So where are they and what are they doing? (page 25 of 33)

Women who didn’t want to dress in little dresses were confined to their homes, then discriminated against as suspicious backward people for years

Exactly. I’ve always wondered why those women, who weren’t free, don’t defend today those who’d like to be.

They should be the first to protest for the freedom to dress as we want, given they were the first to lack that freedom.

But strangely, the opposite happens.

It’s illogical.

Good evening Agnès,

What do you want me to say? The fact is, unlike you, I’m not sure that these women who willingly wear the veil and see it as an important part of their identity form a homogeneous group. I imagine that among the most fanatical, a desire to keep society in their image leads them to reject any evolution. And that the more open-minded are neutral or even support these movements, without necessarily wanting to get hurt. Or maybe they do. Just conjectures. Chatter. I don’t know.

Catherine

Whether it's the veil or something else, it's six of one, half a dozen of the other.

No, it's Maghrebi 😛

. And that the most open-minded ones are neutral or even support these movements, without necessarily wanting to get beaten up

But by doing so, they harm their image, reinforcing the idea in people’s minds of an intolerant Islam.

It’s a vicious circle.

Not all women would be affected by what reduces them solely to their gender?

I totally agree with you on that. I experienced a form of orthographic sexualization of my study title, which really bothered me. It seems to be driven by the current wave of feminism. Completely illogical 😛

Catherine

But in doing so, they’re harming their image by reinforcing the idea of an intolerant Islam in people’s minds.

It’s entirely possible they just don’t care about their image.

Catherine

Hello....

But in doing so, they harm their image by reinforcing the idea of an intolerant Islam in people's minds.

Why would you expect them to care about the image you have of them or of Islam? They live their lives in their own environment; they see themselves as the norm, just like you see yourself as the norm.

Michel

So, for her, the norm is to kill people who are different? (Just to recap the starting point of this digression: the hijab in Iran)

That’s not the norm for me. Hence my surprise.

Hi Agnès,

Why do you always reduce everything to binary confrontations? Why this idea that society must be divided into 2 clans and no more? It’s actually pretty common, when two opposing sides clash, to belong to neither and stay on the sidelines. That’s definitely happened to me a lot...

Catherine

*a little Jesus syndrome? ("Whoever is not with me is against me.")

You’ve got the wrong person, Catherine. Your reply was meant for Tatra...

I didn't understand that last sentence. I think the editorial pressure on journalists is really intense.

Here’s a recent link that might interest you. It’s all there: https://www.agoravox.fr/tribune-libre/article/jean-loup-izambert-macron-un-260556

To add to this .

This isn’t intellectually acceptable—what you’re doing here is really a lack of courtesy toward me. Why? Because you linked to the website where the article was published when I was quoting an article by a person, just a regular person like you and me... So first, you’re confusing an individual with a media outlet.

An article, especially one published on a participatory platform where opposing articles and comments clash—unlike newspapers where only the journalist has a say.

On top of that, you cite WOKIPEDIA, as some call it. That’s the cherry on top! You should check out Michel Sandrin and Victor Lefebvre’s book *The Hidden Face of Wikipedia*. This participatory encyclopedia seems increasingly infiltrated by editors with a very specific agenda, which undermines neutrality. Michel Onfray complains about it regularly: it’s become a political encyclopedia. The descriptions of certain personalities are indeed very—*too*—biased, something I’ve personally noticed. Not to mention some outright errors.

Did you at least do some research and think carefully about the article’s topics, or do you just feel uncomfortable because what you read doesn’t align with what you’d prefer to believe? That’s completely human, after all.

Hello,

No need to read Wikipedia to get a pretty clear idea of the quality of the article you're offering.

Calling it a "kindergarten game"—meaning childish—when referring to the work of the Justice system is a deliberate attempt to discredit and belittle. And it quickly identifies the author (and increasingly, those who still insist on it here, despite all the caution). I’ll only go back to reading this biased piece to analyze the mental functioning of this group. If the facts lead to the President being charged, which is entirely possible, let justice take its course. Regardless of the embezzlement for which the blonde woman was convicted.

Catherine

It's funny, the end of your rant reminds me of something I'd almost forgotten: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mRq-hy7k9mA

I notice that unlike us, you went for a blonde 🙂 https://www.revueconflits.com/giorgia-meloni-premier-bilan-apres-deux-ans-a-la-tete-de-litalie/

(and increasingly the one who, despite being so careful, insists here).

Michel Onfray, WOKIPEDIA, "People are absolutely not aware..." These are no longer tweezers, they're clodhoppers.

@Jojoone

Michel Onfray regularly complains about it: it has become a political encyclopedia. The description of certain personalities is indeed very—too—biased, something I had personally noticed.

Had you also "personally noticed" the shift in Michel Onfray's stance?

This participatory encyclopedia (Wikipedia) seems increasingly infiltrated by editors with a very specific mindset, which excludes neutrality.

An historian's perspective? Wikipedia, a democratic tool to defend

You post a link, I post another. Everyone has their own sources. 🙂

Here, check out another one.

Or here.

Not sure you’ll like it any more than Wikipedia.

An article’s like a chocolate bar—you gotta read the wrapper first before deciding whether to take a bite.

That’s not the norm for me. Hence my surprise.

First, I don’t know of them killing anyone—or maybe I just don’t understand what you’re talking about? 🤪

Do you think cremating bodies or eating them would be better? The norm of others seems strange to us, and it’s pointless to try to understand it—it’s legitimate by nature. This idea goes way back, from Herodotus to Montaigne and Lévi-Strauss.

Michel, I think you're a machine for testing the forum members' nerve endurance. 😄

I think you're a machine for testing the nerves of forum users.

Actually, I really don’t see where your problem is.

Michel