I think I know where this weirdness is coming from, is this all about the old Romani belief that women are impure during child birth and awhile afterwards? 'cause no one believes that crap anymore except a few old Roma.
Kale, Sinti, Manush and the others think its silly.
For those unfamiliar it’s as if you still believed rubbing a black child’s head was good luck.
S/he does Roma a disservice with her prattling, not to mention the rest of the diaspora.
Has to confess that I made popcorn when I saw her name in the Pit.
?!?!?! Speachless now. Did people really believe that? :smack:
Wife worked with a small doctor of Indian heritage who wondered why why shopkeepers kept a special eye on her.
“They think you are a Gypsy.”
Just saying. I’m fairly (but not entirely) used to people making assumptions based on my obvious honky heritage. People make assumptions. Try to get used to it.
I’ve heard of the belief, but have never run into anyone who admitted to it. Not that it’s something I interrogate people on to find out if they believe it.
This is the question I most want an answer to. Please - if ZPG could temporarily put aside all the other issues mentioned here, and answer that specific question - I’d love to hear it. Thanks.
Yes, I’m curious, too.
Given the historical record, I can totally understand the Rom being opposed to children being parted from their living parents, and they’re hardly the only ethnic group to suffer from stolen children (though, ironically, folk tales have it as the Rom being the child-thieves). It would, however, seem quite extreme to oppose adoption in all forms and at all times.
She has replied to it in other threads. From memory it was that orphanages run well would be a better option if no relatives of any sort exist.
While I disagree with most of her views, I find her positions useful for considering what aspects of adoption and the like I have considered OK because ‘its just so obvious’ or the like rather than because it really is the best option for a society. Children have been a commodity in the past, and modern adoption does have its potential concerns as being viewed as a resource for childless parents rather than comprehensive systems being set up with the best interests of the child in mind.
The problem being in practise that the debate gets polarised because the position is given so vehemently or to such an extreme level as it gets hard to debate it seriously.
Otara
It says Zealot right in her username, how can you not know she’s chock full of crazy? Anyways, I hope she posts often and loudly; real actual crazy is rare since we drove off Sussannananana or whatever the fuck her name was.
Gee, lemme think. A hand is neither a penis or a vagina? :dubious:
Those who have babies and who are able to breastfeed do, IME. In Spain Roma mothers whose milk is not coming may have a relative act as a wet nurse rather than jumping wholly and directly to formula as non-Roma will, it’s something we’ve lost but they still keep, and good for them.
Oh what do you know, you probably let men shake your hand you slut.
What I don’t get is why these women can’t just say “I understand you meant well by that gesture, but in my culture/religion women and men do not touch unless they are husband and wife.” It’s not like hers is the ONLY culture that does this. I have never been “forced” to shake anyone’s hand in my life, nor am I offended by others who do not want to shake my hand due to such prohibition. Of course, if you don’t wear a sign around your neck saying “My culture does not approve of unrelated men and women touching” you may have to explain that to others, as non of us are telepaths. But like I said, the custom is far from unknown, and only the most disgusting asshole won’t respect such a thing.
ZPG Zealot’s insistence that shaking hands=rape makes absolutely no sense.
Unless, (like me) you have had the hand of a breastfed baby thrust upon you. Being that his forearm was about the size of a large penis and that my hand has often been mistaken for a quintuple fallopian tubed uterus, you can understand the feeling of utter violation.
When my rage and indignation finally died down, I did realise I liked the little tickler he had on the end though.
Let me get this straight: the zealot in question thinks the adoptee is obligated to inform all and sundry that said adoptee is some kind of damaged goods, ritually unclean, to avoid some other zealot as batcrud crazy as the ZIQ from inadvertently being exposed to such human garbage as an adopted person?
Seems to me like the human garbage term is applied to the wrong persons.
ETA: By the way, I know a number of men and women from cultures where unrelated males and females do not touch. Not a one of them considers handshaking or any other kind of touching other than rape to be rape. Maybe ZPG’s not insane; she could be simply more stupid than a pile of dirt.
Hard to tell stupid from insane sometimes.
This applies to the workplace as well as message boards.
Yeah, that argument’s been tried. Still no good. Offering to shake hands is just so very, very wrong.
Or simply “I’m sorry, I don’t shake hands”. Punkt, end of file. An ex-GF of mine didn’t do pecks on the cheeks as French culture dictates. Not out of religion, or culture or anything “sacred” (fuck you. Srsly.) like that, just one of her own idiosyncrasies. If you were genuinely curious, she would explain. If you, like most people, just didn’t give a shit and just went “oh, OK”, then that was that. Nobody in the history of ever has pressed the issue or tried to peck her against her will.
Then again, I sort of suspect that, while it would have made her very uncomfortable had someone gone ahead and done it, she wouldn’t have equated it with forcible rape. She wasn’t batshit crazy, you see.
You, sir, have saved this thread.
Nitpick: It’s not clear to me what meaning you intend, but “erstwhile” means “former” or “in the past.”
I don’t know either. Maybe the Crown Prince of Irony tried to shake her hands.