers and role models keep drawing new lines in the sand, changing the narrative, shifting goal post or otherwise drifting with the sands of time and never held culpable.

This discourse, it's underlying context and philosophy, attributes and correlation is based in a society that only mimics west, superficially at that... so, where exactly does India stand, on a discourse, that is female emancipation? scattered and scrambled ground

On to the core issue...
How do you define female emancipation? What is that emancipation grounded in? Can it be implemented without legislation? Is state patronage necessary if legislated? Who is responsible in case of any fallout... on health, happiness, security and lives of people subjected to it? Can the proponents be held accountable for the subsequent fallout?


You say, no body should or shouldn't tell women... yet, from over clothing such as breast tax or French veil tax to indecent exposure fines are/were mostly legislated... with shabby grounding or pretexts.

So, which is it...
clothing optional? clothe or not to clothe? Or Only a fashion statement?

It just so happens... might makes right! And legislation whatever it maybe on whomsoever's rights... inclusive or exclusive... remains an understanding among men... to honor or not... yield yet to a rules based order.

Whose order? Another tale, another time... perhaps.
 
.
Define emancipation...
Freedom from preconceived notions, in favour of a position thought through on one's own, whether admired or criticised by others.0000
Trojan horse, disingenuous or naive...
Yes, to the residents of Troy. We each have to decide if we are part of the problem, or part of the solution. This is my half-baked immature wisdom, and I put it up in a spirit of meekness.
It obviates in fact obfuscates the role men play in the society ...
How is that relevant? And why should a woman not exercise the freedom of choice of her use of her body?
Men are known to share a woman for a sum as long as the consequence of their copulation with opposite gender remain with her...(oldest profession, some say)
It is the problem of the men; why should it reflect on the freedom of choice of women?
Hadid or any such ... emancipated, on the throne, trailblazers... represent curated and choreographed narrative carefully presented as uninhibited and nonchalant "role models"!
Of course living captive to their own narrative... only to become victims to it!
Remember "me too"?
Yes, I remember 'me too'. I know of it from long before, when a close relative was subject to an attempted assault in a night train journey. Me too and assaults on women has nothing to do with their decision to hew their own path.

Your point about a curated narrative is valid as long as the protagonist - the curated - is unconscious of being a stalking horse. A Trojan Horse? No, a stalking horse.
Who then gets the blame?
Why those who peddled the first wave/stage feminism then back peddle or retract as aspects play out and come full circle... only to show remorse and find pitfalls in their own narrative followed subsequently in it's second and third iteration(and who by the way enlightens the larpers that we are now playing the third act in countries like India?).
Once I can decipher your thorny syntax, and once I can figure out your references, which are not clear at the moment - remember immature wisdom? Its limitations? Dirty Harry said it best - I will certainly think about it.
Victims of all this remain nameless and speechless with no recourse, their grievances muffled and lives destroyed... except the namesake trailblazers and role models keep drawing new lines in the sand, changing the narrative, shifting goal post or otherwise drifting with the sands of time and never held culpable.
That would apply to every single instance of the breach of individual rights, not simply to those that apply to women, or to the plight of women who are unable to enjoy the protection that is alleged that trail-blazers receive. I hope you see the fallacies in that argument, without being made to suffer a boring exegesis of the matter.
This discourse, it's underlying context and philosophy, attributes and correlation is based in a society that only mimics west, superficially at that... so, where exactly does India stand, on a discourse, that is female emancipation? scattered and scrambled ground
Hang the west. I am saying this in the Indian context, purely.

For your viewing pleasure, I suggest looking up 'Blank Noise'.
On to the core issue...
How do you define female emancipation? What is that emancipation grounded in?
Free will.
Can it be implemented without legislation?
Yes, but legislation will lend it additional support. As legislation inevitably does, sometimes generations after the essential problem is diagnosed.
Is state patronage necessary if legislated? Who is responsible in case of any fallout... on health, happiness, security and lives of people subjected to it? Can the proponents be held accountable for the subsequent fallout?
I see that the dire consequences of adult franchise without property qualifications haunts you, and the horrors of extending the franchise to women is even heavier on your psyche.

Forgive the pachydermal undertone, but it is tempting to issue a clarion call to come into the 19th century, forthwith, and to prepare the foundations for a future desperate break into the 20th.
You say, no body should or shouldn't tell women... yet, from over clothing such as breast tax or French veil tax to indecent exposure fines are/were mostly legislated... with shabby grounding or pretexts.
Does that not show that patriarchy is pernicious, in whatever form it is encountered?
So, which is it...
clothing optional? clothe or not to clothe? Or Only a fashion statement?
Not my business, nor anybody else's. It is that of the individual. When Japanese men and women share baths, and walk home stark naked in the freezing snow, nobody bats an eyelid. When some kid wears a head-scarf, people go ballistic and other people, in their mature wisdom, contemplate the implications of such pernicious libertarian behaviour. Pity, that.
It just so happens... might makes right! And legislation whatever it maybe on whomsoever's rights... inclusive or exclusive... remains an understanding among men... to honor or not... yield yet to a rules based order.
What do you think women are complaining about?

While you are in contemplative mode, do look up the theories of Marija Gimbutas regarding the change in society due to the injection of patriarchal religion.
Whose order? Another tale, another time... perhaps.
I shall look forward with keen anticipation to your post. Please be sure that your challenges and brilliantly formulated thrusts are admired, and it is hoped that you will continue.

Define emancipation...

Trojan horse, disingenuous or naive...

It obviates in fact obfuscates the role men play in the society ...
Men are known to share a woman for a sum as long as the consequence of their copulation with opposite gender remain with her...(oldest profession, some say)

Hadid or any such ... emancipated, on the throne, trailblazers... represent curated and choreographed narrative carefully presented as uninhibited and nonchalant "role models"!
Of course living captive to their own narrative... only to become victims to it!
Remember "me too"?

Who then gets the blame?
Why those who peddled the first wave/stage feminism then back peddle or retract as aspects play out and come full circle... only to show remorse and find pitfalls in their own narrative followed subsequently in it's second and third iteration(and who by the way enlightens the larpers that we are now playing the third act in countries like India?).
Victims of all this remain nameless and speechless with no recourse, their grievances muffled and lives destroyed... except the namesake trailblazers and role models keep drawing new lines in the sand, changing the narrative, shifting goal post or otherwise drifting with the sands of time and never held culpable.

This discourse, it's underlying context and philosophy, attributes and correlation is based in a society that only mimics west, superficially at that... so, where exactly does India stand, on a discourse, that is female emancipation? scattered and scrambled ground

On to the core issue...
How do you define female emancipation? What is that emancipation grounded in? Can it be implemented without legislation? Is state patronage necessary if legislated? Who is responsible in case of any fallout... on health, happiness, security and lives of people subjected to it? Can the proponents be held accountable for the subsequent fallout?


You say, no body should or shouldn't tell women... yet, from over clothing such as breast tax or French veil tax to indecent exposure fines are/were mostly legislated... with shabby grounding or pretexts.

So, which is it...
clothing optional? clothe or not to clothe? Or Only a fashion statement?

It just so happens... might makes right! And legislation whatever it maybe on whomsoever's rights... inclusive or exclusive... remains an understanding among men... to honor or not... yield yet to a rules based order.

Whose order? Another tale, another time... perhaps.
This is perhaps the most brilliant post on the subject so far.

I happen to disagree; even a cat may look at a king.
 
.
Why is Assad forcing her wife to wear sleeveless clothing in cold or sunny weather while he is comfortably wearing full body suit. Why he also not wear sleeveless shirts like his wife?

Why is South African TJ cricketer Hashim Amla forcing his wife to wear the burqa even if she becomes uncomfortable in a certain country's climate ? Why doesn't he wear the burqa himself instead of a Anglo suit and tie ?
View attachment 817026

Watch this fine little speech of Jamal Abdul Nasser from 1966 talking about his meeting with the "Muslim" Brotherhood's chief on the burqa matter. Note the reaction of the audience whose one member says what I did.

You were continuously staring at that family the way you have described minute details of their clothing.

Man, how long does it take for a human to take in a scene ? What I did is what a regular person does. Then that regular person's skill is enhanced in police and secret agent training.

That lady caught you staring her and quickly turned her gaze (what you say "shyly") and complained to her husband about you that angered him.

When did I say she spoke anything to her husband ? :lol:

Luckily you were in a misogynist society that you got away without any scratch.

Misogyny ? You are confusing that word with me.

If you were in a women-respecting country like Pakistan

Yeah, so "women-respecting" that that women are honor killed or forced into marriages and remain unmarried if they are divorced or widowed. :lol: Man, don't pretend as if you are living in an evolved society.
 
.
Yes, I am a male, an evolved male. But why you being a girl want to be secluded away ( given your imminent marriage to a Muslim ) especially when the burqa has nothing to do with Islam, being a pre-Islamic Jewish garment ? I will write more on this tomorrow.

How does it matter to you males? We will wear Burqa or Bikini. It is our choice and our right. And BTW Quran does say dress modestly.
 
. .
Why is South African TJ cricketer Hashim Amla forcing his wife to wear the burqa even if she becomes uncomfortable in a certain country's climate ? Why doesn't he wear the burqa himself instead of a Anglo suit and tie ?
View attachment 817026

Watch this fine little speech of Jamal Abdul Nasser from 1966 talking about his meeting with the "Muslim" Brotherhood's chief on the burqa matter. Note the reaction of the audience whose one member says what I did.

It is between his wife and him. How does it impact you?

He is a pervert who judges women by their physical features

I know. I have seen @jamahir posts on one of the Actresses'/Models thread here on this forum. Very disgusting. That is why I do not believe a word he says and the crocodile tears he sheds.

They want women to not wear burqa so that they can tease, harass and bully the girls.

Girls feel safe in Burqa. No male will dare to harass a girl in burqa.

This is an indisputable fact.
 
Last edited:
. .
Why is South African TJ cricketer Hashim Amla forcing his wife to wear the burqa even if she becomes uncomfortable in a certain country's climate ? Why doesn't he wear the burqa himself instead of a Anglo suit and tie ?
I think @SuvarnaTeja answered you correctly for that one. No need to further waste my time.
Watch this fine little speech of Jamal Abdul Nasser from 1966 talking about his meeting with the "Muslim" Brotherhood's chief on the burqa matter. Note the reaction of the audience whose one member says what I did.
Yet another one of those tiny ego dictators who can only spill their own people's blood. Tiny Israel r@ped Nasser's mighty army in broad daylight and he couldn't do shit. Do you know why?
Man, how long does it take for a human to take in a scene ? What I did is what a regular person does. Then that regular person's skill is enhanced in police and secret agent training.
Still defending that pervertness shamelessly.
Misogyny ? You are confusing that word with me.
Did you read the definition of misogyny I quoted in earlier post?
Yeah, so "women-respecting" that that women are honor killed or forced into marriages and remain unmarried if they are divorced or widowed. :lol: Man, don't pretend as if you are living in an evolved society.
Honor killing is a ritual present in subcontinent from thousands of years. Unfortunately there are many people specially in rural areas who are very farther away from Islam who also indulge in such anti-Islamic practices but it is gradually changing and people are coming closer to Islam thanks to the untiring efforts of different Tableeghi organizations ;)
 
.
Freedom from preconceived notions, in favour of a position thought through on one's own, whether admired or criticised by others.0000

Yes, to the residents of Troy. We each have to decide if we are part of the problem, or part of the solution. This is my half-baked immature wisdom, and I put it up in a spirit of meekness.

How is that relevant? And why should a woman not exercise the freedom of choice of her use of her body?

It is the problem of the men; why should it reflect on the freedom of choice of women?

Yes, I remember 'me too'. I know of it from long before, when a close relative was subject to an attempted assault in a night train journey. Me too and assaults on women has nothing to do with their decision to hew their own path.

Your point about a curated narrative is valid as long as the protagonist - the curated - is unconscious of being a stalking horse. A Trojan Horse? No, a stalking horse.

Once I can decipher your thorny syntax, and once I can figure out your references, which are not clear at the moment - remember immature wisdom? Its limitations? Dirty Harry said it best - I will certainly think about it.

That would apply to every single instance of the breach of individual rights, not simply to those that apply to women, or to the plight of women who are unable to enjoy the protection that is alleged that trail-blazers receive. I hope you see the fallacies in that argument, without being made to suffer a boring exegesis of the matter.

Hang the west. I am saying this in the Indian context, purely.

For your viewing pleasure, I suggest looking up 'Blank Noise'.

Free will.

Yes, but legislation will lend it additional support. As legislation inevitably does, sometimes generations after the essential problem is diagnosed.

I see that the dire consequences of adult franchise without property qualifications haunts you, and the horrors of extending the franchise to women is even heavier on your psyche.

Forgive the pachydermal undertone, but it is tempting to issue a clarion call to come into the 19th century, forthwith, and to prepare the foundations for a future desperate break into the 20th.

Does that not show that patriarchy is pernicious, in whatever form it is encountered?

Not my business, nor anybody else's. It is that of the individual. When Japanese men and women share baths, and walk home stark naked in the freezing snow, nobody bats an eyelid. When some kid wears a head-scarf, people go ballistic and other people, in their mature wisdom, contemplate the implications of such pernicious libertarian behaviour. Pity, that.

What do you think women are complaining about?

While you are in contemplative mode, do look up the theories of Marija Gimbutas regarding the change in society due to the injection of patriarchal religion.

I shall look forward with keen anticipation to your post. Please be sure that your challenges and brilliantly formulated thrusts are admired, and it is hoped that you will continue.


This is perhaps the most brilliant post on the subject so far.

I happen to disagree; even a cat may look at a king.

Free will is only free in one's own mind... it's corporal enactment results in ramifications that do not (always) remain confined to the perpetrator.

Freedom from preconceived notions, in favour of a position thought through on one's own, whether admired or criticised by others.

Fair enough.

So back to the "oldest profession"... if free will caused a mutually agreed transaction, why then men be made to care about its resultant byproduct?
Legislation thus is used to affect a change... State must make men care! thus leading to further legislation, the goal, manufacturing a legislated emancipation(high and haughty goals, utopia and a castle in the sky)... but if the transaction concluded with the swap of coin then men cannot be involved retrospectively, therefore, it must be an act of charity or love and not of pleasure and transactional.
But Men still abscond per choice(other willing and emancipated partners)... and state with all it's laws keeps playing catch up to put that genie back in the bottle.
Which is why setting and native discourse matters! Which is why the third wave feminism is lost even further... in its various identities, gender roles etc.

Emancipation is loaded word used primarily as a projection, oft concealing the underlying goals/motives. It's first and primary victims are trailblazers themselves, captive to their own narrative and their patrons.

Female Emancipation was a major ruse against Algerian cause for their actual independence against colonizing French!
With roots comfortably nestled in white man's burden...

Final thoughts on legislation... unless it is grounded in intrinsic human values and nature... it will always be like scab on a wound... always fresh underneath... requiring ointment... perhaps even focus from a wandering mind.

It will be counterintuitive for me to go any further without delving into tangents and derail the thread...
 
Last edited:
. .
Free will is only free in one's own mind... it's corporal enactment results in ramifications that do not (always) remain confined to the perpetrator.



Fair enough.

So back to the "oldest profession"... if free will caused a mutually agreed transaction, why then men be made to care about its resultant byproduct?
Legislation thus is used to affect a change... State must make men care! thus leading to further legislation, the goal, manufacturing a legislated emancipation(high and haughty goals, utopia and a castle in the sky)... but if the transaction concluded with the swap of coin then men cannot be involved retrospectively, therefore, it must be an act of charity or love and not of pleasure and transactional.
But Men still abscond per choice(other willing and emancipated partners)... and state with all it's laws keeps playing catch up to put that genie back in the bottle.
Which is why setting and native discourse matters! Which is why the third wave feminism is lost even further... in its various identities, gender roles etc.

Emancipation is loaded word used primarily as a projection, oft concealing the underlying goals/motives. It's first and primary victims are trailblazers themselves, captive to their own narrative and their patrons.

Female Emancipation was a major ruse against Algerian cause for their actual independence against colonizing French!
With roots comfortably nestled in white man's burden...

Final thoughts on legislation... unless it is grounded in intrinsic human values and nature... it will always be like scab on a wound... always fresh underneath... requiring ointment... perhaps even focus from a wandering mind.

It will be counterintuitive for me to go any further without delving into tangents and derail the thread...
Your post requires serious thinking to answer - that, of course, you know already. Bear with me.
 
.
To BJP and other Indian progressives including some on this forum trying to save Muslim girls by denying them the Hijab from the Governor of one the most regressive US State.

Ha ha ha!

 
. . . .

Latest posts

Country Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom