I agree with that too, it's definitely an oppressive garment and I'd criticise it from that angle as well. I just think it defeats the point of modesty, and I wanted to know what people though of it from that angle.
In traditional Islamic cultures, women are always "owned" and controlled by some man: husband, father, brothers, uncles, nearest living male cousin, etc.
Islamic modesty is religious modesty, not social convention. Religiously, people cannot be owned by people. Theoretical religion and lay religion always differ.
IIN I think "Islamic modesty" like the hijab is anything but "modest"
← View full post
I agree but the true purpose of that garment is submission and ownership, not modesty.
--
Anonymous Post Author
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
VetusRebellioIudaicum
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I agree with that too, it's definitely an oppressive garment and I'd criticise it from that angle as well. I just think it defeats the point of modesty, and I wanted to know what people though of it from that angle.
Submission-definitely
Ownership-not all wearers are married (marriage is "ownership")
--
Boojum
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
3
3
In traditional Islamic cultures, women are always "owned" and controlled by some man: husband, father, brothers, uncles, nearest living male cousin, etc.
--
VetusRebellioIudaicum
5 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Islamic modesty is religious modesty, not social convention. Religiously, people cannot be owned by people. Theoretical religion and lay religion always differ.