He did not say they couldn't wear the veil, he said to free themselves & quit wearing them. The veil was forced upon them & they were beaten, raped or killed for removing it in public.
That is a sign of oppression like chains have always been.
He said it made him uncormfortable, it makes me uncomfortable to see half dressed women at mall but I am not an anti-feminist.
Women have worked for the right to choose & the ability to be taken serious. Shorts & skirts up to a "lady's" butt & tops that leave nothing to the imagination does not make anyone take you serious. 2 things go thru everyone's head & they are opposite.
But it is their choice.
I hate to see veils because it reminds me of the horrid stories over veils, but it is their choice to wear or not wear & Jack Straw was still giving that choice. You are being too sensitive.
2006-10-13 12:02:32
·
answer #1
·
answered by Wolfpacker 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
i assumed some week in the past that Jack become going for early retirement, yet i'm no longer so specific now. it could have been a planned ploy to get the challenge into the debating chamber till now the nationwide front ought to apply it as a fashion of stirring up challenge between diverse ethnic communities. or maybe he replied a question genuinely, ok i understand that the final one is somewhat far fetched yet, they are saying that certainty is stranger than fiction, or do they? who's that they?
2016-10-19 08:39:18
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Quite the opposite. It has been said that the veil was part of the oppression of women in the east and in western culture women are equal to men. Taking off the veil is actually promoting feminism.
2006-10-13 11:42:30
·
answer #3
·
answered by phats_domino_uk 2
·
2⤊
0⤋
Of course women should be allowed to wear what they want. But there's wanting to and being forced by culture/tradition/elders to do so. Maybe they do truly want to wear it and that's cool.
You'll find that many feminists are VERY against the veil however, they see it as being oppression of women, and they also do kind of have a point IMO. All very complex.
2006-10-13 11:48:27
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
If a man walked around with a full black head mask (Balaclava) he would be arrested immediately by the police.
A woman wearing the full veil should be no different.
So the opposite is true of your question.
2006-10-15 00:31:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by ian d 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
Jack Straw is a prat. Roll on the revolution [election]. Since when has it been necessary to see soneones mouth while talking to them? Next time you speak to someone on your mobile, describe their mouth.
2006-10-14 21:08:53
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
It's the equivalent of trying to have a conversation with someone who is hiding in the bushes... where they can see you but you can't see them. Not what I'd consider very friendly at all.
2006-10-14 12:25:57
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
I agree. That is an old school argument that goes back to the days of 'she ask for because she dressed like a ****.' It is ridiculous and no one should be told what they can and can not wear as long as it is within the confinements of the law.
2006-10-13 11:43:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by BeachBum 7
·
0⤊
2⤋
Yes.and post-modernism, anti-structuralism, post structuralism, chaos theory, Foulcauldism, Weberian Social Structure, Durkheim's theory on Suicide and the social result of eating badly prepared wheat. Ergo(t), I state my case.
2006-10-13 11:53:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by ? 6
·
0⤊
2⤋
No if i've told you once i've told you 10 million times do not over-react.
2006-10-13 11:42:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Paul B 2
·
2⤊
0⤋