Should the state decree what women can wear?

[DuctapeFatwa]

Poll question: Should the state decree what women can wear?

yes, I am indeed the rollicking and mischievous one ;)

NOTE: Sorry to disappoint some of you, but I don't mean things like not wearing any clothes, or string bikinis on the Senate floor or topless math teachers.

And yes, this poll was insprired by another thread.

[Cheswick2.0]

1. of course not

!

[slackmaster]

2. The only things that cause injury when used as intended...

...Are guns and high-heeled shoes.

[VelmaD]

3. It drives me nuts...

that we still had to debate this question yesterday. No one ever asks "should the State decress what men can wear?" :eyes:

[ACK]

6. Hell yeah VelmaD

Repukes and social conservative fundie nuts I understand.

However, there is nothing worse than a bunch of self-righteous hypocritical Dems trying to play liberal on this or that issue but then going all poo poo on civil libertarian issues.

One person on another thread wants to rip scarves from the heads of muslim women for goodness sakes.

There is nothing liberal about that nonsense at all. yuck.

[VelmaD]

8. Back up the truck

I'm thinking you didn't read my posts on the Muslim dress codes thread yesterday. I too want to rip those damn scarves off - though I would never actually do so. They are exactly what this poll is asking about - in many countries they are the government decreeing what women MUST wear.

Wanting to rid women of sexist dress codes forced on them by fundamentalist religious dogma is a pretty liberal cause in my book.

[DuctapeFatwa]

12. Or what women CAN'T wear

I thought it was very interesting to see people in favor of France's plan to forbid women to wear scarves.

Turkey also has such a prohibition.

[ACK]

13. Forcing women not to wear them is just as bad

as the government saying that they have to wear them.

[VelmaD]

15. I have to disagree

I don't want to go into the same detail I did in the thread yesterday so I'm gonna try to stay brief. Here's my basic point: I am all in favor of the government stepping in and saying basically they will not allow blatant sexism in the name of religion.

[DuctapeFatwa]

16. Should non-Muslim women be allowed to wear scarves?

How would you police violations?

[Muddleoftheroad]

20. What business is it of a government to intervene in religion?

I would say none.

[WhoCountsTheVotes]

28. thank you

I'm tired of the secularist on DU assuming that they and their culture are the pinnacle of equal rights and inclusion, they are not.

[ACK]

21. That is just so wrong...

So the women are too stupid or indoctrinated to understand why they are wearing the religious garb they are wearing.

I swear to goodness cultural imperialism from liberals. I have freakin' seen everything.

[VelmaD]

22. Not saying they are too stupid...

though some may be too indoctrinated. Many may be under significant pressure to conform or suffer social and family consequences.

[ACK]

23. Those who know what's best for us must rise and save us from ourselves

How very nice of you.

Will you go after the head things that jewish men wear and the orthodox beards?

Are they not symbols of patriachal power in orthodox jewish society?

[bicentennial_baby]

24. Or Orthodox Jewish Women

who cover their hair with either a covering or a wig...How about them?

[RossMcLochNess]

4. I voted YES...

one word - spandex pants

'nough said

And just so people don't accuse me of being sexist, there should be rules for guys too. For one, I have NO business whatsoever wearing a tank top :7

[PunkinPi]

5. I voted no, but

would reconsider for Pickles - since she has no fashion sense at all.
:puke:

[lapislzi]

7. You goin' somewhere with this, DTF?

What is the puckish purpose of this poll?

[DuctapeFatwa]

10. I was intrigued by some of the responses in this thread in LBN

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=102&topic_id=265390

[kodi]

9. context is everything

.

[DuctapeFatwa]

14. Not always. This is a pretty simple one

Should women's clothing be an individual choice, or mandated by law?

In any context, with the exceptions of nudity, etc noted in the original post.

[kodi]

29. no its not. consider the french ban on scarves for muslim school girls

and you have further qualified your original statement by an additional definition, or context.

there are contexts within which certain things are or are not important to do or not do.

and you are splitting hairs, by referring to "women" and not simpy "females" or even "males" for that matter.

are you stating the term "woman" as adult females, in public, outside of any over-riding public safety issue?

but then, there is already context; the time, place, clothing, and the impact upon public safety and the common good.

if one demands that the state itself has no legitimate authority to defend public safety or order then naturally, there can be no defense of dictating what a woman wears or not.

but in the modern concepts of government the state has full authority to institute policies and laws which are directed to preserving the public good.

what is balanced on the the fulcrum of "context" is whether or not society decides if such public safety and good supercedes personal freedoms.

this can only be done by assessing the weight on each side of lever by cultural values.

we are not talking here about a society where rousseau's noble savage resides, but an interconnected society where context is everything.

[MuseRider]

11. HA

Let them try over here. I was not a part of the discussion yesterday and have not read it yet so I can't comment with any knowledge about that.

[sistersofmercy]

17. I know what you are getting at and quite honestly I'm undecided on

the issue. Convince me why I should feel otherwise. The head scarf worn in school is an issue I'm just not so sure about. It is my understanding that public schools have rules pertaining to head coverings in general. I believe the argument that wearing a necklace with a cross or star of David to be a weak one. About the head scarf, I have often wondered why some feel so strongly that it is a negative expression, especially if indeed the woman CHOOSES to wear it. Is it because we identify head coverings with somewhat religious extremism, meaning that which is practiced by nuns? Please no flaming comments about the question I do feel it is a legitimate question.
The burka driver's license case, I have to say this, a driver's license is for the PRIVILEGE of driving and identification purposes. If one can't adhere to the regulations pertaining to the privilege of driving, then don't drive.

[DuctapeFatwa]

18. Are you undecided on whether women should wear pants?

Would you be in favor of a law that said that only women of certain religions could wear pants in the school or workplace?

[sistersofmercy]

25. Sorry but that is an apples and oranges argument not what this issue is

about at all. First of all, it is up to the individual workplace to decide dress code. Personally, I have no problem with head scarves in public places other than the public school exception. Although I'm quite sure you will find another example where it would be inappropriate in my view. BTW, do the Amish wear head coverings in public schools? I think they choose to do home schooling because of it and other beliefs. So should we turn the electricity off in public schools and do away with other modern conveniences because it is against the principles of their faith and they should have a right ot a public education same as everyone else?

[DuctapeFatwa]

26. Yes, it is about YOUR right to choose to wear pants to work

Your right to wear pants to work is not about MY ideas, beliefs, religious or otherwise, or my cultural preference.

It is about a personal decision that you make.

If I don't like it, then I can write to my congressman and tell him that I believe it is just awful that you wear pants and I want a law passed that will make it illegal for you to do so.

The question is, will you vote for that law, if a referendum is held?

[sistersofmercy]

27. I still believe this strays from the original issue.

At the moment, I need to scoot to get some work done but I'll pull this thread up later and we can debate this. Such a law would go nowhere fast.

[Bridget Burke]

19. No, of course not.

Although spandex garments in size 2XX do give me pause.

[sistersofmercy]

30. DF, I know where this is leading and here's my rebuttal

First, IIRC there was some right-wing fundie who squawked in the pant direction at least a decade ago, it did not get wings then and certainly would not get them now.
The issue does come down to religious belief and to think otherwise, IMO, is just pure hypothetical which accomplishes nothing. If we allow young ladies to wear items of clothing which are inherently religious we thus remove the secular aspect of public schooling. It would leave the already fragile system open to a heap of evangilical cases protesting everything from evolution to pray time and all the literature in between.
Something funny, there was a politician here in St Louis. an alderman I believe, who proposed a city law for banning blowing one's nose at the table in a restaurant. This has been a while but honestly I still laugh about it. Thought you might find it humorous.


Forget to "Banning"

[Bucky]

31. This probably has more to do with that French anti-hajib crapola

The French are pretty doctrinaire when it comes to being secular. Right now they're trying to oppress Muslim women in conservative sects into not honoring their religion (which oppresses them too) by wearing scarves.

It's a crappy law designed to humiliate people out of expressing their love for God as their faiths decree. The Frogs are dead wrong on this. L'damn them.

[sistersofmercy]

32. Read all my posts, there have been cases here and that is

what I'm concerned with.

[arewethereyet]

33. there are some women who should not wear spandex

and the veils are inappropriate in public