quote: If your not part of the solution than your part of the problem.
Out of interest, can anyone think of a situation to which this quote could be fairly applied? I've never heard it used without disagreeing with it.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess if somehow you were impeding the progress of the solution without being directly opposed to it. That's equally vague though.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
*shrug* I don't think it's especially hard, Tom. Goes along with one of my favorite sayings, "Evil triumphs when good men do nothing."
German citizens living in Germany during the buildup of the Third Reich and Hitler's rise to power without actively opposing it, for example. To come close to invoking Godwin's law, that is.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: To me, the burka represents deep-rooted misogyny, not violence. I'd support a women's lib movement against the burka
I'm not offended by the burka. But I do think that mini-skirts, bare midriffs, halter tops, and skin-tight jeans ARE misogynistic. And offensive. But hey, it's all about freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
quote:Originally posted by Occasional: My feelings against Modern Muslims are too strong. Their actions are a danger to world peace and society. Not enough of them are speaking out against violence and extremism violence. Those who claim they are, but we don't hear them, only goes to show they aren't trying hard enough. Where are the anti-terrorist Muslim marches? Where are the Muslim countries sending troops or even using troops to root out insurgence? Where are the harsh words toward Iran's government and Middle East news? Even the most Democratic of Muslim nations are doing nothing (or very little) toward controlling terrorist Muslims. Those they don't support, they fight for purely political reasons! In fact, they seem to be rooting for them (and financially supporting them) in Israel and Iraq.
I have trouble refuting such bald-faced bigotry. I shudder when faced with the closed-minded hatred of this post, and lose my ability to be reasonable and articulate. Give me time, and I'll calm down enough to respond properly. But I just couldn't read this bigoted post and say nothing.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that things like misogny much depend on the individuals involved. For instance, I believe there can be a loving, romantic relationship of equals in which a woman might wear a mini-skirt and a midriff-baring halter top, and be neither exploiting her body nor have the man be misogynistic.
But speaking generally, I do believe such clothing does encourage mysoginistic thoughts in many men. It is our job as men to overthrow and discard such thoughts, but women should not deceive themselves (I feel) that by dressing in such clothing, they will be *ahem* exciting mysoginistic thoughts in some men.
Then again, I also think that a man who wants to see women in the world dressed only in burka-like clothing is the perhaps more likely to be mysoginistic in the world, at home, at work, etc.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
:lol: Good points, Tante. I tend to look at things that way myself.
I was looking through Porter's D20 Modern book the other day just at the artwork for fun. I marveled once again at how nearly every drawing of a female showed far more skin than any of the male drawings.
I wondered if the artist was male.
But then, I thought, I wonder if female artists would draw the same way because we are brainwashed from birth to believe that showing skin and advertising sex is the best way to get attention from *men*, the holders of all the "real power" in the world.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but modesty is not only a Muslim virtue. Isn't it also a Christian virtue? In any event, my values, virtues, and beliefs are my own, and while I wouldn't object to having everyone adopt mine, I would never be chutzpadik enough to try to impose my values on everyone else.
posted
CURSE YOU, STORM SAXON. Was there no way you could have posted this BEFORE I was 95% finished my presentation on Shariah law in Ontario? And here I was just coming to see if Hatrack had had any interesting insights on the question, and you post an even better topic.
quote: If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, Hatrack, I have till Thursday. Tell me, should I go with my nearly-finished presentation, or change to this more recent and interesting one?
Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
I thought we were talking about Holland. Which has a proposed ban on how women can dress themselves.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: It's good that you condemn societies that don't functionally give women a choice in how they can dress themselves.
I thought we were talking about Holland. Which has a proposed ban on how women can dress themselves.
I think it's pretty clear that there is a difference between a) forcing women to dress in a particular way and b) preventing them from dressing in a certain way.
It is quite logically consistent to be opposed to both, and opposing of the latter does not impute support of the former.
[Edit: Wrong word. Also, I'm pretty much agreeing with Tante here.] ***
Occasional - I really don't know what to say. I have tried to type something but it's just not coming out right.
Suffice to say your post made me very sad. It also scared me - I really hope your view is not shared by many of your compatriots, but I fear it is. I wish I could show you how your words have that effect on me but at the moment I can't get away from the base feelings to do so.
Posts: 4393 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I'm not offended by the burka. But I do think that mini-skirts, bare midriffs, halter tops, and skin-tight jeans ARE misogynistic. And offensive. But hey, it's all about freedom of choice. If a woman chooses to dress in a way that exploits her own body, that is her choice. And if a woman chooses to dress in a way that minimizes the impact of her body, and focuses attention instead on her words and her actions, that is her choice, too.
We were, but you made this post which invokes a general principle. I find this comment very interesting. Consider, don't most societies have laws that say that women/people can't dress a certain way in public? I think so.
The argument is that this law is especially heinous because it targets a religious group. Yet, most fashion laws target those who belong to an out-group, or favor the scruples of an in-group. What makes the targetting of a religious group especially heinous? If we condemn Holland for trying to keep women from wearing what they want, outlawing certain fashion choices in public, why not respect the principle and condemn all societies who do so?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, I'm fine with the government letting people wear what they want to, as long as it does not violate the customary standards of decency. So, if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's breasts should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their breasts in public.
And if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's neck should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their neck in public.
I don't see the inconsistency of that.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Hey, I'm fine with the government letting people wear what they want to, as long as it does not violate the customary standards of decency. So, if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's breasts should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their breasts in public.
And if there is a society where customary standards of decency dictate that a woman's neck should be covered in public, then it would be OK to have a law stating that women must cover their neck in public.
I don't see the inconsistency of that.
I'm sure the burka violates 'customary standards of decency' for many Dutch.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because this law is being targeted at Islamic traditions because they are Islamic traditions, by a right-wing anti-immigration politician, this situation doesn't even rise to the argument you make.
Beyond that, it's clear they don't consider the burka a violation of decency standards. At most, they consider the message they are reading into the burka to be a violation of decency standards. An entirely different thing.
Finally, deliberately trying to restrict someone's ability to act according to the dictates of conscience is different from restricting other types of actions.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Tante, are you okay with laws that say women must wear burkas when out in public?
If I were living in a society where the customary standards of decency dictated that women wear burkas, then yes, I would support such a law. And I would want to wear one, too.
And yeah, my shoes are awesome!
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Really, Storm? Violates them, or exceeds them? Perhaps to a degree that makes them uncomfortable? It's not the same thing at all.
quote: Because this law is being targeted at Islamic traditions because they are Islamic traditions, by a right-wing anti-immigration politician, this situation doesn't even rise to the argument you make.
Sure it does. In-groups. Out-groups. Fits right in.
quote:
Beyond that, it's clear they don't consider the burka a violation of decency standards. At most, they consider the message they are reading into the burka to be a violation of decency standards. An entirely different thing.
Indecency is an extremely vague term that can mean just about anything. Really, all it means is 'violates cultural norms'. We can quibble about whether this restriction really is targetting 'indecency' or not, and because the term is so vague, I doubt that we'll ever come to a metting of minds, but the basic logic behind this law and other public dress codes is still the same: we are infringing on someone's 'rights' not because of the danger they actually represent, but because they violate cultural norms.
I agree with a previous poster who said that the Dutch are trying to drive conservative Mulims out of the country. I think the whole terrorism issue is just an excuse and it really boils down to the fact that because the burka represents a very conservative ethic that many Dutch percieve to not fit in with their culture, they are targetting consevative Muslims and encouraging them to leave the country.
I recognize that many people are going to want to twist themselves into knots to justify the stupidity that occurs in this country in the name of decency because you feel like your definition of decency makes what we do o.k., but there is no difference between what's happening in Holland and the ban on what people can or can't wear in the name of 'decency' here.
quote: Finally, deliberately trying to restrict someone's ability to act according to the dictates of conscience is different from restricting other types of actions.
The 'dictates of conscience'? Who doesn't act according to the 'dictates of conscience'? What law isn't aimed at restricting someone's 'dictates of conscience'?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Murder laws aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Laws against stealing aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Speed limits aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience.
They aren't telling Muslims in Holland "don't do this thing that you don't think is wrong." They are telling them, "Do this thing that you think is wrong."
What you are utterly ignoring is that the decency laws are NOT aimed at particular people. These laws are. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests aren't technically racist, but the ones implemented in this country were because of the intent.
This is discrimination. It's an ugly attempt to make the country less hospitibale to Islam so they'll stay out. Holland can't close their borders entirely due to EU regulations, so they're doing the next "best" thing.
No amount of rationalization on your part will change this.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: Murder laws aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Laws against stealing aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience. Speed limits aren't aimed at forcing people to violate their dictates of conscience.
People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
quote: They aren't telling Muslims in Holland "don't do this thing that you don't think is wrong." They are telling them, "Do this thing that you think is wrong."
That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
quote: What you are utterly ignoring is that the decency laws are NOT aimed at particular people. These laws are. Just like poll taxes and literacy tests aren't technically racist, but the ones implemented in this country were because of the intent.
Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
quote: This is discrimination. It's an ugly attempt to make the country less hospitibale to Islam so they'll stay out. Holland can't close their borders entirely due to EU regulations, so they're doing the next "best" thing.
I agree.
quote: No amount of rationalization on your part will change this.
Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
For the sake of completeness, I should note that Italy also passed a similiar measure with the same anti-terrorism rationale.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
Are you contending that the average murderer feels compelled to commit his crime because his conscience tells him to? And please don't cite the rare exception as "proof," I have always acknowledged that sometimes laws will conflict with conscience. I'm talking about laws aimed at making people do something they believe is wrong.
quote:That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
And in this case, "sometimes" is every single time they leave the house being required to do something you think is wrong. Not sometimes. And not refraining from doing something one thinks is acceptable. Do you truly not see the difference?
quote:Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
And yet you agree with my very next sentence. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. No one passed a law requiring that people keep their pants on in public in order to try to kick people out of their country.
Murder laws are aimed at people who want to kill. Nudity laws are aimed at people who want to go outside naked. This law is aimed at Muslims.
quote:Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
I didn't say you were. I did say you were rationalizing in an attempt to reduce the magnitude of the intrusion in this law in an attempt to equate it with the magnitude of the intrusion in public decency laws.
Telling someone they are not allowed to walk around in public naked is NOT the same thing as telling someone they need to either stay in the house and be excluded from society or dress in a way they believe to be a sin.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Woah, wow, incredible discussion keep up the good work.
IP: Logged |
quote:I recognize that many people are going to want to twist themselves into knots to justify the stupidity that occurs in this country in the name of decency because you feel like your definition of decency makes what we do o.k., but there is no difference between what's happening in Holland and the ban on what people can or can't wear in the name of 'decency' here.
Well, as long as you're willing to have a reasonable and courteous discussion about the issue...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I have problems with it on both extremes - I disagree with laws that mandate women must wear burkas in public and I diasgree with the banning of them.
I have no problem with a country having decency standards, but when you define those standards by banning something that people wear out of religious observance, it's moved beyond a need for decency into discrimination.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rappin' Ronnie Reagan: Tante, are you okay with laws that say women must wear burkas when out in public?
Religious laws or secular laws? I'd be against the latter. As for the former, it's a matter of context. If a true religion requires such a thing, that's fine. If it's not a true religion to begin with, I can't support it. But since a secular government shouldn't be deciding what's a true religion and what isn't, a law like this is bad.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: For the sake of completeness, I should note that Italy also passed a similiar measure with the same anti-terrorism rationale.
Italy hates any religion that isn't Christianity.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Doesn't italy happen to have a far larger muslim minority?
IP: Logged |
quote: quote:People do things because of their dictates of conscience. Everything someone does is because of her 'dictates of conscience'. Laws are always aimed at dictates of conscience.
Are you contending that the average murderer feels compelled to commit his crime because his conscience tells him to? And please don't cite the rare exception as "proof," I have always acknowledged that sometimes laws will conflict with conscience. I'm talking about laws aimed at making people do something they believe is wrong.
There is very little that people do that is instinctual. People choose to do things. This is what I think doing what your conscience tells you to do.
quote: quote:That's part of living in a society, is it not? Bending your will to the rule of law. Not doing what you want to do, doing what you sometimes have to do.
And in this case, "sometimes" is every single time they leave the house being required to do something you think is wrong. Not sometimes. And not refraining from doing something one thinks is acceptable. Do you truly not see the difference?
Standards of decency effect everyone that would like to be 'indecent', so to speak. Yes, it is patently obvious this law is aimed at invonveniencing a specific organized group, no question, but just as we could say that, well, anyone can be indecent and, thus, no indency law is really aimed at at a specific group, we could as well say that anyone could wear a burka. However, we all know that it's pretty unlikely anyone but Muslims are going to wear burkas, just as it is obvious that indecency laws aren't going to effect the 'moral majority' in this country. This is why I bring up the whole in-groups/out-groups point and why I think the burka situation in the Netherlands and the decency laws in general and the clothing decency laws specifically are cut from the same cloth.
quote: quote:Sure they are. People who believe that those standards of dress are o.k.. Now, you can say that they don't constitute an organized group, but they are still a group of people. Specifically, those people who aren't part of the in-group culture of belief. (Edit: I should probably note that there are organized groups of people, most notably nudists/naturists, who believe that being naked is perfectly o.k..)
And yet you agree with my very next sentence. That's the difference I'm trying to point out. No one passed a law requiring that people keep their pants on in public in order to try to kick people out of their country.
I agree that the laws in Holland are more extreme in some respects. However, they are on the same continuum. The punishment for, say, me being naked in a girl's school isn't going to be pretty. Even if I'm not kicked out of the country, in fact, I'll be jailed and segregated away.
However, I can be naked in private or in segregated areas approved by the state. Same thing with the burka. Is the fact that because wearing the burka is a part of these women's religion make their case more onerous on them than someone whose so-called dictates of conscience aren't? I don't think so. They can choose to adapt, can't they?
If you say that they can't, then you recognize part of the logic that underlies a lot of the anti-burka feeling. If you look at the cultures that use the burka, it's often used as a way of segregating women away from men and making them pretty much slaves to men and the culture. The religious, legal, and cultural taboos against not wearing the burka give the women no choice at all. All this crap about it empowering women so, to paraphrase, people pay attention to what they say and do and not their bodies, is crap. Many, if not most, cultures that use the burka have strictly enforced gender roles that prohibit what women can and can't do. See Iran and the Taliban for examples.
Is this always true? No. In some Muslim societies, women do wear the burka as a strong sign of devotion, and are otherwise free to follow their heart's desire in terms of career, etc., but I think this is probably more the exception in the larger Muslim world than the norm.
This is why I find the whole support of burkas kind of amusing. While I think anyone should support women wearing burkas on principle--who knows that women aren't choosing to wear them--I think the reality should be acknowledged that they are often part of a pretty crappy deal for women and that no woman on this forum would probably want to be part of that culture.
quote: Murder laws are aimed at people who want to kill. Nudity laws are aimed at people who want to go outside naked. This law is aimed at Muslims.
quote:Good thing I'm not trying to rationalize that their law is right.
I didn't say you were. I did say you were rationalizing in an attempt to reduce the magnitude of the intrusion in this law in an attempt to equate it with the magnitude of the intrusion in public decency laws.
I would rather say that I am pointing out the beam in our own eyes, a beam that in many ways is just as bad, if not worse.
quote: Telling someone they are not allowed to walk around in public naked is NOT the same thing as telling someone they need to either stay in the house and be excluded from society or dress in a way they believe to be a sin.
I don't agree with this for reasons already given. As someone who doesn't really belong to an organized religion, I find it distasteful because it seems to confer special rights and privileges on religious types.
I understand that you believe laws should effect everyone equally, and not target any group specifically, and I agree. However, my solution to this is that we and others base laws more on observable harm and less on cultural norms that favor the moral elite of any country, that give room to everyone to live as they best see fit. I think the general feeling here is that laws should be made that de facto favor the moral elite norms, and effect everyone equally. I don't agree with this view.
Please understand that I use the term 'moral elite' not as a pejorative term, but strictly as a recognition of fact. In Canada and Sweden, the moral elite are, or are coming to be, social liberals. They are forcing their standards of 'decency' on social conservatves in the form of hate speech laws and the like. This is wrong, too, if my principle is used. Using the principle that people here are espousing where the mores of the most powerful in a culture are the ones that can and should be enforced, laws like the ones in the Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden are o.k..
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is very little that people do that is instinctual. People choose to do things. This is what I think doing what your conscience tells you to do.
What people choose to do is often not what their conscience tells them to do. If it were, we wouldn't need the word "conscience."
quote:The punishment for, say, me being naked in a girl's school isn't going to be pretty.
There are many people who use exposure of their own nakedness as a way to sexually attack people. When you can demonstrate that burka-wearing induces measurable hormonal and other physiological effects, your comparison might have some merit.
quote:This is why I find the whole support of burkas kind of amusing. While I think anyone should support women wearing burkas on principle--who knows that women aren't choosing to wear them--I think the reality should be acknowledged that they are often part of a pretty crappy deal for women and that no woman on this forum would probably want to be part of that culture.
So you find our lack of hypocrisy in allowing people to do things that we wouldn't personally want to do amusing? OK, whatever floats your boat.
quote:I would rather say that I am pointing out the beam in our own eyes, a beam that in many ways is just as bad, if not worse.
Except that you are ignoring or minimizing to the point of ignoring the differences between the two situations. And you did it from the very first post, pre-dismissing us.
quote:I don't agree with this for reasons already given. As someone who doesn't really belong to an organized religion, I find it distasteful because it seems to confer special rights and privileges on religious types.
Then, in this country, you need to get the Constitution amended.
quote:However, my solution to this is that we and others base laws more on observable harm and less on cultural norms that favor the moral elite of any country, that give room to everyone to live as they best see fit. I think the general feeling here is that laws should be made that de facto favor the moral elite norms, and effect everyone equally.
I think people shouldn't walk around naked in front of people who are not choosing to see them naked. That's as far as it goes.
quote:This is wrong, too, if my principle is used. Using the principle that people here are espousing where the mores of the most powerful in a culture are the ones that can and should be enforced, laws like the ones in the Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden are o.k..
Perfect proof that you don't understand the principles being espoused. Speech is different than nudity.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I ended up switching, and it was a good thing I did, because the guy presenting after me did the topic I was going to do, and my presentation followed perfectly from the person before me and segued nicely into the one after me.
Thank you Hatrack! Posts: 2849 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The issue came up in Norway the other day, and the school had a take on it that I haven't seen before : They said that wearing a burka interferes with communication between teacher and student. They therefore banned burkas and other face-hiding clothes in class, though students will be allowed to wear them during break and other times.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The communication argument is lame, in my opinion, unless one party needs to read lips.
I can understand, however, why a burka would be inappropriate for a picture ID. A policy should be devised that permits the observant Muslim woman to have appropriate ID and to retain her modesty.
And I do believe, that since it interferes with the range of vision, that a burka is inappropriate to wear while driving. So driver's licenses ought not to be an issue, but passports might.
Posts: 10397 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Its definitely lame unless they can demonstrate it. If there's no (significant) demonstrable effect, then its a reasonable accomodation to allow it.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Also, I'm pretty much agreeing with Tante here.]![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Group Hug]](graemlins/grouphug.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
