women who wear the veil in free countries are sort of like people who choose to get face tattoos. it's a kinky personal choice that no one encourages precisely because some employers are gonna treat them like shit about it, and i honestly don't care about either their personal choice or their treatment. methed-up face tattooers probably consider themselves lost white maori tribesmen or someshit, so they both will revert to the religious persecution argument in the end. but at least face tattoos don't imply that i as a woman am disgusting and should also get face tattoos or i will go to hell.

i hate the veil. maybe i'm not allowed because i'm of solid protestant descent, but as a woman who likes the whole having-an-identity thing, i fucking hate the veil. i understand that women who are not free wear it to survive. of course. but women who freely choose to hide their identities when they are in no danger by revealing it are oppressing not just themselves but other women as well.

i won't be fighting for some bimbo's religious right to oppress herself and every woman around her.

The veil is a complicated symbol. As a non-practicing Muslim woman, I am extremely ambivalent towards it. It represents a myriad of meanings to me. I definitely don't like it, but I do believe that in democratic countries people have the right to express themselves as long as it's not hurting anyone else as is the case here. The thing is I think a lot of times 1st World leaders think that by mandating the removal of the veil they're actually helping the women throw off the repression. But that's just exchanging one patronizing patriachical view with another one.

Here's one argument. Not sure I agree with it, but ...

Suppose, instead of the veil, the teacher wore a large cross, or decorated their satchel with images of Bagwan Shree Rashneesh. I would argue that such displays were explicitly and overtly religious. If the teacher's reason for wearing the veil is religious, then it falls into the same category.

Rules against teachers proselitizing are there for a reason. So long as principals enforce the rules consistently the teacher really doesn't have a case.

That said, and on a personal note, I would ask that my child be withdrawn from that teacher's class. Facial expressions are powerful feedback. A teacher who hides their face is going to be less effective, and classes are supposed to be about kids, not teachers.

Ummm, what the fuck. I don't see why anyone would refer to her as "some bimbo" on this site. Second, religious expression like wearing a cross or a yamika have been protected in the past, and should be extended to the veil also. The argument that the veil is inherently more offensive is bullshit. I grew up catholic, and knowing what the church stands for, I personally find crosses and such as extremely offensive, because I find christianity to be extremely misogynistic. But I also realize that my view is different than others, that just becasue someone is christian doesn't mean they are misogynistic, and I get the fuck over it, because we are supposedly free to think and believe what we want. Also there is a HUGE difference between proselytizing and wearing a symbol of your beliefs. Give me a break.

Suppose there is a deaf child in the classroom.

"Suppose there is a deaf child in the classroom."

Hmm? Is this in response to the difference btw proselytizing and wearing religious symbols? Well, either the teacher or an interpreter would be signing the lecture. Deaf people don't see religous symbols and then think huh, this person is trying to convince me to join their religion, any more than anyone else. Wow, this conversation is getting really stupid really fast. I'm out.

JJ -

"religious expression like wearing a cross or a yamika have been protected in the past"

Got a reference? The only ones I can find relate to US public (not sectarian) school guidelines (California, Pennsylvania, North Dakota) which prohibit "wearing religious garb". At the least, it's a contentious question. I don't believe it's protected speech precisely because it's in a secular context. Note that teachers can wear the cross inside their shirts, but not outside. Besides - this teacher is in the UK, so we're dealing with more abstract reasoning.

Does wearing a cross, displaying an image of the Bagwan, or veiling your face, constitute proselytizing? I dunno. But it does walk a fine line. Wearing religious garb is so much a part of the cultural furniture that I think it's easy to underestimate the impact it has.

"Also there is a HUGE difference between proselytizing and wearing a symbol of your beliefs."

This is very true. It is also true that non-proselytizing Christmas Carols have been banned from public school concerts, Christmas decorations like wreaths and trees which have no prosetltyzing componenets have been banned from public buildings across this country, etc. Doesn't seem like you have to actively proselytize to meet a standard the court will uphold for barring something from the public arena.

"methed-up face tattooers probably consider themselves lost white maori tribesmen or someshit, so they both will revert to the religious persecution argument in the end."

That is so unfair. You have no idea what the body modification sub culture is all about. We aren't a bunc of loadies hacking each other up. For many of us it is a way to create a spiritual connection. I feel it can be just as valid as any organized religion, yours included. Oh, and by the way there's this button on the keyboard for typing capital letters. It says shift on it, and it makes the letters bigger.

"Suppose there is a deaf child in the classroom."

Oh, I got it. What about the deaf children who read lips. Well, there would definitely have to be a way to take care of that. However, someone who had a major facial deformity that prevented accurate lip reading would have protections...though I realize that is a very different case.

Straw's deprecation of the "visible statement of difference and separation" is troubling, if only because Britain is traditionally tolerant of these visible statements. I hope it's just Straw's personal whim, rather than a broader trend of Britain abandoning its ethnic policy, which has made it the least racist nation in Europe.

Nowhere in the article does Woolas explain where this impedes her job performance. Nowhere in the article is it explained why a national minister is in the business of deciding fitness for individual teachers. Nowhere is it explained how somebody who doesn't understand the basics of religious/ethnic discrimination gets to have a minister's-level position.

Anti-veil laws reflect European "brown apocalypse" fears, a la Pat Buchanan's arguments about Hispanics transforming U.S. culture. While I can understand not wanting France and Britain to become Muslim theocracies, repressing religious expression in this way is malicious and crude.

And re lipreading: Whatever the legitimate arguments for veil bans might be, we all know why the laws are really being passed, so let's not give these jokers in Parliament any more credit than they deserve.

Cheers,

TH

Sorry, for some reason I thought the statement about visible difference was due to Straw, not Woolas.

i don't want to be taught by a teacher in a veil. The reason women wear veils in Islam is because of the Koranic teaching that they are half a man.
Persoanlly I would find it uncomfortable, that such an act of sexist subordination would be flaunted in the classroom-an area for nurturing intellect, no matter what your gender.

Oh boy. Is someone trying to tell me that bringing up a deaf child in the classroom is just an excuse for what's really going on?

It is a fact that anyone wearing a veil is limited in their ability to communicate, which is a primary requisite for a teacher.

And now be so kind as to realize this is not an academic issue for me. I was that deaf child in class, always struggling to understand the teacher. A veil simply would have never worked.

It is also my understanding that Jack Straw is deaf in one ear and relies on lipreading himself.

I don't think a bunch of people who are obviously ignorant of Islam should be passing judgement on what the veil is about or on someone for wearing it. Frankly, I think a couple of the comments on this post are downright racist and I'm not afraid to say so.

Even if you are ignorant enough to think that women wear the veil to show "that they are half a man", the way to address that is to treat them with respect and dignity regardless of what they wear, not to do the opposite and take away their autonomy to dress themselves.

BEG-> I've had plenty of conversations with women wearing veils before and I've never felt that it impedes communication.

A deaf child in a classroom should be given an interpreter who can communicate in sign anyways. They shouldn't be expected to read lips constantly, it's very difficult to do that AND keep up with what's on the blackboard AND take notes all at once. Every classroom I've ever seen with a deaf child has had someone signing for them.

Thank you, labyrus. Any topic on this subject automatically seems to go in an offensive direction, so for the most part, I stay out of the fray. And thank you for making the obvious point in the ridiculous "lip-reading" argument. I'd like to add that most teachers keep talking while they're facing the board, with their backs to the class.

Back to my original point, the lack of any attempt to understand or accept on this issue is astounding. Perhaps from now on, I should refuse to speak to women who wear a lot of makeup or revealing clothes, because clearly they're only doing it because they think they have to please men.

Wow. I'm glad you know so much more than I do about my experiences in the classroom! I must have missed that interpreter there! Oh yes!

I am a non signing deaf, thank you very much. You want to add ablist or disablist (pick your country) to your list of racist epithets thrown around here, too?

I had to teach all my teachers to stop facing the black board too.

I cannot talk to someone in a veil or in a mask or anything else covering the mouth. I am forced to ask every single person I talk with that has a veil on to take it off. It is not a choice on my part.

"Azmi has said that the students “never complained� about it and that there are no communication barriers, so what could possibly be the problem?"

From BBC News:

"Bilingual support worker Aishah Azmi, 24, was asked to remove the veil after pupils found it hard to understand her during English language lessons.

Kirklees Council's children's services spokesman, Jim Dodds:

"We are simply trying to ensure that our children get the best possible education...Both pupils and teachers raised concerns because they were finding it difficult to make out what she was saying during lessons...We have a lot of pupils who do not speak English as a first language and you have to be able to see people's lips move when you are being taught...We are simply trying to ensure that our children get the best possible education,...Both pupils and teachers raised concerns because they were finding it difficult to make out what she was saying during lessons...We have a lot of pupils who do not speak English as a first language and you have to be able to see people's lips move when you are being taught...Our only concern is that the children are taught properly"

When I was taught French as a child, part of the process involved the teacher showing us how to physically shape our mouths to make sounds that were foreign to us. I see how a veil would hinder that part of the process.

Show me where it 'doesn't' say women are half a man when they wear the veil.

Face it, it disrupts teaching, particulaly for deaf students. Are you to blame the children for not being able to understand the teacher. How bout some give and take-either that, or she can just find a job teaching students in an all muslim school.

In response to comments about deaf children: well it seams there were no deaf children in her class. Plus it is clearly said that the children did not have any complaints. So it hasn't been disrupting teaching.

So should she be fired because an imaginary deaf kid?

“Show me where it 'doesn't' say women are half a man when they wear the veil.�

Um, no you show us wear it “does� say women are half men and that’s why they should cover. I have read pretty much all of the Koran and it never says that women are half a man and therefore they should cover. I believe you haven’t read any of it.

The reasoning behind the veil is the same kind of reasoning that makes it illegal for women in this country to walk down the street topless: Modesty. As far as I know the Bible also says that women should dress modestly. I am not saying that having to wear a shirt or sport bras while jogging or playing sports is equivalent to having to cover your entire body in a shapeless drab cloth, but the reasoning behind it is the same. A lot of veiled women, would tell you that they cover because they believe women are precious and should not be objectified by the male gaze, sort of like that rose petal abstinence add. A lot of times these women are very much dressed up and made up under their veils. I don’t agree with their argument. I think that the veil is objectifying in itself, but so are many other dressing and grooming habits that “liberated women� in western countries have. Anyways the point is that many women who were the veil do not think of themselves as inferior to men but because they are precious like flowers and men are animals (kind of like some people were arguing on the “sex education in college� thread yada yada yada.

"Plus it is clearly said that the children did not have any complaints. So it hasn't been disrupting teaching."

Azmi said that she had not heard complaints. But that does not mean none were made. See my earlier comment about complaints made about her.

Also, how do you know I'm not a muslim? This is online-so how do you know?

I didn’t say you’re not a Muslim. I couldn’t care less. I said you have not read the Koran or you wouldn’t write “The reason women wear veils in Islam is because of the Koranic teaching that they are half a man.� That simply screams ignorance.

Sojourner,
They are encouraged to wear a veil, and cast their gaze downwards (perhaps because their worthless women(?), the argument that says their wear it to avoid molestation, or a man's gaze is most certainly not justifiable. So he sees a womens face, and now can't control himself-so he rapes her. Of course it was her fault-she showed her face, silly girl, shouda kept that covered.

what I don't understand is why is their so much protectionism surrounding the muslim religion, but none surrounding christianity (and I'm not religious)? I have no doubt sojourner would be openly capable of telling us all how bad christianity is, but why can't she say it about Islam? How come Islamists were not discussing the taliban's treatment of women? Surely, a culture that went so far in it's mistreatment of women, and worse -silence- surrounding the abuse of women in Afghanistan hold no place to secure feminism, all I see is denial. I have read of countless articles that describe the real reason women wear the veil (such as in France) is due to familiar pressure, physical intimidation, and even in some cases:rape. Why should a liberated government like England encourage this practice. She may really only be saying she needs to wear it due to cultural pressure. It seems wherever the Koran goes, so does silence, and misogyny.

The Koran is nothing more than an instruction manual preaching women's inferiority. The Koran encourages women to 'lower their gaze' and is why they don the veil. That is because of the belief they are inferior to men.

Sojourner is right. You may be referring to laws that are in effect in most Islamic countries that refers to women, but doesn't reflect what's in the Koran.

I also theorize what if i wanted to wear a towel on my head? What if it was part of a minority religion, would I be excempt too! Or a bucket, or a lamp shade.Or what if she wanted to wear a burkah! Why not-it's her religious 'freedom.'

Sorry, but I think several of the above comments and the man who accused this woman of sexism are blantly racist and ethnocentric. I am personally an atheist, but I grew up having friends from a wide variety of arab and indian backgrounds, some who were Muslim, others who were Hindi and others who didn't pratice any religion at all. These people were constantly being criticized under the same Muslim, arab, terrorist sterotypes and I think this is what is occuring here. Just because someone is Muslim and chooses to follow that religion in both their public and private lives does not mean they are preaching it to other people, discriminating against others or trying to alienate themsleves. Nor does it mean they are buying into a sexist part of their culture. A human being has the right to believe in a certain religion and to pratice that religion. If that means wearing a veil in order to gain grace in Gods eyes or getting facial tattoos as a cultural ritual, that should not only be tolerated by our culture and education systems, but embraced. We all don't fit the white, christian, male mold, nor should we have to. Diversity is a positive thing and VERY positive for young people, in and outside of the classroom.

Alon Levys comments are racist, I'm sure he as an American knows everything about the 'white' Europeans. Secondly, you cannot use the same criterion in discerning Europes reaction to religious influence, as you would in America. Europe is a culture, and seem to be shedding the shackles of religion. If this is where their culture is heading, who is going to stop them? Cultures evolve, from the middle ages, to the renascaince to industrial and now post world war II Europe, no other culture should hold them back.

These are children, I'm sure she doesn't have to 'fear' the little boys lustful gaze. Out of consideration for any deaf, hard of hearing, children with unique learning styles (visual, physical) she should be able to see how her veil interferes with her teaching.

Alon Levys comments are racist, I'm sure he as an American knows everything about the 'white' Europeans.

Yeah, living in the US for two and a half months sure made me think I know everything. There must be some arrogance contagion in this country - you live here for just a little bit and you get infected.

Secondly, you cannot use the same criterion in discerning Europes reaction to religious influence, as you would in America.

Why not? France never had a problem with devoutly Catholic immigrants from Spain and Portugal. For that matter, Britain never had a problem with Muslim immigrants, either; European Islamism is a reaction to the isolation and ghettoization caused by European racism. Muslim immigrants to Britain are usually far more secular than their children, who embrace Islam because they have nothing else to turn to.

Cultures evolve, from the middle ages, to the renascaince to industrial and now post world war II Europe, no other culture should hold them back.

The amount of projection you need to engage in to say that an immigrant group culturally holds a nation back and then accuse someone else of racism is incredible. It's not like the pot calling the kettle black so much as like the pot calling the marble tile black.

Also what are the sociological impacts of a grown woman concealing herself, (whether under the assumption that men cannot control themselves, or female religious subordiation) on the little girls in the classroom? The veil literally segregates the class, where perhaps she is teaching the little boys her personal cultural outlook of seperations of gender in a classroom where you are not supposed to be forcing your cultural beliefs on others. Literally showing that the way the males are seen by her is different than how the girls are seen by her, which reinforces gender roles, and assumptions about gender (i.e. men cant control their sexual urges). I think her veil can be discarded, it isn't necessary, and only forces the culural beliefs of one person onto an entire diverse classroom of kids. You also don't want little boys beginning to think women need to conceal themselves or else they will have a right to act on their sexual urges. When you are little and just beginning to form attitudes about gender, and identity you don't want young girls learning to be passive or else men will have a right to act on their sexual impulses.

Also what are the sociological impacts of a grown woman concealing herself, (whether under the assumption that men cannot control themselves, or female religious subordiation) on the little girls in the classroom?

I don't know, but by the look of things, neither do you. Bring me evidence that a veiled teacher has negative consequences on girls' learning and you'll have a case.

No, the ghettoization of the muslims is due to Europe not realizing that their guest worker program would be so exploited. Yes cultures can hold another culture back, particulalrly when they are trying to advance and the culture that's holding them back is using PC lies, and a religion from before the middle ages (that hasn't changed since it was created) to force onto the native culture. The muslims created their own ghettoization because they won't assimilate, just like in the Middle East, they came to Europe and tried doing the same things they did in their home countries. Except Europe is not a backwards society where men can have more than one wife, stone to death their women, genitaly mutilate their daughters, force them to marry men they don't love, and they believe in freedoms before religion. When the disillusionment came, and they saw these people would not assimilate, they rightfully became angry. They have a culture to protect, not to exploit. It's bad enough with all the tourists destroying the ancient monuments, now they have to deal with terror threats by a people who won't assimilate! Where were you anyways that you just came home two months ago? Mars?

Of course a veiled teacher has an influence on the children and gender relations. If a child raised her hand and inquired why it was that she wore a veil, what would her response be? You can't hide from it, and it shows only a female wearing a veil-that's gonna affect the female children.

Dhsredhead -

"Diversity is a positive thing and VERY positive for young people, in and outside of the classroom."

Careful very what you wish for.

Andrew Dice Clay as English Teacher? Anne Coulter for Science?

Human beings have every right to believe all kinds of stuff. But once you begin to act as an agent of the state -- a teacher, a judge, a cop, whatever -- then the rules about your conduct (not your beliefs) need to be formulated with great care.

Alon Levy -

"Bring me evidence that a veiled teacher has negative consequences on girls' learning and you'll have a case."

Four words. Can't see her smile. Education requires repetition and positive reinforcement. A teacher in a mask can't be as effective as a teacher with a human face.

Facial expressions are powerful feedback. A teacher who hides their face is going to be less effective, and classes are supposed to be about kids, not teachers.

Paul is right. I don't care what people do on their own time, but if you want to function among others, compromises have to be made for the public good. If I had a child (I'm agnostic) in that class, I'd pull her because of not only Paul's argument, but I personally don't care for the message it conveys.

Alon, do you have evidence to the contrary? It might be argued that wearing my awesome Halloween slasher mask while teaching a class might also have such negative consequences, yet there's no proof either way. What if I felt very passionate about my religious convictions in relation Halloween? How old or deeply rooted in tradtion does a religion have to be in order for everyone to have to blindly accept every custom?

I'm not trying to be an asshole, but just as people are defending the right to her veil, don't others have the same right not to be subjected to it?

Also you may not be able to tell the effects of the veil for generations to come, it is hard to pinpoint what begets the misogynistic impulse in young boys, do we really need to chance it-no. It would not make sense-so far weve seen it hinders communications with deaf children, mutes physical expression in language to children whos primary language is not the native one, and considering the veil is something muslim women wear because they fear the sexual advances of men (nothing they have to worry about in front of little boys) she has no reason to continue wearing it.

You still cling to the assumption that I'm an American for some reason. Before this August, I lived in Monaco for a month or two; before then I lived in Singapore for 5.5 years; before then I lived in Israel.

For a start, the "people who won't assimilate!" shriek misses the fact that in countries with less discrimination against Muslims, they do assimilate. Arab-Americans largely assimilate into mainstream American culture. So do most Arab-Canadians. When the level of ghettoization in a country is directly correlated with its level of racism, and the level of racism appears to be caused by factors other than ghettoization of immigrants, it's valid to say that racism causes ghettoization.

Saying that Islam hasn't changed since it was created is a pretty good showcase of why you shouldn't go around accusing people of being sure they know everything. Islam was one of the two leading civilizations in the world well into the second millennium (the other was China, which would've had an industrial revolution in the 1300s if the Mongols hadn't conquered it). In its first 600 years or so, it was vibrant and produced classical knowledge at least on a par with what Ancient Greece made.

Islam stagnated later, but so did Catholic Europe. Everything people say is universal to Western civilization didn't apply to Spain and Portugal until the 1970s and to Italy until the late 1800s or early 1900s. If your insight about Arab immigrants to Europe would apply to Italian immigrants to the US in 1900 but not their descendants today, maybe immigration doesn't hold cultures as far back as you say it does.

Also you may not be able to tell the effects of the veil for generations to come, it is hard to pinpoint what begets the misogynistic impulse in young boys, do we really need to chance it-no.

In all fairness, little boys seem to learn misogyny just fine without veils in the picture... :-/

I've lived in other countries, and I've always respected local customs. Dresses only, no pants, that kind of thing. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something similar here. It is a courtesy.

If a child raised her hand and inquired why it was that she wore a veil, what would her response be?

Same as the response to "Ms. Johnson, why are you wearing a cross?", I presume.

Alon, do you have evidence to the contrary?

No, but I don't have any evidence contradicting the hypothesis that having male teachers stunts children's emotional development, either. The burden of proof is always on the person making a positive statement; in any policy matter, it means it's on the person who wants something regulated or curbed.

How old or deeply rooted in tradtion does a religion have to be in order for everyone to have to blindly accept every custom?

Old enough that if you don't, you'll get a substantial population that feels isolated from mainstream society. The best way to kill every pernicious custom is to fully accept the group that engages in it; it'll then assimilate within two generations at most instead of practice it in secret.

Four words. Can't see her smile. Education requires repetition and positive reinforcement. A teacher in a mask can't be as effective as a teacher with a human face.

Then don't make it about the veil. Make it neutral, and say that every teacher who doesn't smile at students must be fired.

"I've lived in other countries, and I've always respected local customs. Dresses only, no pants, that kind of thing. I don't think it's unreasonable to expect something similar here. It is a courtesy."

I don't think it's unreasonable either. But you'd be surprised how many people find it not only unreasonable, but racist as well.

That all said, I do see the original point posted here: damned if you do damned if you don't. I don't think there should be any kind of outright banning or mandating of clothing, per se.

But! The school admin should have the right to *ask* her to modify her attire and she should have the right to accede or decline.

As a teacher, I would hope she would especially consider it in light of any difficulties any of her students might be having. Otherwise she's not a good teacher, IMO.

Likewise, the parents should have the right to remove their children from her class if they think it's a problem. It all has to be voluntary or nothing at all works.

I don't think it's unreasonable either. But you'd be surprised how many people find it not only unreasonable, but racist as well.

Well, I do, and I'll stick up for every woman's right to wear T-shirt and jeans in Saudi Arabia, and for my right to drive a car in Israel on Yom Kippur.

BEG,

I agree. I don't think it's really problematic for the school to ask her to switch her veil for a simple headscarf, so her students can see her face, but she doesn't have to compromise her religious integrity.

I'm also sorry to hear that you had to struggle to understand your teachers. It seems to have turned out well, since you're one yourself now.

It's also difficult to live in a country where you're not really part of the mainstream culture, and feel like everyone is trying to wipe your way of life out, or make you feel unwelcome. People get very defensive, and often go to extremes to protect their culture and values. The perfect example is Quebec. As the child of immigrant parents, assimilation has always had EXTREMELY negative connotations for me, and I didn't even realise people liked the idea until recently.

There have been a lot of opinions, but nobody has yet explained why a national level minister is opining on hiring and firing decisions on individual teachers who apparently are doing just fine without his intervention.

The only person who would be an asshole was the person who was so self-absorbed they couldn't see how the way they dress influences others-particulaly in the classroom. Nobody's excempted from basic expectations when young minds are being formed-she should have known better.

Alon Levy,
so your not an American citizen?

Alon your clearly grappling at straws here, you havn't even shown any proof-where is this that you base you information? In America muslims make up about 3% of the population, not even comparable to what's going on in Europe. They may not assimilate, they are just to small to show a dramatic difference. You spout your theory like it is some fact, 'of course everyone knows the rule, (sarcastic) ghettos are directly proportional to the amount of rascism in a culture.' Sorry, that's nothing more than a silly theory your trying to bluff into fact. I also didn't see where you can say you've been to Europe in the last several years-so it still stands-you know nothing about what's going on in Europe.Catholic Europe did indeed stagnate, but then the people woke up, realized the idiocy of allowing religion to dictate their every decision, and later emerged the renascaince- Islam is late for one by about 700 years. This whole terror thing doesn't look like it will nurture another one anytime soon. And what is it that 'everyone' says about western civilization anyways? You cannot compare Europe to the US- because Europe is a culture with native populations, America is not.

Just look at Islamic society, clearly their is a buttload of sexism there. Do you think it has anything to do with the mixture of religion, and culture in the classroom? DUH! Tell this women she's no longer in (____name of middle eastern country).

"There have been a lot of opinions, but nobody has yet explained why a national level minister is opining on hiring and firing decisions on individual teachers who apparently are doing just fine without his intervention."

I agree that the school was doing just fine without his intervention. So does the minister:

"I fully support the education authority and school on this matter."

The Minister was supporting the school's decision and refuting claims that they were not "doing just fine". I see no evidence that he has intervened in any way.

Perhaps Europe's immigration should not be the same as America's. Europe is a culture, they have to remember that.They probably base it on ours-clearly this isn't working.

Another comment, how many just view Europe just as the other, other America?
If a majority of the native population no longer wanted arabs to immigrate, who is to tell them otherwise? If a New Guinea tribe told everyone they no longer wanted white people there, they would leave.

Also, there have been a lot of opinions, but nobody has yet explained why a teacher's religious beliefs trumps the education of the children who had difficulty learning due to those beliefs.

Any takers?

so your not an American citizen?

Yeah. Hard as it is for some to believe, such people exist.

Catholic Europe did indeed stagnate, but then the people woke up, realized the idiocy of allowing religion to dictate their every decision, and later emerged the renascaince

I'm not talking about the Renaissance, but about what happened after it. Italy was the birthplace of the Renaissance, but stagnated later due to excessive Papal influence. Spain and Portugal, at one time great maritime powers that could colonize an entire continent between them, were slowly reduced to backwaters. Meanwhile, Holland and England and Sweden rose, as did France, which was Catholic by faith but anti-Papal by politics (it fought alongside the Protestants in the Thirty Years' War).

The true rebirth I'm talking about didn't happen in Italy until at earliest unification in the 1860s and at latest post-WW2 modernization, and didn't happen in Spain and Portugal until the fall of fascism in the 1970s. And yet, despite large numbers of Portuguese and Spanish immigrants in France, France survived.

Europe is a culture, they have to remember that.

And the US isn't?

Alon your clearly grappling at straws here, you havn't even shown any proof-where is this that you base you information?

If it's about assimilation, consider Islamist terrorism, the most extreme manifestation of Islam. The US has 5.5 million Muslims, compared to 4.5 in France and 1.6 in Britain. Now ask yourself how many American-born Muslims commit terrorism versus how many British-born Muslims and French-born Muslims.

Also, there have been a lot of opinions, but nobody has yet explained why a teacher's religious beliefs trumps the education of the children who had difficulty learning due to those beliefs.

That's because I don't think they do (I can't speak for Norbizness).

Some of my elementary nun teachers wore head coverings; I much preferred the nuns who didn't. I felt they valued people over tradition, and were better able to communicate with the children; they seemed to have a more satisfying exchange. Kids aren't as stupid as one might think (or maybe I was just born intolerant!). I also noticed the nuns who dressed in plain chothing were more likely to be getting their hands dirty with charity work rather than fussing over silly procedures (they were also less likely to grab your ear and drag you across the chuch to sit with the other nuns).

Wouldn't you find it MIGHTY unsettling if your child's teacher was a member of Opus Dei and decided to wear a "hessian cloth" to class (on the other hand, a "hesher" at the head of the class would be awesome!!).

"That's because I don't think they do"

Some of her students and parents and other teachers do think the veil hinders teaching English. Why don't they count? Are these students (many of them immigrants) just racists too?

As you have mentioned the different countries you have lived in or visited for extended periods, I assume you, like myself, can speak languages other than English.

When I learned French (and when I attempted to teach a girlfriend English), demonstrating the position of the mouth or tongue to make certain sounds was part of the process. Were you never instructed in this manner? How can this be done with a veil on?

Also, from Reuters:

"She added that although she was unveiled during an interview for the job and that a man was present, her faith meant she could not be unveiled in front of male colleagues while teaching."

I'm blissfully ignorant of religious practices. Why is it ok to be unveiled before a man at the interview, but not ok to be unveiled while teaching?

If the kids really think Azmi is an inferior teacher for the same reasons she wears a veil, they're obviously entitled to complain about it. But that doesn't mean she should be fired before there's any evidence that any student really thinks that.

Some of her students and parents and other teachers do think the veil hinders teaching English. Why don't they count?

They do count. But apparently Azmi agreed to take off her veil during class, but insisted on wearing it outside class, when there were male colleagues around. That sounds like a reasonable compromise, as long as there aren't any instances in which she'd have to teach children when male colleagues were present.

Were you never instructed in this manner?

Not in English, I wasn't. In French my teachers kept it to a minimum (they brushed off the /E-e/, /O-o/ and /9-2/ distinctions and let us learn to reproduce /@ 2 y/ on our own).

I tried and failed to post yesterday, so forgive my dated contribution:

The teaching assistant (she was there as a support worker not the primary teacher) was sacked not because of the veil per se, but
because she wore a veil which covered everything but her eyes whilst
communicating with bilingual children during English Language lessons.
Who, obviously, are already at a real disadvantage and suffering
comunication issues where facial expressions and lip movement are important. (So the deaf comparisons are relevant)

Even the Muslim MP for the area supports the school, who genuinely
tried to accomodate her as much as possible. The woman was
interviewed by a male teacher, without a veil, and once she started
wearing it was only asked to remove it for the children (who were aged
seven to eleven).

The veil issue is very much is the British news at the moment, and the
level of discourse has been both good and bad, but I can see why the
school was acting in the best interests of children. Woolas shouldn't have intervened in an ongoing legal case. I feel Straw was starting a valid debate , but the terms are different because they were solely about the veil (and remember, in Britain, the type we are addressing is the full-face style) and integration rather than about children's rights.

femInst,

I am not being protective of Islam. I have grown up criticizing it. What is really annoying is all the miss-information there among westerners about Islam. You keep saying Koran says this Koran says that and it simply is not true. Koran does not say that women should ‘lower their gaze’. If you want to criticize Islam you have to do it from a learned and intelligent perspective. I mean what is the difference between you and the people from Operation Save America who burn copies of te Koran at their gatherings. You call yourself liberal I am sure but you are just as ignorant and dogmatic. You have read articles about women who wear the veil, I know women who wear the veil! I know some very well educated and socially active women who wear the veil and they don’t wear it because they feel inferior.
“The Koran is nothing more than an instruction manual preaching women's inferiority.�
It is funny how people are really quick to point out what is sexist about other cultures or religions but completely blind to sexism in their own culture. Again, it is obvious you have never read the Koran, I have read most of it through out the years, and I have read parts of the Bible too, mostly the Old Testament.

I always hated the Koran and I didn’t expect the Bible to be much different, yet I was still shocked by the blatant sexism in the bible when I started reading it. How can you be blind to that and keep saying that the Koran is a manual preaching women’s inferiority?

"But apparently Azmi agreed to take off her veil during class, but insisted on wearing it outside class, when there were male colleagues around."

Alon; I believe you've misunderstood the report. According to the story I've heard on the BBC, the local council has offered the compromise that she must take of her veil during class but can wear it in the corridors and staff room - it's Ms. Azmi who has refused this offer.

I'm afraid I'm not able to find a link to any text supporting this, but have heard the report several times.

sojourner,
"And say to the believing women that they shall lower their gaze and guard their modesty; that they should not display their beauty and ornaments......that they should draw their khimar over their bosoms and not display their beauty except to their husbands."

"O prophet tell your wives, your daughters and the wives of the believers that they shall lengthen their garments.Thus, they will be recognized and avoid being insulted.God is forgiver, God is merciful." 33:59

I got that from submission.org/dress.html

I think the koran makes much ado more than the Bible about this whole veil thing.
I never called myself a liberal-I'm out and proud to call myself an independant. Blind to sexism in my own culture-what is my own culture? Yes, the Bible, is sexist (and I hold no loyalty to the Bible, my culture is now more secular than zealous which is good for womenkind). I never said I was blind to the fact that the Bible was sexist, but christians aren't stoning women to death, forcing their daughters to marry men they don't love, taking more than one wife, flogging women, ect ect ect....And if you are against both, then why are you only defending one.

I think this womens been pampered to much with this. How stupid can you be to actually think you can teach kids who are freakin bilingual, and cover your mouth. How stupid can she be! How insensitive, and unprofessional-she doesn't have a straw in a hay bale!

femInst,

You just don’t get it do you? I am not defending Islam or Islamic cultures, and yeas “cultures�. People have this habit of dumping all the different peoples and cultures form Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia into one Muslim fundamentalist wax ball. While I don’t recognize the first verse (maybe you can tell me what part of the Koran it is from), the second one I do recognize, and while I don’t agree with it, or other teachings of the Koran, I don’t see where it says that women are inferior to men. The idea is that women should be dressed modestly to be treated respectfully. I don’t agree with that but many non-Muslims do, as long as you don’t tell them it is one of the teachings of Islam. Yes there is more emphasis on covering in the Koran than in the Bible as far as I know (that is, a couple of verses and it never specifically says to cover your hair or face). I don’t have a Bible in front of me but I remember reading that a woman’s hand should be cut off if she accidentally touches the genitals of a man while assisting her husband in a fight. If a bride is accused of not being a virgin by her new husband she can produce the bloody sheet to be found innocent but if she doesn’t then stone her to death because she has been playing the whore while living in her fathers home. Eve lured Adam into eating the forbidden fruit and then when they were banished from heaven god told her that her punishment was to suffer in childbirth and to be subservient to Adam. I mean how more misogynist than that can you get?!!

I don’t know how Bible believing you are, or not at all. By your culture I mean “American culture� as we know it. For example if a woman conforms to conventional standards of “feminine beauty� many people would argue and have argued on this site that she is playing into the hands of patriarchy. Are you worried about that woman teaching your “little girls� or your “little boys�? because she most certainly is teaching your little girls and boys. Is she going to teach my little daughter that a woman should look a certain way to be accepted by society? If you start bringing up such arguments people are rightfully going to look at you as an idiot. But god forbid that someone wants to wear the veil, all of a sudden everyone is up in arms against her because she is oppressed and doesn’t understand it, because she reinforces the notion that women are inferior yada yada yada.

“christians aren't stoning women to death, forcing their daughters to marry men they don't love, taking more than one wife, flogging women, ect ect ect.� (as an aside, there are Christians who do such things. There are Christians in Africa who take more than one wife etc., in Christians communities in the middle east for example, Christians do force their daughters to marry and they do commit honor killing etc). It is not about Islam or Christianity; it is about the level of development of civil society in a particular society. I did not say I don’t think that in most Muslim societies today women have an inferior position. I just said that saying things such as “The Koran is nothing more than an instruction manual preaching women's inferiority� only makes you an ignorant bigot.

End of discussion on my part.

As Aishah Azmi teaches at primary level of course the children wouldn't complain.

This is just wrong, imposing one's belief systems on others. It's a Church of England school and they have every right to insist she not wear her veil during class. I am surprised that she was even employed in the first instance ... usually one has to be at least sympathetic to the Christian ethos as a requirement.

Children learn either aurally, visually, kinetically or a combination of one or more. A teacher wearing a veil would disadvantage some children.

She doesn't deserve any sympathy.

How many watch south park? Having this woman speak in the classroom would be like listening to kenny in his parka!

"Men are the protectors of women, because God has given preference to some over others.And because men spend of their property on women. So good women are obedient, guarding even unnoticed that what Allah (God) has asked them to gaurd. As for those from whom you fear rebellion in this (i.e. guarding their chastity in their abscence), i.) talk to them, ii.) leave them alone in their beds, iii) strike them. If they then obey you look not for any way against them. (Koran 4:34)
members.aol.com/silence004/women.html

there-it says women are inferior.
The koran is nothing more than a misogynistic handbook. If the arab culture could distance themselves from this religion the sexism in their society would disintigrate.
It doesn't help matters to deny that the Koran is not a misogynistic manual-cuz it obviously is.
The prior passage was from (Koran 24: 30-31)
I resent it when so-called feminists try to reverse the veil as something good because it asserts their control over mens sexual desires-no- it just reinforces sexism in society.Or to be treated respectfully-they have to cover themselves(!) -no-
A doubt a majority of Christians would be for that in todays world. I am not a christian, buddhist, hindu, muslim-but it makes no sense to paint over the islamic religion as just misunderstood by the majority population-maybe it's not understood as if everyone were a muslim-but that's not a bad thing-it could help them see new perspectives about themselves, their culture, and most importantly their religion.

Actually this post is really annoying. Another case of Feministing misrepresenting a situation, you really do yourself a disservice, much like feminists of old.

You should have stated that this was a Church of England school. Tantamount to shit-stirring.

Levy,
your understanding of European culture is off-Europe never stagnated during the popes reign. Michelangelo painted the cistine chapel! I think we all understand Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo, and Rapheal to be renaiscance painters. Much of the time their paintings were even religious. And the only thing that happened in the 1860s was italys 'official' unification-no renaiscance.It's ignorant to make up history to serve your desperate attempts to prove you don't know as much as you think.

Franco Pavoncello a political scientist at John Cabot University in Rome has said " Basically the integration experiment of europe has not been very successful. Certainly it has not been as successful as the one in the United States. Muslim communities in the United Staes are far more integrated than you have in Europe."
In the article in Europe works to Assimilate Muslims. I hardly think the Iranian that beats his wife, and has these islamic views really wants to go to Paris because he really loves the culture. They only travel there due to the jobs and success-not the culture. Europe is a minority in the world, and with populations decreasing they should be careful. They are a culture, not just a mirror for everyone to dissect.

This is just wrong, imposing one's belief systems on others. It's a Church of England school and they have every right to insist she not wear her veil during class.

Let me get it straight: a school that belongs to the Church of England is not imposing its beliefs on others, but a Muslim teacher who wears a veil is?

your understanding of European culture is off-Europe never stagnated during the popes reign. Michelangelo painted the cistine chapel! I think we all understand Michelangelo, Donatello, Leonardo, and Rapheal to be renaiscance painters.

Right; and afterward, Italy stagnated. Italy had a tremendous head start on the rest of Europe in 1500; why was it out of the game by 1750? In 1550, Spain had access to vast riches belonging to people it could (and did) easily kill off; why did it become such a backwater by 1800?

Europe is a minority in the world

Which region isn't?

I hardly think the Iranian that beats his wife, and has these islamic views really wants to go to Paris because he really loves the culture. They only travel there due to the jobs and success-not the culture.

So do almost all people who immigrate to the US. Hardly anyone outside the US likes American culture.

Can we get clear on the facts?

Because
"nobody is complaining"
vs.
"children have complained"

and

"they won't even let her wear a veil in the hall"
vs.
"she rejected an offer to remove her veil only in the classroom"

are PRETTY FUCKING IMPORTANT DETAILS, don't you all think? Why even waste time if those aren't clear?

Europe is not a 'region.'Unlike America Europe has 'native' inhabitants. Yes-I know the native Americans were once native inhabitants, but not anymore. They were underdeveloped and unaccustomed to dealing with people from other cultures (could've built their immunities, the first batch of Americans starved, even resorting to cannabilism, ect). According to my university textbook Sustaining the Earth (for an environmental class) 37% of the population in this world in inhabited by China and India, 4.6% of the world's people are in the U.S., and all the population that are expected to decline (pg. 84) are in Europe, (except japan) and Europeans share of the worlds population is 12%. It also has a negative effect, because as their population (may) decline, that makes them vulnerable to dependance on other work labor (making the new laborers cocky, and arrogant-"they need us, not the other way around" mentality) and the government, as well as other businesses ready to compromise the perpetuation of their culture, to stabalize their economy. The whole world is so consumed in how white people are racist they forget that they make up a minority of the worlds population. Who is here to monitor racism against white people?
And Levy, you havn't clarified-what is it that 'everyone' says about western civilization anyways-I'm not going to argue about history of the renaiscance here-did you even have a point, or was it just incoherant ramblings again? Italy didn't decline, it fought Napolean off, created art such as by the artist Franscesco Guardi, Mozart was popular, England underwent the Industrial Revolution, and in the 1860s the creation of modern Germany and Italy took place. When was the last time you cracked a European history book?

Nobody has even tried to answer my previous questions about Europe retaining a right to deny access to their land by other cultures.
I'm sure you would argue blogs and blogs full of why some leaf-skirted indigenouse indians in some isolated part of the world has a right not to have other cultures infringe on them-why is it not the same for Europe.

Europe is not a 'region.'Unlike America Europe has 'native' inhabitants. Yes-I know the native Americans were once native inhabitants, but not anymore.

That's a pretty good observation that explains why Europe has more difficulty with integrating immigrants. But unless you're willing to claim that Muslim immigration to Europe is bad because Europeans are too racist to deal with it properly, it's irrelevant.

and all the population that are expected to decline (pg. 84) are in Europe, (except japan)

The US and Canada would be in decline too but for immigration. The American fertility rate is just below replacement. The Canadian rate is even lower. The fact that the attitude you're talking about doesn't exist in the US and Canada goes a long way to show you're making things up.

did you even have a point, or was it just incoherant ramblings again?

Cut out the projection. Please.

To remind everyone else, my point is that Catholic Europe lagged behind Protestant Europe (counting France as Protestant since it was largely independent of Church influence). Most importantly, everything you say about Islam would apply to Catholic Spain in 1700 but not today.

I'm sure you would argue blogs and blogs full of why some leaf-skirted indigenouse indians in some isolated part of the world has a right not to have other cultures infringe on them-why is it not the same for Europe.

You're not talking to me, are you? Phrases like this suggest you're talking to a stereotype, a caricature of what people who disagree with you must think.

Just like theres money in the 'pink' cancer products, theres also money in perpetuating the image of white people as racists.

Oh so now it's not the people that are to blame, but the region! Oy voi!Not the immigrants themselves. Gimme a break. They do just fine in America-why not in Europe-perhaps because they're babied, and pandered too there. Just like you do to a child-eventually it becomes spoiled. Dude-I know America has a replacement level of about 2.1 children Europe has about 1.6.
-READ THIS SLOWLY LEVY-
America unlike Europe does not have native inhabitants, they're culture all come from somewhere else, so their
-different-
Europe has a native peoples, race, and culture.
Whiteness didn't come from Mars.

What are you even arguing Levy?

Theres also money in perpetuating the image of white people as racists.

There's no "money" in this.

You keep arguing with a stereotype rather than a real person. I think your "It's all Muslims' fault" argument is full of shit; therefore, I must think all white people are racist.

The US has a fertility rate of 2.1, largely because of Hispanic immigration. Non-Hispanic whites have a fertility rate of 1.8; Hispanics have a rate of 2.9, which is slowly converging to 1.8 as Hispanics assimilate (the black fertility rate is 2.2). Canada has a fertility rate of 1.6 and still has population growth.

What are you even arguing Levy?

Oh, I didn't see this before. I'm arguing that except possibly the comprehensibility argument, there's no good reason not to let teachers wear veils.

according to the Rocky Mountain News (todays) there are more births (at 2.6)than immigrants, and unfortunetly baby boys outnumber baby girls.

So Levy, did aliens hijack our news source or are you just wrong?
All white people are racist-Levy-
your a racist-see I'm right!
Very mature Levy-because you cannot understand an adult perception of race, now you hate all white people.
Levy needs a nappy.

our is supposed to be 'your'-typo-
And how is it fair to say that I 'hate' muslims now?
And apparently you think two wrongs make a right-so by your limited understanding- which concludes (to you) that I hate all muslims-you now hate all white people.

A womens mouth is covered while she's trying to speak-how can the students develope pronunciation skills? It's simple.Really.

and I think it's been reiterated the impracticalities of wearing a veil, students have expressed a problem, and they have special requirements; namely needing to see their teacher pronunciate lucidly so they can pick up the native language. How is it you still come to your conclusion Levy?

femInst,

Your crack about "leaf-skirted indigenous people" reveals the racist you are--that off-handed dismissal of the great variety of tropical civilizations as "leaf-skirted" is disgusting. Alon and Donna deserve better arguing opponents, people who know what they're talking about and can put together a decent argument.

As to your contention that "Europe has a culture"--it's incoherent. "Europe" has many cultures. And are you serious suggesting that the US doesn't have a culture? That is an amazing assumption of privilege right there--akin to the idea that Anglos don't have any ethnicity.

"as their population (may) decline, that makes them vulnerable to dependance on other work labor (making the new laborers cocky, and arrogant-"they need us, not the other way around" mentality) "

You know what? I am all in favor of laborers having the upper hand. Migrant labor is a direct result of European and American appropriation of the resources of other countries, and if those chickens come home to roost, I'm going to have a hard time working up any tears.

I'll worry about racism against whites when white people are being systematically denied advancement in life due to their race, around the same time, by my calculations, that I'll spare a thought for sexism against men.

FSM. A question to the gallery: when I said, "I think your 'It's all Muslims' fault' argument is full of shit; therefore, I must think all white people are racist," did you understand that I was mocking femInst's characterization of me, or did you think I really said all whites are racist?

All I saw is Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Alon wrote FSM and all I could think of was the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. EG is a woman.

All hail the Flying Speghetti Monster!

Ramen.

Alon: Don't be a fuckwit, just for the sake of it.

"Let me get it straight: a school that belongs to the Church of England is not imposing its beliefs on others, but a Muslim teacher who wears a veil is?"

"Belong" in this sense means the children who attend are being raised as C of E. NOT Muslim. On school grounds she is effectively a guest of the church. If one visits the Vatican, females are expected to cover their heads. If one visits a strict Muslim state, one is expected to cover-up. And the same applies in reverse.

No only that, I imagine that when one takes on English citizenship, one declares allegiance to the Queen who is among other things the Defender of the Faith. When in Rome ... etc etc

You obviously have no experience of religious schools, if you do, you're just being belligerent. Hell I wasn't even allowed to enrol just because I wasn't baptised/ christened or whatever.

She is the one imposing. A prerequisite of most employment (maybe not non-teaching staff) at religious schools is that one must repect the ethos of that school. She is defying and refusing every latitude shown her and does not deserve the time spent here on this issue.

AND as someone who has no hearing beyond 2500Hz, relying instead on subtle nuances of language to get by, under this woman's tutleage, I and many others who slip through the system, would have been dismal failures. You appear to know absolutely nothing about the learning process.

AND If I were sending my child to a Christian school, I would withdraw them, if they had to be confronted by this during class. Just as I would have withdrawn my own children if they had been confronted by ANY religion at school.

Taking political correctness tooooooo far. After all, unlike the US the Queen is head of state and the head of the Church of England and therefore unlike the US, it is the official religion of England.

Shorter Not True: you're an idiot because you don't understand the importance of lip reading, even though you did say that the lip-reading and comprehensibility-to-ESL-students arguments are legitimate.

Alon: Moreover, I recall a time, when any male who had longer than collar-length hair, who was unwittingly delayed in Singapore would have their hair unceremoniously chopped-off with whatever instrument happened to be available. AND chewing, chewing gum there!

Alon: What's your point. I don't understand the importance of lip reading ... what as someone who is ostensibly deaf. I don't understand, you've got to b e kidding. My only point was that many children who are deaf are not detected.

I know the "shorter X" is not used here a lot - I know it from Majikthise - but it's a paraphrase. For example, if I wanted to bash Ann Althouse, I'd say something like "Shorter Ann Althouse: Jessica is a slut because she has breasts." I'm sure you can come up with creative ways to insult me here with a "Shorter Alon:".

My only point was that many children who are deaf are not detected.

And mine is that there aren't any in her class, apparently. The real problem revolves around the need of ESL students to see the teacher's lips move.

And so anywayz...isn't it biased for FEMINISTING to delete my posts, and let Alon call Not True an idiot. I said nothing racist, sexist (like he just did, calling someone a slut), and racist, as well as a handicap bigot like he is.
Boy, Alon-you think you've got it made, what with all this favoritism accorded to you by the Feministing staff-right.

Alon-ITS NOT F-ing ESL students that need to see the lips of the teacher move. DID YOU NOT READ: the students first language IS NOT the native cultures, THEY NEED TO SEE THE TEACHERS "LIPS" to get a grip of what she's saying.

And to EG,
You took that 'grass skirts' were inferior. You assumed that. They DO wear grass skirts-visit any ethnographic site-they also wear kotekas.
Yes EG, Europe DOES have many cultures; Scottish,Irish, Italian, English, French, Romani, German, Greek, Austrian, and are all officially European cultures according to the European Union.
And EG is apparently for using another countries economic vulnerabilities to exploit as leverage for poliical gain by a nonative culture. So apparently, EG is all for indian genocide. Whats not ok to happen in one culture does not make it ok for others.

TO NON TRUE-don't let Alon call you an idiot-he knows he's cornered-and has no where to go. Just look at his incoherant statements-senseless, racist, and now obviously sexist.

Do you honestly think that changing your name to "alonisidiot" does anything more than make YOU look like a petty child?

isn't it biased for FEMINISTING to delete my posts, and let Alon call Not True an idiot.

Yeah, it is. But it doesn't let me call anyone an idiot. Not True's thinking I was calling him an idiot might be excusable. Your thinking that after I issued a clarification isn't.

Wait, I'm confused, Alon. What is FSM? Was your comment directed at me? I understood that you were mocking femInst's characterization of you.

As to femInst under her/his new, puerile name, your flip tone indicated very clearly in what esteem you hold "grass-skirted" peoples. Where you get genocide from is a mystery to me. And ESL means "English as a Second Language," so it's obvious that we're talking about non-native speakers.

Hey manda--don't insult children! I take care of lots of kids, all of whom have better reasoning skills than femInst has demonstrated.

EG, you are completely correct. To all the children of the world, I sincerely apologize.

FSM is a joke religion that someone developed as a way of making fun of creationism. It stands for Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I use it as a replacement for "God" or "oh my god." In this thread, it was a way of expressing shock that Not True thought I was calling him an idiot.

Donna Darko, show me proof before you declare there is no money in perpetuating the myth that all white people are racist.

Alon Levy,
I cannot find where you apologized to Not True.So only Not True can think you called him an idiot? Is this Alon's denial conspiracy? Bias is not acceptable in an open forum-you all profess to be against censorship but then you perpetuate it! Only approved ideas according to feministing are allowed-I don't think so. I don't see anywhere where Not True aknowledged your 'apology.'

Manda,
All is fair on this website, calling someone an idiot is apparently acceptable-its all fair game.

Biased, the only people I've heard say "all whites are racist" or "all men are sexist" are online and as far as I know no one makes money from saying that.

Even the most pro-feminist men admit to being sexist once in a while. It's built into the society we live in. If you want to be academic about it, women can't be sexist against men because prejudice against men doesn't have much of an effect. They can get their feelings hurt on a feminist blog or in a women's studies class but this doesn't affect their status in society very much. It's the same with racism. I had a couple white friends drive through the south part of town who were called "crackers" and they couldn't stop laughing about it the rest of the day. In others words, it didn't affect their status in society.

I didn't make any money from the previous comment.

Yeah, donna, prove it. I need to see bank statements and pay stubs.

Really, feminst, do you think that if you make a statement such as "there is money in..." it is up someone else to prove you wrong. In logical conversations, the person making the statement is the one to offer proof.

"Donna Darko, show me proof before you declare there is no money in perpetuating the myth that all white people are racist."

Biased, can you show me proof there is money in perpetuating the idea all white people are racist?

I may know some takers.

Just take a look at how Nagin won after New Orleans-by instilling fear in the people. His racist comments about a 'chocolate' city, and incinuating comments that perpetuate the assumption (primarily to black people) that the whites did not want the blacks back. Exagerrating the wealthy, and literally white-washing them all as wealthy, 'above' everyone else. 80% of the voters who voted for him where black, only 20% were white.
These demogogues (Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, ect ect)have a monopoly on race relations. By making up claims about white people to a largely unexperienced populous he remains in a position of power, and idolotry. Because these people fight against racism the public sees them as the 'word' on race relations. If they tell the poor black people that it is white people that hold them down, due to their estrangement as poor people they believe it, and perpetuate the lie. They become blind to what really holds them down-being told it is the whites who hold them, rather than their self-defeating mentaliry that is exploited by these demogogues. Then they get away with it, at least to some.

Donna,
maybe your white friends laughed at being called a 'cracker,' but I know alot who would've started a fight over that-me being one of them.
Second-'THIS' is what you use to get your ideas from! How narrow! OF course it didn't affect their status-there not druggies, and coke heads living in the 'south' part of town! In any society, whatever the color, if a peasant calls the well-off any negative name-will it have an effect on the people in the higher class of society-NO!Duh....
If I was a pimp, and called a non-profit worker a negative remark, would that bring down the non-profit worker, or would that just demonstrate why the non-profit worker is in a higher status in society than the lowly pimp! It is about quality reflected in your life.How could your white friends have taken that seriously-they're all druggies!

Also, what are they supposed to do? Get out of the car, and get some bullets into their bodies?!
Usually when people are pissed, they try to shake it off by laughing.
Don't take it for anything other than shaking off some stress. Your trying to decipher whites through stereotypes-really nice Donna.

Biased, you say some funny things. Anyway, Jackson, Sharpton and Nagin aren't the word on race. They have some interesting ideas but most people take what they like and leave the rest. Besides, institutional racism is a fact in the US and it doesn't help to blame minorities. I can see it every day on the internet, in national politics, in my own life, not just from that one incident. The people who called them names weren't "druggies" as far as I know. Even if their next door neighbors called them "crackers", they could laugh it off and go on with their day.

if a toddler called you a big bad meanie head would you be offended? Of course not, same with these people calling your white friends a 'cracker.' Also the same people who were calling them a cracker could very well also use other racial language by calling a chinese person a 'chink,' or other names.

Whites who are called names by minorities can laugh it off. They can spend the rest of their day unharmed. A minority calling another minority names hurts more because it has an effect.