I pick up on so much hostility in some of the posts regarding anything that requires obedience or even if there is a concern that something will possibly be asked of us that doesn’t suit.
Well, it is awfully hard to ‘read the heart’ when you just have words on a ‘virtual’ page (even with emoticons).
I too have considered wearing a mantilla (and like jeanann, not for show or trying to look uber-pious but as a personal act of humility).
And like Jeanann, I ‘picked up hostility’ from looking a posts on both sides, from the ones who seemed to call any woman who chose not to wear a covering as a liberal feminist with obedience issues as well as those who seemed to call any woman who chose TO wear a covering as a repressed traitor who wanted to drag all women back to the stone age with holier-than-thouism.
And then, I stopped again.
Was the hostility really directed at what was actually being said in posts–or not? And I have to say that in my opinion a lot of the hostility seemed to spark not from
what was said at first but instead from what was implied.
Once the first person ‘picked up’ an implied criticism, she/he jumped back with a response that also itself implied criticism right back.
And from then on, even the most mildly phrased post was judged, not for its actual content, but on whether the poster was seen to be on side A --I would wear a covering or side B --I would not wear a headcovering. No matter what the poster’s own reason was for her choice, the only thing that mattered to a responder was whether this poster agreed with the responder’s position.
If a responder agreed with the poster, there would be all sorts of positive feedback. If not–the poster would be called names. And then of course quite often the poster would then respond, “why are you criticizing me for something I don’t do”, would then be accused of “going off topic”, and the whole discussion would turn into a frenzy of charges and countercharges until (mercifully) the mods would close down the thread.
This happens in too many threads, and it really shouldn’t. Many people seem to be unable to grasp the concept of debate/discussion being to express one’s position, and then to listen to another’s expression of his position, and then --without attacking, denigrating, assuming, or dismissing the other’s position-- to continue to discuss, calmly and politely, why YOU believe as you do, and to seek further enlightenment from others as to why THEY believe as THEY do. And finally, to express to the others, “Thank you for explaining your beliefs. I feel that I understand your beliefs and why you believe. I hope you understand my beliefs and why I believe. If you don’t understand them, I’ll be happy to continue to explain. If you understand and don’t want to consider them, then we can stop the discussion and move on to something else.”
Peace. I really think the covering of women’s heads is a remant of Middle East dress. Although the Jews did not demand the burka as is demanded in Muslim countries, they did separate their women at synagogue and all the “pictures” I have seen of Jewish women of long ago, show them with their heads covered. Then what do I know? All I know is, if they bring back the head coverings, until the men have to cover their bald pates, I’ll stand by the door for Mass.
