Something to take my mind off puking.

In a journal I kept back in the day, I gave myself a list of rules. Number 7 was: "If it costs less than $2 then it probably isn't a nutritious lunch." Before I begin an actual post, I'd like to take a second to amend that rule.

Rule Number 7
If it is larger than the palm of your hand, costs less than $2, and was purchased anywhere but a reputable grocery store, then not only is it likely not to be a nutritious breakfast, lunch or dinner, but it is also liable to make you dizzy and nauseous for upwards of 12 hours. (I made the astronomical mistake of buying a cinnamon bun from Ikea last night and now all I want to do is reach down my throat and extract it. I ate this thing at probably 8pm, and I'm convinced that it's what's making me still feel like hurling right now.)

Also, while I was looking through my old journal, I found this gem...

It took me the last 3 hours, but I read my entire Livejournal from highschool. I always thought I hated high school - but apparently I didn't. I have absolutely nothing to do at work. Can you tell?

ANYWAYS

Take a look at this.

Nicolas Sarkozy has approved a Burqa ban in France. He seems to think this is some kind of a step towards a feminist Utopia. Discussions about this on feminist blogs totally disagree... I disagree, too.

Let's assume for a second that not all Muslim women are forced to wear a full veil - some choose to. In that case, isn't this just taking their choices away from them? And isn't that dcidedly un-feminist? If they live in a country in which they have the right to wear something that isn't required by law, doesn't that sound an awful lot like the situation surrounding women wearing shirts in Canada? I mean, we don't legally have to... but we do. And if someone all of a sudden told me that I was being oppressed because I felt (internally!) like I had to cover my breasts, and told me not to worry because they'd take care of it by not just legalizing female toplessness, but altogether BANNING shirts... I think I'd feel that my body was being used as a political tool. I think I'd feel like the decision to wear whatever I wanted was my own decision, and not that of a governing party. I think I'd feel, especially if it was a man that was passing the law (ahem... Sarkozy) that maybe he was just pissed because his patriarchial feeling of entitlement to my body was being inhibited.

There are a million reasons why a woman could choose to wear a veil. It's not a government's place to analyze those reasons and decide whether they're right or wrong because that assumes that our white privilege extends to making choices for other women whose experience we don't know anything about. White is not always right. This is Islamophobia at it's grotesque finest.

And yes, certainly some women are forced to wear veils - but there's an issue here, too. If women are forced to wear a veil in order to leave the house, doesn't it stand to reason, then, that a ban on veils will just mean that the oppressive party will prevent these women from leaving the house? Doesn't that make things even worse? Once again, wouldn't some kind of support for women trying to leave oppressive family situations be beneficial? And when I say 'support', I mean non-judgemental support where a woman won't be chastised for wearing a veil, or even CONTINUING to wear a veil if that's what she wants.

We need to stop assuming the naivety of women wearing veils and consider that perhaps they, too, have considered the implications, consequences and connotations of wearing a veil, and that they are making an informed decision to do so. All of this and no one thinks for a second to stop women from wearing outward expressions of Christianity, even though the Bible is overflowing with sexism (and homophobia, racism, ableism, rape celebrations etc...) (For an example, see this.)

But Kelsy... don't you think Muslim women look like they're being silenced by having their faces covered?? Tradition is no excuse!!"

So... uhh... kinda like this?

So much for taking my mind off puking...