freedomdwarf1
Posts: 6845
Joined: 10/23/2012
Status: offline
|
FR~
I think a lot of this has to do with perception.
Perception of what we see and what our mind instantly links with reality, what we personally experience, or what we've heard reported from mainstream media.
Let's take the simple hoodie.
A simple jacket with a hood. Nothing nefarious about the garment itself.
But it would appear that those involved in drugs, petty theft, personal assaults, and general anti-social behaviour, have 'adopted' the garment for concealment from identification and almost a uniform.
But it's not just that, it is also how it is worn.
Hood down showing the wearers face - no problem. Everyone, including CCTV and police body cams can see who they are instantly and can almost judge by facial expression what mood they are in and if they appear 'shifty'.
Same person, hood up, dark glasses, looking down, hands in pockets, people immediately think they are up to no good.
Add a couple of identically dressed friends and they become a gang looking for trouble - even if they aren't.
Now put that same group huddled in an alley or on a street corner, and the image is 'drug dealing'.
So for someone wanting to wear a hoodie, there is nothing wrong with having the hood up and wearing dark glasses - it is their right to wear what they want, how they want and it's not illegal.
However, don't expect others to perceive you in any other light than 'trouble looking for a place to go'.
As for cycle helmets; over here you must remove them in most financial places (banks etc) and supermarkets for identification purposes.
Now let's take Islamic dress.
Nothing wrong with it in principal and they are free to choose whether to wear it or not.
Now add the perception.... The western world sees extreme Islam and all its atrocities together with oppressing women and forcing them to cover up from head to toe.
And the main thing different from western stuff (outward appearance) is the forced covering of the head.
And yes, it is bad to tar the whole religion with the same brush - but you don't see others inside the good bits of Islam 'outing' the bad apples, and that (rightly or wrongly) is what sticks in peoples' minds.
Now add the problem that Islamic women have it drummed into them that it is 'disrespectful' not to wear it exacerbates the bad image.
If Islamic women wore everything but the headgear, they would still be instantly recognisable as Islamic.
Add the headgear and the bad image of the extremists and terrorism comes to the fore.
So it is the headgear that carries the bad connotations of extreme Islam.
It is very hard to change the perception of other people when it comes to ME/Islamic culture.
It is not a fair comparison to compare this with a nun's habit or other headgear - they do not carry the same fearful connotations as those of extreme Islam with their suicide bombers, beheadings and other atrocities.
The same for those overcoats - the rest of the garb doesn't seem to have those same fearful images as the Islamic dress with the full headgear even if they can equally carry a suicide vest or other bombs.
It all boils down to perception of what Islamic headgear represents.
So it's not 'just a scarf' any more than a crown is 'just a hat' - it is the image that it carries with it that people remember and associate.
And this is what Greta picked up on in her opening post.
Here we have an Islamic woman torn between her right to wear it as imposed by her religion and also her right not to wear it as allowed under US (and most western) societies.
She is arguing that she is being 'forced to conform' by society and yet in the same breath is saying she is compelled by her religion to wear it; that, in and of itself, is hypocrisy.
In a land of freedom, she should not be compelled by her religion - that is Greta's point, in a nutshell.
But to make a whole statement that effectively criticises the freedom she enjoys but doesn't comment on the ludicrous restrictions imposed on her fellow Islamic women all over the ME is definitely hypocrisy at its finest.
This is Greta's rant.
To make a statement like: I choose to wear a hijab as a symbolic expression of diversity in society. I exercise my freedom without fear or influence.
Many would argue that her 'choice' was severely steered by her religion and was not a 'free' choice as employed by a free society.
Other statements like: Keeping a hijab on may potentially cost me my safety and endanger my young daughters. I find myself worried about every trip I take outdoors with them. Thoughts of being attacked or putting my girls in harm's way fill my head.
This clearly shows that she does not appreciate true freedom from her religion and also has no clue as to what Islamic headgear represents in many western societies.
In essence, blinded by her religious indoctrination with little to no thought of the country she is living in and the freedom it affords her.
This, I believe, is the thrust of Greta's argument - the hypocrisy of this woman's piece.
_____________________________
“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” George Orwell, 1903-1950
|
RE: American Muslim Woman Crying about her right to wea... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread