The World Beyond BetterMost > Women Today
Here we go again - after the revolution - women pushed back into the kitchen
milomorris:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on March 19, 2011, 12:58:15 pm ---I'm so sorry that you have had to experience that so often that you have now come to accept such harassment as a normal part of any job. In truth, you don't have to. I never have and any job in the future I might go to where I AM subject to such hazing or whatever they might call it, I would seriously consider a lawsuit, because it is quite obvious in my experience that such things are completely unnecessary for team building and acceptance.
--- End quote ---
There's nothing to be sorry about, and certainly nothing to sue over. If you have never experienced another, more senior coworker challenging you, or your abilities, then I xfeel sorry for you for having missed out on a valuable growth experience. And it doesn't just happen at work. It happens at school, even at the post-graduate level. It happens on neighborhood playgrounds. It happens in volunteer organizations.
What we are talking about is--at the root level--a form of competition. When one joins a new group of people, the others compete as a means of defending their positions, while you compete to establish your own. It seems that our opinions on this are at odds because I believe that acceptance (along with respect) is earned. People--men and women alike--must prove themselves to be both capable and worthy. The capable part gets you into the job or group. The worthy part is what gains the respect of your peers and leaders.
Monika:
--- Quote from: bradINblue on March 19, 2011, 01:25:03 pm ---Which takes us back to these statistics:
Islam on Campus - published in July 2008 - is the most comprehensive survey ever undertaken of Muslim student opinion in the UK. It is based on a specially commissioned YouGov poll of 1400 students, as well as on fieldwork and interviews.
The report examines students' attitudes on key issues including religious tolerance, gender equality and integration. While most Muslim students support secularism and democratic values, and are generally tolerant towards other minorities and reject violence in the name of their faith, Islam on Campus uncovered significant findings:
- 40% of Muslim students polled support the introduction of Sharia into British law for Muslims.
- Almost a third (32%) of Muslim students polled said killing in the name of religion was ever justified. By contrast, just 2% of non-Muslims polled felt the same way
- 40% of Muslim students polled felt it unacceptable for Muslim men and women to associate freely.
- 33% of Muslim students polled declared themselves supportive of a worldwide Islamic Caliphate based on Sharia law.
- 54% of Muslim students polled were supportive of an Islamic political party to represent the views of Muslims at Parliament.
- Slightly less than a quarter (24%) of Muslim student respondents do not think that men and women are equal in the eyes of Allah.
- 6% of Muslim students polled said that converts from Islam should be punished "in accordance with Sharia law."
- 25% of Muslim students (and 32% of male Muslim students) polled said they had not very much or no respect at all for homosexuals.
- 66% of Muslim students polled said they had lost respect for the British government because of the invasion of Iraq.
- However, 30% of Muslim students polled also said their respect for British society had increased based on the public's (largely neg in spite of itative) reaction to the Iraq war.
http://www.socialcohesion.co.uk/blog/2009/12/islam-on-campus.html
Glaringly, many young Muslims still embrace lots of the most radical and misogynistic beliefs of the Qua'ran. Show me any evidence that today's Christians abide by or embrace those radical equivalents (which don't hold a candle to that of the Qua'ran) held in the Old Testament.
Bill Maher is correct in his assessment:
B
Brad
--- End quote ---
In your previous post you tried to argue that Muslims are violent because of their religion (exemplified by you with quotes from their holy book) and in this post you argue that yes, the bible is violent too, but that does not mean that Christians are violent at all. Which is it?
pnwDUDE:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on March 19, 2011, 01:32:31 pm ---1400 people polled isn't statistically very significant, Brad. There was a poll taken the other day which indicated that the majority of people in the US now approve of gay marriage. Number polled? 1000. Do you believe that stat to be indicative of how all of the US feels about gay marriage?
--- End quote ---
You are right Del. These 1,400 British students are 'Western Cultured' Muslims. Much more tolerant than their Middle-Eastern brethren, I would assume.
100,000 Muslim's of Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Iran should be polled. Perhaps then we would get a better picture........................
Brad
pnwDUDE:
--- Quote from: Buffymon on March 19, 2011, 02:28:20 pm ---In your previous post you tried to argue that Muslims are violent because of their religion (exemplified by you with quotes from their holy book) and in this post you argue that yes, the bible is violent too, but that does not mean that Christians are violent at all. Which is it?
--- End quote ---
We're not talking about Christians. If you want to, start another thread.
Brad
serious crayons:
--- Quote from: milomorris on March 19, 2011, 11:42:42 am ---What I was responding to was the part of del's post that talked about the "intimidation" faced by women in previously all-male organizations, not the part about female workers being sexually harassed in mines, or being raped in the military. I would have expected that to be made obvious by the segment I quoted.
--- End quote ---
Yes, I know, you quoted selectively. But let's review the relevant paragraph of Del's post, in which your selectively quoted segment appeared:
--- Quote from: delalluvia on March 18, 2011, 02:41:09 pm ---Anyway, this isn't just an Islamic or Egyptian thing, this happened in the US and in Britain as well, but about one century ago and as occasional stories in the news even today will tell you here in the US, when women join - or attempt to join - previously all-male organizations, whether the fire departments, police or military, coal mining or what have you, they run into this same sort of intimidation 'gauntlet' they're forced to run by men with teeny brains and apparently even smaller balls.
--- End quote ---
See how she makes clear that she's talking about
1) Incidents that occur here and in Britain that she considers to be similar to the Egyptian incident described in the OP
2) Incidents involving women, very specifically, who are new to an organization
3) Incidents perpetrated, very specifically, by men
So although Del didn't describe the nature of American and British incidents, she is very explicitly referring to incidents that she believes resemble the one in Egypt and that are perpetrated by men against women.
--- Quote ---When I saw the word "gauntlet" in quotes, I interpreted it as the kinds of generalized pranks/hazing that occur in male institutions. Both men and now women are subjected to this phenomenon in a variety of work environments.
--- End quote ---
If you choose to ignore everything in a post, including the factors mentioned above, with the exception of a single word, "gauntlet" (although technically it should be "gantlet"), and respond accordingly, you can probably expect people to draw conclusions about your viewpoints that you might not have intended to convey.
--- Quote ---None of that is comparable to sexual harassment/rape.
--- End quote ---
Again, Del, who wrote the post to which you were directly responding, made that very comparison. In regard to the Egyptian incident involving sexual assault, she wrote, "this happened in the US and in Britain as well." You didn't bother to figure out why she would be comparing the beating and sexual assault of women by an angry mob of men to what you consider to be mild hazing routinely applied to all new employees of either gender. You didn't even dispute this comparison, or attempt to draw a distinction, or to argue that unlike the Egyptian situation what happens in workplaces here is mild and non-misogynistic. You could, for example, have said, "I've never heard of anything that terrible happening in a U.S. workplace. I do know that hazing of new employees is routine, but that involves employees of either gender and is never seriously violent or sexual." You didn't say anything like that. Instead, what you did was defend what happens in U.S. workplaces while condemning what happened in Egypt.
(By the way, I would be more likely to shrug this off as a simple miscommunication ((even if one tinged with Islamaphobic undertones)) if you hadn't ALSO taken the opportunity to get in a subtle dig implying that women who "want to join" institutions that you continue to define as "male" should man up, so to speak, and submit to the hazing. But actually, why should they? Those organizations may have traditionally hired men exclusively. But institutions can change at any time. And if an organization is now open to employees of either gender, there's no particular reason new employees ((male or female)) should be required to submit to the boys' club rules of the past. Maybe women will say, "hell no" to the hazing, and maybe the organizations will improve as a result.)
--- Quote ---So because they are two very different things, there is no contradiction in my condemnation of one, and dismissal of the other.
--- End quote ---
You chose to see them as two very different things, even though Del, who mentioned them in the first place, introduced them as similar things. And, as we've established, she was correct in doing so because, as I pointed out, there ARE cases of extreme sexual harassment in workplaces and of sexual assault in the military. You say you weren't talking about those. But why not? Del was talking about situations like that, and you were responding to Del. Instead, you pretended she was talking about a much less objectionable custom, and then defended it.
So let me now quote myself:
--- Quote from: crayonlicious on March 19, 2011, 11:05:53 am ---I fully expect you to find some reason to justify the two responses and explain away the contradiction that's apparent in them.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: milomorris on March 19, 2011, 12:14:28 pm ---Nerither you, nor anyone else, can slap a psychological dysfunction on a person because they view the volatility of the situations in places like Egypt, Lybia, Yemen, etc. with suspicion and concern. That is an elitist presumption at best, and a direct slur at worst.
--- End quote ---
Of course I can't "slap a psychological disfunction" on you. Either one exists or it doesn't. Direct slur? Arguable. Elitist presumption? Nope. Just my impression of the tone of your post. Others will draw their own conclusions. What's that you always say? Your mileage may differ.
--- Quote ---I never said anything at all about Egyptian protesters as a whole. I was simply suggesting that not all of them had/have the best of intentions in mind, and that is now starting to bubble to the surface, whereas prior to this incident, the guys that did this might have been keeping a low profile until the dust settled a bit.
--- End quote ---
Not all members of any group have the best of intentions in mind. I think that's a given. Yet I'm guessing that if an angry mob of men attacked a group of women in this country you would not use it as an occasion to make generalized statements that at least appear to include all of the men in this country, and that if someone else did you would rightly object.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version