Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 29, 2024, 10:44 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The United States of inclusivity
#21
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 1:50 am)Apollo Wrote: Not sure what you mean. I already used an example vis a vis Linda Sarsour or using it as token representation of Muslim women.

When western liberals accept hijab as cultural practice without questioning what it symbolizes and how it is used to push patriarchy and even as gateway to punitive measures and violence across Muslim world, they pander.

The hijab obviously hasn't been accepted uncritically, and it's hardly unique as a product of patriarchy when it comes to clothes.

If someone's otherness is defined by (or signified by) their wearing a hijab to a given culture - then it would make sense to represent people in hijabs. That's exactly the kind of otherness that imagined and real contact has been shown to reduce. Turns out that seeing something strange, alot, makes it less strange or not strange.

As it so happens, pushback against the hijab is not at all an issue of being concerned over women's health, but an exercise in othering muslims using their headgear as we do (and as they do), as a signifier. In the end, it's not really strange - that's just an artifact of us wearing a different set of things over our heads - and it's not as if what we put on our heads and elsewhere is any less a product of a violent patriarchy.

Perhaps we could approach this from the opposite direction. What if we always wrote and made movies about battered women, in hijabs? Anytime you saw a hijab it meant that it was hiding bruises. That when we see a hijab we immediately think that there's a man offscene beating the poor girl. Or perhaps something less extreme, that anytime we see a hijab that must mean that an abusive patriarchal relationship is at play - if not instituted by the principal partners....imposed by their shared culture. That it's inconceivable that a loving man and a loving woman are in a loving relationship...in which she puts a cloth thing on her head. That it's always a horror story, and never a romance. Wouldn't this be a far better example of a bigotry of low expectations?

That's how we used to do it. A girl in middle eastern dress was either a terrorist, a battered wife, or about to get peeled right out of that seductively foreign giftwrapping. That last one will probably stick, but the first two..meh.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#22
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 4:22 am)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote:
(December 7, 2020 at 2:04 am)Belacqua Wrote: The meaning of a symbol is determined by the people who use the symbol. Western liberals don't decide the meaning.

If the women who choose to wear the hijab don't agree that it's a symbol of patriarchy and punitive measures, then it isn't.

So, if the Nazis think that the swastika is simply a symbol of national pride and not one of oppression and genocide, that makes it so?

Boru

So if some whites think the N word or blackfacing or confederate flags are artifacts of harmless cultural heritage, does it make them so?

(December 7, 2020 at 9:16 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(December 7, 2020 at 1:50 am)Apollo Wrote: Not sure what you mean. I already used an example vis a vis Linda Sarsour or using it as token representation of Muslim women.

When western liberals accept hijab as cultural practice without questioning what it symbolizes and how it is used to push patriarchy and even as gateway to punitive measures and violence across Muslim world, they pander.

The hijab obviously hasn't been accepted uncritically, and it's hardly unique as a product of patriarchy when it comes to clothes.

If someone's otherness is defined by (or signified by) their wearing a hijab to a given culture - then it would make sense to represent people in hijabs. That's exactly the kind of otherness that imagined and real contact has been shown to reduce. Turns out that seeing something strange, alot, makes it less strange or not strange.

As it so happens, pushback against the hijab is not at all an issue of being concerned over women's health, but an exercise in othering muslims using their headgear as we do (and as they do), as a signifier. In the end, it's not really strange - that's just an artifact of us wearing a different set of things over our heads - and it's not as if what we put on our heads and elsewhere is any less a product of a violent patriarchy.

Perhaps we could approach this from the opposite direction. What if we always wrote and made movies about battered women, in hijabs? Anytime you saw a hijab it meant that it was hiding bruises. That when we see a hijab we immediately think that there's a man offscene beating the poor girl. Or perhaps something less extreme, that anytime we see a hijab that must mean that an abusive patriarchal relationship is at play - if not instituted by the principal partners....imposed by their shared culture. That it's inconceivable that a loving man and a loving woman are in a loving relationship...in which she puts a cloth thing on her head. That it's always a horror story, and never a romance. Wouldn't this be a far better example of a bigotry of low expectations?

That’s precisely is the problem—letting others get off the hook because they are “others”.

Should we keep quite because blood diamond trade is just business practice of others? Why liberal enlightenment is exclusively applied to natives when it comes to human values affecting women, homosexuals, freedom of speech, right to assert oneself, etc etc and not to immigrants?

Are there no expectations from immigrants to adopt the cultural values of their new countries just the same there is expectations of accepting their foreign cultural practices?

Melting pot goes both ways. If we will selectively apply our principles by the consideration of national origin then in essence we are letting go of our egalitarian values of fairness and equality.

As a person of first generation US citizen with voting rights, I should be expected to judged by same cultural moral behavior as blacks, whites, and people of other ethnic/religious/national origin. You cannot bend the rules to give preferential treatment.

Ps. When I say rules I don’t mean law. I mean and objective view of a cultural practice and social dialogue that follows.
Reply
#23
RE: The United States of inclusivity
No need to scare up swastikas or confederate flags. There are plenty of culturally german and culturally southern things that aren't those things - but are still unaccepted or stereotyped or negatively appraised by some other culture to which germans or southern people are seeking entry.

A specific example may be more or less egregious between cultures, but the underlying behavior is phenomenally equivalent. Maybe some women wear a scarf on their head for the same reasons that another wears a scarf on her crotch. Maybe they feel naked without it, maybe they think it's pretty. Maybe they just wake up everyday and put one on. Maybe they're too cold without it, or too hot without it.

Maybe it's not a statement on whether or not beating women is okay...not in life, and not in film.

Inclusivity means that we accept people, even the ones that wear scarves - not that we accept the idea of beating women - and it's absurd to suggest that it would. That's not a rational appraisal of the field, it's a product of a nutball overton shift - of trying to find the Middle Ground™ between the right leaning left and stratospheric rights views in the culture war.

IMO...the difference between a trash bag and a headdress is what you fill it with.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#24
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 10:26 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No need to scare up swastikas or confederate flags. There are plenty of culturally german and culturally southern things that aren't those things - but are still unaccepted or stereotyped or negatively appraised by some other culture to which germans or southern people are seeking entry.

A specific example may be more or less egregious between cultures, but the underlying behavior is phenomenally equivalent. Maybe some women wear a scarf on their head for the same reasons that another wears a scarf on her crotch. Maybe they feel naked without it, maybe they think it's pretty. Maybe they just wake up everyday and put one on. Maybe they're too cold without it, or too hot without it.

Maybe it's not a statement on whether or not beating women is okay...not in life, and not in film.

Inclusivity means that we accept people, even the ones that wear scarves - not that we accept the idea of beating women - and it's absurd to suggest that it would. That's not a rational appraisal of the field, it's a product of a nutball overton shift - of trying to find the Middle Ground™ between the right leaning left and stratospheric rights views in the culture war.

IMO...the difference between a trash bag and a headdress is what you fill it with.

Do we define every other phenomenon by edge cases? Of course many women wear headscarf for identity and are otherwise quite assertive and independent—you couldn’t call them victims of patriarchy. But so is the case with black facing and N word using comedians or public figures. They don’t mean it in disparagingly but it carries on with the burden of exactly that.

Hijab is first foremost a tool of patriarchy creating customs and practices with punitive measures for women across the globe. Women do get beaten, even in west, for not wearing hijab. They get a lot more in other countries.

Point is, we go with what the majority sees and views and practices it as, not by some exceptional cases. Also, I am not talking about people, I am talking about idea, practice, the underlying dynamics.

I am not asking not to make Linda Sarsour organizer of women’s march—I asking why no one is asking her the inherent hypocrisy.

We can do both, no? Or should we just go with one and close eyes to other?
Reply
#25
RE: The United States of inclusivity
What inherent hypocrisy? The person in question doesn't appear to wear a scarf on hear head or crotch to symbolize the patriarchy, as a gateway to punitive measures, or as an act of pro woman beating advocacy. You've decided that she's a token, though, on account of her wearing a scarf on hear head or crotch. Something to consider.

While you're considering that - imagine how strange it would be to walk around a place full of pantless people. Socks and shirts and shoes and gloves - just no pants. That's how fun taboos and modesty and indecency surrounding exposure in culture can be. That's how you look, to others.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#26
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 11:35 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: What inherent hypocrisy?  The person in question doesn't appear to wear a scarf on hear head or crotch to symbolize the patriarchy, as a gateway to punitive measures, or as an act of pro woman beating advocacy.  You've decided that she's a token, though, on account of her wearing a scarf on hear head or crotch.  Something to consider.

Would you allow a person who had black-faced out of jest organizing BLM rally? The point is not that she enforces patriarchy. Point is her inability to be consistent between what she is advocating and what she herself has unable to reflect.

There have been countless examples where people with questionable racial blurbs were called off or publicly shunned when they took a podium that contradicted their stance.

Here is one example of fearing of not seen as accepting "others" can lead to injustice. 

 https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/ho...83146.html
Reply
#27
RE: The United States of inclusivity
You're gonna have to do better than that, or you've just flat out lost me. It's not clear how wearing a scarf on your head would make your mere existence antithetical to any position on anything.

On the other item - you have a fear that showing too many inclusivity movies™ will lead to more crimes or more rapes...and/or this example is somehow related to what we've been talking about or specifically to the example of the woman we've been discussing? If we're worried that fears over race relations will lead to injustice - then the problem is the circumstance which creates that worry - those race relations...not inclusivity...the thing that would solve that very problem.

-If I could be so bold...is what you're trying to express the idea that a minority of relatively low quality™ can get away with being a bad advocate-for-x because of low expectations held by the majority? Nothing specific to movies or hijabs or positively valuing inclusivity for it's own sake.

Here again inclusivity is a solution. Contact (real and imagined) tells us that whatever we thought of a minority group...for whatever reason....whether that be low or high expectations...the reality is that they're average, just like us.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#28
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 11:44 am)The Grand Nudger Wrote: You're gonna have to do better than that, or you've just flat out lost me.  It's not clear how wearing a scarf on your head would make your mere existence antithetical to any position on anything.

On the other item - you have a fear that showing too many inclusivity movies™ will lead to more crimes or more rapes...and/or this example is somehow related to what we've been talking about or specifically to the example of the woman we've been discussing?  If we're worried that fears over race relations will lead to injustice - then the problem is the circumstance which creates that worry - those race relations...not inclusivity...the thing that would solve that very problem.

It's very simple. Women are jailed, beaten, and harassed throughout the world for not wearing hijab. Hijab comes in various forms, most common of it is the headscarf.  Is it too much a distant notion that perhaps a women who is wearing a headscarf and leading a women's march (which is all about women's empowerment) is pointed out the hypocrisy?

There have been precedents of public outcry in the past that shinned light on issues for good social change: Nike's child labor sweatshops, blood diamonds, Apple's Chinese phone manufacturing facilities and labor laws etc etc.

Recently Denmark banned slaughtering of animals without stunning them first. Both Muslims and Jews slaughter the animals using methods that are not quick and animal goes through pain and trauma. Killing animal by stunning them first is a more humane way of slaughter.  In ideal world perhaps we won't even have to slaughter them and can just grow the meat in the lab but we are not there yet.  I think this is a great step at incrementally enforcing rules of animal rights which started in 1970's and not worrying about "cultural sensibilities" and that's the way it should be.
Reply
#29
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 12:01 pm)Apollo Wrote:   Is it too much a distant notion that perhaps a women who is wearing a headscarf and leading a women's march (which is all about women's empowerment) is pointed out the hypocrisy?
Yes - it's too distant a notion.  Women all over the world are jailed, beaten, and harassed for not wearing pants.  Does it seem hypocritical that women wearing pants organize a march?

Do they have to whip out their vag or be less genuine? It's an equivalent situation within and between cultures.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#30
RE: The United States of inclusivity
(December 7, 2020 at 12:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote:
(December 7, 2020 at 12:01 pm)Apollo Wrote:   Is it too much a distant notion that perhaps a women who is wearing a headscarf and leading a women's march (which is all about women's empowerment) is pointed out the hypocrisy?
Yes - it's too distant a notion.  Women all over the world are jailed, beaten, and harassed for not wearing pants.  Does it seem hypocritical that women wearing pants organize a march?

Do they have to whip out their vag or be less genuine?  It's an equivalent situation within and between cultures.

So I guess you won't mind someone immigrating to US using the N word since in their culture that's what they call the black people. I actually know people who have used that word.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Farming? Thank you SOuthern States lizbizdiz 40 3006 July 3, 2019 at 7:38 pm
Last Post: Losty
  Apparently the United States has killed over 1.3 billion people since 1776 (lol) ReptilianPeon 11 2331 July 25, 2015 at 1:24 am
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  What is the origin of the names of the states in USA? rado84 15 2179 July 14, 2015 at 8:27 pm
Last Post: ignoramus
  Nation States (browser-based game) Disinter 8 2578 June 3, 2010 at 8:24 am
Last Post: Ace Otana
  Name all 50 States Eilonnwy 35 8933 November 25, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Last Post: Violet



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)