Yes, the juxtaposition of this story and the usual toothsome Rule Five Friday totty is indeed intentional. The story? Science suggests (tongue planted firmly in cheek) that all clothes should be banned. Excerpt:
A lot of people have been upset by images of French police forcing a woman to take a burkini off on a beach, in full view of the public, in accordance with the controversial French burkini ban. There are many reasons to be outraged by this ban: the suppression of individual rights and apparent hypocrisy in the name of “secularism”, the misogyny-tinged policing of women’s clothes specifically, the public display of intimidation, and so on.
(Note: I doubt the burkini ban is “misogyny-tinged,” and applying that term to a reaction to a culture that is viciously and at times violently misogynistic is a species of hypocrisy.)
All of these complaints are misplaced. The real problem with the burkini ban is, it’s too limited. Forbidding a specific type of swimsuit won’t achieve anything: we must ban ALL CLOTHES! And the sooner the better.
This may sound like a ridiculous notion. But, more ridiculous than banning a swimming costume in order to fight terrorism? I think not! Plus, there are many scientifically valid reasons for us to do away with clothes.
Firstly, clothes cause problems. Look at the long history of clothes being used as a tool of oppression and control, often resulting in political problems. (Note: As in much of the Islamic world, where they demand women dress themselves like trash bags.) If we didn’t have clothes, we wouldn’t have the means to use them to make people’s lives harder. Even today, in these more “liberated” times, clothes regularly cause problems. How many T-shirt controversies have there been now? Considering how much time has been wasted arguing over them, clothes have probably held back human advancement significantly.
If you doubt this, let’s not forget the time a questionable shirt completely overshadowed a major achievement in space exploration. None of this would have happened if we didn’t have clothes. We’d probably be on Jupiter by now! Admittedly, that would be depend on whether you define “space suits” as clothes, seeing as how they’d be banned, but the point still stands.
I have one major objection right away: All too many people fall into the category of “people you don’t want to see naked,” yr. obdt. among them – not even Mrs. Animal wants to see me in birthday attire these days.
Time does have its way with us all.
But on to the point: Clothing originated with humans as we moved from the original environs of the hot, dry savannas into colder climates. They began as utilitarian protection from the elements, but that didn’t last; the oh-so-human need to decorate took over.
Nowadays clothing is an essential part of each person’s individuality. Certain articles of clothing could even be considered protected under the First Amendment, from caps supporting political candidates to t-shirts proclaiming one’s religious faith.
And that brings us to the point of the somewhat farcical article: France’s ban on the burkini.
The article concludes: And what this shows is that, even if you can back up a decision with compelling and reasonable-sounding arguments, it doesn’t mean it isn’t ridiculous. Like banning a bathing suit.
I suppose I can understand the French people’s favoring of such a law. Given that the burkini is a religiously-inspired garment, it seems obvious that here in the States the First Amendment would prohibit such a ban. And it also seems obvious that such a ban is pointing at one of the smaller symptoms of a global problem, that being the rise of fundamentalist Islam. The rampant, vicious and violent misogyny of fundamentalist Islam is only one of the threats that ideology poses us.
But I think we’d be far better off fighting the causes of Islamism rather than wasting time fighting symptoms.
And, while we’re on the topic, if the lovely display of Friday totty here pisses off some Dark Ages Islamist shitbags, so much the better.