are muslim women forced to wear the Burka yes/no and proof to back up your claim?

You are asking for a simple answer to a very difficult question. I am afraid that such a simple answer doesn't exist.

First of all, there are hundreds of millions of Muslim women in lots countries with different social classes and families and all sorts of situations. Trying to get an answer for some general experience of "Muslem women"... or even the experience of those who wear the Burka is impossible.

Also, the word "forced" needs to be defined. "Force" can mean the threat of physical violence. Force can also mean subject to cultural/family expectations.

Let's ask a similar question: Are Christian women forced to cover their head?

((yes... some still do)).

I think you can get an opinion from a society as a whole e.g. everyone against the war in Iraq, believing in god, believing in the right to own slaves the stronger the emotion the more people are in favour or against i think that a strong opinion among Muslim women exist about this subject do you think they are forced(I mean the two meanings or that they choose to wear the burka as to your last question I think it is different from my question my question regards the majority were as yours views a minority therefore which of us can make generalisations?

Huh???

What do we think about the war in Iraq?
Do we all believe in God, or not?

I don't think any of this makes any sense.

Some Muslim women are strongly against wearing a Burka. Some Muslim women are strongly for wearing a Burka. Some Muslim women (including several of my neighbours) have no opinion on the subject - it is not expected in their culture, they had never been exposed to the discussion until they came to Canada.

From my personal experience... many years ago I was traveling in Egypt where at the time (in the early 90s) there was a resurgence of women wearing head scarves (I never met anyone who wore a Burka which is probably not surprising (since I am a man).

But as far as headscarves go, I know there are some women who wore them as a person choice to express their culture and identity as Muslim women.

But comparing my limited experience (a few women I met on one trip to Egypt) to the millions of people with millions of experiences is probably next to useless.

I have also met Christian women who talk about being submissive to their husbands based on their own personal choice they felt was part of their Biblical duty. This certainly doesn't meet my definition of "forced".

I'm sure there are some women who feel compelled to wear their burkas, and others who do so by choice. I don't know if anyone can quantify the difference though.

Perhaps your question anticipates the discussion of laws banning the wearing of the burka, and that seems far more interesting to me.





http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/06/23/france.burkas/index.html

They may have included other "conspicuous religious symbols" in the ban to avoid the charge of discrimination, but clearly the primary motivation for the law was the Muslim headscarf.

The Netherlands already have a law in place to ban the burka.

It's ironic that the European obsession with multi-culturalism accommodated the resistance of Muslim immigrants to assimilation; thereby creating the problem its politicians now seek to address through legislation curtailing individual freedom.

Part of the "price" the human animal pays for its cognitive faculties are socio-sexual hangups, symbolic garments, and religion. The Burka issue is merely a symptom of a complex species of "socio-virus" which continues to mutate. Such viruses may or may not be deemed pernicious according to the dominant sociological environment in which they manifest. Other species do not seem to suffer from them.

Those are awfully judgment-laden terms you are using to describe human nature-- "suffer", "virus", "symptom".

I also think you have it exactly backward.

There are many examples of species... from primates to big cats to fish where the males control the females-- particularly in matters of reproduction (and there are, of course, some rather nasty counter examples in the insect world where the female literally bites the head off the male).

The "virus" (i.e. the purely sociological oddity that makes humans distinct in the natural world) is the idea that females are equal.

I agree that "equality" may also be a "cognitive virus" in the sense that Dawkins uses the word for "religion" (both being "unscientific" and "potentially retrograde"). As for being "judgemental" I did qualify my usage by saying the perniciousness was relative to social context.

I am arguing that male dominance of females is not a congnitive virus. It is an evolved trait present in many species with different levels of cognition.

Our closest animal relatives are primates.

Typically primate males battle each other for the right to mate with (and control) the females in the community. Females go along with this system (and those that don't are physically attacked).

Are you claiming that the behavior of Humans and Gorillas and Apes and Chimpanzees are affected by some "cognitive virus"... or is it possible that this behavior developed, like any trait, because it had an evolutionary advantage.

I think the term "cognitive virus" is useless. Since human nature is evolved... there is no objective distinction between "cognitive virus" and any other sociological trait (most of which have an underlying evolutionary reason anyway).

For that matter, I think Dawkins is an idiot.

Irrespective of your opinion on Dawkins (with whom I also have issues) perhaps you can state what "evolutionary reason" lies behind "religion" ?

The Burka is an example of male control of females. This is an evolved trait that is shared across cultures and religions (with a few exceptions). As it is shared by other primates (who don't have religion), it is not a function of religion.

The evolutionary reason behind religion is an unrelated issue...

To me religion is obviously an evolved trait because there is no other way to explain it.

If religion didn't come from evolution, where did it come from?

You're kidding right?

No I am not kidding.

Religion is a human trait that has existed, in many forms, in nearly every culture for tens of thousands of years.

It is of course entirely possible that your specific religion just happens to be the unique truth as given from the one true diety... but that still doesn't explain the thousands of other religions that are part of human experience.

So if it makes you feel better, let's say I am just talking about the other religions when I say they are a function of evolved human traits..

Agreed in most cases, but it is rationalized by some Muslim women as their control over male sexuality. I agree that in either case the issue is one of control (this time of animal instincts) and it is control to which cognition is primarily directed. Hence "religion"...a concept of authoritative "control" of the cognitively "uncontrollable"... Thus religion is not so much an "evolutionary trait" as a psycho-social solution to that the evolutionary "problem" of cognition.

Fresco, I think the problem is that you are confusing your subjective values (based on the specific culture you are a part of) with evolutionary facts.

You are speaking as if there is some universal; i.e. outside of your subjective cultural reference, truth that is being violated (for example when males control females). Without religion, where would this universal truth come from?

There is no such thing as an evolutionary problem, nor is there any such thing as a psycho-social solution.

What country are you talking about?

I completely reject the concept of "universal truth". As far as I am concerned "truth" is "what works" within particular paradigms (Thomas Khun).
To get back to the Burka, the reason this issue has been raised is because the wearing of this in Western countries epitomizes the cognitive struggle between the competing paradigms of "democracy" and "theocracy". Both of these are cognitive concepts concerning the allocation of societal control. My designation of the word "problem" to aspects of the struggle is clearly illustrated by the historical violence it perpetually continues to generate.