How would you react? OUTRAGEOUS!!

[East_TN_Patriot]

Well, I guess I'll be the lone dissenter and take on the collective rage of everyone else. 

 

First, we don't actually know what was taught in that classroom and it's far too easy to take the word of a pissed off parent who wasn't there and may be extremely intolerant of any exposure to other religions and cultures.  It's not like it would be the first time when someone would exercise selective judgement and over-emphasize specific details in order to reflect their pre-existing worldview. 

Second, I have no problem with this exercise as long as it is taught in the proper context, and by that, I mean that they should show that for many in the Middle East, the social norms are considered sexist and intolerant.  However, allowing students to voluntarily wear another culture's dress is not an issue to me at all.  I also have no problem with them discussing the Islamic faith as long as it is taught in the proper context, which is to acknowledge that there are many variations of the Islamic faith and the Wahhabi perspective that has gained influence in the Middle East is quite intolerant of other religious and cultural ideas. I would hope that my children would be taught the importance of being tolerant and open to other ideas and cultures.

Third, I strongly disagree that blaming US foreign policy for the rise of Wahhabism in the Middle East is "rewriting history,"  Rather, not acknowledging how the influence of western Europe and the United States has directly contributed to the rise of the Wahhabi faction and the Muslim Brotherhood is simply inaccurate and an act of collective denial.  The West has dominated Middle Eastern politics and economics since WWI, and our desire for cheap oil led to decades of policy where we ignored human rights violations in the region committed by the ruling elites.  The people there largely resent western influence, and have been subjected to the influence of Wahhabi Islam, which has been taught in schools and churches and written into their legal code.  In that region, the population definitely sees the Muslim Brotherhood as freedom fighters because they are trying to break free from the influence of western society.  I don't see this as a good thing, because the underlying philosophy of that movement is intolerance rather than democracy.  Whether we like it or not, the US foreign policy is partly to blame for what we are dealing with in the Middle East.

And finally, there's this:
 

“The Christian perspective was not taught,” she said. “They went in-depth into Islam and I’m not comfortable with it.”

OK, and?  We live in a country that is dominated by Christianity.  If they didn't talk "in-depth" about Islam during that class, where exactly would they get any sort of outside perspective on the religion?  Why is it a bad thing to discuss other religions in the world, especially when we have so many people who believe that terrorism and our nation's security is the result of religion-based conflict?  This statement smacks of pure closed-mindedness and is exactly what education is supposed to combat.

Edited March 6, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[TMF]

Sorry ETP, but the teacher is the one who brought this stuff in for the kids to wear. No matter how you slice it, the wearing of a burqa is a cultural standard that forces the objectification of women and defines them as a second class. Even in the Islamic faith there is NO requirement to wear a burqa. This is done as a control measure by oppressive governments and cultures. Considering the teacher not only has these garments on hand, but brought them into class for the students to wear tells me this was not a voluntary exercise for the student. I'll be damned if someone is going to dress my daughter in an outfit that is designed to oppress and objectify a female as a requirement for "learning". Why not make all the girls dress up like Slave Leia? Might as well, it supports the same message.

I'm a pretty open minded guy, but there is absolutely no context where this is okay.

[Guest sculpinyakker]

Whoa... When I was young, the kids dressed up like Indians (native americans); uneducated, unholy, "savages".

This was even tolerated in schools, and as a part of education!!

No one said the lifestyle was preferred!

 

No offense to Native Americans intended, descriptors were historically commonplace.

 

I don't see a big deal here. The kids are learning about different cultures. 

Run for your life!

 

By the way, I thought the burqa dress was worn to hide the features of a female, including most of the face, thus making "objectifying" her near impossible.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think TMF got it right, especially about the objectification and control. And I seriously doubt this was anything

that was voluntary and included other religious beliefs. Indoctrination.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Sorry ETP, but the teacher is the one who brought this stuff in for the kids to wear. No matter how you slice it, the wearing of a burqa is a cultural standard that forces the objectification of women and defines them as a second class. Even in the Islamic faith there is NO requirement to wear a burqa. This is done as a control measure by oppressive governments and cultures. Considering the teacher not only has these garments on hand, but brought them into class for the students to wear tells me this was not a voluntary exercise for the student. I'll be damned if someone is going to dress my daughter in an outfit that is designed to oppress and objectify a female as a requirement for "learning". Why not make all the girls dress up like Slave Leia? Might as well, it supports the same message.

I'm a pretty open minded guy, but there is absolutely no context where this is okay.

 

First, I did state clearly that the very context I was speaking of was related to sexism and intolerance:

 

I have no problem with this exercise as long as it is taught in the proper context, and by that, I mean that they should show that for many in the Middle East, the social norms are considered sexist and intolerant. 

 

Second, if you notice, only one kid is wearing an actual burqa (maybe a second if you count the one of the far right as a burqa as well, however it is actually called a niqab).  Is it not possible this could be an exercise in demonstrating how many women in the Middle East are being reduced and degraded?  What better way for someone to really understand what women there face than to give them a little bit of first hand experience?  I see this as no different than the classes where high school kids wear a vest to simulate pregnancy or Jane Elliot's "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment back in the 1960s.  

Third, I am sure nobody has bothered to pay attention to what is written on the board behind the kids.  It clearly says:
 

Splits:

Islam - Sunni/Shia 

Judaism - Reform/Conservative/Orthodox

Christian - Catholic/Orthodox (followed by some other writing that is obscured by the kids, but I can make out "in the year..." and "protestantism")

When taken in as part of the situation, the intent of demonstrating the variety of dress is obvious.  It seems very obvious that the teacher is trying to show how different world religions have multiple variations, and in the Islamic faith, different groups adopt different types of dress in accordance to their beliefs.  It is the Wahabi faction, a strain of Sunni Islam, that believes in wearing of the burqa.  
 

Also, just because the teacher brings the garments to class, how does that automatically translate into forcing kids to wear it and/or indoctrination as someone else says?  If I bring a police duty belt and body armor to class and ask if anyone wants to try it on, is that forcing someone to do it?  If the teacher brought in a set of military gear including a helmet and gave kids an opportunity to try them on, is that forcing them and indoctrination (keep in mind that many believe the US military policies on gays and women in combat are intolerant and oppressive).  Frankly, I think your comparison of this activity to dressing up a kid like a fictional character on Star Wars is a bit absurd, however after what I see cheerleaders wear these days, I don't guess it would be all that big of a deal.  Regardless, if these kids were wearing different types of traditional Jewish attire, or garments typically worn by Catholics versus Puritans, there would be no "outrage" expressed at all.  If this was an exercise exploring the dress of any other culture on earth besides Islamic culture, there would be no attention paid to it, and that to me is very telling.

Edited March 8, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[LowBb]

ETP, I just want to say thank you for a great, intelligent and insightful take on this situation. It, to me, is obvious what this teacher was doing. She was doing lessons on different religions. How that became evil liberals forcing our poor children to dress up like terrorists is beyond me.

[TMF]

 
By the way, I thought the burqa dress was worn to hide the features of a female, including most of the face, thus making "objectifying" her near impossible.

You can look it up in the dictionary, but no where do I see that word only pertaining to sexual objects. Feel free to hop a plane to Afghanistan to see the way women are treated in society and tell me they aren't forced objects. I know better. I've spent 4 years in the Islamic world; women are indeed 2nd class citizens, and in some places I see them treated worse than livestock.

[TMF]

First, I did state clearly that the very context I was speaking of was related to sexism and intolerance:
 

 
Second, if you notice, only one kid is wearing an actual burqa (maybe a second if you could the one of the far right as a burqa as well, however it is actually called a niqab).  Is it not possible this could be an exercise in demonstrating how many women in the Middle East are being reduced and degraded?  What better way for someone to really understand what women there face than to give them a little bit of first hand experience?  I see this as no different than the classes where high school kids wear a vest to simulate pregnancy or Jane Elliot's "blue eyes/brown eyes" experiment back in the 1960s.  
Third, I am sure nobody has bothered to pay attention to what is written on the board behind the kids.  It clearly says:
 


When taken in as part of the situation, the intent of demonstrating the variety of dress is obvious.  It seems very obvious that the teacher is trying to show how different world religions have multiple variations, and in the Islamic faith, different groups adopt different types of dress in accordance to their beliefs.  It is the Wahabi faction, a strain of Sunni Islam, that believes in wearing of the burqa.  
 
Also, just because the teacher brings the garments to class, how does that automatically translate into forcing kids to wear it and/or indoctrination as someone else says?  If I bring a police duty belt and body armor to class and ask if anyone wants to try it on, is that forcing someone to do it?  If the teacher brought in a set of military gear including a helmet and gave kids an opportunity to try them on, is that forcing them and indoctrination (keep in mind that many believe the US military policies on gays and women in combat are intolerant and oppressive).  Frankly, I think your comparison of this activity to dressing up a kid like a fictional character on Star Wars is a bit absurd, however after what I see cheerleaders wear these days, I don't guess it would be all that big of a deal.  Regardless, if these kids were wearing different types of traditional Jewish attire, or garments typically worn by Catholics versus Puritans, there would be no "outrage" expressed at all.  If this was an exercise exploring the dress of any other culture on earth besides Islamic culture, there would be no attention paid to it, and that to me is very telling.

Perhaps that is the case, or perhaps not. The bottom line here is I do not want my child being dressed in a human slavery outfit, I don't care the context. Think about how pissed people would be if they were making the black kids dress up in chains and learning how to pick cotton. You may not see the offensive similarity there, but you may not have been exposed to the culturally acceptable subhuman behavior towards women I've witnessed between Iraq and Afghanistan. It is evil. No matter how many good folks come out of this region it doesn't change their evil culture and I won't have my kids being forced to emulate people of that culture.

You may say that it was voluntary on the part of the kids, but that is just as big of an assumption as to say it was involuntary. Who is right? Well, I remember being in class as a kid, and there is an expectation to participate. I can't imagine a world where a teacher would tell me to do something and I would say no. You can't deny the influential role that teachers play in terms of kids following their instructions for fear of being punished or bringing attention to themselves to be the subject of ridicule for being a problem child.

My kid will never wear a burqa for any reason ever. This is not about intolerance. It is for the same reason she will not be dressed like a whore or a slave.

[East_TN_Patriot]

Perhaps that is the case, or perhaps not. The bottom line here is I do not want my child being dressed in a human slavery outfit, I don't care the context. Think about how pissed people would be if they were making the black kids dress up in chains and learning how to pick cotton. You may not see the offensive similarity there, but you may not have been exposed to the culturally acceptable subhuman behavior towards women I've witnessed between Iraq and Afghanistan. It is evil. No matter how many good folks come out of this region it doesn't change their evil culture and I won't have my kids being forced to emulate people of that culture. 

 

 

Then that is a different argument entirely. However, as a sociologist who specializes in criminology (including terrorism), I study the culture of the Middle East and discuss it in detail in classes I teach.  I agree that the way many women are treated in certain parts of the Middle East is evil.  However, I believe you are being unfair and inaccurate to call the entire culture evil.  Rather, it is a portion of the population that has been able to take control and force their particular view of Wahabi Islam on the population.  Your characterization is basically the same as calling all people in the United States evil because a certain segment of the Southern population owned slaves (and justified it using the Christian scriptures).  

 

 

You may say that it was voluntary on the part of the kids, but that is just as big of an assumption as to say it was involuntary. Who is right? Well, I remember being in class as a kid, and there is an expectation to participate. I can't imagine a world where a teacher would tell me to do something and I would say no. You can't deny the influential role that teachers play in terms of kids following their instructions for fear of being punished or bringing attention to themselves to be the subject of ridicule for being a problem child.
 

 

Really?  The assumption is yours.  Please recall the statement from the school district:
 

The Lumberton Independent School District released a statement to Fox News defending the class.

“The lesson that was offered focused on exposing students to world cultures, religions, customs and belief systems,” the statement read. “The lesson is not teaching a specific religion, and the students volunteered to wear the clothing.”

It would seem that the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.  As also reported in the story, the teacher allegedly "told the students that she did not necessarily agree with the lessons - but she was required to teach the material."  So on one hand, she is saying this, but on the other, she is forcing kids to succumb to anti-American propaganda at risk of being ridiculed? Further, asking for volunteers and telling a kid to do something are two completely different things.  

Now whether you agree with the method or not is another discussion entirely, but people creating their own facts based on pure speculation and a commentary from a biased news outlet that is notorious for it's anti-Islamic rhetoric is simply inappropriate.  I also believe that the people who support this particular exercise should also be open to it being applied to all groups, including African slaves assuming it was an appropriate part of the material being taught.  Frankly, I think many young people, including black Americans, would be well served by an exercise that reminds them what sort of treatment their ancestors were subjected to in this country.  

Edited March 8, 2013 by East_TN_Patriot

[TMF]

Then that is a different argument entirely. However, as a sociologist who specializes in criminology (including terrorism), I study the culture of the Middle East and discuss it in detail in classes I teach. I agree that the way many women are treated in certain parts of the Middle East is evil. However, I believe you are being unfair and inaccurate to call the entire culture evil. Rather, it is a portion of the population that has been able to take control and force their particular view of Wahabi Islam on the population. Your characterization is basically the same as calling all people in the United States evil because a certain segment of the Southern population owned slaves (and justified it using the Christian scriptures).

No, not at all. First, the Wahhabi movement in Iraq is relatively small. Yeah, they're there, but they weren't the people we were mostly fighting. At any rate, the worst treatment of women I witnessed was how the Shias treated their women. Perhaps that had something to do with them being traditionally poor and socially/politically isolated, but I don't really care their reasons. The fact that this was an acceptable practice in their culture shows me that they are, as a whole, morally bankrupt people. Comparing them to slave owners perhaps is a good comparison, since the women in this culture are indeed slaves by definition, but slavery is and has always been evil with the exception of using captured enemy and convicted criminals as labor. However, I don't see that translating to our own society for two reasons. One, we are talking about the here and now, not what happened 150 years ago. Two, even when slavery was legal it was still challenged nearly equally by the anti-slave movement as being evil, and it was not a normal practice for the average American. Not every dirt farmer had a slave, despite popular belief, whereas nearly every household in countries who have oppressive laws against women has a woman as a commodity, not a person.

For more on whether or not we can classify a culture as evil, please look into the Ayatollah's opinion on sexual contact with prepubescent girls. I can assure you, if the Pope came out tomorrow and suggested that non-penetrative sexual contact with girls younger than 9 was okay, nearly every Catholic in the world would have a problem with that regardless of his position as Pope.  And yet, you'll be hard pressed to find Shias of that region to think ill of the Ayatollah.  This is not a culture I need to better understand for the purpose of tolerance.  I only need to understand it for the purpose of keeping such a cancer from spreading.

As for the rise of Wahhabists in Afghanistan, yeah... they're pretty bad. Even if the Taliban never has a majority influence in the government once we leave, it doesn't matter. Their mark has been left on this generation and every generation after this one. Several decades ago women were well on their path to independence, or at least relative independence compared to the region. The oppressive laws which violate a female's basic human rights in Afghanistan only came about in the last few decades. The cultural shift has empowered generations of men to trade and barter women as a commodity. They are not humans, they are objects.

I know you're playing devil's advocate here, and it isn't as if I don't see the validity of the point you're trying to make. Best case scenario you have a teacher who is using props to demostrate social norms of other cultures and presenting it in such a forum as to draw attention to the oppressive nature of their laws... that is best case scenario. Worst case scenario this was done as "cultural sensitivity" training to show how other cultures do things differently, but not including that those practices are done involuntary with threat of physical violence and imprisonment for lack of compliance. Either way, if it is okay to dress young American girls in clothing which symbolizes female objectification and slavery as an education tool to draw attention to other cultures then it must be okay to dress the Jewish kids with a gold Star of David on their shirts to teach kids about the holocaust. I don't believe either practice is acceptable. There are better ways to do that.
 

It would seem that the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise. As also reported in the story, the teacher allegedly "told the students that she did not necessarily agree with the lessons - but she was required to teach the material." So on one hand, she is saying this, but on the other, she is forcing kids to succumb to anti-American propaganda at risk of being ridiculed? Further, asking for volunteers and telling a kid to do something are two completely different things.

Now whether you agree with the method or not is another discussion entirely, but people creating their own facts based on pure speculation and a commentary from a biased news outlet that is notorious for it's anti-Islamic rhetoric is simply inappropriate. I also believe that the people who support this particular exercise should also be open to it being applied to all groups, including African slaves assuming it was an appropriate part of the material being taught. Frankly, I think many young people, including black Americans, would be well served by an exercise that reminds them what sort of treatment their ancestors were subjected to in this country.

Notice that I mention "culture" here. I don't want to mistake this for an indictment of the whole of Islam. There is no mandate in the Quran or hadiths for women to wear burqas, hijabs, niqabs, chadors, etc. Just like there is no mandate for Muslim men to wear a dishdasha, kufiya, turban, etc. Scholars who quote the Quran regarding modest dress and the hadiths regarding how Muhammed and his wives dressed is subjective and is interpreted to modern Islamic dress codes by conservatives, but there are plenty of Muslims in the world who don't follow this as sunnah. Hell, despite what folks see on tv, MOST Muslim men don't wear any covering on their head although many believe it is sunnah to do so because Momo did it, when in fact Momo was just playing the part of what a dignified Arab of the day dressed as... you know, all the ones who were praying to the moon god and such and being molested by genies.

And I suppose I'm making the unfounded assumption that this was not voluntary. Things may have changed, but when I was in school if the teacher were to ask, "Johnny, would you like to come up here and participate?", that was an implied task, not something that a student would say "no" to. I assume as a teacher of students you know this. I've never been a teacher in acedamia, but I have been a teacher/instructor for thousands of people over the years, and I've never had a student say "no" when I've asked them to the front of the class for a demonstration. I guess you could say all my students who participated in demostrations were "volunteers" but what would they say? No? They'd look like a dick to everyone, including me. So no, I don't buy the school's assertion that this was voluntary.

Edited March 8, 2013 by TMF

[Worriedman]

Yeah, dressing the children in burkas, is simply teaching them to emulate those new styled heros designated as such by our government,  tweeted by this person so designated by John Kerry as a "Woman of Courage":

 

“An explosion on a bus carrying Israelis in Burgas airport in Bulgaria on the Black Sea. Today is a very sweet day with a lot of very sweet news.”

 

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/03/07/john-kerrys-woman-of-courage-celebrates-bus-bombings-embassy-attacks-hitler/

Edited March 8, 2013 by Worriedman

[East_TN_Patriot]

No, not at all. First, the Wahhabi movement in Iraq is relatively small. Yeah, they're there, but they weren't the people we were mostly fighting. At any rate, the worst treatment of women I witnessed was how the Shias treated their women. Perhaps that had something to do with them being traditionally poor and socially/politically isolated, but I don't really care their reasons. The fact that this was an acceptable practice in their culture shows me that they are, as a whole, morally bankrupt people. Comparing them to slave owners perhaps is a good comparison, since the women in this culture are indeed slaves by definition, but slavery is and has always been evil with the exception of using captured enemy and convicted criminals as labor. However, I don't see that translating to our own society for two reasons. One, we are talking about the here and now, not what happened 150 years ago. Two, even when slavery was legal it was still challenged nearly equally by the anti-slave movement as being evil, and it was not a normal practice for the average American. Not every dirt farmer had a slave, despite popular belief, whereas nearly every household in countries who have oppressive laws against women has a woman as a commodity, not a person.
For more on whether or not we can classify a culture as evil, please look into the Ayatollah's opinion on sexual contact with prepubescent girls. I can assure you, if the Pope came out tomorrow and suggested that non-penetrative sexual contact with girls younger than 9 was okay, nearly every Catholic in the world would have a problem with that regardless of his position as Pope.  And yet, you'll be hard pressed to find Shias of that region to think ill of the Ayatollah.  This is not a culture I need to better understand for the purpose of tolerance.  I only need to understand it for the purpose of keeping such a cancer from spreading.
As for the rise of Wahhabists in Afghanistan, yeah... they're pretty bad. Even if the Taliban never has a majority influence in the government once we leave, it doesn't matter. Their mark has been left on this generation and every generation after this one. Several decades ago women were well on their path to independence, or at least relative independence compared to the region. The oppressive laws which violate a female's basic human rights in Afghanistan only came about in the last few decades. The cultural shift has empowered generations of men to trade and barter women as a commodity. They are not humans, they are objects.
I know you're playing devil's advocate here, and it isn't as if I don't see the validity of the point you're trying to make. Best case scenario you have a teacher who is using props to demostrate social norms of other cultures and presenting it in such a forum as to draw attention to the oppressive nature of their laws... that is best case scenario. Worst case scenario this was done as "cultural sensitivity" training to show how other cultures do things differently, but not including that those practices are done involuntary with threat of physical violence and imprisonment for lack of compliance. Either way, if it is okay to dress young American girls in clothing which symbolizes female objectification and slavery as an education tool to draw attention to other cultures then it must be okay to dress the Jewish kids with a gold Star of David on their shirts to teach kids about the holocaust. I don't believe either practice is acceptable. There are better ways to do that.
 

Notice that I mention "culture" here. I don't want to mistake this for an indictment of the whole of Islam. There is no mandate in the Quran or hadiths for women to wear burqas, hijabs, niqabs, chadors, etc. Just like there is no mandate for Muslim men to wear a dishdasha, kufiya, turban, etc. Scholars who quote the Quran regarding modest dress and the hadiths regarding how Muhammed and his wives dressed is subjective and is interpreted to modern Islamic dress codes by conservatives, but there are plenty of Muslims in the world who don't follow this as sunnah. Hell, despite what folks see on tv, MOST Muslim men don't wear any covering on their head although many believe it is sunnah to do so because Momo did it, when in fact Momo was just playing the part of what a dignified Arab of the day dressed as... you know, all the ones who were praying to the moon god and such and being molested by genies.
And I suppose I'm making the unfounded assumption that this was not voluntary. Things may have changed, but when I was in school if the teacher were to ask, "Johnny, would you like to come up here and participate?", that was an implied task, not something that a student would say "no" to. I assume as a teacher of students you know this. I've never been a teacher in acedamia, but I have been a teacher/instructor for thousands of people over the years, and I've never had a student say "no" when I've asked them to the front of the class for a demonstration. I guess you could say all my students who participated in demostrations were "volunteers" but what would they say? No? They'd look like a dick to everyone, including me. So no, I don't buy the school's assertion that this was voluntary.

OK, now this is an argument I can respect and the type I normally expect fom you. I still disagree on many points, but it is well stated.

[TMF]

OK, now this is an argument I can respect and the type I normally expect fom you. I still disagree on many points, but it is well stated.

I appreciate you taking the time to read it with an open mind. One thing I'd like to add, based on my experience and what I've seen during my time throughout the mid-East, the thought of someone having my daughter put that on makes me blind with rage. I realize that a very small percentage of the population have experienced such things as to see simple garments as a tool of oppression and objectification, but ignorance is no excuse IMO. Wearing a burqa is demeaning to the wearer no matter the context.

[strickj]

s to see simple garments as a tool of oppression and objectification, but ignorance is no excuse IMO. Wearing a burqa is demeaning to the wearer no matter the context.

What about other faiths that have women covering their head/hair?

 

Do you call out little old women in your church for covering their hair?

[TMF]

What about other faiths that have women covering their head/hair?

Do you call out little old women in your church for covering their hair?

There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between someone who voluntarily wears something due to religion or conservative nature, compared to a garment which is mandated under penalty of violence or imprisonment. That is what burqas and chadors are in the countries they are worn. Edited March 9, 2013 by TMF

[strickj]

There is a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuge difference between someone who voluntarily wears something due to religion or conservative nature, compared to a garment which is mandated under penalty of violence or imprisonment. That is what burqas and chadors are in the countries they are worn.

And who is forcing Muslims to wear them here?

[TMF]

And who is forcing Muslims to wear them here?

I think you miss the point on where this practice originates from and why it was established. If anyone wants to throw a burqa on and tool on down Printer's Alley, more power to them, but I'm not going to be fooled into believing that the widespread practice of doing so is not designed as an oppressive tool by oppressive governments. Muslim women in America may still wear a scarf or such to cover their hair, as many come from countries where that is normal and many interpret the hadiths to suggest pious women of the time did so. That is a far cry from a government that mandates an outfit that covers you head to toe or else you'll be beaten and/or thrown in jail.

I know we all hate it when folks start comparing things to Nazis, but lets ponder a moment on the connotations associated with a swastika. While it is a person's right to sport one, you can't deny what that symbol represents. Mandated garments designed by governments to oppress women carry their own connotations as well. While a person is free to wear it and subject themselves to a life of subservience, they are stepping into a very dangerous realm when they put that garment on my child. Same as if they wanted my kid to wear a swastika for holocaust awareness day.

[DaveTN]

And who is forcing Muslims to wear them here?

Husbands, Fathers, other women, the community? Just because you live here doesn’t mean you can’t be oppressed.

[TMF]

Husbands, Fathers, other women, the community? Just because you live here doesn’t mean you can’t be oppressed.

That too. Anyone interested in how oppression under some of those cultures is exported, google FGM numbers in Great Britain. F'ing savages.

[BigK]

The biggest proof to me that the teacher has an agenda and is attempting to indoctrinate these young minds isn't the costumes she conveniently had ready for the lesson. It's the insistence that the kids not call terrorists...terrorists. This idea came about 50 years ago by communists who realized that to control the language is to control thought. The left and the media has been doing it ever since:

Terrorst = Freedom Fighters
Liberal = Progressive
Illegal Aliens = Undocumented Workers
Christianity = Hateful/Intolerant
Tax Increase = Revenue Enhancement
Sporting rifle = assualt weapon
Pro Abortion = Pro Choice

Pay attention how they try to change our language. This is more powerful than brute force. They see this kind of brain washing as winning the hearts and minds. So, every time you hear them change the language be wary of their intentions.

Here's an excellent short video on the concept:

[media="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6dsxNkQ-e8&sns=em"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6dsxNkQ-e8&sns=em[/media] Edited March 10, 2013 by BigK

[Guest PapaB]

BigK, I like your point but you missed a couple.

 

Taxes = Investment

 

Reduced spending increase = Major Spending Cut

 

and those that believe in the Constitution are backward thinkers.

[Guest Cami]

That isn't teaching that is indoctrination and brainwashing.  That teacher needs to be fired.  The principal needs to be investigated as well.

[strickj]

I think you miss the point on where this practice originates from and why it was established. If anyone wants to throw a burqa on and tool on down Printer's Alley, more power to them, but I'm not going to be fooled into believing that the widespread practice of doing so is not designed as an oppressive tool by oppressive governments. Muslim women in America may still wear a scarf or such to cover their hair, as many come from countries where that is normal and many interpret the hadiths to suggest pious women of the time did so. That is a far cry from a government that mandates an outfit that covers you head to toe or else you'll be beaten and/or thrown in jail.

I know we all hate it when folks start comparing things to Nazis, but lets ponder a moment on the connotations associated with a swastika. While it is a person's right to sport one, you can't deny what that symbol represents. Mandated garments designed by governments to oppress women carry their own connotations as well. While a person is free to wear it and subject themselves to a life of subservience, they are stepping into a very dangerous realm when they put that garment on my child. Same as if they wanted my kid to wear a swastika for holocaust awareness day.

 

I see. You don't have a problem with hair coverings. You have a problem with some government, somewhere, forcing someone that lives there freely, to fully or partially cover their head while out in public.

I guess you would be fine with your daughter wearing one as long as she does so freely?

 

Far as oppression goes; oppression is defined by culture. Over yonder, bare hair is taboo and their religion has prescribed laws concerning the showing of hair. Over hither, bare breasts are taboo and religion has prescribed laws concerning the showing of breasts.

 

Where do you stand on the oppression of women here in America? Our government is forcing poor helpless women to wear shirts in public.

Teachers all over this country are forcing students to wear cloths. For shame! How dare they!

 

 

That said, I must ask the obvious here. How do y'all know the teacher in the OP wasn't using the garments as a demonstrational aid to show students the cultural differences throughout the world? Or maybe the teacher was discussing womens' rights around the world?

[BigK]

... Over hither, bare breasts are taboo and religion has prescribed laws concerning the showing of breasts.

 

Where do you stand on the oppression of women here in America? Our government is forcing poor helpless women to wear shirts in public.

Teachers all over this country are forcing students to wear cloths. For shame! How dare they!

 

I'll write a letter to my congressman to get that law repealed...where do I sign up.

Edited March 11, 2013 by BigK

[TMF]

I see. You don't have a problem with hair coverings. You have a problem with some government, somewhere, forcing someone that lives there freely, to fully or partially cover their head while out in public.
I guess you would be fine with your daughter wearing one as long as she does so freely?
 
Far as oppression goes; oppression is defined by culture. Over yonder, bare hair is taboo and their religion has prescribed laws concerning the showing of hair. Over hither, bare breasts are taboo and religion has prescribed laws concerning the showing of breasts.
 
Where do you stand on the oppression of women here in America? Our government is forcing poor helpless women to wear shirts in public.
Teachers all over this country are forcing students to wear cloths. For shame! How dare they!
 
 
That said, I must ask the obvious here. How do y'all know the teacher in the OP wasn't using the garments as a demonstrational aid to show students the cultural differences throughout the world? Or maybe the teacher was discussing womens' rights around the world?

Comparing nudity laws to laws which force women to cover every part of their body from head to toe is ridiculous. I can't project my experience and memories to give you context for why putting a burqa on a woman is an act of demeaning objectification, but it absolutely is. It is akin to putting a gold Star of David on a Jewish kid. It is complete unacceptable regardless of the context.