Seriously, when you see a picture of Omar, do you think "I but her husband tells her everything to say?"

Symbols can get redefined dramatically. It makes a difference that Omar is wearing the scarf in a new situation where it is not required of her, even carries disadvantages. Here a woman clawed her way up out of Minneapolis Somali patriarchy and became a US Representative, and has continued to defy even the choking liberalism of Pelosi types.

Just how much social control by anybody is that scarf still representing?

I'd say that in the current context, it's most poignant meaning is defiance -- she refuses to be cowed by all the Muslim bashing.

It would be so easy and lucrative for her to become the Dem's poster child of the good Muslim. But she'd have to lose the scarf.

Yep, her not wearing it now would be more likely to represent oppression.

Just look at the comments of any deplorable FB post about her. They're all demanding the hijab be banned from government. Seems like the religious right/the right as a whole are the ones jonesing to do some oppressing.

Bill, I don't think for a second that Omar herself takes her lead from any man in the way you're asking. She strikes me as a strong-willed, independent woman, and I would be happy for my daughter to follow the examples of courage and confidence that I have seen in her so far.

My point is merely that the hijab is a literal vestige of patriarchy.

If she is providing an example for other women that their hijab doesn't deprive them a voice, "taking it back", that's great, and maybe continuing to wear it will help shatter its traditional mold - she can remain "one of us" and still do xyz.

and apparently I did not know the correct definition of "vestige"

heh, so maybe it can become a literal vestige?

True, But symbols are not static, and if Muslim women can turn the hijab into something else then I'm not faulting them for it.

https://thinkprogress.org/jim-jordan...-0aa2673e7717/

Not sure how Jim Jordan's bit of anti-semitism this week has escaped this thread besides ianaw filling this thread up with concern trolling.

Meh, conservative Christians are inherently anti-Semitic because they believe all Jews must die for Jesus to return.

I for one am very happy she's wearing the hijab, looking stunning in the hijab, and showing all Muslim women that they can retain their Muslim identity and still be an empowered member of liberal democracy.

She is the symbol of what many liberals have been searching for: proof that Islam is compatible with liberalism.

has rashida tlaib not retained her muslim identity because she doesnt wear the hijab?

shoulda went with lady doth protest too much. my dude loves some shakespeare I heard.

Of course she has. But that's not immediately obvious to people who don't know Rashida is a Muslim.

Omar, looking stunning in her hijab, sitting behind a plaque that says "Rep. Ilhan Omar" has way more symbolism.

These seem like good takes.

What can happen to Omar? If these “controversies” keep springing up can Nancy have her removed from the House by a vote?

I ask because a DFL state senator (Ron Latz) in her district was quoted in the StarTribune today saying basically that her well of good-will is starting to run dry. I could see him gunning for her seat if she’s removed or maybe he’ll try to primary her.

I feel like we’re in the Twilight Zone with people expressing such outrage that she dare call out Israel/AIPAC power

The AIPAC stuff is bull****. It is not the reason the US supports Israel.

This. Correct points about the power of lobbyists should be focused on other areas. Take on turbo tax that's such obvious bull****. I'll say again no non-Jewish leftist should ever even say the word isreal its 100% a losing issue. We live in a society without nuance.

They're children aren't being coerced?

Savid,

It's a bit insulting to call all religious people children.

https://twitter.com/simonerzim/statu...077226498?s=21

Good thread

There's a long discussion there and I'm jumping the gun and calling your position (argued, if not actually held) based on abstractions and not reality. In reality the state has less moral authority here and is more likely to suck than parents and the definition of abuse that the government uses to step in should not be nearly so broad as to include things like religion.

Israel is a hard issue for Democrats for sure. After all most Dems just flat out support Israel. But Dems are divided. An issue where Rs are united and Ds are divided is strategically something Rs should definitely talk about a lot.

But I don't think that means Ds shouldn't talk about Israel necessarily. It's just hard strategically.

But, they should cool it about AIPAC. Though of course lots and lots of people who vote D do actually believe that Jews and their money are the secret power behind everything and they're greedy, selfish, and insular so I'm not holding my breath.

It is a long discussion but yeah, I think it's basically impossible to conceive of a functioning society in which children are socialized in an entirely "uncoerced" wa. It's sort of like the libertarian ideal of a voluntary society -- it's at odds which some fundamental facts about human ontogeny.

That leaves plenty of room for moral debates about what forms of socialization ought to be seen as legitimate. It's just that coercion isn't a sufficient criterion

Agree and see Chomsky on anarchy and justifiable coercion (parenting).

See Ursula Le Guin's The Disposessed for an interesting conception of a society based on non-coercion, including child rearing.

The "dual loyalty" attack on Omar is also bogus.

She's describing both parties and numerically more Christians than Jews.