Should we do business with people who express a view we abhor?
I am in a Freedom-of-Expression dilema. When you learn that your insurance agent supports the rape of females, in particular 13-yr old females, should you allow him to carry on profiting from your existing policies or request an agent change? Even tho’ he’s been professional in his insr agt services?
I posed this question to some of my friends, and here is the conversation. I have decided to pose it publically here, in response to the last suggestion.
Person 1
Person 2
Supporting the rape of others is not freedom of expression. I say you dump him!
Mathialee:
I’m so very tempted to, i’ve even got the company’s number and everything already!
Person 3:
Yet what is causing my dilema is this :
If the situation were reversed, and he was my boss (say, of his own company), I’d think it would be most unfair for him to fire me simply because I believe marital rape ought to be criminalised…..
And yet to allow a person one finds abhorable to profit from oneself,…………. it’s like doing business with the Myanmese generals!
oh dilema dilema dilema
But in a client/business relationship there is more likely to be parity – in fact sometimes the business has more power than the buyer, because of greater knowledge and the fact that buyers rely on their advice, which is why there are consumer regulations in many industries (including financial services).
Do you also think it’s unfair not to be friends with people whose views you find offensive? That’s also a repercussion for speech, right? The point is that they have no prior right to your friendship to begin with, they have to earn it and you have the freedom to decide where to bestow it: likewise, I would argue, with consumers and businesses. You have no obligation to keep buying goods and services. (As a socialist, again, I consider employment a separate question.)
The other point is that supporting rape and objecting to rape are just not the same thing. One supports the classification of one set of people as subhuman. The other opposes it. I think it’s a bit sophistical to try to treat all points of view as the same – if I object to my co-worker calling me a “ch*nk” (not that any ever would!!) that is not the same as my co-worker objecting to working with a Chinese person.
If he wishes to maintain the separation of personal opinion from his professional capacity, he will probably say nothing/choose maintain the professional relationship. It is ultimately his choice whether the customer relationship or his opinion matters more to him.
On the other hand, if he is uncomfortable or wishes to moralize the issue, then it’s actually better for the both of you that the customer/client relationship ends.
His cards are on the table, but he’s not aware of your hand.
I like Person 4′s point about hearin his response first.
I think I will put this dilema up on my blog. If he so chooses, he can respond to me privately, or publically, or not at all. I’ll protect his identity.
Like this:
44 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
Got here through a link you posted.
Exactly which part of the comments section in my blog has anyone supported rape of 13 year olds? Please identify that post for me by either putting up a link or give me the date and time of the post.
The allegation you made is serious enough for me to have a second look.
Well, I don’t think YOU will find any, because you don’t consider marital rape, as rape. But I do.
Just like Myanmese govt thinks they are doing a great job taking care of their citizens.
But I don’t.
I see. Isn’t this as accusing someone of a crime without evidence?
If you want to accuse someone of a crime, it is not a matter of opinion. You have to back it up.
What you have done is to show that just because you don’t agree with someone, you want to end his career.
You can’t stoop any lower than that, can you?
I’m not accusing anyone of a crime. If i were, i’ll go to the police, not put it up here.
I declared in the title that it’s a matter of a different opinion, and one that i abhor
And i don’t want to end his career. In fact, I’ll vouch to anyone that he is a very professional insr agt, very good with his advice. I liked the policies I bought.
All I said is that I’m tempted to change an agent. I’m sure that with his professionalism, he’ll have a thriving career, and I think he deserves that.
I just don’t like contributing to his profits.
I don’t even know if I will give in to my temptation, which i why ‘m asking for other’s opinions and advice
While I din’t think that we should do business with the Myanmese, I think this case is quite different. Because after all, he is NOT raping anyone (I hope). Even if he were, I think the court ought to sentence him, not me.
So I’m really in a dilema
And the only one making false accusations, Solo Bear, is you.
Rather than ad hominem arguements like “you can’t stoop any lower than that” , why don’t you give constructive , logical advice why I should continue letting him profit from my policies?
I would actually like to hear those reasons.
But rape IS a crime! So if he supports it, he supports a crime. Now if that is true, back up your allegations. However, it is now clear that it is just YOUR OPINION.
As for what YOU want to do with your ties as a business client, that is YOUR choice. No need to ask others for it. As a client, you can just dump him for about any reason. No need to use the high-horse moral approach – not that you are in a position to use that moral approach either, remembering that you too were complicit in another crime, that is teaching young underage girls how to have sex as Aware’s trainer!
You were stooping low to make it sound as if that he did support a crime, when in fact it was just YOUR OPINION what he supported is what you feel SHOULD be considered a crime – ie sex in marriage when wife says no.
Supporting a crime and supporting what you think should be considered a crime are two very different things.
fair enough.
Anyone else want to share your advice?
I don’t think Mathia used the word “crime” here. She used the word “rape”, which has a colloquial meaning as well as a legal one. The colloquial meaning does, for very many people, include pushing your penis into a little girl’s vagina against her objections.
Thanks Seriously!!
I’ll also like to add on to that, by saying that, for many peopl it includes pushing your penis into a little girl’s vagina WITH her consent, if she’s below the legal age, married or not.
Side point: I think the law ought to make it child abuse to let your child to be married before 16
Seriously:
>>
I don’t think Mathia used the word “crime” here. She used the word “rape”, which has a colloquial meaning as well as a legal one. The colloquial meaning does, for very many people, include pushing your penis into a little girl’s vagina against her objections.
>>
Me:
Please remember that Mathia started this post because of what was discussed in my blog – criminalizing “rape” in marriage. My post in my blog was in turn a reaction to the Notorape cause, which also takes a legal perspective. Hence, from Day One, when we talk about “rape” in marriage, it is always from the legal perspective – criminalizing sex with wife when she says no.
Mathia:
>>
I’ll also like to add on to that, by saying that, for many peopl it includes pushing your penis into a little girl’s vagina WITH her consent, if she’s below the legal age, married or not.
>>
Me:
“Many people” again is subjective. There are many societies and cultures from the third world where marriages include very young girls. What makes anyone from first world to condemn the practices of those from the third, just because they are not familiar with it?
>>
Side point: I think the law ought to make it child abuse to let your child to be married before 16
>>
Me:
That is intolerance towards a culture that you are not familiar with.
“That is intolerance towards a culture that you are not familiar with.
Solo Bear”
I don’t think we should tolerate something simply in the name of cultural tolerance. We should accomodate and respect, in so far that the cultural practice does not harm (gross harm) people.
For eg. I am glad burning wives at the funeral pyres of their husband were stopped.
I am glad the practice of burying the entire household alive with pharohs and emperors were stopped.
I am glad slavery is no longer legal
I am glad polygamy is outlawed
etc etc
Solo Bear, suely you realise you’re contradicting yourself?
By arguing that we need to tolerate a behavior we abhor (in this case, parental decision/allowance for a 13 yr old to be married) based on respect for other cultures, then, in order to be logically consistant, you have also to tolerate homosexuality because it is very much part of a lot of ancient cultures (greek, papau new guinea tribes) and modern day cultures ( Much of the world)
Before you accuse ME of contradicting myself, let me first say that i stand for non-discrimination & legalising marriages regardless of orientation, not simply because of “cultural tolerance”, but because it doesn’t harm anyone….. not more than heterosexual relationships anyway.
Solo Bear, the context you mention actually reinforces the fact that Mathia is using the word “rape” to mean something that isn’t included in the legal definition yet. She is using the word in the colloquial meaning (some people would say the common sense meaning), even if the discussion is about what the law should be.
The topic of conversation here is putting your penis into a little girl’s vagina while she says “no”. Mathia is entitled to call that “rape”, and to call people who support that practice “people who support rape”.
Mathia:
>>
I don’t think we should tolerate something simply in the name of cultural tolerance.
>>
Me:
Who is even thinking of that. The fact is that it is YOUR opinion that you should not allow sex in marriage if girl is below 16.
>>
We should accomodate and respect, in so far that the cultural practice does not harm (gross harm) people.
>>
Me:
Your forefathers married early. Are you bastardizing your ancestors?
>>
For eg. I am glad burning wives at the funeral pyres of their husband were stopped.
I am glad the practice of burying the entire household alive with pharohs and emperors were stopped.
I am glad slavery is no longer legal
I am glad polygamy is outlawed
etc etc
>>
Me:
So am I. But what is wrong with sex with wife if she is below 16?
>>
Solo Bear, suely you realise you’re contradicting yourself?
By arguing that we need to tolerate a behavior we abhor (in this case, parental decision/allowance for a 13 yr old to be married) based on respect for other cultures, then, in order to be logically consistant, you have also to tolerate homosexuality because it is very much part of a lot of ancient cultures (greek, papau new guinea tribes) and modern day cultures ( Much of the world)
>>
Me:
It is YOU who are contradicting self. I now use your argument that homo is wrong. Just because some quarters say it is right does not mean we can tolerate it.
>>
Before you accuse ME of contradicting myself, let me first say that i stand for non-discrimination & legalising marriages regardless of orientation, not simply because of “cultural tolerance”, but because it doesn’t harm anyone….. not more than heterosexual relationships anyway.
>>
Me:
Please remember that your forefathers married young. It harmed no one. Your existence proves it.
In any case, I have never said that we don’t allow homo. What I am against is that homos never respect me when I say I don’t support their cause – eg if I don’t support repeal of S377A.
Don’t I have that right?
Solo Bear says: “Please remember that your forefathers married young. It harmed no one. Your existence proves it.”
This is nonsensical. Mathia’s existence does not prove that at all. It’s entirely possible – even probable – that being married young led one of Mathia’s great-great-great-great-grandmothers to die in childbirth at an early age. Women used to die in chiildbirth all the time, in large part exactly because they married young, could not say no to sex, and were kept pregnant and giving birth repeatedly with no say in the matter.
Just because my forefathers married young does not mean they were right.
My forefathers also denied my fore-mothers education
My forefathers also hit my fore-mothers and were polygamous
Older age (typically defined as 35 years or older) at first birth is associated with increased risk of breast and brain cancers. Conversely, younger age (typically defined as 19 years or younger) at first birth is associated with an increased risk of cervical and endometrial cancers- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WG6-4F29SKY-4&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&_docanchor=&view=c&_searchStrId=1111216968&_rerunOrigin=google&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=a7cdafc6bc97e5b5c323bcef2ed0a1df
“Complications from pregnancy and childbirth are the leading cause of death in young women aged 15 to 19 in developing countries, warned a report published last week. An estimated 70 000 adolescent mothers die each year because they have children before they are physically ready for parenthood, the report says.”
- http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/328/7449/1152-a
The associations of social and behavioural factors on preterm birth in Singapore were studied using hospital maternity records of 20,723 consecutive singleton births between January 1986 and November 1991. The overall proportion of preterm births was 3·6%, the rates for the Chinese, Malay and Indian groups being 3·2%, 3·8% and 4·9% respectively. Teenage mothers were at a higher risk of preterm labour compared to women aged 20–29 years. The incidence of preterm labour decreased with increasing educational status. Preterm births were six times more likely in women who had no antenatal care. Women who had three or more previous births were at a higher risk, while those who had one or two previous births were at a lower risk compared to women who had none.
-http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=7E3362742D94E0D3AA3241BD1C7F8725.tomcat1?fromPage=online&aid=1639620
Women who have their first child before age 20 are at a higher risk of chronic diseases and death when they reach middle age,
-http://www.health.am/gyneco/more/early-childbirth-linked-to-poor-health/
http://www.unfpa.org/swp/2005/presskit/factsheets/facts_child_marriage.htm
Most countries have declared 18 as the minimum legal age of marriage. Despite the sanctions on child marriage, however, more than 100 million girls are expected to marry in the next decade.
While the practice has decreased globally over the last 30 years, it remains common in rural areas and among the poorest of the poor. Impoverished parents often believe that child marriage will protect their daughters. In fact, however, it results in lost development opportunities, limited life options and poor health.
Child marriage is a health issue as well as a human rights violation. Because it takes place almost exclusively within the context of poverty and gender inequality, it also has social, cultural and economic dimensions.
Married adolescents have been neglected from the global adolescent reproductive health agenda because of the incorrect assumption that their married status ensures them a safe passage to adulthood
The East Asian “Miracles” like Taiwan, South Korea, Thailand that have successfully eradicated the harmful traditional practice of child marriage are characterized by:
Economic growth and opportunity
Declines in birth and death rates
Increase in educational and employment options for girls
It is no coincidence that the same countries in Africa, Asia and the Middle East that have high rates of child marriage are those with:
High poverty rates, birth rates and death rates
Greater incidence of conflict and civil strife
Lower levels of overall development, including schooling, employment, health care
As first-time young mothers, girls face high risks in their pregnancies including obstructed labour leading to obstetric fistula.
There is a strong correlation between the age of the mother and maternal mortality and morbidity. Girls ages l0-14 are five times more likely to die in pregnancy or childbirth than women aged 20-24. Girls ages 15-19 are twice as likely to die. The vast majority of these deaths take place within marriage.
In Cameroon, Ethiopia and Nigeria, maternal mortality among adolescents under 16 was found to be six times higher than for young women aged 20-24.
Teenage brides with much older husbands often have limited capacity to negotiate sexual relations, contraception and childbearing, as well as other aspects of domestic life.
Data on spousal age differences show that adolescent girls’ husbands are often considerably older. Research from 16 countries in sub-Saharan Africa indicates husbands of 15-19-year-o1d-girls are on average at least l0 years older than their wives.
Women who marry younger are more likely to be beaten or threatened, and more likely to believe that a husband might sometimes be justified in beating his wife. 17 India has the highest levels of domestic violence among women married by 18 (see figure below).
Seriously:
>>
This is nonsensical. Mathia’s existence does not prove that at all. It’s entirely possible – even probable – that being married young led one of Mathia’s great-great-great-great-grandmothers to die in childbirth at an early age. Women used to die in chiildbirth all the time, in large part exactly because they married young, could not say no to sex, and were kept pregnant and giving birth repeatedly with no say in the matter.
>>
Me:
The argument that young mothers die young in childbirth is an old argument. I can say that older mothers give rise to higher chances of harm to baby – eg Mongolism.
So it is all a matter of trade-off. Young mother, harm to self – while old mother, harm to baby. Just because your culture expects you to marry later to preserve self, does not mean that other cultures are wrong, if they prefer to preserve babies.
In any case, third world countries have high mortality rate due to lack of food, medicine etc. So to increase chances of having a next generation, you marry early so that you can have more chances for making babies if your earlier ones don’t make it. Please understand the culture of others. No use talking about democracy or human rights when basic understanding of practices and cultures of others is not respected.
Incidentally, it is the lack of understanding of another culture that leads feminists to condemn the hijab worn by Muslim women! I like this example because it really emphasizes the tyranny of Feminism!
Mathia:
>>
Just because my forefathers married young does not mean they were right.
My forefathers also denied my fore-mothers education
>>
Me:
Your forefathers provided sustenance to your foremothers. Today, your dad goes to work and earn his living, while your mom goes to work and look after you as well – no thanks to Feminism, she is double burdened.
>>
My forefathers also hit my fore-mothers and were polygamous
>>
Me:
Hit? How do you know that?
As for polygamous marriages again, you have shown intolerance once more. Just because you don’t do it in your culture, you see that as oppressive and/or repulsive.
As for your stats on childbirth, are you saying that those over 35 should not have sex, just like under 16 should not have sex, because in both cases, the harm is much higher than the preferred age – ie 20 to 29?
If that is what you are saying, it sure gives the men a lot reason to re-marry every 10 years, no? Be careful how you “anal”-yse (pun again, he he) your stats.
Where Child Marriages are concerned, I rest my case.
My intention was never to convince Solo Bear otherwise — I respect that people will come to different conclusions, even the same set of facts.
What I am glad for, is that Solo Bear has raised several common myths about Child Marriages, and this has given me the opportunity to address. This, I have tried to do, by citing facts, as well as that UNFPA (UN Population Fund) article.
I believe there are many people who disagree with Child Marriages, but who struggle with certain aspects of criminalising it , because it seems to have presented no harm in the past, and it seems to be disrespectful of other cultures. I hope that our back-and-forth has helped to address this to a certain extent.
I received this very well- writen piece, that shares some of his experience, on Debate and Diversity of Views
I sympathise with your dilemma here Mathia and it’s honourable that you are trying to resolve it with such integrity. I apologise that I don’t have any additional wisdom to contribute on your core question.
However, I did want to lend support to the general idea that it is SO important to debate these points, which seem to stem from different expectations between generations and cultures, openly and respectfully. Thanks to X for pointing out a story which suggests a positive way forward ( http://bit.ly/8N7ClU )
As an example of what happens if a society doesn’t have that debate … I am ashamed that I was part of a now officially recognised liberal bias when I was a Producer at the BBC. Though we were acting out of the best of intentions, actually I and my colleagues gagged the debate that needs to take place (see http://bit.ly/6327w5 )….
In the UK we have pretended to have multiculturalism for several decades whereas in truth Political Correctness has prevented people getting to know each other properly. As a result we now have ghettos and scary developments such as the rise of the thinly-veiled racism of the British National Party (and some scary militant religious groups) emerging in the UK (see http://bit.ly/5ePW0s – with thanks to XX for spotting that).
I’ll still like to hear what’s the ethical thing to do wrt my insurance agent.
Many have pointed out that it’s my choice, as a private individual, and so it wouldn’t be wrong either ways.
However, I think we all agree that even amongst our personal choices that we have complete right to make, either ways, there would be some that would be more ethical than other options.
So it’ll be nice to hear.
Personally I would get another agent. I’m sure he’s not the only excellent insurance agent around.
I think we can agree on the point that rape has devastating effects on individuals, be it male or female. And it doesn’t just hurt the victim, but also the people who love the victim. There is something quite sick in him if he supports rape, and I wouldn’t want to be even anywhere near him. Since he supports rape, is there a chance he could become a rapist? Would you want to take that chance? I assume he’d have many, since he’s your agent.
But that is on assumption that he could become a rapist.
Even if not, I’d just ditch him. I don’t feel comfortable with someone like him, and won’t let him earn my money either. I will feel like I’m condoning rape and is liked-mind.
Another comment:
Capitalism is a pecunocracy – vote with your dollars.
Just a bit more clarifications:
Actually I wasn’t really going into technical point-by-point disagreement with any specific point on SB blog.
I respect that different people will have different opinions, some i merely disagree with,, and some I abhor. And i’m sure other people feel the same about me. That’s fine. That’s life.
My dilema stems from my discomfort at allowing someone with a character I disagree with, profit from me. I don’t know if that is ethical, I suspect not, but i am nevertheless uncomfortable.
I say “character” because it is not just about views…… i think some views reflect a person’s character. It’s one thing to say, ‘I think we need to change this by education’, and another person with a different view saying ‘I think we need to change this by legalisation’ vs another person who says ‘This should not be changed because this is good’.
I also say “character” because it is not just this particular issue, but many related issues taken together. It’s just a convenient way of expressing to my original intended audience by using SB’s latest post as a representative eg.
I respect that I may be the one with the wrong view, but I’m still uncomfortable.
There are no legal implications (I believe; please correct me if you know otherwise) , because,
1. I’m not going to reveal the identity of who I refer to. As said in the blog, I will protect his identity.
What I want are people’s opinions on Free speech, not to highlight the identity of anyone…… I don’t want to do a name-and-shame
2. If anyone decides to claim responsibility by identifying her/himself with the person I was referring to, then it is a unilateral claim that I will neither support nor deny. If that person claims responsibility on my blog, I will not publish his/her identity, because I said I will protect his/her identity. I will assume that is his/her best interest, and that sh/he may be unaware she/he is acting against her/his best interest by identifying himself, so I will still act in his/her best interest. Now if anyone claims responsibility anywhere else, I am powerless.
3. As many have pointed out, and also as the relavent insurance companies I’ve made enquiries with have informed me, as the customer, I have a right to stop my policy, or change my agt, without any justification.The agt too, can pass my case to anyone else , or back to the company for the company to decide, if he so chooses, without justification. All these are fine by me, and I believe , all parties involved.
Personally, I feel very bad to be doing this, because the agt was very professional in his agt services. Which was why, even after enquiring all the procedures with the relavent company, I have not taken any action, and decided instead to seek more advice.
You are free to give me advice. I will appreciate it
Another question:
If the agt decides to transfer my case to another agt, that’s all well and good.
However, if I decide I want to change an agt, I am also wondering what is the most appropriate means of doing so.
I don’t want this to affect his standing with the company or his other clients at all. So I don’t think I will reveal this as the reason.
What I was thinking of doing, is to formally commend this agt on his services. I want the company to know that he did very well as an insr agt. The reason I need to change is a personal conflict-of-interest issue, that has no bearing on insurance or his performance at all. I won’t go into any further detail as it is an irrelavant private matter.
Mathia
>>
I believe there are many people who disagree with Child Marriages, but who struggle with certain aspects of criminalising it , because it seems to have presented no harm in the past, and it seems to be disrespectful of other cultures.
>>
Me:
There lies your closed-mindedness which you are blind to. You feel that people who do not criminalize child marriages have some sort of internal struggle between their own values and what society does. You cannot see that child marriages itself is the norm of many societies.
I can argue that you have trouble accepting the norms of others because the society you are in will be alarmed if you accept someone else’s culture. Isn’t this the very root that causes feminists to believe that the headscarf worn by women is oppressive, in spite of the fact many Muslim women choose to wear it? I have to keep emphasizing that I really like this example very much because the hijab issue truly shows the tyranny of Feminism!
Using your argument, I can also say that you have a problem criminalizing homo because it seems to have presented no harm to some society, and it seems to be not politically correct to homos. How about that?
Why can’t you accept that child marriage is an accepted norm in many societies other than the ones you are familiar with? Are you not exposing your intolerance to cultures of others that are not the same as yours? Who are you now to talk about human rights, women’s rights, or whatever rights, when you don’t respect the rights (and cultures) of others?
Just like you see child marriage is abusive to young bride, your culture can also be seen as abusive to children because having children at later stage causes them harm. And what about abortion which kills baby? Are you not respecting unborn child’s right to live? In the eyes of cultures that ahbor abortion, you are the demon.
Please open up your eyes that there are many cultures in this world. Stop believing that you are morally superior to others. It is ironic that you and others condemn religion for condemning homo, while you yourself condemn the practices of others.
>>
I’ll still like to hear what’s the ethical thing to do wrt my insurance agent.
Many have pointed out that it’s my choice, as a private individual, and so it wouldn’t be wrong either ways.
However, I think we all agree that even amongst our personal choices that we have complete right to make, either ways, there would be some that would be more ethical than other options.
>>
Me:
Again, I really feel that you are in NO position to take the high moral ground approach. After all, you were complicit in another crime – teaching underage girls how to have sex.
So if you want to drop him, just drop him. No need to find excuses. Remember that if you could do to him, others can do to you. Majority in Singapore don’t support homo and teaching underage girls how to have sex. Want to drop these people as your friends too? Maybe you don’t have to. All they need is to drop you.
Stop using the moral high ground excuse. You are in no position to do it.
Leaving aside for a moment Solo Bear’s bizarre idea that if we don’t all marry when we’re little girls, babies will die…
I don’t think it’s correct to say that feminists judge women for wearing the hijab. There are some who do, but in my experience, it’s not the most common position among feminists.
Personally, I think that those who tell women they must wear the hijab (or any other form of clothing), or else they are doing wrong or bringing assault upon themselves, are behaving in an oppressive way. Those who push the idea that the hijab (or any other form of clothing) is compulsory are oppressive.
But I think each individual woman must have the final say over what she wears.
Yep illyrica,
I think most people (feminist or not) have a problem with the people who go round beating up women, criminilising them, etc for not wearing the hijab, not with women who wear the hijab by choice.
But I think we’ve repeated ourselves so many times, I feel so out of breath already, even tho’ all i did was type…….
illyrica
>>
I don’t think it’s correct to say that feminists judge women for wearing the hijab. There are some who do, but in my experience, it’s not the most common position among feminists.
>>
Me:
Really? Then what is the most common position? The women in France and Germany in universities have to take them off. If you think it is a small matter, let me ask you this.
Is it not demeaning to a woman to force her to take off part of her dress to expose part of her body she wishes to conceal?
Well, that’s what the hijab issue is about, isn’t it?
And you feminists do almost NOTHING about it?
>>
Personally, I think that those who tell women they must wear the hijab (or any other form of clothing), or else they are doing wrong or bringing assault upon themselves, are behaving in an oppressive way. Those who push the idea that the hijab (or any other form of clothing) is compulsory are oppressive.
But I think each individual woman must have the final say over what she wears.
>>
Good. Then let me make a stronger statement.
Which is worse:
1) Forcing a woman to cover a part of her body she wishes to expose OR
2) Forcing a woman to expose a part of her body she wishes to cover?
Isn’t that the real crux of the issue when it comes to the hijab? And feminists still yak and yak about men forcing women to cover, when they happily do about nothing when women are forced to uncover?
Like I said, I like the hijab issue the best – because it really exposes the hypocrisy and tyranny of Feminism. You condemn those who force hijab on. But condemn not those who force it off.
I challenge you to answer my question in bold above. See if you can address it.
mathia:
>>
I think most people (feminist or not) have a problem with the people who go round beating up women, criminilising them, etc for not wearing the hijab, not with women who wear the hijab by choice.
>>
Me:
You don’t seem to have a problem that your Muslim sisters are forced to uncover and expose part of their bodies they wish to conceal.
Isn’t forcing the hijab akin to sexual harassment then? And you do NOTHING about it?
>>
But I think we’ve repeated ourselves so many times, I feel so out of breath already, even tho’ all i did was type…….
>>
Me:
Yes, you have repeated that over and over – that Feminism is about telling women how they should behave. No different from your allegation that it is men who keep telling women how to behave.
Come Feminists! Prove me wrong. Prove me that you can handle the hijab issue from a feminist viewpoint such anyone who forces a woman’s hijab off is seen as a sexual harasser – because you are really forcing the woman to expose a part of her body she wishes to conceal.
I’ll say it again Solo Bear, I AGREE with you, that forcing a woman to take off a particular clothing she CHOOSES to wear is something I am AGAINST.
The reason why I’m not doing anything about it is because , *surprise* *surprse*, I actually do have TIME and PHYSICAL limitations. I simply can’t be everywhere in the whole world at the same time. I’m in Singapore, I do what I can here. I can’t be in France or Germany at the same time can I?
And I have LOTS of other things on my mind too, apart from what I actually blog about. I don’t have the TIME to blog about EVERYTHING on my mind. This may also be a surprise to you, but I have to spend hours on our public transport, earn a living, study, do housework etc too!
mathia
>>
I’ll say it again Solo Bear, I AGREE with you, that forcing a woman to take off a particular clothing she CHOOSES to wear is something I am AGAINST.
The reason why I’m not doing anything about it is because , *surprise* *surprse*, I actually do have TIME and PHYSICAL limitations.
>>
Me:
Of course everyone has time limitation. But in your previous post, you and illyrica appear to be hell bent on condemning those who force the hijab on – and added that it should be woman’s choice – yet say NOTHING about those who force it off! That is a good indication of what is close to your hearts, no?
>>
I simply can’t be everywhere in the whole world at the same time. I’m in Singapore, I do what I can here. I can’t be in France or Germany at the same time can I?
>>
Me:
Fair. I give you a Singapore situation then. About 10 years ago or so, school principals had the liberty to allow hijab for schoolgirls, with the colour of hijab that matches their uniforms. Their blouses are allowed to be extended to their wrists, while hemlines down to ankles. Later, MOE intervened and made a uniform ruling to stop such practice.
I can name you at least 2 schools that allowed hijab then because I had relatives and friends in those schools. They are Convent of the Holy Infant Jesus (Toa Payoh) and Tanjong Katong Girls’ School.
How about getting aware to address this issue, because there are girls in schools in Singapore today who want to cover their heads. Having them forced off is akin to sexual harassment because you are forcing them to expose a part of their body they want to conceal.
I believe you are still active in Aware. How about getting that done. After all the notorape case is about as good as dead. You can’t get the numbers. So how about transferring your energy somewhere else?
>>
And I have LOTS of other things on my mind too, apart from what I actually blog about. I don’t have the TIME to blog about EVERYTHING on my mind. This may also be a surprise to you, but I have to spend hours on our public transport, earn a living, study, do housework etc too!
>>
Me:
Of course. Then let’s prioritize. The hijab issue in schools has not been addressed since about 10 years ago when MOE took that liberty away from principals. No group and no one appears to be fighting for the girls in schools who are now sexually harassed, because they are forced to expose parts of their bodies they wish to conceal.
How about taking it up to Aware and see something is done. I am sure the Muslim community will appreciate what you do. This is a good time to mend ties with Muslims, noting that Aware has burnt its bridges with the Christians.
Better than trying a lost cause like notorape, no? Game enough to take my suggestion to prove that feminists can handle the hijab issue?
I say feminists are pussies and they can’t do it. They can’t to it in France. They can’t do it in Germany. I dare say they can’t do it in Singapore.
Prove me wrong if you wish.
You know what Solo Bear, this is actually the best piece of writing I’ve seen from you so far (not that i’ve seen all lah). You’ve actually got facts about a situation within our sphere of influence. I’ll say it would have been a brilliant piece of writing so far, if not for needless ad hominems like “feminists are pussies”
But you know what? I’m gonna focus on the positives.
Thank you very much for describing the hijab/tudung issue in our local context. I genuinely did not know of the situation and what went on, although ~10 years ago, I was a student in Tanjong Katong Girls’.
( On a side note, I’m so proud to learn that TKG was one of those schools who actually allowed the tudung. I chose to go to that school because it was the most open-minded school that I knew of then, and it played such a HUGE role in making me the person I am today. It was in TKGS that I first leant about poverty, about what NGOs were, about how to stand up for our rights. It was TKGS who introduced me to NGOs like AWARE, World Vision,…. Kalwanjit Soin (one of the founders of AWARE and WINGS) was an alumni who came to speak to us. Our VP was Chua Yen Ching, who later founder Northlight. The principal (Huang Chai Lean) led by example to show that discipline and education was about smiling at a child, not by yelling or punishing. She lead by example, what it meant by ‘life isn’t all about work, and education not all about grades”. The public complained we were an unkempt, unruly bunch, but I learnt creativity. When the new principle came in with new draconian rules to clean up our dressing, take away our prom balls, take away our holidays, we got upset. But the teachers taught us that getting upset was not use; we had to do something about the situation. So we collected signatures from the whole cohort, and petitioned the principal for what we wanted, with the teachers’ “secret” support. We didn’t get everything, but we got some, and so we learnt negotiation, reasoning, and compromise. That experience was fundamental in influencing much of my work today. I could go on , and on, but I won’t. Did I tell you how much I loved that schoo? Well, yes I do. )
Would be great, Solo Bear, if you can give further info on our local case , specifically, references like links to news reports etc. I’ll really like to follow on this, but I can’t go in just basd on “what Solo Bear said was…..”
Mathia,
Firstly, please note that neither you nor Jolene (illyrica) has addressed the issue that:
Feminist Hypocrisy exists and that is exposed in the Hijab issue because:
1. While feminists cry out loud that women should not be forced to have hijab on, they only whimper on the fact that many women are forced to have it off.
2. They see that forcing it on is oppressive, but do not see it forcing it off is even worse, because it is tantamount to forcing a woman to expose a part of her anatomy she wishes to cover – which is akin to sexual harassment.
I note that Jolene has completely remained silent and walked away from this issue, although she tries to pretend to be fighting for women’s rights in a parallel post you made.
As for Singapore, the ban was implemented since 2002 – not exactly ten years ago. If you do a search “ban on tudung in (Singapore) schools” you will find that some parties like SDP, littlespeck and a handful of Muslim based sites have posts on that.
So it is not that Aware was unaware then. It was that the tudung case was not their priority – or perhaps worse, they didn’t even see it as an issue.
I also note your subtle point to “siam” the issue and pass the ball back to me. My reply is – I am right in my prediction. Feminists can’t handle the hijab issue. They can’t do it in France. They can’t do it in Germany and they can’t do it in Singapore.
Why? Simple.
Because Feminists don’t see the hijab issue as sexual harassment against women who want to have it on, but are forced to exposed a part of their anatomy against their will. They only see that forcing it on is oppressive.
What did I say that Feminists can’t think far – be it in my blog and in other sites?
“In any case, I have never said that we don’t allow homo. What I am against is that homos never respect me when I say I don’t support their cause – eg if I don’t support repeal of S377A.
Don’t I have that right?”
But you dun deserve the respect what, so why give you respect?
If we dun have the right to fuck, why should you have the right to talk rubbish?
Mathia Dear,
Why are you wasting your time on this person?
It seems to me his inability to comprehend your dilemma is leading him to go in circles, drawing out personal attacks from the middle of nowhere, and then going on to attack even more groups of people with his half-witted, patriarchal ideas.
Oh, like someone else said, there’re other insurance agents out there. And if the anyone continues to delude itself that what you do in your personal life won’t affect what you don in your professional life, then that’s their problem to deal with, not yours.
I mean, it’s the same reason why I don’t use DBS or go to pasta mania anymore. I disagree with their moral values. Or lack thereof.
Dear Solo Bear,
I have an idea that it is not so much of a feminist issue than a reaction to Islam.
I think few can deny that the Muslim world is pretty much facing a “war” against the world. Too many negative news, especially from the West (like it’s surprising at all?). And it keeps circulating like crazy, because press worldwide are so dependent on… you got it, WESTERN news agency.
The hijab being viewed as an oppressive tool, so usually people probably would not see the irony in the other way. It’s like how the Americans truly and sincerely believed they were doing Iraq a huge favour and doing a great good by invading them.
However, I don’t see the fuss about hijab. Unless the women were being forced and abused into hijab, I’d say just leave them alone. Doing otherwise just reeks of anti-Islam – in a very bad way. No wonder some Muslims are feeling edgy all the time.
Yes I quite agree
I think where religious practices are concerned, it is very easy to be misinterpreted as discriminiation against the religion.
Of course, one could argue about what should be done against supposedly -oppressive/ discriminatory religious practices
However, I believe that as long as people have the freedom to choose which religion they want to adopt, then they would have voluntarily taken on these religious restrictions, which they have a right to and which I support.
Hence, the bottom line, is that we need to defend people’s rights to religious freedom. Regardless of gender, nationality, race, etc.
Thanks for the support Joel!
What’s up with pasta mania? i’ve not heard about that one!
Jezebella
>>
I have an idea that it is not so much of a feminist issue than a reaction to Islam.
>>
Me:
And why is that so?
>>
I think few can deny that the Muslim world is pretty much facing a “war” against the world. Too many negative news, especially from the West (like it’s surprising at all?).
>>
Me:
So if that is the case and as such, you see no need to campaign for Muslim women who want to have it on, why then the over-passion to support the women who want it off?
Is not religion just an excuse for the hypocrisy of feminists, not being involved in helping their Muslim sisters who want it on?
>>
The hijab being viewed as an oppressive tool, so usually people probably would not see the irony in the other way.
>>
Me:
That is YOUR view. To the Muslim women who want it on, they see forcing the hijab off their heads as oppressive and secularism (the tool used to ban hijab) as the oppressive tool! Are you saying Muslim women are not worthy of feminists’ help?
>>
It’s like how the Americans truly and sincerely believed they were doing Iraq a huge favour and doing a great good by invading them.
>>
Me:
How did forcing a woman to expose a part of her body ever come to that? I have mentioned that women are brainwashed.
>>
However, I don’t see the fuss about hijab. Unless the women were being forced and abused into hijab, I’d say just leave them alone.
>>
Me:
There lies the hypocrisy of feminism! So it is not an issue unless it is forced on.
WHAT IF IT IS FORCED OFF? No reaction? No fuss about it?
How would YOU feel if you are FORCED to disrobe part of your dress? Must it take a man to tell you how humiliating it is for a woman to expose more than what she is comfortable to expose?
>>
Doing otherwise just reeks of anti-Islam – in a very bad way. No wonder some Muslims are feeling edgy all the time.
>>
Me:
But forcing it off is seen as anti-Islam by the Muslims. After all, the reason for forcing off is that it represents religion. And you feminists, bought that lousy argument which makes feminists look like hypocrites – fighting for women who want it off, yet ignoring women who want it on!
I have mentioned in my blog that if you see the hijab as a religious issue, that means you are willing to say that if women’s issue somehow overlaps religion, religion takes precedence. You can now dump about everything Feminism is fighting for – be role of wife in family, how women should dress, arranged marriages, dowry, blah, blah, blah. That’s because many religions tell women how they should dress and behave.
Be careful of how you argue the hijab case. Below is a link to my blog on that. I know it is a little long, but I have made it easy for people to read by highlighting main points.
http://wherebearsroamfree.blogspot.com/2009/10/modern-womans-dilemma-which-is-worse.html
Mathia,
Let’s just ask:
1. When you say a woman has a right to dress as she pleases, would it also mean that she has a right to put on the hijab?
2. Would not forcing off the hijab be oppressive to women who want it on?
3. Is not forcing a woman to expose a part of her body she wishes to conceal, more oppressive than forcing a woman to cover a part of her she wishes to expose?
4. Why can’t feminists see the real issue in the hijab from real women’s view as in point 3?
5. Why does it take a man (me) to remind you of number 3?
6. Why does not number 3 even prick your conscience? You mean if you are forced to disrobe part of your clothes, we should just leave it as it is as suggested by jezebella?
7. The fact that feminists bought the religion argument is testimony that feminists can’t think far. They are told it is religion, but can’t see the seriousness of number 3.
I have said that feminists can’t handle the hijab issue, be it in Germany, France or Singapore. I am right.
Solobear,
1. I’ve said it a million times over, and for one more time, YES YES YES i agree
2. I’ve said it a million times over, and for one more time, YES YES YES i agree
3. I’ve said it a million times over, and for one more time, YES YES YES i agree
4. I’ve said it a million times over, and for one more time, YES YES YES i agree
5. Because YOU (not men in general) need english comprehension lessons
6. I’ve said it a million times over, and for one more time, YES YES YES i agree
7. Gosh, do you understand english? Because if you do, you would realise that the post of mine that you are responding to SUPPORTS your point that Muslim women who CHOOSE to practice islam CHOOSE to put on the hijab and so it’s their CHOICE, and that everyone should RESPECT their CHOICE and NOT force them to take it off.
Solo Bear, I AGREE WITH YOU AND SUPPORT YOUR POINT!!! I hope you are very happy now and do not continue to upset yourself with some imaginary mathialee you’re talking to.
If I’ve not shown enough passion and support for your hijab cause, because i’m not out on orchard road waving placards and banners, then I’m so very sorry to cause you so much offense that way. Perhaps one day when I’m fired from my job for obessing too much about holding placards and banners 100% of my life on this hijab issue, i will have the time to display the passion you so desire from me.
He has failed to understand mine too. I’ve given up.
Jezebellaleong,
sympathies … =D
Mathia,
Your words and action don’t match. If you agree that forcing the hijab off is wrong, you won’t have supported jezebella when she siad, “I don’t see the fuss about hijab”.
If you really cared, you would have at least corrected her that forcing hijab off is wrong. You did not. In fact, you even supported her. Nobody is asking you to lobby for these women.
Your actions speak louder than words.
Jezebella,
Is not my point that forcing a woman to expose a part of her body is considered sexual harassment a valid point?
I understand your point. It is just that I do not agree with you. Please stop confusing the two.
Your total silence and (refusal?) to address my point, that forcing off a piece of clothing from a woman is considered humiliating to women, is very, very telling.
Keep up with the hypocrisy, feminists. Keep it up!
Like I said many times, I luuuuve the hijab case because this case exposes the hypocrisy and tyranny of Feminism – warts and all.
PS – Note the total disappearance of Jolene (illyrica). Yet another cop out from a feminist who claims to fight for women!