Um, try again.
Would it have been a better analogy if I said:
This is like a Canadian immigrating into the United States and then being shocked and dismayed that he doesn’t have access to a universal health care regime?
or
This is like an English speaker immigrating into China and then being shocked and dismayed that he needs to learn Chinese to get around.
Is it really the same as refusing to be seen by a black (or any other race) person, though? We don’t think it’s weird when someone wants a doctor of their own gender. I’m having trouble articulating just why it bothers me that someone would want a doctor of their race, but it doesn’t bother me to think of a woman wanting to be examined by another woman.
because that’s the culture she entered into. a culture where your fucking face isn’t considered a private part necessitating heightened care and accomodation.
In regards to women wanting women doctors vs wanting women DMV clerks…
For most civilized people, women’s faces are not quite the same as women’s vaginas. Unless you live in the deep south, in which case the extra facial hair and common lack of teeth often makes the distinction less obvious.
I dunno. Going bare down there is all the rage these days, so you could still probably tell the difference.
First of all, I think that these issues come up here more because there is significant Muslim immigration to Quebec, mostly from Northern Africa, where French is spoken. That’s the same reason it comes up in France (ex-colonizer). In fact, I believe there are also many Muslims who have immigrated to Quebec from Paris. The vast majority get no press and integrate easily into the community.
I can’t see the OP’s outrage. Why should she be allowed to demand that a woman serve her? The point is to make sure immigrants realize that we value gender equality. There was a similar issue with Hassidic Jewish men who refused to speak to female police officers. I think that is equally unacceptable.
Yes it would have. Good of **you **to try again.
This is exactly backwards, though. She is the only one refusing service. They aren’t doing anything to her at all.
To most normal people, using strong analogies affects more poignancy than weak ones. And to most normal people, you couldn’t reasonably read “are you okay with your country being Saudi Arabia in this scenario?” into what I wrote. Sorry I figured you were normal.
This is not why she was expelled from the course. If you read detailed reports of the events leading up to her expulsion, it is clear she was expelled because her demands were escalating to the point where they could not accommodate her.
For example, if she had to stand up and recite something out of the book, she was insisting that the male students in the class were not allowed to be facing her and had to turn away. That point seems to have been dropped from a lot of the reports on the issue.
CTV Montreal had reported:
In other words the CEGEP tried, but couldn’t come up with a solution. The head of the Centre for Research Action on Race Relations even thinks they were being reasonable. The best alternative for her would be a women-only class or private lessons with a female instructor - not a CEGEP.
The Health Card debacle is a different kettle of fish. Ontario has accommodation policies that allow a female employee to trade off with a male employee for the purpose of taking a quick photo, and you also have the option of scheduling a private photo - but that involves planning ahead, not just showing up.
I agree that in our culture, showing your face isn’t a private thing. But I don’t think it’s as simple as telling them to just deal when for them it does feel like a violation.
Why not just have the instructor cover his or her own face, and say to the student: “Déplacez votre bouche comme ça.”
why not?
it feels like a violation for me to have to take an eye test to get my driver’s license. **accommodate **me
ok ok, bad example. but you get the point.
why isn’t it as simple as requiring that people adhere to prevailing cultural norms instead of affording exceptions and exemptions left right and center?
Same reason we generally maintain separate restrooms segregated by sex, long after the notion of racially segregated restrooms has been rejected. We afford sexual modesty greater respect than racial modesty, largely because we think that racial modesty is an expression of hostility in a way that sexual modesty is not. Forcing black people to use separate facilities was seen as a derogatory putdown to them, in a way that requiring men to use a separate restroom is not.
This woman’s sense of sexual modesty in different from our own, but to call it “prejudice against men” in her case, when we wouldn’t do so for our own sense of sexual modesty, seems to be to be culturally blindered to some extent.
The government has a legitimate interest in requiring that this woman’s face be visible on her ID – modesty or not, her face is the part of her that is most uniquely identifiable. But it doesn’t seem unreasonable to me that the government could respect her sense of modesty enough to allow her to have the actual photograph taken by a woman.
If the US TSA required a female airline passenger to drop her pants to assist in determining that she had a metal hip or knee that was triggering the sensor, it seems reasonable to me to allow her to request that this be done in the presence only of female agents. I would expect the same for someone required to urinate for a drug test in the presence of an agent.
but again, dropping your pants or exposing your urinary organ is something that we deem private in this culture. exposing your face is not.
do you think the US TSA would be unreasonable in having a man request that a female passenger take off her bulky jacket and put it in the x-ray scanner? (assume she’s not naked underneath)
Whaddaya mean ‘we’ paleface?
I think that the Saudi goverment treats thier women worse than Americans treat their housepets. That said, I/we have nothing what-so-ever to say about it. And if you think we do, and you think the great wide world should do something about the bad actors over there, knowing that sanctions and UN finger-wagging fail, what do you do?
I’m behind Quebec. Their provence, their rules.
Well, not really. They still have to fall in line with Federal guidelines.
You’re right, of course. I’m against special treatment for this woman, I just worded it incorrectly.
One of the nice things about living in Thunder Bay is the snow. Throughout the winter, I spend most of my off hours skiing. Others up here spend their recreational time sledding. Since it tends to be very cold, particularly after work when it is dark, we wear masks to prevent frostbite while skiing or sledding. Being a very frequent mask wearer myself, I don’t have a thing against masks per se.
But Niqāb and burqa are not just masks. Being a secular feminist, I have nothing good to say about ultra-conservative religions of any sort, including ultra-conservative Islam. I do not want any Wahhabi, Qutbist, or other ultra-conservative Islam influence in Canada. Niqābs and burqas are glaring symbols of the subjugation of women under ultra-conservative Islam.
My grave concern about ultra-conservative Islam is not just a function of my being raised in a non-Islamic, relatively secular culture, for such concerns exist in the Islamic world as well. For example, Egyptian Mohammed Sayyed Tantawi, Sheik of al-Azhar, Grand Imam of al-Azhar Mosque, and Grand Sheikh of al-Azhar University, died one week ago while visiting Saudi Arabia. He was the top cleric in Egypt, and he tried to ban such face coverings from schools in his country, noting that the coverings were tradition, not religion.
Immigrant Canadian Muslims differ in their opinions. At the progressive end, Tarek Fatah (Pakistani-Canadian via Saudi Arabia), Irshad Manji (Ugandan refugee-Canadian), and the Canadian Muslim Congress, have come out hard against niqābs and burqas, as part of their push against the misogyny of Wahabism, Qutbism, and other forms of ultra-conservative Islam.
What then is one to do when an ultra-conservative Muslim wants to wear a niqāb or burqa in Canada? If we ban such attire, will it speed Muslim immigrants’ integration into Canadian society, or would it cause them to become even more offended by and isolated from Canadian society? The latter, I expect. We need to open their minds, not remove their clothes.
If accommodations can be made that make it possible for ultra-conservative Islamic women to wear their clothing of choice, then make the accommodations, provided that there is no significant cost or significant inconvenience associated with the accommodations. Treat these women courteously, with compassion for their cultural condition, in hopes that they will engage with Canadians rather than retreat behind their walls. We need them and their children to become fully participating members of Canadian society, rather than ghettoized religious extremists. Treat the disease, not the symptom.