|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:38 am Post subject: |
 |
|
ya-ta...
was that the part of iowa where the girls still played basketball by the ancient rules where one could only dribble three times and three girls were front court and three were backcourt?
we use to have that up in NWMO and it was fascinating to watch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, it was.
6-on-6 was a terrific game to watch. Some father sued and got a federal judge to intervene and stop a 50-year-old game with it's own rules and traditions in favor of 5-on-5, automatically reducing the number of people who could play, in the name of progress and equality. 
I'll never forget the district finals when Julie Bussey's interception in the guard court against Creston with 3 seconds to go and her pass to Michelle Rohrberg in the offensive court made the lay-up and sent us to State. Another great moment was when Sandy Butler from somewhere scored 100 points and still got beaten by Harmony. My favorite is the story of Ottumwa High School beating Eldon High School in 1932 (?)--old Mrs. Jo McKay beat up the time-keeper with her umbrella because he held the clock so OHS could win. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| if it were conservative Christians making these sorts of demands, they'd be ridiculed as brainwashed fanatics with an irrational phobia of the female body(the demands would likely be portrayed as male-driven, even if the people requesting the changes were female.) |
Um, Christian demands are more than adequately catered to in this country, even the fundamentalist ones. Ever see that picture where John Ashcroft insisted the (nude) statue of Justice behind his press conference had to have her breasts covered up? (Gloria Steinem had the best line: "One boob in front of the cameras is enough.") This is true in colleges as well. If a student comes to the school authorities with a request for special treatment because of his or her religion, the authorities listen carefully and do what they can to accommodate. (What they may think in private is a different story, but what do you think the Harvard faculty really thinks about these Muslim women?)
|
I get what you're saying. But my comments were referring to the campus situation specifically. If the Harvard undergrad equivalent of John Ashcroft had asked the university to cover up a nude statue, I doubt that he would get a very sympathetic hearing from campus community.
| Quote: |
| Textbooks, public displays, school prayers, prayers in Congress, etc., all have to step carefully around Christian sensibilities. |
Yes, but again, my point is that the kind of people who would be likely to support the demands of the campus Muslims are also the kind of people who would ridicule evangelical Xtian demands for special treatment.
And the hypocrisy goes in the other direction as well. A lot of these prayer-in-school zealots, who now couch their arguments in appeals to individual rights("what's wrong if a teacher wants to read a bible story to her class?") are the same ones who cry "encroaching theocracy" when Muslims want similar treatment.
Last edited by On the other hand on Sun Mar 09, 2008 1:46 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| I just happened to think of a couple specific examples too -- I knew a kid in high school who was a Jehovah's Witness, who was allowed to excuse himself from homeroom any time we had one of our little "birthday celebrations". And there was a kid on my track team in college who could not compete on Sundays for some religious reason -- any meet we had on a Sunday, he didn't participate. |
It should be pointed out that these demands do not prevent the other students from doing the activity in question. The non-JWs are still free to celebrate birthdays in class, for example. Whereas when you segregate a gym for a few hours a week, you are preventing men from being able to use what would otherwise be an open-access facility.
But I agree with Big Bird that, in the grand scheme of things, this isn't a big deal. I think these are valid issues to discuss, but unfortunately the debate often gets derailed by someone spouting hyperbole about a theocracy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
It should be pointed out that these demands do not prevent the other students from doing the activity in question. The non-JWs are still free to celebrate birthdays in class, for example. Whereas when you segregate a gym for a few hours a week, you are preventing men from being able to use what would otherwise be an open-access facility. |
You would be correct if this were the only gym on campus, or if a significant number of men were using this gym in the first place. Men are still free to use the other gyms on that campus, during those hours, just not in that particular building. However, the opportunity to work out in a situation appropriate to one's religion isn't something those women can simply find elsewhere on campus.
I have a lot of respect for the Muslim women I have known, and it's not like their plates are heaped with special privileges right now. I support their right to choose whether to follow the prescriptions of their religion or not-- whether that means covering their heads or seeking modesty while working out. The perceived injustice towards men is intangible, while the concession toward these women will yield a positive result.
Excluding men for a few hours a week is the sort of gesture that will help keep the Muslim community integrated in the long run. The more polarized and isolated they are, the more easily manipulated and inflamed they will become, and the more America has to fear. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
You would be correct if this were the only gym on campus, or if a significant number of men were using this gym in the first place. Men are still free to use the other gyms on that campus, during those hours, just not in that particular building. However, the opportunity to work out in a situation appropriate to one's religion isn't something those women can simply find elsewhere on campus.
|
Sure. I'm just saying that it's not entirely comparable to Jehovah's Witnesses leaving a classroom during birthdays, since it does impact(however slightly) on the freedom of other students.
| Quote: |
| Excluding men for a few hours a week is the sort of gesture that will help keep the Muslim community integrated in the long run. The more polarized and isolated they are, the more easily manipulated and inflamed they will become, and the more America has to fear. |
As a general point, I don't know if this hypothesis would hold true in all cases of religious accomadation. Take the Xtian book-banners, for example. If a school board agrees to take Catcher In The Rye off the reading list to make the fundamentalist Xtian parents happy, do you think that would really make the parents more willing to reciprocate the accomadation? I suspect that in a lot of cases, it would simply encorage the parents to show up next week with another list of books they don't like. But I admit I don't have a lot of direct experience with that sort of thing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MollyBloom
Joined: 21 Jul 2006
Location: James Joyce's pants
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And to add, the Quad used to be a part of Radcliffe, so they can get away with specifying things only for women on that part of campus. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kermo
Joined: 01 Sep 2004
Location: Eating eggs, with a comb, out of a shoe.
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Take the Xtian book-banners, for example. If a school board agrees to take Catcher In The Rye off the reading list to make the fundamentalist Xtian parents happy, do you think that would really make the parents more willing to reciprocate the accomadation? I suspect that in a lot of cases, it would simply encorage the parents to show up next week with another list of books they don't like. But I admit I don't have a lot of direct experience with that sort of thing. |
I'm not a fan of that analogy. The university isn't closing gyms. A better analogy would be allowing students to opt out of certain books and choose from an alternative list, while the other students read what the teacher assigns.
People are afraid that accommodating minorities will lead to an erosion of rights for the majority. Fair enough. However, some issues are just not worth arguing about, and would do more damage than harm, liking insisting that Sikhs take off their turbans in the Veteran's Halls or the RCMP, or banning headscarves for school girls. That just forces observant religious people into exile. Making exceptions for religious beliefs, as long as it doesn't really harm the majority, seems to be the most reasonable way to maintain a multicultural society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The larger debate, over the limits of personal freedom and the degree to which a majority should be inconvenienced by the demands of a minority, is as old as human society. The only possible answer is "it depends", and since I have never set foot in Harvard, I'm not going to try to Monday-morning quarterback this particular decision.
But that's not what this thread is about. The OP stated that this is a symptom of "sharia creep", in other words, that Muslims get more accommodation than they should (or more than other groups get) and are en route to dominating society by imposing sharia law.
That's just flat-out ridiculous. My examples were meant to show that the issue is one faced by all minority religious groups, in different ways. Don't you think every kid in my homeroom would have gladly slept in an extra half hour? The only one allowed to do it was the kid whose religious convictions said he had to. There was some resentment there, believe me. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Funkdafied
Joined: 04 Nov 2007
Location: In Da House
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Aljawhary said that she does not believe that the women-only gym hours discriminate against men. |
Unless there is also men only gym hours then of course the women only gym hours discriminate against men. Something is either discriminatory or not, you dont get to "believe" its discriminatory or "not believe" its discriminatory. Damn... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 09, 2008 11:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
A hundred years ago, American women were wearing bloomers when they exercised. So it isn't like our standards are set in stone. Not all that long ago, bikinis were outrageous attire and not allowed at public swimming pools. When I was in college, a group of us went up to Estes Park, Colorado. A couple of the guys took their shirts off to play frisbee in the park. The cops came immediately and ordered them to put their shirts back on or be fined.
Point: People don't get too steamed up when the issue is about a fact. A flower either is or is not a tulip. People do get worked up over things that are not objectively true or false. They fight over opinions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kermo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Take the Xtian book-banners, for example. If a school board agrees to take Catcher In The Rye off the reading list to make the fundamentalist Xtian parents happy, do you think that would really make the parents more willing to reciprocate the accomadation? I suspect that in a lot of cases, it would simply encorage the parents to show up next week with another list of books they don't like. But I admit I don't have a lot of direct experience with that sort of thing. |
I'm not a fan of that analogy. The university isn't closing gyms. A better analogy would be allowing students to opt out of certain books and choose from an alternative list, while the other students read what the teacher assigns.
|
Well, I don't think that's a perfect analogy either, since allowing a student to read Oliver Twist instead of Catcher In The Rye doesn't restrict the reading habits of other students. Whereas segregating a gym, by definition, does prevent certain people from using it.
In any case, my comments were more about the religious mindset in general, rather than the similarity of particular cases. My general observation has been that religious people aren't likley to reciprocate accomadation, but rather will be encouraged to make more demands.
Here's a related case from Montreal...
| Quote: |
The YMCA on Park Avenue in Montreal's Mile-End neighbourhood became a symbol of reasonable accommodation last winter when it agreed to frost windows in an exercise room in response to a request from a Hasidic synagogue next door.
Leaders at the Jewish congregation on Hutchison Street complained their students were gawking at scantily clad women using the Y gym.
The controversy boiled over when Y members banded together to protest the frosted windows, which they said ruined their view.
On Thursday YMCA's Montreal president, St�phane Vaillancourt, told the Bouchard-Taylor commission about the lesson he learned from the debacle.
"We learned that sometimes we have to make adjustments. The community evolves. New requirements come up that weren't there before," Vaillancourt said.
The Y has since decided to change the windows after surveying members. It removed the frosted panels and is installing blinds that can be raised or lowered.
Synagogue leaders accepted the compromise because both groups kept discussions civil and polite, Vaillancourt said.
|
The spin of this article is a bit more positive than my own would be. Apparently, it did not occur to the Hasidim that since they were the ones who had a problem with what they saw when they looked out their window, that the best solution might be for them not to look out the window, or cover it up with curtains. Instead, the demand was made to the YMCA to change an aspect of their services that(as far as I can tell) no members had been complaining about prior to the synagogue's intervention.
Obviously, the Y is free to reach any accomadation they want with the synagogue, but I think this story illustrates something about the religious mindset as manifested in situations like this. I guess we'll wait and see how more fully integrated into society the hasidim become as a result of such favours being offered to them.
[url= http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/29/qc-bouchardtaylorcommission1129.html]CBC link[/url] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sorry, I can't get the link to work. It's from CBC, so you can probably google the first sentence to get the whole article. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 10, 2008 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| kermo wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Take the Xtian book-banners, for example. If a school board agrees to take Catcher In The Rye off the reading list to make the fundamentalist Xtian parents happy, do you think that would really make the parents more willing to reciprocate the accomadation? I suspect that in a lot of cases, it would simply encorage the parents to show up next week with another list of books they don't like. But I admit I don't have a lot of direct experience with that sort of thing. |
I'm not a fan of that analogy. The university isn't closing gyms. A better analogy would be allowing students to opt out of certain books and choose from an alternative list, while the other students read what the teacher assigns.
|
Well, I don't think that's a perfect analogy either, since allowing a student to read Oliver Twist instead of Catcher In The Rye doesn't restrict the reading habits of other students. Whereas segregating a gym, by definition, does prevent certain people from using it.
In any case, my comments were more about the religious mindset in general, rather than the similarity of particular cases. My general observation has been that religious people aren't likley to reciprocate accomadation, but rather will be encouraged to make more demands.
The article below doesn't really bear out this conclusion though...
Here's a related case from Montreal...
| Quote: |
The YMCA on Park Avenue in Montreal's Mile-End neighbourhood became a symbol of reasonable accommodation last winter when it agreed to frost windows in an exercise room in response to a request from a Hasidic synagogue next door.
Leaders at the Jewish congregation on Hutchison Street complained their students were gawking at scantily clad women using the Y gym.
The controversy boiled over when Y members banded together to protest the frosted windows, which they said ruined their view.
On Thursday YMCA's Montreal president, St�phane Vaillancourt, told the Bouchard-Taylor commission about the lesson he learned from the debacle.
"We learned that sometimes we have to make adjustments. The community evolves. New requirements come up that weren't there before," Vaillancourt said.
The Y has since decided to change the windows after surveying members. It removed the frosted panels and is installing blinds that can be raised or lowered.
Synagogue leaders accepted the compromise because both groups kept discussions civil and polite, Vaillancourt said.
|
The spin of this article is a bit more positive than my own would be. Apparently, it did not occur to the Hasidim that since they were the ones who had a problem with what they saw when they looked out their window, that the best solution might be for them not to look out the window, or cover it up with curtains.
Actually they had a problem with their students looking. Sh-ort of physically restraining their students, how are they supposed to stop them taking a peek if say they don't happen to be around? A curtain can be easily lifted.
Instead, the demand was made to the YMCA to change an aspect of their services that(as far as I can tell) no members had been complaining about prior to the synagogue's intervention.
Obviously, the Y is free to reach any accomadation they want with the synagogue, but I think this story illustrates something about the religious mindset as manifested in situations like this.
It illustrates nothing about the religious mindset. It may illustrate the religious mindset at THAT one synagogue but since religion covers Christian/Muslim/Hindu....as well as Jewish it's rather illogical to make a blanket condemnation.
I guess we'll wait and see how more fully integrated into society the hasidim become as a result of such favours being offered to them.
Do they want to be fully integrated into society? Is that even desirable? As long as they pay taxes and obey the laws I would suggest that non-integration is just fine.
[url= http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2007/11/29/qc-bouchardtaylorcommission1129.html]CBC link[/url] |
Going back to my last reply in this thread as long as people obey the local laws and behave themselves, there should be no need to become integrated to the point where you start adopting local customs wholesale. You certainly can if you wish, but I don't see the need if you can function adequately without. You don't just give up your cultural norms and adopt all new ones when you move to a new country...or ESL teachers here would be horking up lugies with abandon.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 11, 2008 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Actually they had a problem with their students looking. Sh-ort of physically restraining their students, how are they supposed to stop them taking a peek if say they don't happen to be around? A curtain can be easily lifted.
|
Well, I assumed that since the youngsters were described as students, that they were in a classroom setting, and that there would be a teacher present, to ensure that the curtain wouldn't get opened.
But either way, I don't really see how it is the YMCA's problem if Jewish boys can't keep their behavior within the strictures of Jewish law. The synagogue can brick over the window if it's that much of an issue for them. I don't think there are too many cases in the secular realm where we would think that someone is obliged to change their behaviour on their own property because someone else doesn't like what he sees when he looks into that property.
But like I said, the YMCA is a private group, and they can reach whatever accomadation they want with the synagogue. If I were a member of that Y though, I think I'd be kind of ticked off.
| Quote: |
Do they want to be fully integrated into society? Is that even desirable? As long as they pay taxes and obey the laws I would suggest that non-integration is just fine.
|
I basically agree with this. It's just that I was replying to Kerno, who was suggesting that making accomadations is a good way toward multicultural integration.
Kerno wrote:
| Quote: |
| Excluding men for a few hours a week is the sort of gesture that will help keep the Muslim community integrated in the long run. |
For the record, I am not an atheist, and I respect religion to no end. It's just that I think that when you choose to practice a certain faith, the obligation falls upon you to govern yourself according to the rules of that faith. I don't believe that it is society's obligation to adjust standing practices to fit your religious values. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
