![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
gravityeyelidsvia http://ift.tt/2yVhKDH:
rubyvroom:
Here’s a thought experiment : whenever you see something about an article of clothing being banned, for whatever reason, insert into the statement the person who would be wearing it.
Thus: “Burkinis banned from French beaches” becomes “Muslim women wearing burkinis banned from French beaches”.
This removes the innocuous frame that suggests the authorities are merely encouraging substituting one article of clothing for another, more-acceptable one. The more accurate description centers the person being targeted by this prohibition, who may not in fact be able to substitute another item and are in effect being personally banned from that activity, under the cover of deniability (“they could just wear a regular swimsuit! You mean, they can’t? Oh well!) This is particularly insidious for everyday articles of clothing with great personal significance such as a headscarf or veil. Banning these from public settings is more or less forcing people who wear them to stay at home and out of sight.
This small change in syntax makes a whole lot of clothing and appearance regulations look very different, whether it’s in a school setting or a workplace or professional organization. It looks very much like they’re screening out not the offending hairstyle or clothing, but the type of person who would wear it.
Of course, this is a feature, not a bug.
(Your picture was not posted)
rubyvroom:
Here’s a thought experiment : whenever you see something about an article of clothing being banned, for whatever reason, insert into the statement the person who would be wearing it.
Thus: “Burkinis banned from French beaches” becomes “Muslim women wearing burkinis banned from French beaches”.
This removes the innocuous frame that suggests the authorities are merely encouraging substituting one article of clothing for another, more-acceptable one. The more accurate description centers the person being targeted by this prohibition, who may not in fact be able to substitute another item and are in effect being personally banned from that activity, under the cover of deniability (“they could just wear a regular swimsuit! You mean, they can’t? Oh well!) This is particularly insidious for everyday articles of clothing with great personal significance such as a headscarf or veil. Banning these from public settings is more or less forcing people who wear them to stay at home and out of sight.
This small change in syntax makes a whole lot of clothing and appearance regulations look very different, whether it’s in a school setting or a workplace or professional organization. It looks very much like they’re screening out not the offending hairstyle or clothing, but the type of person who would wear it.
Of course, this is a feature, not a bug.
(Your picture was not posted)
