This site has relocated to kevinalanmcgill.com
Please join me for intellectually stimulating poetry, prose, lyrics and graphic illustrations and the K.S.E.A. Democracy Project.
And check out my eBooks at your favourite eBook retailer including: Smashwords Barnes & Noble Chapters Indigo Amazon Kindle Apple Books
Not sure I get this, Kevin. Burka’s may seem extreme, but they are no more, no less than Amish or Mennonite dress. Are the Amish women oppressed? I am an adult female who chooses not to wear short skirts and decolletage (Granted that at my age it would be laughable, but you take my point.). Am I oppressed. The burka is simply a means to target Muslims, to make their traditions seem more egregious than the traditions of other religious groups. How does that serve women as a gender?
Hi Barb: Thanks for responding.
Here’s the thing:
With Park Bench Philosophy, I am trying to put the “people aspect” into the political discourse.
I heard the same kind of comments about toplessness years ago as I hear about burkas currently.
“Well, if some women go topless, we will all have to go topless.”
Therefore if some women cover up, pretty soon we will all have to cover up.
I think that aspect of the dialogue needs to be addressed by both sides. Otherwise we will continue to be stuck.
A second sticking point is that, as you point out, we seem to be focusing on one religion here when the fact is that the “modest dress” demand is part of Islam, Judaism, and Old Testament Christianity and probably a bunch of other faiths. And it’s basis may just be the idea that men are not responsible for their sexual urges and can find any excuse to, well, excuse their actions.
So you are very correct, much of the narrative is anti-muslim. Yet even the pro-muslim rhetoric tries to ignore the issues.
It’s people being people. Which of course can be dangerous.