1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Burkini Beach?

 
LauraG
 
Avatar
 
 
LauraG
Total Posts:  245
Joined  17-05-2016
 
 
 
18 August 2016 22:58
 

I don’t know how many here are old enough and/or are interested enough in 60s pop culture to know about the “Beach Party” genre of films popular in that decade. I was a small kid when they were released and therefore did not see them at the time. Somehow, however, I managed to see a handful of them later on. Being a fan of musicals, I found them playful & entertaining, albeit admittedly very “corny” in a Brady Bunch kinda way (part of their “retro” charm, if you will). Bikini Beach starring Frankie Avalon & Annette Funicello is one I remember in particular - haha!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bikini_Beach#/media/File:BikiniBeachposter.jpg....

Flash forward to yesterday when a news article on the Burkini flap in France showed up in my facebook newsfeed. I read the article and then proceeded to read the gazillion comments that followed. I don’t usually “like” comments, nor comment myself on such comment threads, but I did in this case in a few places. One was a response to a (presumably French Muslim) man who stated how the western culture was evil and that western women showing their bodies on a beach was indicative of that. And you guessed it perhaps - he was horrified by the burkini ban on some French beaches. I replied - if you find your environment so evil (“real” bikinis and all!), why do you continue to choose to live there? Or, if you are an immigrant, why did you choose to go there? There was no response.

There were many responses by non-Muslim, “western” people who think the ban is horrible, ridiculous, anti-freedom, anti-Muslim, anti-woman, and so on. As I believe I said a whille back on the “do Muslims want to assimilate?” thread, I very much disagree with this view. Rather, I agree with this view:
“The burkini is not a new swimsuit fashion trend. It’s the translation of a political project for a counter-society based on woman’s enslavement,” Mr. Valls told La Provence local newspaper in an interview. “There is an idea that, by nature, women are indecent, impure so should cover themselves entirely. That is not compatible with the values of France and the Republic.”
https://www.google.com/amp/www.wsj.com/amp/articles/burkini-goes-against-french-values-says-french-prime-minister-1471444201

I hadn’t thought about the Bikini Beach movie in a long time, until yesterday. Maybe, for just a moment, I felt somewhat nostalgic for a pre-911, pre-ISIS and the like, time period. Yesterday, was also the day I happened to listen to Sam’s most recent podcast. And to those who might remember, I posted about the ISIS magazine Dabiq some months ago which Sam extensively quotes from in said podcast.

So, this meme started going through my head: burkini beach vs. bikini beach, burkini beach vs. bikini beach, burkini beach vs. bikini beach. Some of the comments on the article I mentioned railed against the “fashion police” and that women should be able to wear whatever the hell they want. Perhaps? Perhaps not. The bikini vs. burkini beach controversy, at least for me as a western secular woman, is indicative of the much larger “clash of civilizations” that we shall experience for the foreseeable future. And it is a disturbing thought to say the least.

 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
19 August 2016 05:26
 

Don’t you find it ironic that it was once the bikini that was being banned? Now the bikini is the approved mark of “decency”. Will women ever be free to wear what they like, I wonder, or will it always have to be government approved, court sanctioned, and “decent”?

... The Cannes mayor’s actual ruling didn’t make any specific mention of the burkini, but banned from the beaches anyone who wouldn’t wear “correct attire, respectful of decency and secularism.” It also prohibited swimmers from keeping their clothes on in the water….


This spate of bans, although I’m willing to believe it is being put in place for well-intentioned reasons mostly, plays very much into the hands of the anti-muslim brigade. How far down that line should a free society be prepared to go? Personally, I don’t much care if burqas are banned, but I’d feel uncomfortable about telling a woman she can’t wear a headscarf. But why should I have a say on the matter at all? Why should anyone tell me what to wear? How certain are these local authorities that Burkinis are a) offensive and b) deliberately offensive or c) a call to arms?

  A few years ago there was a lot of coverage in the press about celebrity women wearing Burkinis. It was positive coverage—Nicole Kidman and Nigella Lawson setting trends etc etc.  In Australia, Muslim lifeguards wore Burkinis. They weren’t indecent then.

Is it possible that the western world is over reacting to the burkini? 

 

 

 

 
LauraG
 
Avatar
 
 
LauraG
Total Posts:  245
Joined  17-05-2016
 
 
 
19 August 2016 06:04
 

I read a little bit about the history of the bikini and I find it quite fascinating. This wiki article mentions it considered being risque in the early days and that it was actually banned from the Miss World contest. Yet, I don’t think they were necessarily “banned” outright in (many) other cases and contexts. I’m going to read more. This quote from the wiki article I found especially interesting:
“The bikini gradually grew to gain wide acceptance in Western society. According to French fashion historian Olivier Saillard, the bikini is perhaps the most popular type of female beachwear around the globe because of “the power of women, and not the power of fashion”. As he explains, “The emancipation of swimwear has always been linked to the emancipation of women.”

I agree.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_bikini

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
20 August 2016 10:39
 
Ola - 19 August 2016 05:26 AM

Don’t you find it ironic that it was once the bikini that was being banned? Now the bikini is the approved mark of “decency”. Will women ever be free to wear what they like, I wonder, or will it always have to be government approved, court sanctioned, and “decent”?

... The Cannes mayor’s actual ruling didn’t make any specific mention of the burkini, but banned from the beaches anyone who wouldn’t wear “correct attire, respectful of decency and secularism.” It also prohibited swimmers from keeping their clothes on in the water….


This spate of bans, although I’m willing to believe it is being put in place for well-intentioned reasons mostly, plays very much into the hands of the anti-muslim brigade. How far down that line should a free society be prepared to go? Personally, I don’t much care if burqas are banned, but I’d feel uncomfortable about telling a woman she can’t wear a headscarf. But why should I have a say on the matter at all? Why should anyone tell me what to wear? How certain are these local authorities that Burkinis are a) offensive and b) deliberately offensive or c) a call to arms?

  A few years ago there was a lot of coverage in the press about celebrity women wearing Burkinis. It was positive coverage—Nicole Kidman and Nigella Lawson setting trends etc etc.  In Australia, Muslim lifeguards wore Burkinis. They weren’t indecent then.

Is it possible that the western world is over reacting to the burkini? 

 

Islam is an invasive and pervasive ideology and they are just making a stand. But the kumbaya crowd singing about good Muslims and freedom will likely win out in the end. But make no mistake that when Islam has enough freedom then you will be wearing burkini at the beach.

 

 
 
June
 
Avatar
 
 
June
Total Posts:  337
Joined  09-06-2013
 
 
 
20 August 2016 11:27
 
Ola - 19 August 2016 05:26 AM

  A few years ago there was a lot of coverage in the press about celebrity women wearing Burkinis. It was positive coverage—Nicole Kidman and Nigella Lawson setting trends etc etc.  In Australia, Muslim lifeguards wore Burkinis. They weren’t indecent then.

Is it possible that the western world is over reacting to the burkini? 

 

I don’t know.  Celebrity women are good about those kind of things.  They sport the burkini and make it look stylish.    Do you think we will see the Muslim women in bikinis?  Will they give the same positive coverage?

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
20 August 2016 14:10
 

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 August 2016 09:32
 
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
21 August 2016 09:54
 
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
21 August 2016 11:20
 
Ola - 21 August 2016 09:54 AM
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?


You’re disagreeing with something he believes, therefore he’s compelled to dig in an double down and to attack and vilify you over and above the actual substance of the discussion.

It’s what dogmatists do.

I recommend giving it every bit of attention it warrants.

I think GAD’s a good guy—pretty sure he’s a good neighbor which is what’s really important IMO—but he is also a dogmatist (won’t genuinely consider ideas unfavorable to his sacred cows, for one thing/will reliably go with straw men and take a reactionary and starkly binary view on his sacred cow issues). It’s just part of the Dark Side of human nature though. Most are simply unaware of it/don’t know any better, but it does also require an unhealthy degree of egocentrism, even if only a little. There’s a good argument for calling it out and taking it on, but in a social climate that’s already anti-dogmatic, like this forum (dogmatism doesn’t exactly give anyone any traction in here), I don’t think the sails on that ship have much wind to work with. Doesn’t mean there’s no good reason to call it out and take it on, just that it’s mostly redundant—dogmatist are generally seen for what they are—we have a pretty dogmatism-hostile social climate here. GAD is just tolerated because he’s definitely a cut above most dogmatists—offers actual substance a lot of the time—and he’s kind of a forum institution. He’s often pretty funny too.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 August 2016 11:35
 

Don’t pay attention to SkepticX, is a self-righteous, condescending, pretentious bore whose most every post equates to if you were superior like me you would think like me. He is probably a good guy but no one I would want to be around and he is only tolerated here because he is a joke and we ignore him.

[ Edited: 21 August 2016 11:39 by GAD]
 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 August 2016 11:38
 
Ola - 21 August 2016 09:54 AM
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?

For what, projecting modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism onto the issue of Burkinis?

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
21 August 2016 12:07
 
GAD - 21 August 2016 11:38 AM
Ola - 21 August 2016 09:54 AM
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?

For what, projecting modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism onto the issue of Burkinis?

Terrorism is the context.

 
SkepticX
 
Avatar
 
 
SkepticX
Total Posts:  14817
Joined  24-12-2004
 
 
 
21 August 2016 12:47
 
GAD - 21 August 2016 11:35 AM

Don’t pay attention to SkepticX ...

I was being sincere on all of that, man. I can’t blame you for your response, but I was being sincere, not sarcastic (arguably acerbic perhaps). I don’t expect people to be flawless to be likeable, even when I consider a flaw pretty serious. That’s just the way we humans are—the nature of the beast—and I’m kind of a fan of my fellow humans in general.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 August 2016 16:53
 
Ola - 21 August 2016 12:07 PM
GAD - 21 August 2016 11:38 AM
Ola - 21 August 2016 09:54 AM
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?

For what, projecting modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism onto the issue of Burkinis?

Terrorism is the context.

Only in the context that accepting the insidious ideologies of Islam allows it to grow, and where it grows repression, conflict and terrorism eventually follow. The women are victims and promoting them as hero’s for wearing their prison bags to the beach is simply keeping them as such. If the KKK made there women wear clan robes and clankinis, would you be cooing about how modern, or “moderate” they are? No, I don’t think so. Rationalize on that for a while, I’d be interested in how you reconcile the rights of one hate group vs another.

 

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  17728
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
21 August 2016 17:05
 
SkepticX - 21 August 2016 12:47 PM
GAD - 21 August 2016 11:35 AM

Don’t pay attention to SkepticX ...

I was being sincere on all of that, man. I can’t blame you for your response, but I was being sincere, not sarcastic (arguably acerbic perhaps). I don’t expect people to be flawless to be likeable, even when I consider a flaw pretty serious. That’s just the way we humans are—the nature of the beast—and I’m kind of a fan of my fellow humans in general.

Bullshit! What did interjecting your deluded little fantasy of me have to do with the conversation, not a fucking thing.

 
 
Ola
 
Avatar
 
 
Ola
Total Posts:  1117
Joined  12-07-2016
 
 
 
21 August 2016 18:25
 
GAD - 21 August 2016 04:53 PM
Ola - 21 August 2016 12:07 PM
GAD - 21 August 2016 11:38 AM
Ola - 21 August 2016 09:54 AM
GAD - 21 August 2016 09:32 AM
Ola - 20 August 2016 02:10 PM

So, Burkinis—a modern invention more likely to be used by modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist Muslim women than by fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism? Seriously?

What began this fear of the Burkinis? I mean, what was the burkini-related incident that alerted us to the danger of Burkinis?

I feel pretty confused about it so far.

I don’t think confused as much as deliberately obtuse.

Pardon me?

For what, projecting modern, or “moderate”, or pro-reformist fundamentalists—is now a symbol of terrorism onto the issue of Burkinis?

Terrorism is the context.

Only in the context that accepting the insidious ideologies of Islam allows it to grow,

Nope. It’s the context of the ban, as stated by the court.

and where it grows repression, conflict and terrorism eventually follow. The women are victims and promoting them as hero’s for wearing their prison bags to the beach is simply keeping them as such. If the KKK made there women wear clan robes and clankinis, would you be cooing about how modern, or “moderate” they are? No, I don’t think so.


“Moderate” is a relative term - ISIS is not moderate, radical Islam is not moderate - whether you wish to acknowledge it or not,  modern Muslim women are choosing to enjoy perhaps previously unaccessible activities, such as swimming in public or playing volleyball in the Olympics, and for that they can now wear sports gear that doesn’t break their religious etiquette.  It is an alternative to wearing cumbersome covering up outfits like t-shirts and tracksuits which aren’t that easy to swim in. And an alternative to fundamentalist style thinking that has women on segregated beaches and even segregates the sea area before a woman might be allowed to dip her toe in.

However, if you want insist that the only purpose of sportswear such as a burkini is to opress a Muslim woman or to make a stand, then I am not here to persuade you otherwise. I would like a link to the burkini incident that prompted the current spate of bans though? All I can find is that it was a pre-emptive strike to avoid public disorder, rather than evidence that anyone was trying to use the burkini to create public disorder, or as part of making a stand.

But of course, now that there is a ban, it is a moot point, right? -  the burkini may become exactly what the proponents of the ban feared it was. Extremists on all sides of the fight must love this ban! 

And I am beginning to wonder if the ban wasn’t just anger, plain and simple, with no rational motive.

Rationalize on that for a while, I’d be interested in how you reconcile the rights of one hate group vs another.

Well, I am not sure I can, do, want to, or need to. I’ve already said I am not against the banning of the burqa. Modesty on a beach, though, is more nuanced because it’s not necessarily the same women involved.

But I’m not trying to convince anyone. I’m trying to understand it.

 

 

 

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›