Your own personal prejudices

[Lucia Lanigan]

Your own personal prejudices

I remember reading that Tony Parsons article too, MsD, and thinking, "what on earth must your wife think of that?" Lyn Barber or someone responded with a little column of complementary racism about Asian women not minding men with little columns (and yes I just Googled 'teenie peenie Parsons', with great trepidation, cause I think the first part the phrase she used). Perhaps these articles have been taken down because their authors realised what massive wangers they looked like.

[NickSTFU]

Your own personal prejudices

This week I have called somebody a racist because he believes that people who come to this country should adopt British values (whatever the fuck they are).

It’s the old multiculturalism Vs multiracial argument. He said I was prejudiced and I’m starting wonder if I am.

[The Bean Counter]

Your own personal prejudices

Yes and no. I mean, if they're coming to live in England, you'd expect them to at least respect English customs, if not adopt them. On the other hand, 'adopt British values' is often code for 'they might do that over there, but they certainly should not do it here'.
To put the shoe on the other foot, if you moved to live in another country, to what extent do you think you ought to adapt? If you want to fit in and be accepted in a new society and culture, the onus is on you to adapt to them, not the other way round.

[NickSTFU]

Your own personal prejudices

I should have added a bit more context. It’s basically to do with this.

http://www.shropshirestar.com/news/2013/05/09/former-shrewsbury-register-office-to-become-muslim-prayer-centre/

This fella basically argued that by having this “...sort of thing...” in Shrewsbury is diluting British culture. I pointed out that the Muslim community in Shrewsbury had been using a multi-faith hall for a number of years. He denied there was such a community. He was a fella off my estate who is trying to drum up support for an objection. I have seen him in the local curry house. Twat.

We then went into the debate I mentioned before calling him a racist and to fuck off.

[anton pulisov]

Your own personal prejudices

If you want to fit in and be accepted in a new society and culture, the onus is on you to adapt to them, not the other way round.

I tried that, it's a waste of time and is generally soul destroying. I never fit in and was never accepted. And in the end, that was all for the better.

There should be 7 billion cultures in the world, that's my philosophy. I call it yoghurt politics.

[Lucia Lanigan]

Your own personal prejudices

(whatever the fuck they are)

That's the crucial part, isn't it. People who talk about 'our values' can never tell you what they are.

[Sundeporino]

Your own personal prejudices

Dawdlers.

[MsD]

Your own personal prejudices

Board's playing up for me, just wanted to thank laverte for links, the second is indeed very interesting.

And tee-hee to teeny peeny.

[Patrick Thistle]

Your own personal prejudices

zbigniew wrote: if you moved to live in another country, to what extent do you think you ought to adapt? If you want to fit in and be accepted in a new society and culture, the onus is on you to adapt to them, not the other way round.

If I moved to America I'd probably be tempted to buy a gun.

I don't think I'm particularly violent*, but I would like to go to one of those shooting places you see in TV series and have a go with a real gun.

Not an asssult rifle or anything. Handgun.

*although having written this I'm worried I might actually be a psycho.

[WOM]

Your own personal prejudices

In case I didn't mention it in the previous 21 pages: tattoos on the hands, neck or face. If it can't be covered with a long sleeved shirt, you shouldn't have it.

And those big ear-plugs. You're going to regret that when you're older. Yes, you will. Yes, I'm sure. No, you're not the exception.

And on your vehicle: truck balls, the Transformers logo thing, the Shocker sticker, and the peeing Calvin one.

And people who use 'party' as a verb.

[Patrick Thistle]

Your own personal prejudices

WOM wrote: .

And on your vehicle: truck balls, the Transformers logo thing, the Shocker sticker, and the peeing Calvin one.

I don't mind the Autobot logo, but would agree with the others. I would also add Massive Kenwood Sticker in the Back Window (screams boy racer immature bad driver) and any claims that the car is powered by pixie / fairy dust (screams infantile girly girl who likes everything in PINK).

[Patrick Thistle]

Your own personal prejudices

And don't get me started on people who drive Subaru Imprezas.

[WOM]

Your own personal prejudices

I'll bet Subaru salespeople can spot an Impreza buyer as soon as he [strike]drives[/strike] screeches too quickly onto the lot.

[treibeis]

Your own personal prejudices

And people who use 'party' as a verb.

That's the B52's you're bad-mouthing there. You know that, don't you?

Just watch yourself, all right? I'm not going to say any more than that, everything's cool, nobody wants any bother. But just watch yourself.

[Gerontophile]

Your own personal prejudices

I have just re-read this whole thread, and it is fascinating.

And, in parts, hilarious.

Someone pulled me up on the 'pregnant woman smoking' thing, and that was fair. I have no right to ever think what someone else wants to do to themselves, ever, is wrong.

The internet dating thing is brilliant for (some) gay men. It's not about dating, it's about lining up a shag. Without the expense. Unless you decided to travel to Fuengirola for a shag... and ended up living there.

[Birthplace of Industry]

Your own personal prejudices

Eh? Muslims in Shrowsbury?! Spose it'll give the locals someone else to look down their noses at other than us in Telford!

[Reed John]

Your own personal prejudices

There's nothing necessarily "un-British" about Islam. Or un-American about it either. People's religion should be their own business. How are Muslims praying in their own Mosque/home/square of carpet any different than Christians or Jews doing the same? They aren't. And if women want to wear a scarf, so the fuck what? It's basically a hat. Civilization can endure a diversity of hats. I'm quite sure of it.

The "un-British thing" would be to deny these people their civil rights. Britain has always been a diverse country. First, the diversity came from all the invaders - assorted Celts, Romans, Anglo-Saxons, Danes, Normans, etc, and then Britain started doing it's own invading and brought a lot of those cultures, and people, back with them. To put it in terms that the dumber folks might grasp: If you want the curry, you're going to have to live with the mosques (I recognize that many or most curry joints are run by Hindus and not Muslims, but the point stands).

Now, I don't think anyone can expect London, for example, to broadcast The Call to Prayer like they do in some countries. That would be annoying to far more people than would prefer it. We can't all have what we want when it comes to loud public noises. And there are issues with some schools of "Sharia Law" - although right-wingers don't understand that very well at all - that just cannot fly in a pluralist society that respects the rights of individuals to follow their conscience.

But these aren't major issues in the US or the UK, as far as I can tell. The Muslims that move to those countries rarely, if ever, hope or expect to transform it into a Muslim state. Indeed, I suspect many of them are glad to leave that sort of thing and come to a more open and diverse society, even if they chose to stick with the religion of their parents.

[Birthplace of Industry]

Your own personal prejudices

...Okay yeah, my massive personal prejudice is against the town of Shrewsbury. In my head it works like this:

Shrewsbury: Middle class tory town, full of old money, privelledged snobs and inbreds. Hotbed of racism and benefits from local media bias. Annoying accents. BAD

Telford: Working class unfashionable new-town, built round old towns/villages on slag heaps and low wages. Overspill town welcomed incomers from the West Midlands and accross the world! Hotbed of socialism. Underdogs. GOOD

[WOM]

Your own personal prejudices

It's not a hat. It's a [yet another] sexist symbol of the repression of women. "We" won't tolerate some cultural traits (i.e.; FGM) but we're supposed to tolerate others. Nuts to that.

[Reed John]

Your own personal prejudices

WOM wrote: It's not a hat. It's a [yet another] sexist symbol of the repression of women. "We" won't tolerate some cultural traits (i.e.; FGM) but we're supposed to tolerate others. Nuts to that.

The law cannot differentiate between good and bad reasons to put on a hat. The head-scarf is not remotely on the level of FGM. FGM does permanent, sometimes fatal, damage and violates the universal individual rights to the sovereignty of their own body.*

A scarf can be put on or taken off by the wearer whenever they want. They just have to accept that other people are going to have an opinion about that.

It is about modesty, a largely arbitrary social convention that no society is immune from.**

Banning it won't make Muslim men any less sexist or Muslim women any more empowered. They'll just feel immodest or, worse, like they're ashamed of their roots.

There is no law that we can pass that can force fathers and mothers to respect their daughters as much as their sons or force husbands to actually respect their wives. We can provide public education and give women opportunities, but there's ultimately a horse, water, and drinking situation here.

If women put on the head-scarf to avoid a falling out with their family, there's nothing the law can do to fix that. You can't make somebody love somebody else.

At best, all we can do is protect them from bodily harm and guarantee their access to education, health services, etc. If they chose to split from their traditional community, we can make sure that they have the same chances as any other individual to make it on their own, but they know that might get them disowned. There's not much anyone else can do about that.

Furthermore, many women who wear it could take it off if they wanted to but they don't want to. It's a symbol of their culture and a big fuck-you to people like whatshername on Fox News who said that women wearing it should be jailed. As far as that goes, I'm all for it. For that reason, perhaps we should all start wearing head scarves.

*Contrary to popular Western opinion, FGM isn't really a "Muslim thing." The practice predates Islam and is also practiced in some non-Muslim, even Christian communities. Muslim clerics/scholars generally only pronounce on whether it is "permissible." Some say that it is but many say it is forbidden and the split between the two pretty much follows the split between educated/modern and uneducated/medieval. It is practiced not so much as a religious rite, but as crude form of folk-medicine by those who believe that the girls will go mad if their genitals aren't kept under control. In some bits of Africa, their is folklore stating that the clitoris most be trimmed or it will grow "as long as the neck of a goose!"

So FGM is much more akin to European practices of trepanning, bleeding with leeches, and belief in the four humors rather than male circumcision among Jews.

**Women in Christian societies traditionally wore hats to church because St Paul wrote that women should keep their head covered during worship as to not show-up God with their nice hair (or some such. That bit is hard to grasp). This tradition has all but disappeared in the US but is still practiced by old-fashioned Anglicans the UK, for example.

[alyxandr]

Your own personal prejudices

People's religion should be their own business.

You might consider devoting some of your copious textual energies to mentioning that to religious people, here in America in particular.

[WOM]

Your own personal prejudices

Reed John wrote:
The law cannot differentiate between good and bad reasons to put on a hat. The head-scarf is not remotely on the level of FGM. FGM does permanent, sometimes fatal, damage and violates the universal individual rights to the sovereignty of their own body.*

Yes, but as I say, it may be like a hat in function, but the comparison ends there. And hats are generally worn voluntarily; not under religious/cultural edict by sexist imams and family members. The same family members who will murder their daughters for shaming or embarrassing them, in societies where the regularly throw acid in the faces of young girls who are thought to be shaming them or bringing disfavour to the Prophet.

Now, the comparison to FGM was not about severity. It was about intent. It was about women's bodies being acted upon by the men in their lives for religious or cultural reasons. And neither supports female autonomy.

A scarf can be put on or taken off by the wearer whenever they want. They just have to accept that other people are going to have an opinion about that.

Normally so. It would be nice to know that Islamic women had that same freedom of choice, and that the important people in their lives respected their ability to make that decision.

Banning it won't make Muslim men any less sexist or Muslim women any more empowered. They'll just feel immodest or, worse, like they're ashamed of their roots.

Banning it removes the normative effect of societal approval.

If women put on the head-scarf to avoid a falling out with their family, there's nothing the law can do to fix that. You can't make somebody love somebody else.

Indeed not. But you can create the conditions for equality in all facets of public life.

Furthermore, many women who wear it could take it off if they wanted to but they don't want to. It's a symbol of their culture and a big fuck-you to people like whatshername on Fox News who said that women wearing it should be jailed. As far as that goes, I'm all for it. For that reason, perhaps we should all start wearing head scarves.

As I've written here before, I don't believe that women who are raised in those religions and families have full autonomy to make those decisions. And, as I said to much consternation, I don't believe them either whey they say "I wear it of my own choice. It makes me feel liberated." In the same way that people who have been brainwashed don't know they've been brainwashed, I don't believe that women who are brought up in repressive religious families are making religions decisions with fully independent faculties. There are simply too many other highly influential pressures at play.

**Women in Christian societies traditionally wore hats to church because St Paul wrote that women should keep their head covered during worship as to not show-up God with their nice hair (or some such. That bit is hard to grasp). This tradition has all but disappeared in the US but is still practiced by old-fashioned Anglicans the UK, for example.

Yup. Stopped being normative and the societal and religious pressure dissipated. Worked just like it should. Probably would have worked faster had hats been banned. But then, nobody was throwing acid in people's faces, so the burning necessity wasn't there.

[Patrick Thistle]

Your own personal prejudices

Reed John wrote:
It is about modesty, a largely arbitrary social convention that no society is immune from.**

Isn't the issue here 'who defines what is modest?'. If a woman decides 'I want to be modest and not show off my hair', then that's one thing. If it's because men tell her to wear a headscarf or face dire consequencs of dressing immodestly, then that's quite another.

Reed John wrote:
Banning it won't make Muslim men any less sexist or Muslim women any more empowered.

How can you state that for certain? I think making sexual harassment and discrimination illegal has empowered many women. Unless you think women raised in a Muslim culture are different to other women in some way.

Reed John wrote:
Furthermore, many women who wear it could take it off if they wanted to but they don't want to.

Again, what research do you have to back that assertion up?
And how many women would like to walk around without having to wear a headscarf but simply dare not to?

Reed John wrote:
It's a symbol of their culture

So what?

Reed John wrote:
**Women in Christian societies traditionally wore hats to church because St Paul wrote that women should keep their head covered during worship as to not show-up God with their nice hair (or some such. That bit is hard to grasp). This tradition has all but disappeared in the US but is still practiced by old-fashioned Anglicans the UK, for example.

Technically a 'head-covering' so bonnets not hats. And traditionally men were expected to take their hats off when they entered a church.
But, significantly, this only applied when you were in church unless you belonged to some sort of pietistic minority. (Not discounting that most people wore bonnets / hats for fashion and practical reasons)

[Reed John]

Your own personal prejudices

alyxandr wrote: People's religion should be their own business.

You might consider devoting some of your copious textual energies to mentioning that to religious people, here in America in particular.

I should, but it's really damn near impossible to have a fruitful conversation with those people, as you know.

[Reed John]

Your own personal prejudices

Jongudmund wrote:

Isn't the issue here 'who defines what is modest?'. If a woman decides 'I want to be modest and not show off my hair', then that's one thing. If it's because men tell her to wear a headscarf or face dire consequencs of dressing immodestly, then that's quite another.

Our ideas about modesty are always culturally mediated.

Reed John wrote:
Banning it won't make Muslim men any less sexist or Muslim women any more empowered.

How can you state that for certain? I think making sexual harassment and discrimination illegal has empowered many women. Unless you think women raised in a Muslim culture are different to other women in some way.

Creating penalties for sexual harassment does not, by itself, make men less likely to be sexist twats as the persistence of said harassment in the face of all those laws - as well as mountains of anecdotal experience - shows. What empowers them is educating women, especially girls, that they do not have to put up with that shit and shouldn't feel ashamed to have to take it. It's also very helpful to teach boys that girls don't actually like being referred to as fanny and gash and having their bits groped and that they are humans just like you and how would you feel if somebody did that to you? etc.

If women are forced by law to stop wearing the scarves but they still feel like it's wrong, how does that liberate them? As WOM suggests, they've been "brainwashed" (not literally, but I get the point) into this concept of modesty.

The way forward then, isn't to ban the scarves, but to teach girls that they don't have to follow their parents religion if it violates their conscience. Emancipate them from mental slavery and what not.

Interestingly, noted feminist Naomi Wolf wrote an essay where she kind of spoke favorably about head-covering. She was talking about a Jewish friend, but still. She said she found it kind of "hot" that the woman would only show her hair to her husband. Not sure what to make of that.

Reed John wrote:
Furthermore, many women who wear it could take it off if they wanted to but they don't want to.

Again, what research do you have to back that assertion up?
And how many women would like to walk around without having to wear a headscarf but simply dare not to?

I said "many" because all I have (all anyone has) are anecdotes. It's hard to say which are saying it out of a false-consciousness and a scientific poll on the subject would suffer the same potential bias. I do see a fair number of girls around here - students - who wear the scarf and maybe cover up more than their friends but otherwise dress like their peers. The students' parents are not around, so they could take it off, but that isn't what is forcing them to do that, but yes there may be other peer pressure around.

But again, telling them they can't isn't going to make them suddenly "see the light." Even if that somehow "nomalizes" it, that doesn't normalize anyone actually believing that women are fully respectable human beings. The best that "society" - or, as is usually the case, the university or school - is teach kids, especially girls, that they matter and that family is not destiny in our country. And, of course, protect them from reprisals (should it come to that possibility). If they get that, the scarf thing will take care of itself.

I would be in favor of taking a much different view of "parents' rights" especially with teenagers. So, for example, if a girl wanted to ditch the scarf but her parents insisted on it, the State and her school should stick up for her. It can't make the parents like it, though. But this would go not only for Muslims but any kid in any kind of fight with this sort of tradition.

Reed John wrote:
It's a symbol of their culture

So what?

Well, fundamental human rights, for one. It's their head and they should do as they see fit with it - with the above caveats on who is really deciding that. But, more to the point, how does foreceably stripping people of the symbols of their ancestry - however problematic - empowering? It tells them that they come from a backward people and that the mainstream view of our society is better because we have the votes and we're going to impose the majority viewpoint on your choice of headwear.

Instead of adopting "our" view, this kind of forced assimilation is as likely to further ghettoize that minority and make it harder for them to communicate with the rest of society and therefore harder for people like us to actually convince them that women's rights and what not are not merely a "western thing" but a good idea for everyone.

Reed John wrote:
**Women in Christian societies traditionally wore hats to church because St Paul wrote that women should keep their head covered during worship as to not show-up God with their nice hair (or some such. That bit is hard to grasp). This tradition has all but disappeared in the US but is still practiced by old-fashioned Anglicans the UK, for example.

Technically a 'head-covering' so bonnets not hats. And traditionally men were expected to take their hats off when they entered a church.
But, significantly, this only applied when you were in church unless you belonged to some sort of pietistic minority. (Not discounting that most people wore bonnets / hats for fashion and practical reasons)

[/quote]
I said "in church." But either way, it's an old made-up rule about one's head, modesty, and God. The tradition didn't fall out of favor because women's hats in church were banned. It fell out of favor because, gradually, both women and men saw that it wasn't sensible. (I've noticed a similar trend in "dressing up" for church, btw. Older folks wear three-piece suits, etc. Young people wear whatever and parents of young kids just seem content to get them there with shoes on).

But I do see a fair number of bonnets around here. We've got loads of Mennonites and Amish around.

BTW, I still take my hat off in church, before I eat, and when entering another person's home for the first time. And you all should too. (What, were you born in a barn?)

The major reason why banning the headscarf is not ok - and I should have led with this - is that it's sooooo clearly singling out one religious tradition for special treatment when there is loads and loads and loads of sexist symbolism like that all around the more established traditions.

All of those bits of sexist symbolism cannot be eradicated by law without setting up The State as the almighty arbiter of dress and what is and is not a legitimate cultural expression, what is or isn't proper modesty, etc. I do not want to live in such a country where the State has that power because you and I both know it would not be used fairly.

If you're going to ban headscarves, then you'd damn well tell Catholic schools that they have to let girls hike up their skirts a bit, if they want to, because the dress code is disempowering (it is, I suppose, but how are you going to force them to accept that?). Indeed, fuck the uniforms and dress codes completely. They're all relics of Victorian ideas about sexual repression and what not.

The Hasidic Jews and the Amish will have to stop it with all of black and the bonnets and the "weird" haircuts. I suppose Native Americans should have to cut their long hair and get with the program. Rastas have to cut their dreds too.

And AND we'll certainly have to ban all of that bullshit (and it is bullshit, I understand) of purity rings and creepy daddy-daughter purity dances at creepy megachurches and "Christian" schools. If you think about it, that's a zillion times more sexist and fucked up than girls covering their hair.

Shit, we'll pretty much ban all parochial schools. Yeah, I'm sure that will go over really well in the heartland. I'm sure that will convince them to move into the 21st century, vote for Obama, listen to NPR, accept Global Warming, and get rid of their guns. Good plan. [sarcasm, in case you're not from our planet].

I hate all of that sexist bullshit shit too, but simply telling people to stop doing it and "be more like us" isn't going to enlighten them. Western Empires have tried this "we know what's best for you" approach for many years and even when they were right and well meaning, it has generally made things worse.

We should instead adopt the Federation's Prime Directive.