Anti-Muslim Terrorist Attack in... NZ?

[cullennz]

...great rebuttal there mate. Excellent work. 10 out of 10. Well done, go straight to the head of the class.

Well it is

I work in a place with a load of women.

At one stage I was the only bloke

A lot of them wore scarves on Friday and it was by far and away zero to do with fear.

I should know.

I had listen to them blabbing on about it for about 4 days

 

[banquetbear]

Well it is

I work in a place with a load of women.

At one stage I was the only bloke

A lot of them wore scarves on Friday and it was by far and away zero to do with fear.

I should know.

I had listen to them blabbing on about it for about 4 days

...you worked in a place with a load of Muslim women?

Really? What was it that they "blabbed on about" for the last 4 days?

 

[cullennz]

...you worked in a place with a load of Muslim women?

Really? What was it that they "blabbed on about" for the last 4 days?

No I don't

Try re-reading my post

 

[banquetbear]

No I don't

Try re-reading my post

...I don't need to re-read your post.

Perhaps you need to re-read mine.

I know what you said.

If you haven't been listening to Muslim women over the last 4 days then what the **** are you talking about and how does it relate to what I said? I'm absolutely sure that the non-Muslim women you've been listening too over the last 4 days have not told you what it is like to live and exist as a Muslim in New Zealand society. So your anecdote is mildly interesting, but not related to anything I wrote in my post.

 

[EHocking]

...ETA It is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males.

While visiting a monastery in Greece, men were required to cover their bare legs. Light trousers were provided if you only had shorts.
Women were required to cover bare shoulders.

This was not optional.

I guess the Greeks are more progressive and feel both sexes as inferior.

 

[cullennz]

...I don't need to re-read your post.

Perhaps you need to re-read mine.

I know what you said.

If you haven't been listening to Muslim women over the last 4 days then what the **** are you talking about and how does it relate to what I said? I'm absolutely sure that the non-Muslim women you've been listening too over the last 4 days have not told you what it is like to live and exist as a Muslim in New Zealand society. So your anecdote is mildly interesting, but not related to anything I wrote in my post.

I was talking about the highlighted bit

Which is why I highlighted it

You are claiming many of the non- Muslim wore it out of fear.

a) What evidence do you have that non-Muslim women wore it out of fear
b) Fear of what exactly?

 

[banquetbear]

I was talking about the highlighted bit

Which is why I highlighted it

You are claiming many of the non- Muslim wore it out of fear.

a) What evidence do you have that non-Muslim women wore it out of fear
b) Fear of what exactly?

...that isn't what I said.

For context, read the rest of the post. You know, the bit that you didn't highlight. The bit where I talked about "who was in fear." The bit where I explained of what they were "in fear of."

 

[Steve]

While visiting a monastery in Greece, men were required to cover their bare legs. Light trousers were provided if you only had shorts.
Women were required to cover bare shoulders.

This was not optional.

I guess the Greeks are more progressive and feel both sexes as inferior.

If the men were also required to have covered shoulders and the women to cover their legs then I would consider this to be a good example of a religion treating everyone as equals. No inferiority at all.

This is an example of the requirements of a certain monastery. It has nothing to do with "the Greeks" who asks understand to be a fairly progressive society.

 

[Planigale]

Are local customs largely secular or do they predominantly exist because of religion?
Are local customs local, or do they apply to the entire area identified as Persia? An area that predominantly follows the tenets and customs of Islam?

I provided some possible answers to the question you asked. I think there is some truth to all the answers, and it will vary between individual women.

Does your friend ask everyone to cover their heads or just the women? From the pictures you posted it appears that all the women use the same type of traditional head covering while the men who do cover their heads use a variety of head covering that are in no way connected to local customs. Playing baseball is not a Persian custom.

Women are treated as second class in most major religions, Islam included. To call this "bollocks" regarding Islam is denial of reality. The primary reason the women in your photos are wearing head coverings in deference to religion. A religion that does not consider them equal to men.

If you look at local non Islamic religions e.g. Judaism many of the customs are similar. Historically ancient Greece was part of Asia-minor, and in pre-christian Greece women were not allowed out of the house unescorted and were pretty well restricted to the house. I think that what is seen as religious is perpetuation of local pre-Islamic customs. Religions have a way of freezing time. Orthodox Jews wear fashions related to the 19 century Eastern Europe, the Amish take technology from the 18 century. Catholic church vestments are mediaeval. What the Q'ran says about these things is relatively little, most is tradition. What is decent and modest to wear does vary, I don't know if it is really true that a glimpse of a ladies ankle was once shocking and that covers were put on table legs but all societies enforce 'decency', anthropologists right books on this stuff (e.g. Mary Douglas), often societal norms are clothed in religious terms. A few years ago it would have been unacceptable for any woman to enter a christian church bare headed.

 

[Steve]

...what is "bollocks" is the claim that "it is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males". In New Zealand head covering for woman are obviously optional as well. In New Zealand you cannot be compelled to cover your head. And in New Zealand many woman choose to cover their heads, and many choose to not do this. Women have agency, and if they choose to cover their head why do you have a problem with that?



Women are treated as second class not just in religion: but everywhere. Everywhere you look. In America women routinely get thrown in jail for having consensual (paid) sex with somebody else. Don't you find that ****** up?

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity.

It was about fear.

This last week we've had many Muslim women come forward and tell their stories about fear. Not fear of what would happen if they "didn't cover their heads." But the fear of simply walking down the street. They shared their experiences of abuse, of hatred. Because of the clothes that they wear, and often because of the colour of their skin.

I was cynical at first when I heard about the plans to "#wearahijab" for a day. But on reflection I got it wrong. The clear message we got from most of the Muslim community was that this is helping them heal. It is helping them feel more safe. And this close to the shootings I don't think that there is anything more important to worry about right now.

I won't pretend that as a religion Islam doesn't have to make a lot of changes in the way they treat women. But the changes (in New Zealand) that have to be made in a way echo the way women are (generally) treated on the Marae. I know of many young, progressive Muslim women who will be fighting for those changes, and by shining a spotlight on the religion in the way that New Zealand has embraced this week we have made the job easier for them. Its a problem. But it isn't a problem that will get fixed by "pointing at them and screeching." Its a problem that will get fixed by rejecting the culture of hate that prompted the shooting in the first place, that pushes the religion "into hiding" so we don't really understand or know what is happening. It will be fixed by empowering those that are in the position to make that change.

So you can keep on "pointing and screeching" all you like. Its all just noise to me now. It makes me sad in a way, but then I remember that I live in a country that collectively reacted in a way to this tragedy that supported and cared for the people that were most vulnerable, I remember how lucky I am to have been born in this country, and I feel just a little bit less sad.

I had written a fairly detailed reply to this. Then it occurred to me that it was not worth the effort to respond to a person who completely misunderstood my posts and my position to the point of calling it "pointing and screeching".

For the rest of NZ including all your Muslim residents, I repeat what I posted above:

I am truly sorry that this awful event occurred. You all have my complete and utter sympathy. I sincerely hope that this terrible type of event never happens again in your country or any other country, and to adherents of the Muslim religion, any other religion, and even to a group of nonreligious. Violence is atrocious in all its forms.

The one thing I will NOT do to show support for your country and the affected families is display the symbols of any religion.

 

[Max_mang]

Amazing how we've had 50 people killed because they were Muslims yet we need to discuss in this thread how terrible Islam is. You'd almost think some people supported the killing of the Muslims or that because other Muslims are bad we shouldn't be condemning these killings....

Facts can be inconvenient sometimes, and it's sad you use that as a basis for the huge pathetic strawman you posit here.

If you haven't noticed, we are not at a funeral for a victim of this horrible event. We are on a niche, obscure internet message board supposedly dedicated to critical thinking. I would expect all aspects being fair game for discussion here as long as they are factual.

 

[Steve]

If you look at local non Islamic religions e.g. Judaism many of the customs are similar. Historically ancient Greece was part of Asia-minor, and in pre-christian Greece women were not allowed out of the house unescorted and were pretty well restricted to the house. I think that what is seen as religious is perpetuation of local pre-Islamic customs. Religions have a way of freezing time. Orthodox Jews wear fashions related to the 19 century Eastern Europe, the Amish take technology from the 18 century. Catholic church vestments are mediaeval. What the Q'ran says about these things is relatively little, most is tradition. What is decent and modest to wear does vary, I don't know if it is really true that a glimpse of a ladies ankle was once shocking and that covers were put on table legs but all societies enforce 'decency', anthropologists right books on this stuff (e.g. Mary Douglas), often societal norms are clothed in religious terms. A few years ago it would have been unacceptable for any woman to enter a christian church bare headed.

There is a lot of truth to this and I generally agree. However my question that you responded to was largely rhetorical. Smartcooky's post was making a connection with non-muslim women wearing headscarfs. I was trying to get him to clarify his point.

 

[Planigale]

...what is "bollocks" is the claim that "it is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males". In New Zealand head covering for woman are obviously optional as well. In New Zealand you cannot be compelled to cover your head. And in New Zealand many woman choose to cover their heads, and many choose to not do this. Women have agency, and if they choose to cover their head why do you have a problem with that?



Women are treated as second class not just in religion: but everywhere. Everywhere you look. In America women routinely get thrown in jail for having consensual (paid) sex with somebody else. Don't you find that ****** up?

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity.

It was about fear.

This last week we've had many Muslim women come forward and tell their stories about fear. Not fear of what would happen if they "didn't cover their heads." But the fear of simply walking down the street. They shared their experiences of abuse, of hatred. Because of the clothes that they wear, and often because of the colour of their skin. I was cynical at first when I heard about the plans to "#wearahijab" for a day. But on reflection I got it wrong. The clear message we got from most of the Muslim community was that this is helping them heal. It is helping them feel more safe. And this close to the shootings I don't think that there is anything more important to worry about right now.
I won't pretend that as a religion Islam doesn't have to make a lot of changes in the way they treat women. But the changes (in New Zealand) that have to be made in a way echo the way women are (generally) treated on the Marae. I know of many young, progressive Muslim women who will be fighting for those changes, and by shining a spotlight on the religion in the way that New Zealand has embraced this week we have made the job easier for them. Its a problem. But it isn't a problem that will get fixed by "pointing at them and screeching." Its a problem that will get fixed by rejecting the culture of hate that prompted the shooting in the first place, that pushes the religion "into hiding" so we don't really understand or know what is happening. It will be fixed by empowering those that are in the position to make that change.

So you can keep on "pointing and screeching" all you like. Its all just noise to me now. It makes me sad in a way, but then I remember that I live in a country that collectively reacted in a way to this tragedy that supported and cared for the people that were most vulnerable, I remember how lucky I am to have been born in this country, and I feel just a little bit less sad.

This is very true.

I do wear a headscarf at times (I know hypocritical given my post above). I would always wear it if going to the Mosque with my parents. (As an atheist, I would never go myself.) There has always been racist comments but recently some comments are more pointed to what you wear than they used to be.

Men feel justified in commenting on women appearance. Big boobs, no boobs, hairy arm pits, head scarves, hairstyle, short skirts.

I appreciate the political symbolism and solidarity, but I chose not to wear a headscarf, because I don't want to be defined by an article of clothing.

 

[Stout]

What a drag

That bit about covering table legs for modesty turns out to be an urban myth.

If that were true, it would be funny af.

 

[smartcooky]

...what is "bollocks" is the claim that "it is another example of women treated as inferior by the religion because head coverings are obviously optional for males". In New Zealand head covering for woman are obviously optional as well. In New Zealand you cannot be compelled to cover your head. And in New Zealand many woman choose to cover their heads, and many choose to not do this. Women have agency, and if they choose to cover their head why do you have a problem with that?



Women are treated as second class not just in religion: but everywhere. Everywhere you look. In America women routinely get thrown in jail for having consensual (paid) sex with somebody else. Don't you find that ****** up?

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity.

It was about fear.

This last week we've had many Muslim women come forward and tell their stories about fear. Not fear of what would happen if they "didn't cover their heads." But the fear of simply walking down the street. They shared their experiences of abuse, of hatred. Because of the clothes that they wear, and often because of the colour of their skin.
I was cynical at first when I heard about the plans to "#wearahijab" for a day. But on reflection I got it wrong. The clear message we got from most of the Muslim community was that this is helping them heal. It is helping them feel more safe. And this close to the shootings I don't think that there is anything more important to worry about right now.
I won't pretend that as a religion Islam doesn't have to make a lot of changes in the way they treat women. But the changes (in New Zealand) that have to be made in a way echo the way women are (generally) treated on the Marae. I know of many young, progressive Muslim women who will be fighting for those changes, and by shining a spotlight on the religion in the way that New Zealand has embraced this week we have made the job easier for them. Its a problem. But it isn't a problem that will get fixed by "pointing at them and screeching." Its a problem that will get fixed by rejecting the culture of hate that prompted the shooting in the first place, that pushes the religion "into hiding" so we don't really understand or know what is happening. It will be fixed by empowering those that are in the position to make that change.

So you can keep on "pointing and screeching" all you like. Its all just noise to me now. It makes me sad in a way, but then I remember that I live in a country that collectively reacted in a way to this tragedy that supported and cared for the people that were most vulnerable, I remember how lucky I am to have been born in this country, and I feel just a little bit less sad.

This is an outstanding post that nails all the points squarely on the head, and from a poster that I don't always agree with.

Most New Zealanders responded to the mass murder of 50 of its citizens with kindness, understanding, compassion and solidarity with the victims' families. Their government reacts by taking steps to minimize the chances of it happening again.

Most Americans respond the same way, but unfortunately there is a large minority that respond with platitudes such as "thoughts and prayers" and then do exactly nothing about it, and react angrily at any thought that their government might take some of their precious toys away.

Memo to President Trump: Watch what our Prime Minister has done and learn from it. THAT is how a national leader is supposed to act in the face of a tragedy.

 

[Baylor]

The decision made by many women in New Zealand (including our Prime Minister) to wear a head covering was not just about respect. It wasn't just about solidarity.

It was about fear.

It was about submission. White women are growing tired of the effeminate bugmen that permeate the West. It's only natural they start showing affinity to men who at least have some conviction.

 

[Baylor]

Memo to President Trump: Watch what our Prime Minister has done and learn from it. THAT is how a national leader is supposed to act in the face of a tragedy.

Lol. I love these "look at this breast feeding woman wearing a hijab that's what a real leader looks like" posts. Sure, a small island nation less populace than Cook County is totally comparable to a global hegemony with a population of 330,000,000.

 

[PhantomWolf]

So two things.

1) I have worked with a number of Muslim women here in New Zealand, women that came here from across the Muslim world. Some wore a head scarf, others didn't, it seems to be a personal thing in countries such as New Zealand. I have also worked with Exclusive Brethren, and some the women wore head scarves all the time, others didn't. I have also been in a number of churches where many of the women were hats or coverings, and many didn't. The same thing seems to apply to them all, it's a choice that some follow and some don't.

2) I'm going to point put that by tradition in Maori society, that when they are meeting together the women sit at the back while the men sit at the front. Sop all this hand whinging over the Muslim population doing the same, especially by people outside of NZ, I seriously, and politely, suggest you go stick your head in a bucket, then go and fix your own countries before telling us what to do in ours.

 

[Baylor]

Sop all this hand whinging over the Muslim population doing the same, especially by people outside of NZ, I seriously, and politely, suggest you go stick your head in a bucket, then go and fix your own countries before telling us what to do in ours.

The most ironic comment I've read on this forum.

 

[Steve]

So two things.

1) I have worked with a number of Muslim women here in New Zealand, women that came here from across the Muslim world. Some wore a head scarf, others didn't, it seems to be a personal thing in countries such as New Zealand. I have also worked with Exclusive Brethren, and some the women wore head scarves all the time, others didn't. I have also been in a number of churches where many of the women were hats or coverings, and many didn't. The same thing seems to apply to them all, it's a choice that some follow and some don't.

2) I'm going to point put that by tradition in Maori society, that when they are meeting together the women sit at the back while the men sit at the front. Sop all this hand whinging over the Muslim population doing the same, especially by people outside of NZ, I seriously, and politely, suggest you go stick your head in a bucket, then go and fix your own countries before telling us what to do in ours.

Marvin : Would you like me to stick my head in a bucket of water? I've got one with me.
Trillian: Who is it?
Zaphod: It's Marvin. He just phoned up to wash his head at us.

Douglas Adams - a quote for any occasion!