Is this what “Muslim Female liberation” looks like? Is “breaking stereotypes” what Muslims were created for?
CREDIT: MUSLIM SAFE SPACES
Because as everyone knows, breaking stereotypes has always been the purpose behind human creation (according to Liberals), right?
The graphic about is another hilarious argument, in comic stripe style form, by the mysterious artist “Muslim Safe Space”.
Apologies in advance, but the historian of Occidental philosophy in me feels compelled to make you aware of something. The ideology of “breaking stereotypes” comes from 18th century France, from the radical faction of enlightenment thinkers, known as the “philosophes”.
In distinction from their English cousins, like Hobbes, Locke etc (who influenced the American constitution) who believed that the purpose of individual humans was to simply pursue pleasure by constant sensual gratification of whatever their passions command them (short of murder, rape and theft of course) in accumulating material things, the French Philosophes however, advocated a more radical idea.
The Philosophes claimed that true happiness was the complete liberation of the individual to realise themselves and do all things free from societal restrictions, legal or due to social norms and expectations. They argued that the purpose of the human individual is to achieve complete freedom (or “self-realisation”) from society and all forms of influence that do not emanate from “within” the mysterious and inscrutable construct known as “the individual” themselves.
This meant that the only way to measure if humans were truly individual, and were achieving their purpose, was to make sure they were doing things against social expectations of themselves, i.e. breaking stereotypes, defying norms, being “crazy” (as in non-deterministic), “spontaneous” and “impulsive”.
The French philosophes hated religion as one of the biggest shackles upon “individuals”, and when the Philosophes got their way during the French Revelation, they destroyed many churches, hacked Priests and Bishops to death, and because they were “enlightened” they decided to liberate people by killing all those who disagree with them. They invented a machine (the guillotine) which unlike a human, could guarantee perfectly performed executions of beheading 100% of the time. By use of this machine they beheaded (literally) tens of thousands of people (so many in fact, they made ISIS look like the Quakers by comparison).
Eventually, the radical beliefs of the Philosophes diverged and (de)volved into numerous different political ideologies, like full blown Nationalism, Fascism (no, that’s not hyperbole, just see Rousseau and Nietzsche), Socialism/Communism (Henri Saints-Simon and Auguste Comte) etc etc.
Slowly, but surely, their ideas evolved via Derrida, Sartre etc and made their way (persuasively) into English political philosophy in the 20th century in the form of post-structuralism (post-modernism).
This is why in France, they view Muslim women who wear the hijab and Niqab as being oppressed, and if fully consenting oppressing themselves – because they are not being “true individuals” according to the radical “enlightenment” ideas of the Philosophes. Any individual who continues to let religion tell them what to wear or think, is not a “real individual” or “free” according to their intellectual inheritors today.
(of course, its ok for fashion moghuls, adverts and women’s magazines to tell women what to wear, that’s “different” of course, that’s just these businesspeople “giving people the tools to be free” with mass produced identical items of clothing that they decided are the new norm every season, and then let social pressure compel women to give them money in order to be able to “express their individuality” by using products they never knew they “needed” before – but I digress).
This is also why in France, the State is totally happy (supported by the majority of their “free” population, to ban hijabs, niqabs (and public prayer) – it’s because they’re trying to “help”/”rescue” you poor benighted Muslim women “individuals” from being oppressed by your own choices not to be free from Religion.
“In order then that the social compact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the undertaking, which alone can give force to the rest, that whoever refuses to obey the general will (of the people) shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be FORCED TO BE FREE; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimises civil undertakings”
Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du Contract Social