Hacker News Reader

Comment by solutionyogi | Hacker News Reader

Your point about different social norms and rules is well taken. However, social norms are one thing and state enforced law is a different ball game.

A month ago, I went to Europe and my date had to wrap a scarf around her waist to visit a church (she was wearing shorts). That is totally cool. It's private property and they can set the rules as they please. But in public, women are free to wear what they want.

On a side note: I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles (not even the villages, see: https://www.google.com/search?q=indian+village+women&source=...). Yes, certain Muslim population do wear hijab/niqab.

View on HN

> A month ago, I went to Europe and my date had to wrap a scarf around her waist to visit a church (she was wearing shorts).

My experience of visiting a Greek orthodox church was that bare legs weren't tolerated on either sex.

> I went to Europe ... in public, women are free to wear what they want.

In many places it is now state-enforced law that women cannot cover their heads, faces, and/or wear hajibs/etc.

But despite that serious problem, I agree there is far more freedom in Europe. My point is that people see the clothing as threatening; they are obsessed with what it symbolizes. I agree that the serious question is not clothing but women's freedom to wear generally what they want (among many other freedoms).

> I am from India and I don't know where you got this idea that women has to cover themselves from neck to wrists to ankles

That's very interesting to me. I certainly don't have your experience and knowledge, but I've been to India. Before going we were told that was the social norm, and when we were there, mostly cities in northern India including Delhi, that's what we observed. When we'd see a western woman in a tank top and shorts, she would stand out dramatically.

Honest question: How did I misunderstand what I saw?

I am very surprised that you had that experience in metropolitan city like Delhi. What were the women wearing? I don't even know what kind of dress women will have to wear which covers theirs wrists and ankles.

Here's what you will find Indian women wearing in day to day life:

1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top. 2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.

Do you have any photo of the outfit that you are talking about?

To be clear, I meant covered 'down to' their wrists and ankles, which might have been exposed.

> 1. Educated, middle class: Salwaar Kameez, Jeans/Top, Skirt/Top. 2. Older or more conservative women: Sari. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sari Even Sari exposes a women's midriff and her hands.

I'm not talking about a specific outfit; we saw plenty of what you describe, though not midriff-baring saris without something underneath.

The photos of the saris looks familiar so perhaps I should have said elbows and not wrists. But did we see bare calfs, much less thighs; midriffs; shoulders; chest below the collarbone much less cleavage (somehow, this is a little odd to list out)? Very rarely other than a few westerners and in mass media.

Obviously you know far more than I do about it. But while I may be forgetting some subtleties, we remarked on it at the time and I know what I saw. I wonder how to make sense of it.

> In many places it is now state-enforced law that women cannot cover their heads, faces, and/or wear hajibs/etc.

Is this for the same reasons as above though? When a courier delivers to a bank, they must remove their helmets, for example. That clothing can indeed, pose a threat.

Well, there's France and its recent decisions against the "burkini" and similar clothing, but it was widely mocked and as far as I know, at least one court has already overturned the ban.

> but it was widely mocked

It's also been enforced by police who've forced women to remove clothing: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/aug/24/french-police-...

There's been other violence against women for what they wear:

>> A Corsican mayor has also banned burkinis, amid tensions on the island and violent clashes between villagers and three Muslim families. Skirmishes at a beach in the commune of Sisco earlier this month left four people injured and resulted in riot police being brought in to stop a crowd of 200 Corsicans marching into a housing estate with a high population of people of North African origin, shouting “this is our home”.

(etc, there are many attacks on women who wear hijabs or niqabs)

Fair enough, I didn't mean to imply there's no discrimination against women wearing those and similar clothing, just that "state-enforced laws" against them are thankfully still not widespread across Europe, though I fear they might be in the future.

> There's been other violence against women for what they wear.

Is that example entirely a result of the clothing, or are there other factors at play? i.e. is causality established.

No-one has banned hijabs because they pose a security threat. Hijabs don't obscure the face.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com