Languish.org

I've mixed feelings on this editorial.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/dec/06/louise-casey-discrimination-muslim-women-bradford

QuoteIf like me you're female, Muslim and from an ethnic minority background, it sometimes feels like a one-way ticket into economic and social purgatory.

Despite the fact that more British Muslim women than men are getting degrees, we are the most disenfranchised group in the country. Not only are we subject to high levels of unemployment and poverty, but discrimination on the basis of our faith, gender and ethnic background hinders our entry into the labour market.

However, according to the findings of Louise Casey's review of integration and opportunity released yesterday, it's not discrimination that is holding us back. British Muslim women have apparently failed to grasp that integration is the missing "key to success".

If only it were that simple. The triple whammy that Muslim women face is what really makes for stagnant social mobility. Casey's report suggests that the UK needs a major new strategy focused on promoting the English language and British values and social mixing among young people. While language proficiency can be a barrier to integration, being a first-generation immigrant with limited proficiency in English doesn't necessarily mean your children won't become engaged members of the community. My grandmother, a first-generation British-Pakistani woman who cannot speak a word of English, raised my mother and eight other daughters, all of whom speak fluent English – and Pashto, to boot.

Talk of "women's emancipation in communities where they are being held back by regressive cultural practices" is merely a synonym for "Muslim women need saving". Yes, patriarchy is indeed a problem within the Muslim community, but it is by no means exceptional. On the one hand, Muslim women are required to do more to integrate, and on the other we're paragons of victimhood. Which is it?

The fact we are even discussing "integration", as if the Muslim community were an oddly assembled jigsaw puzzle incongruous with wider society, is troubling. The mono-ethnic wards the report refers to, in Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim communities in Bradford, have been highlighted as barriers to integration. But what exactly is the solution? A "brown flight" is hardly possible when people are struggling to pay their council tax, let alone move out of the area. I have lived in Bradford for eight years, although I had the benefit of spending most of my life in the kingdom of cosmopolitanism that is London. Just because I won't leave the predominantly Muslim, Pakistani ward that I live in now doesn't make me averse to integration. I simply don't have the financial means to do it.

Graduating from university last year, I thought, naively perhaps, that my degree would ease my passage into the labour market. But instead of a gold-paved road to my first job, I found myself hurtling down the rabbit hole of unemployment. And I'm not alone. I've watched many friends, Pakistani Muslim women like me, get sucked into a void of hopelessness as they try to crack the job market. They lose confidence, not because of the shackles of their faith and their unwillingness to integrate, but because of the economic struggles, discrimination and gradual erosion of self-worth they have experienced.

Bradford is a city that has been battered by austerity cuts. Bradford West, where I live, is the joint fourth poorest constituency in the country. At least once a month, I make a four-and-a-half-hour commute to the economic promised land of London to build my experience through unpaid internships in the hope of eventually finding work. Two years of commuting between the two is exhausting. The voluntary positions, occasional freelance work and below-minimum-wage positions were amounting to nothing. The lack of job opportunities and constant rejections have finally prompted me to pack up and join an exodus of graduates relocating to London.

There's also an assumption that in a city such as Bradford, with its large south Asian, Muslim demographic, Islamophobia isn't felt there. But it is. The 326% spike in Islamophobic attacks in 2015, over half of which were directed towards visibly Muslim women, and the glare of the media spotlight after two families from Bradford left to join Islamic State, means fear is once again as tangible for British Muslims – wherever in the country they live – as it was following 9/11 and the 7/7 bombings. The murder of the Labour MP Jo Cox only a few miles away is a manifestation of this fear of the "other".

There is a great emphasis in the report on attaching "more weight to British values, laws and history in our schools". But what exactly are "British values"? Fish and chips? The monarchy? A quintessentially British cup of tea?

Through mentoring work I do with primary school children in Bradford, I do see hope for the future. I see charismatic, intuitive young girls who are raring to take over the world, even if some need a little nudge. But the dreams and ambitions of many of Bradford's young women eventually ebb away once they realise the ladder of social mobility is out of reach for them. Instead of framing the discussion around integration, real and tangible efforts need to be made to actually help Muslim women.

The fact that we even have to talk about our Muslim identities, our anxieties surrounding issues of poverty and employment in an attempt to humanise our struggle and reassure people we are "good Muslims", not "Isis Muslims", is demoralising. Economic and class struggles affect Muslims just as they affect anyone else, and divisive talk that centres on integration only undermines the struggles of British Muslim women from ethnic minority backgrounds and whitewashes the policies that hold them down.

The glass ceiling has many layers for British Muslim women. If we refuse to march to the drumbeat of victimhood, we will have to work twice as hard as our white counterparts to secure a job, and it's not just because of the lack of opportunities. It's also because of discrimination and the persistent idea that we live "parallel lives" in a parallel dimension yet to be discovered by Stephen Hawking. This is particularly true for visibly Muslim women like me who wear the hijab. The media's fetishisation of the piece of cloth wrapped around my head means my sartorial choices are up for public discussion, whether I want that to be the case or not.

If the government really wants to help British Muslim women, it needs to take discrimination seriously: create job opportunities across the country; invest in stagnating cities such as Bradford with so many talented women resigned to mediocre jobs for which they are overqualified, or no jobs at all. Create platforms from which Muslim women can ascend the ladder of social mobility.

Once that's done, then we can talk about integration – but I bet we won't need to.

And a link to a description of said report: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/dec/04/social-integration-louise-casey-uk-report-condemns-failings

She's from a rundown part of Northern England, much like me and Tyr, so we could say :

"If like me you're male, lapsed Christian and from a native British background, it sometimes feels like a one-way ticket into economic and social purgatory."

You can't expect good jobs to mysteriously appear in rundown backwaters.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 06, 2016, 07:25:42 AM
She's from a rundown part of Northern England, much like me and Tyr, so we could say :

"If like me you're male, lapsed Christian and from a native British background, it sometimes feels like a one-way ticket into economic and social purgatory."

You can't expect good jobs to mysteriously appear in rundown backwaters.

Well from the article, she's actually been looking for work in London but notes she's been failing. Notes she's now going to move to London and hope she finds something here. Aka the anti-Seedy just moving to Seattle and then applying for jobs. :P

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 06, 2016, 07:25:42 AM
She's from a rundown part of Northern England, much like me and Tyr, so we could say :

"If like me you're male, lapsed Christian and from a native British background, it sometimes feels like a one-way ticket into economic and social purgatory."

You can't expect good jobs to mysteriously appear in rundown backwaters.

This is precisely the problem in America's depressed Rust Belt--the jobs are gone and the people left feel they shouldn't have to move to look for work, creating a vicious cycle of declining job skills and increasing blight which make the region lest attractive for new investment from business.

She mostly sounds bitter that she's struggling to find a job after finishing university. Welcome to the real world, which doesn't owe you anything.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:04:08 PM
She mostly sounds bitter that she's struggling to find a job after finishing university. Welcome to the real world, which doesn't owe you anything.

Well she did right it in response to a governmental report that noted that noted there are "cultural and religious practices in communities that are not only holding some of our citizens back, but run contrary to British values and sometimes our laws."

I think it makes sense that she'd feel a little attacked as a hijab wearing Muslim.

The truth hurts I guess.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2016, 07:16:07 PM

I think it makes sense that she'd feel a little attacked as a hijab wearing Muslim.

Could be worse. She could be a woman with an education in Saudi Arabia.

Things like this are hard from every direction, but I don't think she's doing too bad if you put it in perspective.

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2016, 07:35:40 AM
Well from the article, she's actually been looking for work in London but notes she's been failing. Notes she's now going to move to London and hope she finds something here. Aka the anti-Seedy just moving to Seattle and then applying for jobs. :P

:lol:  Best Buy Tacoma, here I come!

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2016, 07:16:07 PM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:04:08 PM
She mostly sounds bitter that she's struggling to find a job after finishing university. Welcome to the real world, which doesn't owe you anything.

Well she did right it in response to a governmental report that noted that noted there are "cultural and religious practices in communities that are not only holding some of our citizens back, but run contrary to British values and sometimes our laws."

I think it makes sense that she'd feel a little attacked as a hijab wearing Muslim.

The thing is that I think she is doing what the report suggests would be a good idea. Namely, having failed to get a decent job in her depressed hometown, she is off to London where she will meet people from many different backgrounds and start integrating. She has even written a whinge piece for the whingers' newspaper of record.......what could be more integrated?

There remains a problem for public policy of course. A few days back the Guardian was whinging about a brain drain of graduates fleeing the North so that they could get good work in the South. It all becomes a self-reinforcing cycle, the motivated and ambitious move to London, firms set up in London because of the superior workforce, which attracts the motivated and ambitious yet more, leaving their home areas ever more deprived.

Say what you like about Osborne, at least he was on to something with his "Northern Powerhouse" ideas. England is quite a small place, with improved transport links it may be able to turn the entire place into a single virtual city. The problem is, I think, more treatable than what to do with depressed towns in remote parts of the USA.

Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 06, 2016, 10:30:25 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 06, 2016, 07:16:07 PM

I think it makes sense that she'd feel a little attacked as a hijab wearing Muslim.

Could be worse. She could be a woman with an education in Saudi Arabia.

Things like this are hard from every direction, but I don't think she's doing too bad if you put it in perspective.

The perspective of what?

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2016, 02:11:16 AM
The thing is that I think she is doing what the report suggests would be a good idea. Namely, having failed to get a decent job in her depressed hometown, she is off to London where she will meet people from many different backgrounds and start integrating. She has even written a whinge piece for the whingers' newspaper of record.......what could be more integrated?

So minorities will be better off (and by standards of the report - integrated) if they just would all move to London? ;)

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM
Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

She needs to become a robot willing to work for electricity.

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:37:09 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2016, 02:11:16 AM
The thing is that I think she is doing what the report suggests would be a good idea. Namely, having failed to get a decent job in her depressed hometown, she is off to London where she will meet people from many different backgrounds and start integrating. She has even written a whinge piece for the whingers' newspaper of record.......what could be more integrated?

So minorities will be better off (and by standards of the report - integrated) if they just would all move to London? ;)

The way the economy is going, and integration, we would all be better off if we lived in central London. There is a clear need for a size-reducing ray here, once we are all under a foot tall there will be plenty of space in London, time to set the boffins to work!

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2016, 05:10:33 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:37:09 AM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 07, 2016, 02:11:16 AM
The thing is that I think she is doing what the report suggests would be a good idea. Namely, having failed to get a decent job in her depressed hometown, she is off to London where she will meet people from many different backgrounds and start integrating. She has even written a whinge piece for the whingers' newspaper of record.......what could be more integrated?

So minorities will be better off (and by standards of the report - integrated) if they just would all move to London? ;)

The way the economy is going, and integration, we would all be better off if we lived in central London. There is a clear need for a size-reducing ray here, once we are all under a foot tall there will be plenty of space in London, time to set the boffins to work!

:D

Why is this thread stickied?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2016, 08:31:03 AM
Why is this thread stickied?

Yes, most curious. :D

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 08:43:27 AM

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 07, 2016, 08:31:03 AM
Why is this thread stickied?

Yes, most curious. :D

Yeah I noticed that, thought it had been so because someone thought it would become the archetypal languish thread? :unsure:

This thread will define us as a forum.  Please be mindful of that as you post here.

Quote from: mongers on December 07, 2016, 09:01:33 AM
Yeah I noticed that, thought it had been so because someone thought it would become the archetypal languish thread? :unsure:

QuoteWell, a friend of mine named Steve Goodman wrote that song
And he told me it was the perfect country & western song
I wrote him back a letter and I told him it was
Not the perfect country & western song because he hadn't said anything at all about mama,
Or trains,
Or trucks,
Or prison,
Or getting' drunk

It is really, really difficult to find a job in a different culture.  I still remember the disdainful look people gave me in Canada when I told them I had zero work experience. 

Quote from: Monoriu on December 07, 2016, 10:01:52 AM
It is really, really difficult to find a job in a different culture.  I still remember the disdainful look people gave me in Canada when I told them I had zero work experience. 

Umm, so it was the writer's grandmother who was an immigrant. The writer is British.

FWIW, the five Brit muslim women I know all have advanced degrees and great jobs.  Probably helps that they're all fully assimilated.

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
FWIW, the five Brit muslim women I know all have advanced degrees and great jobs.  Probably helps that they're all fully assimilated.

I'm assuming that's worth nothing. What does it mean to be 'fully assimilated'?

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
FWIW, the five Brit muslim women I know all have advanced degrees and great jobs.  Probably helps that they're all fully assimilated.

I'm assuming that's worth nothing.

Yeah I figured you'd be the first one to be a little shit about that.

Quote
What does it mean to be 'fully assimilated'?

They've been westernized in the way they speak, dress, act, etc.

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2016, 11:13:11 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 10:39:21 AM

Quote from: derspiess on December 07, 2016, 10:35:17 AM
FWIW, the five Brit muslim women I know all have advanced degrees and great jobs.  Probably helps that they're all fully assimilated.

I'm assuming that's worth nothing.

Yeah I figured you'd be the first one to be a little shit about that.

Quote
What does it mean to be 'fully assimilated'?

They've been westernized in the way they speak, dress, act, etc.

Oh so they dress and act like white people?

And, of course, I would. It is a silly anecdote that says nothing apart from perhaps a non-true assertion that if minorities don't act like minorities they won't get treated like minorities.

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 11:25:47 AM

Oh so they dress and act like white people?

White people are super popular over there. That is why they are fighting like hell to keep Europeans from being able to freely move in. But I keep forgetting that there are not dozens of nations and cultures in Europe, everybody dresses and acts exactly the same because: skin color.

QuoteAnd, of course, I would. It is a silly anecdote that says nothing apart from perhaps a non-true assertion that if minorities don't act like minorities they won't get treated like minorities.

I don't think he made that assertion. He simply pointed out that five people he knew had great jobs and advanced degrees. How is that any less anecdotal than the article you linked?

Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2016, 11:36:10 AM
White people are super popular over there. That is why they are fighting like hell to keep Europeans from being able to freely move in. But I keep forgetting that there are not dozens of nations and cultures in Europe, everybody dresses and acts exactly the same because: skin color.

:huh:

What are you blabbering about?

Quote from: Valmy on December 07, 2016, 11:36:10 AM
I don't think he made that assertion. He simply pointed out that five people he knew had great jobs and advanced degrees. How is that any less anecdotal than the article you linked?

Oh so he wasn't make an assertion just mentioning 5 women he knows just for the point of mentioning them? He noted they were fully assimilated and noted that meant that they dressed and acted like those around him. I guess I could pretend I've never interacted with him before and don't know he's suggesting that people just need to dress and act 'appropriately' to avoid hardship.

I'm, of course, not being generous in my interpretation of what 'dress and act' are because I don't really see why it would be okay to discriminate against someone because they wear a hijab.

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Well it screams it to you.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Yeah, burqas.

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 11:43:37 AM
Oh so he wasn't make an assertion just mentioning 5 women he knows just for the point of mentioning them? He noted they were fully assimilated and noted that meant that they dressed and acted like those around him. I guess I could pretend I've never interacted with him before and don't know he's suggesting that people just need to dress and act 'appropriately' to avoid hardship.

I'm, of course, not being generous in my interpretation of what 'dress and act' are because I don't really see why it would be okay to discriminate against someone because they wear a hijab.

Wow.

Of course, sections of the left would be the first ones to say that Westerners should use cultural appropriation when abroad. Which makes their stance on this hypocritical.

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

What is this expectation based on?

Quote from: PJL on December 08, 2016, 02:33:59 PM
Of course, sections of the left would be the first ones to say that Westerners should use cultural appropriation when abroad. Which makes their stance on this hypocritical.

Okay.

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2016, 01:43:24 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Well it screams it to you.

not my problem if you can't accept the facts.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 03:11:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2016, 01:43:24 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Well it screams it to you.

not my problem if you can't accept the facts.

I do accept facts. I don't accept blind hate.

You'll forgive us if we suspect that the right's foray into feminism is insincere.

NO I WONT

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 03:49:00 PM
NO I WONT

So after Donald Trump and a Muslim woman was attacked in the park by three drunks who ripped off her hijab and told her to "go back to her own country", this was an attempt to save someone from misogyny?

It's interesting that cultural attire is apparently only possibly legitimately meaningful if the argument is about whether some group ought to be free to wear it without it having meaning for anyone else.

IE, wearing a hijab should have zero meaning when it comes to how anyone perceives the person wearing it, but we must protect their right to wear it because it has such profound meaning to them.

I think wearing a hijab has meaning to the people who wear it, and hence it is unrealistic to demand that everyone else look on it with complete neutrality. It is not neutral at all.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2016, 03:58:17 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 03:49:00 PM
NO I WONT

So after Donald Trump and a Muslim woman was attacked in the park by three drunks who ripped off her hijab and told her to "go back to her own country", this was an attempt to save someone from misogyny?

Of course. They were trying to tell her the United States is a sexist and racist hell hole and best to go back to where she came from.

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2016, 03:22:49 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 03:11:03 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 08, 2016, 01:43:24 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Well it screams it to you.

not my problem if you can't accept the facts.

I do accept facts. I don't accept blind hate.

Blind hates can be fun.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I think that, if you actually met a Muslim woman, a lot of your screaming delusions would be put to rest.

Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2016, 03:59:12 PM
It's interesting that cultural attire is apparently only possibly legitimately meaningful if the argument is about whether some group ought to be free to wear it without it having meaning for anyone else.

IE, wearing a hijab should have zero meaning when it comes to how anyone perceives the person wearing it, but we must protect their right to wear it because it has such profound meaning to them.

I think wearing a hijab has meaning to the people who wear it, and hence it is unrealistic to demand that everyone else look on it with complete neutrality. It is not neutral at all.

Of course the hajib has meaning, just as the turban does, the yarmulke, the kilt, etc.  Who looks on any of those with "complete neutrality?"

(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/d6/64/83/d664833893e1c1b0f83539a669113b05.jpg)

I'm not sure what your point is garbon. There's discrimination in the UK? That's not news is it? There's discrimination everywhere. We don't even know what field her degree is in. That might a big chunk of her problems.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2016, 11:06:12 PM
I'm not sure what your point is garbon. There's discrimination in the UK? That's not news is it? There's discrimination everywhere. We don't even know what field her degree is in. That might a big chunk of her problems.

If her degree is in the liberal arts, it doesn't mean squat as far as employment outside of academia is concerned.

Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2016, 03:58:17 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 03:49:00 PM
NO I WONT

So after Donald Trump and a Muslim woman was attacked in the park by three drunks who ripped off her hijab and told her to "go back to her own country", this was an attempt to save someone from misogyny?

Are you talking about the "hate crime" incident that didn't actually happen?

Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 08, 2016, 02:39:21 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM
I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

What is this expectation based on?

The fact that most of the people ranting about misogyny and hijab have significant records of being anti Muslim before they gave a fuck about misogyny as it affects Muslim women.  And yes,  that includes crazy Ivan.

And the fact that as far as I know the "hijab = misogyny"  folks seem to give zero fucks about misogyny in any other shape or form,  but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

I also expect that some anti-hijab people are truly and uniquely revolted by the hijab itself.

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
And the fact that as far as I know the "hijab = misogyny"  folks seem to give zero fucks about misogyny in any other shape or form,  but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

It's not a critique of Islam, but of westerners who call themselves feminists and get in a tizzy about much milder things than that(like "mansplaining" or "manspreading") but have a blind spot toward Islamic misogyny.

Quote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2016, 11:06:12 PM
I'm not sure what your point is garbon. There's discrimination in the UK? That's not news is it? There's discrimination everywhere. We don't even know what field her degree is in. That might a big chunk of her problems.

What a strange follow-up rebuke.

Quote from: grumbler on December 08, 2016, 10:03:56 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 08, 2016, 03:59:12 PM
It's interesting that cultural attire is apparently only possibly legitimately meaningful if the argument is about whether some group ought to be free to wear it without it having meaning for anyone else.

IE, wearing a hijab should have zero meaning when it comes to how anyone perceives the person wearing it, but we must protect their right to wear it because it has such profound meaning to them.

I think wearing a hijab has meaning to the people who wear it, and hence it is unrealistic to demand that everyone else look on it with complete neutrality. It is not neutral at all.

Of course the hajib has meaning, just as the turban does, the yarmulke, the kilt, etc.  Who looks on any of those with "complete neutrality?"

People in turbans make me sikh.

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 11:42:43 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2016, 03:58:17 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 03:49:00 PM
NO I WONT

So after Donald Trump and a Muslim woman was attacked in the park by three drunks who ripped off her hijab and told her to "go back to her own country", this was an attempt to save someone from misogyny?

Are you talking about the "hate crime" incident that didn't actually happen?

No.

Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2016, 03:51:57 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2016, 03:59:17 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 08, 2016, 03:58:17 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 08, 2016, 03:49:00 PM
NO I WONT

So after Donald Trump and a Muslim woman was attacked in the park by three drunks who ripped off her hijab and told her to "go back to her own country", this was an attempt to save someone from misogyny?

Of course. They were trying to tell her the United States is a sexist and racist hell hole and best to go back to where she came from.

See, they had good intentions, even if their means were not totally appropriate.

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 10:32:05 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2016, 03:51:57 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Not at all equivalent, Mart.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Okay, Geert.

What he said next left the libtard SPEECHLESS

'If Islam is so great then why are millions fleeing Islamic countries? Eh? EH?'

Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2016, 01:51:38 PM
What he said next left the libtard SPEECHLESS

'If Islam is so great then why are millions fleeing Islamic countries? Eh? EH?'

:lol:

Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 09, 2016, 01:00:29 AM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
And the fact that as far as I know the "hijab = misogyny"  folks seem to give zero fucks about misogyny in any other shape or form,  but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

It's not a critique of Islam, but of westerners who call themselves feminists and get in a tizzy about much milder things than that(like "mansplaining" or "manspreading") but have a blind spot toward Islamic misogyny.

That does not make the alleged concern about misogyny on the part of anti-Islam types any more convincing.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Then their choice of head wear really shouldn't matter.

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 01:50:00 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Okay, Geert.

:punk: :worthy:

Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2016, 02:52:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 01:50:00 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Okay, Geert.

:punk: :worthy:

He just got convicted. :(

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 01:59:09 PM

Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 09, 2016, 01:00:29 AM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
And the fact that as far as I know the "hijab = misogyny"  folks seem to give zero fucks about misogyny in any other shape or form,  but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

It's not a critique of Islam, but of westerners who call themselves feminists and get in a tizzy about much milder things than that(like "mansplaining" or "manspreading") but have a blind spot toward Islamic misogyny.

That does not make the alleged concern about misogyny on the part of anti-Islam types any more convincing.

tbh, nothing coming from a rightwinger would seem convincing to you.

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 03:01:01 PM
He just got convicted. :(

But not sentenced to any punishment.

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 03:31:25 PM
tbh, nothing coming from a rightwinger would seem convincing to you.

Not true at all.

But right wingers adapting leftist talking points out of line with their normal arguments to bolster a right wing position is going to be a hard sell.

There are anti-Muslim left wing people though. Like Bill Maher.

Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2016, 03:53:43 PM
There are anti-Muslim left wing people though. Like Bill Maher.

Wonderful.

Presuming he gave a damn about misogyny before he went anti-Muslim, I'd find any "hijab = misogyny" statements less hollow and potentially worth engaging with.

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 03:57:30 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2016, 03:53:43 PM
There are anti-Muslim left wing people though. Like Bill Maher.

Wonderful.

Presuming he gave a damn about misogyny before he went anti-Muslim, I'd find any "hijab = misogyny" statements less hollow and potentially worth engaging with.

I think he has been pretty consistent but I am not some huge fan or something. I have not noticed this kind of cross-over generate any kind of discussion, those leftists just get classified as part of the islamophobes and off we go.

I mean the fact is that Islam does consider women to have fewer rights and privileges than men. And anybody practicing Islam, in its traditional form anyway, has to deal with that in some way. I think it is perfectly fair to both have a critique of that element while defending practitioners from discrimination and so forth. That kind of nuance seems pretty rare, at least in public discussions. I am sure many people hold that perspective though.

Personally I just figure the double standard is so obvious that there is really nothing that needs to be said about it. That women are required to wear certain clothes and men are not speaks for itself. The Muslims are not stupid. They know.

Anyway I am not a Muslim and while I have Muslim friends nobody super close to me is a Muslim, at least not yet anyway. So not my business. You will never see me discussing this kind of thing outside of Languish. But I am not some kind of activist. I find it weird when activists who have devoted their lives to this kind of thing seem to act like it is not true or that it is not important when this is not some kind of foreign thing. Islam is part of our culture now.

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 03:57:30 PM
I'd find any "hijab = misogyny" statements less hollow and potentially worth engaging with.

I honestly never heard this about the hijab.  The full veil, sure.  But simply the hijab?  Except from real racists, no.

Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2016, 04:11:10 PM
That kind of nuance seems pretty rare, at least in public discussions. I am sure many people hold that perspective though.

Funny, I keep hearing it, but the left usually doesn't want to hear it.  They prefer to scream "racist!!!" and lump us all in the same bag with the neo-nazis.  Mind you, they are usually the same who hate every aspect of Christinanity, so it's not like their religious tolerance really extends beyond the radical forms of Islam.

It's much more an alliance of convenience between the hard left and the radical elements within Islam.  They both hate America, capitalism and western liberties they see as threatening to their existence.  So they would have no problem condemning the Catholic church and its practitionners for all the wrongs of a society, including gender inequality, but at the same time, they would defend the practice of having a women covered from head to toe in a hot summer day and walking behind her husband.

QuoteIslam is part of our culture now.

Does it mean we have to accept the radicals as much as the moderates?  And when the secular muslims complain of intense pressure by radicals, we:
a) brush them off
b) call them bigot
c) put them on a list with other neo-nazis types
d) all of the above
?

I don't think that perspective is missing from the public discourse, Valmy.

People have - or should have - the right to engage in whatever religious and cultural practices they desire as long as the basic foundations of a liberal society are respected; i.e. respecting the rights of others. Wearing the hijab falls within those parameters, and there's no particular reason to single that out if you're not singling out the many many equivalent behaviours extant elsewhere in society.

You don't see a lot of people in the US - except dedicated feminists - causing a ruckus about the deeply sexist notions of "a godly marriage" found within the evangelical community, f. ex. Those same feminists are not shy about critiquing the parallel Muslim practices (and those of other groups) where they exists. Within society at large, that sort of arrangement is acceptable as long as there's no coercion involved, whether amongst Christians, Muslims, Jews or others.

Besides, this whole "hijab = symbol of oppression" is a highly political framing... wearing the hijab can be as much a cultural expression of propriety or an individual statement of political or cultural belonging at least unless you apply a feminist analysis. And if you're going to apply a feminist analysis on the hijab, you ought to apply it elsewhere as well or it will ring very hollow.

There is no double standard in consistently not prioritizing a feminist analysis across the board, that's pretty consistent in fact - and most people who are not anti-Muslim and anti-Hijab consistently, at least in my experience, do not apply feminist analysis of clothing beyond a "well, I guess it's her choice" across the board.

If there is any kind of double standard in play it's from the people deciding to use a feminist analysis - that women's clothing choices is dictated by and a reflection of patriarchal social structures - in one single narrow situation (the hijab) but ignoring altogether elsewhere (whether applying it to directly parallel behaviours in the dominant culture, whether it's applying it to other social issues around clothing, or whether it's applying feminist analysis to any other kind of phenomenon like the workplace, family roles, etc etc).

Yes, the hijab can be seen as a symbol and means of patriarchal oppression, absolutely - but if you're going to view it like that you should apply the same analytical methodologyacross the board and accept the consequences. If you do not - and most people don't - then it is not a double standard to not apply it to the hijab either.

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 04:32:01 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 03:57:30 PM
I'd find any "hijab = misogyny" statements less hollow and potentially worth engaging with.

I honestly never heard this about the hijab.  The full veil, sure.  But simply the hijab?  Except from real racists, no.

Try reading the thread:

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 07, 2016, 03:44:22 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 06, 2016, 07:58:46 PM
The truth hurts I guess.

Seems rather unlikely that her problems would just vanish if she stopped donning a hijab, no?

not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 04:56:26 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2016, 11:06:12 PM
I'm not sure what your point is garbon. There's discrimination in the UK? That's not news is it? There's discrimination everywhere. We don't even know what field her degree is in. That might a big chunk of her problems.

What a strange follow-up rebuke.

It's not a rebuke and barely a follow up.

So that's what you do now? Just drop into thread, post like 5 words answers playing devil's advocate on EVERY subject and off you go?

I don't get it, but hey, we all use Languish differently I guess.  :mellow:

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 03:52:47 PM

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 03:31:25 PM
tbh, nothing coming from a rightwinger would seem convincing to you.

Not true at all.

But right wingers adapting leftist talking points out of line with their normal arguments to bolster a right wing position is going to be a hard sell.

Here's the thing, Jake.  You don't have to be a raving feminist in order to disapprove of how women are generally treated in many Islamic cultures.  You can call rightwingers sexists, misogynists, whatever you want and some of us certainly are.  But even the worst among us don't like seeing women treated like that.

I mean, it's like the bizarre criticism of rightwingers who expressed horror and outrage over the Orlando massacre.  Oh, most of them were against gay marriage, so they aren't *really* concerned about gay people getting butchered.  Right?  :rolleyes:

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 03:01:01 PM

Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2016, 02:52:11 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 01:50:00 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Okay, Geert.

:punk: :worthy:

He just got convicted. :(

#martyred

Quote from: derspiess on December 09, 2016, 04:53:46 PM
Here's the thing, Jake.  You don't have to be a raving feminist in order to disapprove of how women are generally treated in many Islamic cultures.  You can call rightwingers sexists, misogynists, whatever you want and some of us certainly are.  But even the worst among us don't like seeing women treated like that.

How are women generally treated in many Islamic cultures and how is that connected to the wearing of hijab?

Quote from: Valmy on December 09, 2016, 01:51:38 PM
What he said next left the libtard SPEECHLESS

'If Islam is so great then why are millions fleeing Islamic countries? Eh? EH?'

OMG I CLICKED
TELL ME MORE

Quote from: Zoupa on December 09, 2016, 04:49:49 PM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 04:56:26 AM

Quote from: Zoupa on December 08, 2016, 11:06:12 PM
I'm not sure what your point is garbon. There's discrimination in the UK? That's not news is it? There's discrimination everywhere. We don't even know what field her degree is in. That might a big chunk of her problems.

What a strange follow-up rebuke.

It's not a rebuke and barely a follow up.

So that's what you do now? Just drop into thread, post like 5 words answers playing devil's advocate on EVERY subject and off you go?

I don't get it, but hey, we all use Languish differently I guess.  :mellow:

You show up and get all #French then get upset because I say I have mixed feelings about an editorial?

(https://media.giphy.com/media/EsmlrgWNx5v0Y/giphy.gif)

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 02:01:01 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 11, 2016, 02:20:49 PM
indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

Wow.  :huh:

I've seen this sort of hyperbole in history books, and from third-world dictatorships, but I don't think I've encountered quite this open a declaration of bigotry here on Languish before.

Fuck you! I will not have you badmouth history books. They rule.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 11, 2016, 02:20:49 PMindeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

Whereas your type reminds me of European anti-Semites of the 1930s.

Quote from: grumbler on December 11, 2016, 03:21:54 PM
I don't think I've encountered quite this open a declaration of bigotry here on Languish before.

Oh, I think you have.

Shit, Siege posts the exact same thing every month.

Quote from: Eddie Teach on December 11, 2016, 05:59:49 PM
Shit, Siege posts the exact same thing every month.

But he's not serious about it.  It's his shtick.

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 11, 2016, 02:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 02:01:01 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2016, 08:15:20 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 11, 2016, 02:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 02:01:01 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

Bingo.  Criticism of the hijab is just a cover (yeah, bad pun intended) for attacks on Islam generally.

Quote from: dps on December 11, 2016, 08:57:14 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on December 11, 2016, 08:15:20 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 11, 2016, 02:20:49 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 02:01:01 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 09, 2016, 01:33:30 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 12:25:36 AM
but they have a lot of other opinions about how Islam is terrible.

that is because islam is terrible, just like nazism and communism

Yeah, I know that is your position - and that is why I am certain that if the hijab wearing women stop wearing hijab but remain Muslim, you will find other reasons to attack them. Your concern is not about their rights or misogyny, your concern is to attack Islam. Thus your arguments about misogyny ring hollow.

indeed my concern is to attack islam, as it is worthy of unrelenting attack.
As for ringing hollow to you, it's of little interest to me. Given that your type reminds me -in this particular context- of the Iranian leftists cheering on the Ayatollah in 1979.
You're being suckered, and the generations after ours will curse the names of the people that let it happen. And rightfully so.

So why bring the Hijab into this?  Your problem is not clothing it's the people wearing it.  So let's be honest about this.  Going on about the Hijab and Misogyny only muddies the water.  Don't try to trick anyone else into your personal crus- eh, your personal Jihad

Bingo.  Criticism of the hijab is just a cover (yeah, bad pun intended) for attacks on Islam generally.

OK, while that is pretty much what he said, it isn't the only way to interpret his point.

He could be saying that Islam is bad, and worthy of being attacked, and the hijab represents an example of what it is that makes Islam worthy of attack to begin with - hence it would make reasonable sense to "bring the hijab" into it as a example of why Islam should be rejected.

So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

This is like saying I should not argue about whether or not Trump is a sexist, misogynist pig of a human being, because my issues with Trump would still exist if he was NOT a sexist pig. That is entirely true - if Trump lacked that particular flaw, I would still be incredibly against everything else he stands for - that doesn't invalidate my argument that he is in fact a sexist pig.

Note that I am not willing to jump on the "Islam is worth of unrelenting attack" train.

Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2016, 11:17:50 PM
So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2016, 12:36:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2016, 11:17:50 PM
So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

Who is the white supremacist in this analogy?

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 01:49:34 PM

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 10:32:05 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2016, 03:51:57 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Not at all equivalent, Mart.

totally equivalent.

Quote from: viper37 on December 12, 2016, 10:39:52 AM

Quote from: garbon on December 09, 2016, 01:49:34 PM

Quote from: viper37 on December 09, 2016, 10:32:05 AM

Quote from: Valmy on December 08, 2016, 03:51:57 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 08, 2016, 01:49:39 PM

Quote from: Crazy_Ivan80 on December 08, 2016, 01:40:50 PM
not wearing a piece of clothing that screams mysogyny helps.

I expect that if Muslim women stopped wearing hijab, the anti-hijab people would pick some other thing to pick on.

Probably depends on why they were anti-hijab in the first place.

I am only against the hijab when there is a legal requirement to wear it and only for the hijab where it is banned.

the hijab is not really problematic, by women wearing a hijab shouldn't complain that it's harder for them to integrate.  If I move to the US and I insist on always speaking French, I have every right to.  But I shouldn't complain that it's difficult to find a job and I have trouble making new friends.  Heck, replace "the US" by "Ottawa", the bilingual capital of my country and it's the same situation.  You ain't going nowhere by speaking only French.

Not at all equivalent, Mart.

totally equivalent.

Nope. After all one isn't really limited from participating in society by the wearing of a hijab. Not speaking the language that is predominantly used in a country will be limiting.

I mean I guess you might have difficulty befriending bigots if you wear a hijab but doesn't sound like much of a loss.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 07:08:21 AM

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2016, 12:36:16 AM

Quote from: Berkut on December 11, 2016, 11:17:50 PM
So while it is the case that absent the hijab, he would still attack Islam, it isn't the case that that makes his attacks on the hijab irrelevant.

Yes it is. At least that's the point I've been making, and the one I'm standing by.

There's a time and a place to discuss the subtleties of women's clothing choices and patriarchy, and it's not when self-declared anti-Muslim bigots bring it to the table to justify their bigotry.

There may be something to the points about how inner city patterns of crime, drug use, and poor family planning choices create a self-perpetuating cycle of poverty, but the time to have that discussion is not when a white supremacist brings it up to bolster his argument that black people are inferior.

Who is the white supremacist in this analogy?

Crazy Ivan.

Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2016, 10:43:17 AM
I mean I guess you might have difficulty befriending bigots if you wear a hijab but doesn't sound like much of a loss.

you focus on the hijab too much.
The niqab (and other similar clothing) will effectively shut you off from society.  That is the goal of such clothing, to prevent the women from seeking the outside world.

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 04:46:41 PM
You don't see a lot of people in the US - except dedicated feminists - causing a ruckus about the deeply sexist notions of "a godly marriage" found within the evangelical community, f. ex. Those same feminists are not shy about critiquing the parallel Muslim practices (and those of other groups) where they exists. Within society at large, that sort of arrangement is acceptable as long as there's no coercion involved, whether amongst Christians, Muslims, Jews or others.

You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 02:38:44 PM

Quote from: Jacob on December 09, 2016, 04:46:41 PM
You don't see a lot of people in the US - except dedicated feminists - causing a ruckus about the deeply sexist notions of "a godly marriage" found within the evangelical community, f. ex. Those same feminists are not shy about critiquing the parallel Muslim practices (and those of other groups) where they exists. Within society at large, that sort of arrangement is acceptable as long as there's no coercion involved, whether amongst Christians, Muslims, Jews or others.

You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.

Indeed.

I think there are plenty of people who have problems with how Christians have historically treated women. In large part, there has been a lot of success in changing those views among most non-radical Christians.

Bill Maher is a good example of what Valmy is talking about. He is vehemently anti-religion in general, and always has been. His being "anti-Muslim" has been completely consistent with his general anti-religion stance. His opposition to particular Islam in particular is

A) Largely simply an expression of his views on religion in general, and
B) To the extent that his MORE anti-Muslim in some cases, it is because he specifically calls out Islam as being in those cases a larger problem than other religions.

But some of the very people who would cheer him on when he is slamming Christianity, will turn right against him when he makes the same critiques of Islam, but I can't really see the differentiation.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 02:54:37 PM
Indeed.

I think there are plenty of people who have problems with how Christians have historically treated women. In large part, there has been a lot of success in changing those views among most non-radical Christians.

Bill Maher is a good example of what Valmy is talking about. He is vehemently anti-religion in general, and always has been. His being "anti-Muslim" has been completely consistent with his general anti-religion stance. His opposition to particular Islam in particular is

A) Largely simply an expression of his views on religion in general, and
B) To the extent that his MORE anti-Muslim in some cases, it is because he specifically calls out Islam as being in those cases a larger problem than other religions.

But some of the very people who would cheer him on when he is slamming Christianity, will turn right against him when he makes the same critiques of Islam, but I can't really see the differentiation.

As you describe it, neither can I so we don't have much disagreement there :)

My concern are the people who are specifically anti-Muslim and grab any argument that can be repurposed to attack Muslims for the sake of attacking Muslims. If you are anti-religious, anti-patriarchy, or whatever then I think it's legit to critique Islam in those contexts - absolutely fair play. My issue are those who use those arguments without caring about religions or patriarchy in general.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2016, 02:57:32 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 02:38:44 PM
You don't? Generally what I see is people who viciously attacked the Evangelicals, to widespread left wing cheering, turn their guns on Muslims suddenly get denounced as bigots and Islamophobes. Like Bill Mayer.

Interesting. Not what I've observed. The loud anti-hijab people I've encountered don't tend to have much of a record on criticizing patriarchal practices in other religions, much less in society at large. Then again, you're closer to it so you may well be right.

Both of those things can be true. I think rabidly anti-Muslim people are going to grab whatever they hear being said that is anti-Islam or is critical of Islam in some way.

I remember seeing one left wing person lament, concerning Richard Dawkins, that he once had such beautiful things to say but he has become a bigot in response to some anti-Islam thing he said. As if he has actually changed his views much.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:08:20 PM

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

Yep.

Mormons are a pretty popular target for everybody though. Good thing they are just so goddamn nice.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:08:20 PM

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women. In fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

Quote from: merithyn on December 12, 2016, 03:18:39 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:08:20 PM

Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women. In fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

Well, I don't think you can separate out the hijab/burqa thing from the rest of it.

People don't get worked up over the Amish culture requiring women to dress in a certain manner for example. I think that is largely because we understand Amish culture in general, and in the aggregate we know that the totality of how the Amish view women as being nominally within the bounds of acceptable western culture, at least as a quaint outlier.

Personally, I actually think that how the Amish treat women is pretty terrible myself, but again, it isn't something that I look at and just say "That cannot be tolerated in a liberal society".

If the problems the West have with Islam were limited to a head scarf, I don't think there would be any issue over it - anymore than there is an issue over Sikh head coverings or Jews wearing skull caps. It would just be some quaint curiosity. But in fact there IS more behind it, there is honor killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

It would also likely be viewed as ridiculous to suddenly show concern for how women are treated in society / attack them for their head coverings.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:08:20 PM
Do you think that patriarchal practices in other religions are similarly problematic though for most people in general?

IMO, it just isn't a similar problem in scale or impact. When it is seen as a problem, I think people are appropriately outraged. When you hear about some splinter Mormon group marrying girls off to some creep at 15, we go after them pretty hard, both culturally and legally.

I'm not sure what you mean by scale and impact - is wearing hijab really a big problem? I mean, yes, holding that women's hair is potentially sexually alluring and personal, and that the decent thing to do is to cover it up in public is clearly rooted in patriarchal culture. In terms of scale and impact, however, it is nowhere near as widespread as the standard Western position - equally rooted in patriarchal culture - that women's breasts are potentially sexually alluring and personal, and the decent thing is to cover them up in public.

As for the Mormons, when some creep marries some 15-year old girl(s) we rightly go after them - but you don't see anyone arguing that some component of "decent" Mormon attire for women should be banned, and that is the relevant analogy to hijab not coerced underage marriage or bigamy. "Decent" Mormon women - at least in public - wear skirts to the mid-ankles or below (here's a picture (http://www.businessinsider.com/mormon-dress-code-2014-3)) - but somehow those dresses and skirts are not decried as a big symbol of gender oppression that should be banned because they are incompatible with our Western values.

By all means, when Muslims engage in actual practices that interfere with the liberties and rights of others decry it and act to stop those practices in our society. But women covering their hair in public does not interfere with the liberties and rights of others, and turning that practice into a symbol of alleged cultural incompatibility does little except provide ammunition to bigots.

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
Well, I don't think you can separate out the hijab/burqa thing from the rest of it.

People don't get worked up over the Amish culture requiring women to dress in a certain manner for example. I think that is largely because we understand Amish culture in general, and in the aggregate we know that the totality of how the Amish view women as being nominally within the bounds of acceptable western culture, at least as a quaint outlier.

Personally, I actually think that how the Amish treat women is pretty terrible myself, but again, it isn't something that I look at and just say "That cannot be tolerated in a liberal society".

If the problems the West have with Islam were limited to a head scarf, I don't think there would be any issue over it - anymore than there is an issue over Sikh head coverings or Jews wearing skull caps. It would just be some quaint curiosity. But in fact there IS more behind it, there is honor killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

I think if the problems are things like honour killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunies etc etc, then those are the things that should be addressed; especially when you have Muslim women who are not subject to those and who nonetheless chose to wear hijab.

If there are social problems in certain groups, there are many many better ways of addressing those problems than to express concern about the clothes the members of those groups wear.

Quote from: merithyn on December 12, 2016, 03:18:39 PM
I think the bigger difference is that scale is different for Muslims than it is for Christians. For instance, plenty of evangelical women wear head coverings (I've always called them doilies; no idea what they're really called), and no one has ever questioned it. So why is a hijab - essentially a head covering for women of faith - considered so much worse? Same with the evangelical women not being allowed to wear pants or short sleeves. How is that different from the exact same requirement for Muslim women?

But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women.

I don't get it. I have heard shitloads of people get on conservative Christianity. That is why non-conservative Christianity exists. Do you think we reject them and their ideas for no reason at all? :hmm:

Weird. I am not even sure what to say.

Quote from: garbon on December 12, 2016, 03:30:08 PM

Quote from: The Brain on December 12, 2016, 03:28:37 PM
If the Amish 9/11-ed people their habits would likely come under attack.

It would also likely be viewed as ridiculous to suddenly show concern for how women are treated in society / attack them for their head coverings.

Pretty sure people do show concern for this kind of thing.

I am so confused right now.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 03:47:13 PM

Quote from: merithyn on December 12, 2016, 03:18:39 PM
But I've never heard anyone challenge the evangelical women.

Really? You have never heard anybody ever attack evangelical Christianity for being sexist? Ever? I am talking about the people who DO and DID do this.

Please to read again. I said that I've never heard of anyone challenging THE WOMEN. People aren't attacking the Muslim men walking beside them. No, they're attacking women wearing hijabs. Usually when they're walking alone. Do you ever see that with evangelical women and their little doilies? (That feels so disrespectful, but I don't know what else to call them.)

Quote

QuoteIn fact, the assumption is usually that it's entirely her choice to dress in such a way, and she's obviously a hard-line woman who believes fervently in her faith to do such a thing. It's not assumed that she's required to do so by her spouse/male family members.

The assumption by whom? I would assume anybody in the US would be practicing their religion by choice. Last I checked that does not spare something from critique. After all critiquing the ideas of Islam versus critiquing some particular aspect of it, like say laws in some gulf state, are connected but not necessarily the same thing.

But that's my point. It's rare that people treat Muslim women as if it's their choice. There's a distinct difference. I almost never hear, "That poor woman, having to never cut her hair and wear a doily..." but I have heard something similar about Muslim women and the hijab.

There is no question that the assumption in the US is that evangelical women are that way by choice, while Muslim women are coerced into their religion.

Quote from: Jacob on December 12, 2016, 03:38:42 PM

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:25:35 PM
Well, I don't think you can separate out the hijab/burqa thing from the rest of it.

People don't get worked up over the Amish culture requiring women to dress in a certain manner for example. I think that is largely because we understand Amish culture in general, and in the aggregate we know that the totality of how the Amish view women as being nominally within the bounds of acceptable western culture, at least as a quaint outlier.

Personally, I actually think that how the Amish treat women is pretty terrible myself, but again, it isn't something that I look at and just say "That cannot be tolerated in a liberal society".

If the problems the West have with Islam were limited to a head scarf, I don't think there would be any issue over it - anymore than there is an issue over Sikh head coverings or Jews wearing skull caps. It would just be some quaint curiosity. But in fact there IS more behind it, there is honor killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunities, etc., etc., etc.

I think if the problems are things like honour killings, stoning for adultery, lack of educational opportunies etc etc, then those are the things that should be addressed; especially when you have Muslim women who are not subject to those and who nonetheless chose to wear hijab.

If there are social problems in certain groups, there are many many better ways of addressing those problems than to express concern about the clothes the members of those groups wear.

I suppose, but you are demanding that social discourse be somehow radically cleaner that it ever is, has been, or will be. Topics come up, they get mixed up, and it turns into a mess.

Some people use that inevitable mess to shove in their idiotic bullshit of course (look at the overt racism behind many critiques of BLM) but the reverse is true as well, that the other end takes the existence of the dumbasses as a way of painting anyone who raises any objection (again, back to BLM as an obvious example).

In sum, I guess I agree that going after the problem of women's rights in Islam by bitching about head scarves is pretty ineffectual. On the other hand, I don't think it is some obvious indicator or dog whistle for anti-Muslim bigotry.

And I think the vast majority of people who actually find Muslim women's dress worth of concern are concerned about stuff other than the hijab.

Assuming I have my terms right of course. A hijab is just a head scarf, right? Leaves the face uncovered?

Quote from: Berkut on December 12, 2016, 03:54:59 PM
In sum, I guess I agree that going after the problem of women's rights in Islam by bitching about head scarves is pretty ineffectual. On the other hand, I don't think it is some obvious indicator or dog whistle for anti-Muslim bigotry.

And I think the vast majority of people who actually find Muslim women's dress worth of concern are concerned about stuff other than the hijab.

I agree with the above.

Quote
Assuming I have my terms right of course. A hijab is just a head scarf, right? Leaves the face uncovered?

Correct.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 03:47:13 PM

I don't get it. I have heard shitloads of people get on conservative Christianity. That is why non-conservative Christianity exists. Do you think we reject them and their ideas for no reason at all? :hmm:

Speaking as a conservative Christian, depending on who "we" is, yes, it does happen.

OTOH, I'm not entirely sure that I meet your definition of a "conservative Christian", either.

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2016, 06:06:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 03:47:13 PM

I don't get it. I have heard shitloads of people get on conservative Christianity. That is why non-conservative Christianity exists. Do you think we reject them and their ideas for no reason at all? :hmm:

Speaking as a conservative Christian, depending on who "we" is, yes, it does happen.

OTOH, I'm not entirely sure that I meet your definition of a "conservative Christian", either.

Conservative might not be the right word. But God help us if we get into categorizing Christians. I would prefer we not get into this.

My only point was that the gender issues in Islam are obvious. It seemed like the people who we could reliably count on to critique that are excusing it for whatever reason and attacking those amongst their ranks who are doing this. Now Meri and Jake seem to be keeping their focus on the generally anti-Muslim types who just grab whatever argument they can find to go on the offensive but that is a different issue. So I think we are talking past each other.

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 07:17:00 PM

Quote from: dps on December 12, 2016, 06:06:46 PM

Quote from: Valmy on December 12, 2016, 03:47:13 PM

I don't get it. I have heard shitloads of people get on conservative Christianity. That is why non-conservative Christianity exists. Do you think we reject them and their ideas for no reason at all? :hmm:

Speaking as a conservative Christian, depending on who "we" is, yes, it does happen.

OTOH, I'm not entirely sure that I meet your definition of a "conservative Christian", either.

Conservative might not be the right word. But God help us if we get into categorizing Christians. I would prefer we not get into this.

My only point was that the gender issues in Islam are obvious. It seemed like the people who we could reliably count on to critique that are excusing it for whatever reason and attacking those amongst their ranks who are doing this. Now Meri and Jake seem to be keeping their focus on the generally anti-Muslim types who just grab whatever argument they can find to go on the offensive but that is a different issue. So I think we are talking past each other.

The gender issues in the Middle East aren't entirely based on religion. In fact, it's been argued that the religion was warped to fit their already-messed-up view of women rather than their messed up view of women stemmed from their religion. Same with the Islamic African nations. These are places were women were treated poorly anyway. They'd have - and have done - warped Christianity to do the same stuff.

I have zero problems with Islam as a religion. I have major problems with the way that the religion is applied. I can say exactly the same thing about Christianity.

@Berkut - yes, face is uncovered with a hijab. A niqab is the one where the face is covered.

They are too very different things imo, I find the niqab disturbing.

I find your lack of niqab disturbing.

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 13, 2016, 03:26:39 AM
They are too very different things imo, I find the niqab disturbing.

Well I find the niqab unsettling too but I don't think public policy should be set based on my comfort. I can see how it could be detrimental to society if I had my way and children were banned from public places.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2016, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 13, 2016, 03:26:39 AM
They are too very different things imo, I find the niqab disturbing.

Well I find the niqab unsettling too but I don't think public policy should be set based on my comfort.

Absolutely.

QuoteI can see how it could be detrimental to society if I had my way and children were banned from public places.

But my children bring nothing but joy to public places :weep:

Maybe you could apply to get your children a waiver.

Quote from: garbon on December 13, 2016, 02:01:43 PM

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 13, 2016, 03:26:39 AM
They are too very different things imo, I find the niqab disturbing.

Well I find the niqab unsettling too but I don't think public policy should be set based on my comfort. I can see how it could be detrimental to society if I had my way and children were banned from public places.

I agree with that, with the disclaimer that the niqab is not acceptable attire at places like courts, passport control, schools etc.