• Absurdly Stupid @lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    edit-2
    15 hours ago

    This is goofy. Not one of us can wear whatever we want in USA (and many other countries). All sorts of rules on dress.

    Dress codes for restaurants (jackets and ties required)… dress codes for schools (uniforms)… dress codes for jobs (uniforms)… dress codes for gas stations (no shirts, no shoes, no service)… dress codes for banks (can’t cover your face or wear sunglasses)…

    This is a false issue, used to inflame the dumbest among us. Sadly, it still works.

    • huey_m@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      4 hours ago

      Dress codes for restaurants (jackets and ties required), dress codes for gas stations (no shirts, no shoes, no service)

      Now this is goofy… comparing a private business telling you what you’re allowed to wear in their business versus a state mandating what you can or can’t wear? Come on, man…

      dress codes for schools (uniforms)

      We have all sorts of extra restricted rights for children. They don’t have a lot of rights most adults do in public schools. Free speech is greatly restricted… should the state then extend these restrictions to the wider public because it happens in public schools for children?

      Calling this idea goofy when making a false equivalence that should be dispelled with a 101 level understanding of government is the soul of throwing stones from a glass house, dude.

      There are definitely arguments for restricting this kind of thing, but not this one, this is just silly.

      • sunsofold@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 hours ago

        Perhaps because the other dress code constraints are for more universally accepted reasons while the question of things like the hijab/niqab are tied to an inherent contradiction within one of the standard political camps, disrupting the placement of the (un)acceptability line. Wearing a uniform is a sign of responsibility. (If you wear the fuel station attendednts’ uniform, you are responsible for the fuel station, etc.) Wearing a minimum quality of clothing is related to the service provided. (Showing up to a black tie restaurant in board shorts and flip flops ‘lowers the tone’ of the restaurant, which is often more the product being sold than the actual food. In that kind of restaurant, you are paying more for the exclusivity of the space than the chef’s produce.) However, Muslim women’s headjoys are more fraught because they simultaneously occupy two symbolic spaces, one as a symbol of Islam itself, which is coded as evil by one broad sector of politics and, because of that, something to be protected by the opposition, but the other as a symbol of Muslim patriarchy, which has the exact opposite coding by the standard broad political binary. Resolving the hypocrisy would require abandoning one set of symbols or the other and taking a position currently held by the opposition. Most people aren’t willing to do that.