Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

A clash of civilisations is approaching, and liberals could do with a strong dose of Thucydides.

Page: 1(2)3 4

16:07 / 28.09.06

I was actually hoping you'd go into a big rant about how badly Thucydides has been misinterpreted here, Haus (or anyone who knows their Thucydides, really). I didn't realise it would be as bad as making gross factual mistakes.

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:10 / 28.09.06

In the specific case that xk's father was fed, probably from a CBS article that cited it as an example of how the nicer you are to Muslims, the more they want, the complaint, whether formal or informal, was apparently made by a muslim employee.

Which on the one hand is obviously POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD. But I don't know... if the complainant was a woman, and she was complaining about a Loaded calendar, say, which none of the male workers in her office found at all offensive, where would our sympathies lie?

paranoidwriter waves hello

16:15 / 28.09.06

With everyone? Including, xk. And hir father who you've never met?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:24 / 28.09.06

Yes, and my sympathies are indeed with them. It isn't nice to live in fear, fed lies by the people who are supposed to protect you, and it isn't nice to see a man you love (presumably) frightened of ghosts. However, what I asked was:

if the complainant was a woman, and she was complaining about a Loaded calendar, say, which none of the male workers in her office found at all offensive, where would our sympathies lie?

The presence or absence of sympathy for xk and her father has no impact on the question.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

16:40 / 28.09.06

It is an interesting point you bring up Haus. Working in retail for many years every November we would roll out the Santa Claus crap to put up all over the store. Once I had a co-worker ask why I never complained about a lack of Channukah decorations. Every time I would mention it to the higher ups I was answered with a not always polite chuckle. I suppose at that point if I had made a formal complaint things might have changed, but I wasnt actually offended by the Xmas stuff.

I had not heard the story about removing pigs from view until this thread. I was not aware that pigs were offensive to the Muslim faith, I assumed the no pork rules were similar to the kosher laws.

16:42 / 28.09.06

thanks Liger, I'm sending the link to the Dad-o.

16:42 / 28.09.06

Which on the one hand is obviously POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD. But I don't know... if the complainant was a woman, and she was complaining about a Loaded calendar, say, which none of the male workers in her office found at all offensive, where would our sympathies lie?

It sounds more to me like RELIGIOUS FUNDAMENTALISM GONE MAD. If the complainant were a fundamentalist Christian who found some Harry Potter trinket offensive, where would our sympathies lie?

I think that issues of sexual objectification are different from issues of religious freedom, and I very highly doubt that the majority of Muslim employees were offended by the presence of fictional pigs. They probably took no notice of them at all.

Supposedly the pigs were banned on the basis of one complaint by someone who (quite possibly) would find the presence of unveiled female employees equally disturbing. So where do we draw the line?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:52 / 28.09.06

You'd be surprised, I think, how few women would feel entitled - or woould want - to complain about a Loaded calendar in the average workplace, or would feel empowered to do so if they were the only one doing so. At which point having codes of conduct and well-meaning but intrusive, possibly non-female superiors to enforce them might come in quite handy.

Back at our original example - suppose that the employee was finding pigs strangely prevalent in the conversation of colleagues around him, and surprisingly common in the iconography of lunchboxes, office ornaments and desktop wallpapers of his co-workers. Or how about if a gay employee noticed a surprising preponderance of references to pantomime dames, gay celebrities and metaphors involving tradesman's entrances and uphill gardening? How about then?

16:56 / 28.09.06

So where do we draw the line, Haus?

ONLY NICE THINGS

16:59 / 28.09.06

Sorry, quick question:

Supposedly the pigs were banned on the basis of one complaint by someone who (quite possibly) would find the presence of unveiled female employees equally disturbing.

Do you have textual support for that? Is there a statement in the reportage to the effect that he complained, officially or unofficially, that the women working in his office were unveiled? I think this is quite important.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

17:06 / 28.09.06

Your last examples there Haus sound like what I would call passive aggressive harassment (which has quite a few doubled letters I notice as I type it). If that is the case then the co workers are being assholes and the person is actually being victimised.

Another personal example is the only time I did in fact complain to a superior was when my supervisor used the term 'Jewed' to describe when a customer tried to haggle for a lower price. I mentioned it first to him, he blew me off and kept using the term in my presence, and I complained. He wasn't using the term to belittle me specifically, but I was offended by his behaviour.

For all we know people could have been leaving pigs on the guys desk every day to 'mess with him' and he finally had enough, so the higher ups in the company banned all pig related memorabilia to bandage the situation instead of actually fixing the office environment.

As the only information we actually have is

1. there was at least 1 fake pig in the office
2. someone of the Muslim faith made a complaint which we do not have the text of
3. pigs were banned from the office

all discussion is hypothetical.

17:08 / 28.09.06

I'm putting my process out where we can look at it because I would like to hear other people's feedback. Haus is a part of that process and I appreciate ze's efforts.

The pig thing is a mix. For my family we have a cultural and religious reverence for the pig especially boars. Yeah we're a tiny tiny minority of pro-pig people. So my Dad's reaction was partially POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD and 'why is your religion more important than mine'.

Me, I haven't completely sorted it out for myself. I'm not going out of my way to offend people and my culture states that the work place is not really appropriate for religious displays of any kind.

Honestly the only time I would get all uppity about a religious display of a boar would be when my father died. I'm sure then I'd be carrying something with his totem animal on it for comfort and might be a bit less than happy to be asked not to do so. But I wouldn't be visiting mosques or temples or numerous other anti-pig places then. I would expect if a fellow employee asked me not to and I explained why I was doing it for a short period of time for them to respect my need as momentarily greater than their discomfort. This is how I view the request not bring a piglet mug that I just view as cute but offends someone else's religious sensibilities. Sometimes people, actual individual people, are shockingly known to be compassionate when given a real reason.

Elijah, Freelance Rabbi

17:09 / 28.09.06

Some crossposting in there.

Aslo, I am not saying the discussion shouldn't happen because it is hypothetical, I was just pointing out our lack of The Whole Story as a means to illustrate the situation I outlined.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:19 / 28.09.06

Well, quite. Which is in part why I found Liger's emendation that the person who complained would quite possibly also complain about women not being veiled interesting - I was unsure whether it was a specific reference to the case or simply some seasoning added to the stew. Unfortunately, all I can find on the story are two very right-wing editorial pieces, so I'm not minded to think that I have the whole picture.

xk: I think that's reasonable, and, without knowing the background in this Dudley case, it's hard to know what was actually going on. It _seems_ as if a complaint was made, _as a result of which_ the pigs were removed, _as a result of which_ the piglet tissue paper holder was removed - that is, that the one does not directly equate to the other. As such, I don't know what the original complaint was about, which would make taking a view much easier.

Kiltartan Cross

17:32 / 28.09.06

Three Words

I figured they were New York City; if, as and when we see a nuclear attack, it's most likely to be there. Not the sharpest prediction in the box, but not at all implausible, either.

17:34 / 28.09.06

Do you have textual support for that? Is there a statement in the reportage to the effect that he complained, officially or unofficially, that the women working in his office were unveiled? I think this is quite important.

I used the words "(quite possibly)" and "would" to mitigate my statement precisely because there is no evidence that that is in fact the case.

But to my knowledge, there is nothing in any Islamic Code of Conduct that prohibits looking at images of pigs, just eating and/or touching real ones (similiar to Jewish kosher law, if I understand correctly). There are, however, numerous codes (varying by sect, culture, etc.) that dictate that women should wear veils or other headcoverings in public. Of course, not all Muslim sects and cultures profess or enforce a veil law, and to my knowledge the Qu'ran itself dictates simply that individuals "dress modestly."

But if a person's religious sensibilities are so extreme they can't bear to look at someone's coffee mug just because it has a picture of Piglet on it, than it stands to reason that an the presence of an unvieled woman would raise some concerns in that area as well.

It was a strictly hypothetical example, intended to illustrate that trying to conform to everyone's religious mores can be a slippery slope that leads to more harm than good.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:35 / 28.09.06

I'd think we're probably more likely to see a nuclear attack in the Middle East or surrounding environs. In fact, the Pentagon is already developing tactical nuclear weapons for use against "hard targets" - that is, cave complexes, primarily. I imagine that these will kick off a fair bit before any terrorist organisation manages to develop a briefcase bomb of any note.

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:40 / 28.09.06

But if a person's religious sensibilities are so extreme they can't bear to look at someone's coffee mug just because it has a picture of Piglet on it, than it stands to reason that an the presence of an unvieled woman would raise some concerns in that area as well.

As I said above, there's no actual suggestion that this complaint came as a result of a Piglet coffee mug that I can find, or indeed any mention of a Piglet coffee mug at all - there is mention of a Piglet'n'Poo tissue paper holder being a post factum victim of the edict.

So, again, could I ask where you're getting your information from, here?

ONLY NICE THINGS

17:55 / 28.09.06

Just to help out on where I'm going, here:

Liger, you say that your example was strictly hypothetical, but it clearly wasn't - you were referring specifically to an action in Dudley, and in doing so you claimed for the person whose complaint led to the de-pigging action in question a quite possible offence at unveiled women. However, no such offence has been recorded, and more to the point no such complaint, as far as we know, was made. So, if this person was offfended by the unveiled women in the office, he did not complain about it - he kept his religious feelings to himself. Yay him.

Which again makes me wonder why the pigs, which as you say are not Koranically forbidden - you can look at a pig - became an issue. And it's easy for something like "he complained about an image of Piglet on a coffee mug" just to slide in there - it's credible, and it tallies with our expectations of those unreasonable religious types. However, we can't lose site of the impact that kind of narrative has, and be careful not to blur the lines between that hypothetical and the actual case, about which so far we know almost nothing.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

17:58 / 28.09.06

There's some discussion of the Dan Simmons thing here.

18:15 / 28.09.06

So, again, could I ask where you're getting your information from, here?

As to the tradition of Hijab, I have no first hand knowledge of the subject, just what I've read in various newspaper articles, magazines, and such. The Wikipedia seems to be a good start.

I could find no information on whether the sight of cartoon pigs violates any code of Islam (other than right-wing western sources) and I suspect that's because it doesn't, which is why I agree that the whole story is dodgy to begin with.

ONLY NICE THINGS

18:49 / 28.09.06

Having said which, it's perfectly possible that the wrong end of the stick was grabbed by the believer in question - we had a discussion on Barbelith recently as to whether we should he sensitive not just to blasphemy, but to what believers wrongly saw as blasphemy... but I agree, it's sooupy as hell. It's definitely worth remembering that many of the things we describe as "Islamic" - of the religion - are in fact of a particular culture - inc, as you say, the wearing of the veil.

Kiltartan Cross

18:58 / 28.09.06

I'd think we're probably more likely to see a nuclear attack in the Middle East or surrounding environs. In fact, the Pentagon is already developing tactical nuclear weapons for use against "hard targets" - that is, cave complexes, primarily. I imagine that these will kick off a fair bit before any terrorist organisation manages to develop a briefcase bomb of any note.

They don't, unfortunately, need a briefcase bomb. I'm not quite convinced by the article in the last Bulletin (one of a pair arguing the issue from two viewpoints) suggesting that the ideal way to smuggle a nuke is to hide it inside a container full of cannabis, but at the end of the day, if you get something which'll fit into a white van you can move it wherever you like, particularly if you don't care about escaping yourself. There's no physical defence against bringing a weapon into a city; the only possible defence is a human one.

I don't think America can afford to use a tactical nuclear weapon, as it would be perceived (rightly or wrongly) as providing justification for like retaliation. One would need an especially stupid hawk. Perhaps that's not too unlikely - toys are there to be used, after all, and more importantly, to be bought; the only explanation for the size of the US arsenal is that the government was essentially duped into buying far more weapons than it could ever use, but I wouldn't bet on it being more likely than a terrorist attempt.

Hum-ho. Or everyone could just chill and be sensible for a change, have some faith in basic humanity and reconciliation. I live in hope.

19:36 / 28.09.06

Three words

911 : on ice

Kiltartan Cross

20:34 / 28.09.06

On the subject of Spartans, Plutarch attributes this saying to Antalcidas (speaking of Agesilaus):

"What a splendid fee you are receiving from the Thebans for your tuition, having taught them to fight when they had neither the wish nor the capacity to do so."

Methinks there's a bit of that on both/all sides of the current global mess.

21:01 / 28.09.06

Three words

Turner Diaries, anyone?

21:04 / 28.09.06

Kali Yuga, baby!

Less searchable M0rd4nt

21:11 / 28.09.06

No, I think cog definately wins.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:11 / 28.09.06

Good point, Kay, and well e-leuktra-dated.

That didn't quite work, did it?

Incidentally, BushGov may not be prepared to use tactical nuclear weapons, but they are certainly prepared to do their best to give the impression that they will, and to build their use into their nuclear doctrine.

Further incidentally, on the three words, how about:

"I've just come"?

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

21:16 / 28.09.06

Given that it's Dan Simmons, and he may well be trading on past glories at this point (have yet to finish Olympos- Ililum was fun, but not as good as other things he's written)...

"I WROTE HYPERION!!!"

Though I prefer

"Ooh! You bastard!"

21:19 / 28.09.06

"Dick was right"

Phillip K. Dick that is...

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:21 / 28.09.06

"Smashing Pumpkins reunion."

21:23 / 28.09.06

“Well . . .” I said. I hate it when I start a sentence with ‘well,’ especially in an argument
Well, I sure liked the first part, what with a tunic and an eyepatch, I mean, how could he go wrong from there? And finding out right away he won the World Fantasy Award? Sweet! I was rubbing my hands together in anticipation.

So I forced myself to wade through that crap. Why? I ask myself now. Though I did like the touch of making himself the sympathetic "liberal".

Three words? Uh, how about
purple monkey dishwasher

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:30 / 28.09.06

"Oooh! Stick you!"

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:35 / 28.09.06

Well, I sure liked the first part, what with a tunic and an eyepatch, I mean, how could he go wrong from there?

Page: 1(2)3 4