Men in clothes persecuted me. Let's ban clothes.
this post was submitted on 09 Sep 2023
961 points (100.0% liked)
196
16417 readers
1884 users here now
Be sure to follow the rule before you head out.
Rule: You must post before you leave.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
You got the joke, congratulations.
Lets ban men.
I'm /u/aeternum, and i approve this message
Someone in a suit is always suspicious.
They play dress-up to represent something that they aren't, to get you to think that they're serious and competent.
Someone who really has competentence and something behind the looks can show up in rags and I will trust that person. Someone in a suit makes me question, what are they hiding? Why the need to show off?
You at a wedding: “Why is every man here wearing a suit? What are they hiding? Suspicion indeed!”
Nah, in this setting I would ask myself:
Why do we require suits for a wedding? We're celebrating a couple, how does wearing a suit make it more celebratory?
And then probably go on a rant about our superficial society.
But the only wedding I would actually attend would be one where we'd sit on the ground in jeans and hoodies and pass a joint, or something like that.
Why not go entirely naked then? Jeans and hoodies is also an imposed norm by society just done by a different sub culture.
Because it may be cold, and I like my body in a mild climate.
And if it's in Florida type heat? Then we do the naked wedding for you?
YES
People have been dressing in special costumes for celebrations since clothes were invented. Wearing special clothes for special occasions are part of what makes them special.
Also, wearing a suit and passing around a joint are not mutually exclusive:-)
If they are special by virtue of being worn only at special occasions, then suits aren't special at all because a large segment of the population wears them daily.
So the question remains: why wear suits at a wedding?
Those are tuxes, usually tails. Those are worn to concerts or some dinner events, but very rarely worn.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Just about every culture on earth has ceremonial dress. It's a human thing to dress special for special occasions. Don't read too much into it.
How about cloak or cape? I think those look cooler and more memorable.
My wife and I attended our friend's wedding in our Hogwarts House outfits, Ravenclaw x Hufflepuff. Everyone else looked like they either had never seen a tailor before or had the same old suit sitting in the closet for years until that day.
I don't want to have my 'best' dressed day to be in my casket... a man named Jidenna taught me that.
"We are not men disguised as mere dogs. We are wolves disguised as men." - Jin Roh
Guy Kawasaki t-shirt theory.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Maybe just stop basing your risk assessment on articles of clothing
I think that's the point.
Slaves are rarely dangerous.
Are you implying women in burqas are slaves? lol
They’re equating a piece of clothing with its use by autocratic regimes to oppress women, while conveniently ignoring the fact that outside of those autocratic regimes, in the most progressive countries in the world women choose to wear burqas and other similar articles of clothing of their own free will every day.
And I’m saying this as an atheist American. I see absolutely no difference between a woman choosing to wear a burqa or to wear the attire of a catholic nun or to wear a potato sack. What she chooses to wear is her own damn business.
You think that muslim women aren't oppressed in western countries? Sure, the government won't lock them up, but their social circles will shun them if they don't comply.
First of all you do not know whether they wear it out of being opressed or their own choice.
Second of all by banning these clothing all you will do is add more opression. In the first level, by simply taking away from their choice and on the second level because the opressed ones will be forced to stay home when they cannot wear these clothes.
What would actually help would be community outrech and social services that can support opressed women.
But that would actually help them and respect womens rights. The recent bans and appeals for bans are just there to opress muslim women, because that is what the far right and fascists like. it is not there to help them. France has denied multiple girls education, because they were not adhering to the recent ban on abayas.
There are so many cases of women being absolutely bullied, to killed by their close (and even foreign) social circles in the west simply for taking out the hijab. Many. Many in the UK (where the author of this article column is from). Look up a youtuber named Dina Tokyo for a sample.
The writer of that column, his main argument, if it does not affect, it means I don't care. But this affects millions of opressed women in the UK.
But none of these women are helped by a ban to wear such clothes. It is just reinforcing the separation and making the problem "go away" by making it invisible. Interestingly enough it is the same approach of conservatives and the far right to poverty and any other social issue
But none of these women are helped by a ban to wear such clothes.
It would give them a breathing space, and another lifeline for every women who is forced to wear it. I know lots of white liberals who think islam is such a marginalized religion because "non-white origin", but the reality is, muslim women are either brainwashed from childhood to wear it or are forced into it. Enforcing such laws would alleviate and lead many of the to question the circumstances of "why do we wear it". If you are unaware, the history of the hijab dress in Islam started after Omar (one of the Caliphate) and bff with Mohamed harassed the latter's wife so that Allah would tell Mohamed to wear the hijab. He used to follow them when they pee or take a shit, to creep on them to force a "revelation" as if their God needed a reminder.
That aside, many many many muslims have no idea about these origins and are as brainwashed as white liberals into the "religion fo peace". And that's why islam inherently is an anti-feminist religion. Just look up on r/exmuslim how many women were distraught for being forces to wear the hijab. This law is less than an ideal solution, but it is better than nothing.
If you think that forcing people to do something to get them out of some brainwash you claim them to have, you are just trying to opress and brainwash them yourself. It is also amazing, that you immediately use fascist buzzwords like "white liberal" to reduce the arguments to "haha you are just unenlightened", which is the same way the opressive fundamentalists think.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Sure and everyone in all the social circles I grew up in have shunned me for giving up my faith. The government banning me from choosing to wear a cross necklace wouldn’t change that or give me any more freedom of choice.
A cross necklace is a little different than having to cover your head or your entire body, don't you think?
My point was more that more oppression is not the answer to oppression.
Removing one of the ways someone is being oppressed doesn't sound oppressive to me
Removing the freedom of choice is textbook oppression but ok.
Which is exactly what Islam is doing
I don’t deny that. But I posit that it matters not whether it’s a religion or a legislating body, telling women what they can or cannot wear is wrong and it is oppressive. If one must resort to the same tactics as the oppressors, what makes them any better?
Suits should be legal for anyone to wear except for rich important businessmen. Fuck the man, and fuck his dress codes.
We as a society need to teach our children about this propoganda (e.g. women in burqa's are a risk). It's a relatively easy concept and my daughter already knows ow to ask questions.
ITT: people missing the point
Let us ban suits and make full frontal nudity mandatory!
I still love the men in suits who brought us out of the wars and fixed the economy.
Where are these men of which you speak? I have seen neither them nor any evidence of the work you claim they have done.
The nameless men and boys in the Federal Reserve and the suited man by the name of Joe Biden.
...after starting the wars and breaking the economy in the first place. And saying they fixed it is overselling it.
I will admit, that particular suited man was an awful man. The suited men did not over sell it, many companies were saved from collapse and saved us from a economic collapse, which was arguably the most important part. As for the people, as with many things, it takes time for the effects of goodwill to rollout.
Those people would still exist even you banned suits. You just wouldn't be able to recognize them anymore.
view more: next ›