The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > The invisible hijab > Comments

The invisible hijab : Comments

By Jane Caro, published 29/9/2005

Jane Caro argues looking gorgeous is almost as oppressive as not being allowed to be seen at all.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
indeed, to wear a veil here is to make yourself stand out and be judged on your appearance alone. Because it has been transplanted into this culture, veils have the unintended and opposite effect of making the wearer stand out much more obviously in a crowd.

It is an interesting paradox though - Australians wish to remain unbiased and not judge people simply on appearance, and that goes for all Australians because we value our egalitarianism.

Therefore, muslim Australians cannot not discriminate against muslim Australian women who are unveiled nor ever judge them by their choice of dress. At the same time, muslim Australian women should wear a veil if they want
Posted by Ro, Friday, 30 September 2005 3:27:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kay,

Many thanks for your kind sentiments. I thought it was good too.
Posted by Maximus, Friday, 30 September 2005 3:55:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hijabs have nothing to do with 'religion'. They were invented in Iran in the 1970s as a symbol of opposition to the West and to the Shah's plans to westernise Iran.

Besides being damned ugly, hijabs impede the sight and hearing of the wearer. They must be sweltering in an Australian summer.

Muslim women supposedly wear them to pronounce to the world their modesty and purity. So what does that say about those of us who dont wear them? Are we less modest and pure?

We are extremely stupid to allow this primitive way of life to impact on our society - we are even more stupid to even consider changing our school dress code because members of an immigrant group wish to parade around in special costume.
Posted by dee, Saturday, 1 October 2005 12:15:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said, Maximus.

I also think that Spendocrat should be able to wear a dress to the office if he so wishes. I would presume that the public service has come far enough to make such allowances these days.
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 1 October 2005 1:23:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men wearing dresses.

There's nothing new about this idea of course. In ancient times, they were the standard mode of apparel for all people and also at other times over the course of history, even continuing to this day as traditional dress for Scotsmen.

Of passing interest was a reported incident, a couple of years ago, where several senior schoolboys in the US, just for a prank, all turned up at school one day wearing skirts and the like, claiming they should have the right to wear them seeing how girls could wear trousers. As could be imagined they caused some considerable, but harmless, disruption to the normal day's proceedings. They were told to go home and change, but refused, and were then suspended. Of course, after that, all manner of law suits flowed forth, for months - as they have a tendency to do in the USA. All over a few boys defending their right to party - in skirts!

Fair dinkum! It really makes you wonder.

And I'm wondering, if Spendocrat does wear a dress to the office, does he have to shave his legs? Does he have nice legs? And what about up-skirts photography in the case of a man? Would that be forbidden or open to interpretation?

As you can see, it's going to cause a lot of problems for small minded middle managers and the politically correct. This sounds excellent - go Spendocrat, get that dress on mate.
Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 1 October 2005 9:56:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well the Scotts have been wearing dresses for centuries and wore no under wear.I don't think it would go down too well in the office.Imagine a gust of wind and images of a male Marilyn trying to look coy and shocked whilst grappling with his kilt.It'd be enough to drive us all to chasity,where ever that is.The real worry however is what they kept in that sporran and knowing the Scotts there be not much change jangling around.No,the mere males will have to stick with their ties ,the symbol male dominance and really large ones will make up for our inadaquate manhood.So what does that say about men who like wearing bow ties?Are they liberated from this need to feel dominate,or is just another subtle tool of supression over females?

You see,we can just about read unconscious meaning into anything if we try hard enough.
Posted by Arjay, Saturday, 1 October 2005 3:55:51 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy