Had a fairly agitated discussion with friends about the hijab. They were arguing it's a banal religious symbol, I was arguing it's a political symbol of oppression (the real kind, not the 2019 kind) that should not be banalised.

What really ground my gear is how incredulous they were that I could be of that opinion. Just 10 years ago, our society here had this discussion, and my position on this was perfectly acceptable and within the Overton window, even if not necessarily the most popular in the media. There were still non-intersectional/relativist feminists in the public sphere fighting this fight back then.

But since then, they have been pushed out of the mainstream, away from most tribunes. And now people look at me like a fucking alien for not following along with their little purge, for representing the veil as what it is.

@guizzy hijab is a symbol of oppression, but i dont think you can liberate women by legislating what they can and cannot wear, thats what happened with the hijab in the first place, so im not sure what the answer is.

i also find it troubling that the hijab is singled out while other equally bad religious garb (eg hasidic jewish dress) gets ignored.

@animeirl I was not arguing for legifering against it being worn in civilian life, only that it should not be seen as banal.

The reason it's a hot topic right now, though, here is because our new provincial government is moving to prohibit public servants in a position of authority from wearing it (or any outwardly visible political or religious symbol) as to not harm the perception of the neutrality of the state. A position popular in the population, but unpopular in the media.

@guizzy banning religious garb in public office and the like is a good thing. "political" is a bit too vague though

@animeirl I checked again, and the latest bill is for religious symbols only, the political part was in the bill that was discussed about 5-6 years ago (that was scraped after the then govt that proposed it was defeated in an election for an unrelated reason). I assumed they had just resubmitted the same project but it seems not.

But to clarify it, I'd say a symbol of a specific political party, of a specific ideology, or of a flag of a country or political entity that isn't the one the public servant is representing.
@animeirl I'm like the perfect person to ask and mediate this.
@guizzy apologize to your friends, tell you are sorry how you behaved and that you didn't mean to escalate the discussion regarding a topic you sympathize about.
Clothing on its barest form is protection of elements. Any other colour or symbol on the cloth, it's a statement and public declaration.
Contexts aside anything that's not a toga, it's a declaration of position and class:
A business suit with a collar: Servant of the Devil. [Shaved hair and beard: his penis sucker]
Bracelets: slave, earrings: owned, piercings: bitch. Et cetera.
You want to remove all religious symbols, one piece white cloth, that's all.
Sign in to participate in the conversation

The social network of the future: No ads, no corporate surveillance, ethical design, and decentralization! Own your data with Mastodon!