Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-05-2017, 05:45 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 12:58 PM)abaris Wrote:  So would you be OK with them wearing base caps? Borsalinos? Helmets?

It's just their traditional garb you take issue with because it doesn't fit your own worldview. They should adapt to what you find acceptable. That's the truth of the matter.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with my worldview.

I question whether equitable treatment is being extended to all.
What I see an exception being made for a particular religious group.
The key word there being exception.

What I do not see is an equitable policy designed to accommodate everyone.
If there is such a universal policy, and I've some how missed it, then I've already said that in that case I would withdraw my objection.

THAT is the truth of the matter.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 06:33 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 02:26 PM)morondog Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  And when a public or private entity incorporates exceptional treatment for a particular group within it's policies, it is engaging in what is know as institutionalized racism.
ORLY? Giving people something they want is now racism? Whereas imposing some ideal version of dress that you prefer is equitable treatment. Gotcha. ETA: I missed this the first time, not only is it racism but it's *institutionalised* racism Laugh out load Because I'm apparently both a racist and an institution Rolleyes

Please resist the temptation to infer from general information either personal accusation or insult.

mdog, I teach civil rights. I've been doing it for a long time. The definition of "discrimination" that I've been using -- as I tried to make clear in an earlier post -- is the legal definition, from federal statutes. Specifically, Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, as refined by numerous subsequent amendments and additional antibias statutes: Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); Fair Housing Act of 1968; Violence Against Women Act of 1994 (VAWA); Section 29, Code of Federal Regulations 1604; 1605; 1625; 1630; 1640-1641; and multiple others.

"Institutionalized Racism" (also called Structural Racism or Systemic Racism) is a specific technical term which has come into vogue in the last couple of years, to describe the lack of opportunities for various protected classes, in public and political contexts which which are not practicing overt discrimination, and which may otherwise be bastions of affirmative action.

It is basically discrimination that is built into the structure of institutions and the way they function, which often go unrecognized through ignorance, negligence, or any of a variety of other reasons. Just a few months ago I participated in an intensive three week training in Institutionalized Racism for a non-profit child abuse prevention agency. Dr. Johnny Lake was one of the trainers.

These things are real: you can educate yourself on them, if you choose.
https://www.raceforward.org/trainings
https://www.racialequitytools.org/resour...rkbook.pdf
http://www.casaforchildren.org/site/c.mt...ources.htm
https://sites.austincc.edu/equityandincl...al-racism/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/free-four...patti-digh

At no time did I call you either a "racist' or an "institution".

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 06:52 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 02:39 PM)morondog Wrote:  Dr H. I get your point, I agree that it's special treatment if you restrict it to Muslims only, so yes, I would myself prefer if everyone is allowed their dress of their choice. Maybe they would be. I know many cricketers in UK and South Africa of Sikh origin play while wearing a turban. An example is a guy called Harbajan Singh. They're good cricketers, and if they weren't allowed to wear their turban they'd just turn around, say fuck you, and not play. Now. These guys would be disadvantaged in that as skilled professional cricketers, they are losing out on wage earning opportunities because of their religion. Tell me, is it more discriminatory/racist to tell them they can't wear their turban "in the name of being fair to everyone", or to just be pragmatic, realise it's not a big deal, and let them wear it?

Being "pragmatic" doesn't address the problem of discrimination, it just kicks it down the road a bit. It's as if, in response to Rosa Parks, Alabama passed a law that said "OK, women of any race can sit anywhere on a public bus" -- but black men still had to sit in back.

Let them wear their turban? Sure -- but also let anyone wear their chosen religious headgear, not just turbans, but hijab, yarmulke, feather headdresses, mitres, veils, wimples, berets, fez, the pshent, baseball caps, and plates of spaghetti.

Then, if things become too outrageous on the field, it might be time to step back and consider if maybe limiting headgear to a one-inch sweat band in your team colors, for everyone, isn't a better idea, after all.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 06:57 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 03:54 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  YES!!! ^^^ What Mom's said. Yes!

My mother couldn't buy a car without my father's signature. She couldn't have her own bank account. And this was in the 1960's for shit sakes.

People get all verklempt these days over the feminist movement today, but jesus christ, they've forgotten the crap women have had to put up with. It reminds me of the vaccine denial movement. People forget the past, they forget children died of all sorts of horrible diseases before vaccines came along. People just forget the past. They have to be reminded.

I don't doubt you, nor to I forget the past: I lived through some of it.

I also know that there were some women who didn't put up with that crap.
I was raised by one of them, and had (and have) several more in my family.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 07:19 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 12:57 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 08:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Bullshit. My grandmother who was born in 1921, couldn't get a bank account on her own. Then after she did get one -- her older brother had to be on it with her, after she married my grandfather's name was just added.

She was considered a "user" but never the account owner until the rules changed. She couldn't get a loan either. When they bought their house in San fransisco in the early 50s, her name was left off the title.

Most women not of means were precluded from having loans or accounts.

You can call "bullshit", if you like; I could do the same -- except I'm willing to take your word for it that you're describing a true situation for a particular person, place, and time.

As am I: both my grandmother (dad's mom), and my mom had independent, personal bank accounts that did not require a spouse's cosignature to obtain. (In Pennsylvania and New York state, respectively.) Indeed, mom had hers for years before she married my dad -- she had a career (in the insurance industry), and her own apartment, and everything... imagine that.

Not sure when grandma opened her account for her seamstress business; she may have already been married at that point. But I'm dead sure about mom, since I went through her papers when she passed away four years ago. I've got the documents.

"Bullshit," indeed.

I'm sure about my family too...my grandmother was an incredibly bitter woman who endlessly complained the way she was treated. When she passed in 2010 I found EVERYTHING...just like my mother in law the woman never threw anything out. I found what I can only assume was a lease agreement (written on a piece of paper) for her apartment in 44.

My husband's grandmother was a different story all together, east coast college graduate, her family had money, until '30. They lost a lot but were still comfortable. She was married by then and worked as a nurse.

Even my husband's mom (and believe me I found the ALL the paperwork) had to have her father on the title of the car she bought in 1953...He didn't even drive and had no license. It was a chevy Bel air. I shudder to think what it would be worth today.

In the early 1940s most people were on a cash basis, and most who worked for a living and didn't own a business didn't need a bank account. The banks had screwed too many people during the 30s and they didn't trust them. People didn't begin trusting banks until mid 50s and my husband's other grandmother, NEVER did trust them at all. Each month she would go the drug store and get money orders to pay her bills -- she could even pay her phone, PG&E (gas and electric) bills at that drug store.

His other grandmother thought that was totally crazy. (family drama).

My grandfather never knew how to write a check. He never needed to, my grandma did that stuff for him.


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
11-05-2017, 07:32 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 04:18 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 12:45 PM)Dr H Wrote:  Where were they not being allowed to play basketball?

How old are you? Tongue
Old enough to know better, and too young to care. Smile

My question, which you quote above, was directed at mdog, who seemed to be suggesting that the Muslim girls were not being allowed to play basketball. This is not true: they were allowed to play if they did not wear the hijab -- same as everybody else.

What changed was that a special exception was made, as far as I can tell only for Muslim girls, so that they can now play and wear the hijab.

And who says that they have to wear the hijab?
Their parents, taking their cue from 1400 year old book of magic, dedicated to an invisible superman in the sky.


Quote:My mother wasn't allowed to do all sorts of sports when she was a girl. Girls were too fragile and it might disturb their ability to have children. When my older sister was in high school she played basketball in PE but the rules were that there were 6 girls on each team. The thinking was the girls were too delicate to handle a rough and tumble 5 on 5 basketball.
Sure, I know all that. A hangover of 19th century Victorian thinking into the 20th century. But as I said elsewhere, not all women put up with that, even back then. Some were exceptional (Amelia Earhart comes to mind). And after after WWII things changed significantly, and very few women would put up with it.

As far as basketball, women were playing basketball at Smith College (Mass.) as far back as 1892.

Quote:4. There is no three-point line; all field goals are worth two points. (The three-point line would not be added to the collegiate rules until the 1980s, by which point six-on-six was mostly phased out.)
<shrug>There was no three point line in men's basketball before 1979, either.

Quote:Now, of course, this doesn't have much to do with religion but indirectly it kinda does. Women's reproductive organs were considered too delicate and valuable. Making babies, and LOTS OF THEM! was essentially their role in life and much of this was based on the Bible--be fruitful and multiply, crap.
You're preaching to the choir. Wink

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 07:33 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
I want to see ram-horn headdress on the court.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 07:45 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 07:19 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I'm sure about my family too...my grandmother was an incredibly bitter woman who endlessly complained the way she was treated. When she passed in 2010 I found EVERYTHING...just like my mother in law the woman never threw anything out. I found what I can only assume was a lease agreement (written on a piece of paper) for her apartment in 44.
OK, Mom. We've clearly had different experiences; no surprise there. No reason to suppose that either set is made up.
It's a big country, with a lot of strange and not infrequently conflicting laws across its different parts.

Quote:In the early 1940s most people were on a cash basis, and most who worked for a living and didn't own a business didn't need a bank account.
Sure, makes sense. My grandmother did own a business; hence her need for a bank account. She, BTW, is the one who took me to the bank to open my first savings account, when I was six -- she gave me a $25 US Savings bond for my birthday, and we used that to open the account.

Quote:My grandfather never knew how to write a check. He never needed to, my grandma did that stuff for him.
Heh. My dad knew how; he just never wanted to be bothered with that stuff, so mom did all the household finances, taxes, etc., and when needed, dad signed where she told him to sign.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-05-2017, 08:00 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
(11-05-2017 03:54 PM)dancefortwo Wrote:  
(11-05-2017 08:52 AM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Bullshit. My grandmother who was born in 1921, couldn't get a bank account on her own. Then after she did get one -- her older brother had to be on it with her, after she married my grandfather's name was just added.

She was considered a "user" but never the account owner until the rules changed. She couldn't get a loan either. When they bought their house in San fransisco in the early 50s, her name was left off the title.

Most women not of means were precluded from having loans or accounts.

YES!!! ^^^ What Mom's said. Yes!

My mother couldn't buy a car without my father's signature. She couldn't have her own bank account. And this was in the 1960's for shit sakes.

People get all verklempt these days over the feminist movement today, but jesus christ, they've forgotten the crap women have had to put up with. It reminds me of the vaccine denial movement. People forget the past, they forget children died of all sorts of horrible diseases before vaccines came along. People just forget the past. They have to be reminded.


I've got stacks of newspapers from the day that illustrate how women were treated. I've got the want ads from newspapers my grandmother and husband's grandparents saved. I've got one from when the Bay Bridge opened, the war is over, the earthquake in '56, Kennedy...it goes on and on..through the moon landing. (I've always had a weird thing for news papers, not the front page but the ads (sales and such) and want ads just fascinated me -- I would have friends that lived in different states send them to when I was in college and beyond that...I think what they sell buy and everything gives you more feeling for how they live.

One that stood out looking for a young, "thin" "colored" girl age 18-21, single, to deliver sandwiches in an office building.

That blew my mind when I was younger...The way they'd designate "color" or "race" all the women had to be thin, attractive and single...The ads for men listed things like experience...


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
11-05-2017, 08:21 PM
RE: Rule Change To Allow Religious Headgear...
Does anyone have any information about whether they would allow different types of headgear too? It seems to me that this is the important point here. If they aren't, or its only "religious" headgear, then I would agree it's a form of positive discrimination. To be honest, I doubt anyone else is raring to put a lot of stuff on their head anyhow.

Theoretically we can say no one is forcing them to wear these things, but in reality that's not true. I imagine they could face severe consequences from their family/society if they didn't. And even if that wasn't the case, they've most likely been indoctrinated since birth to think that they must wear it. So expecting them to just give it up isn't realistic. Please correct me here if I'm wrong.

What remains is to see whether the rule that stops them wearing it needs to be there in the first place. In my opinion it doesn't, but it should be applied equally to all if removed. If there was a good reason why not, then fair enough. But I don't see one.

Of course, all headgear would have to be secure and non-advantageous, but this is already obvious when you consider the shoes people wear. Ones that will keep flying off or that have rocket boosters on them wouldn't be allowed. To me, allowing reasonable headgear isn't any different from allowing people to wear different shoes. We arbitrarily decide what is and isn't "the uniform", and it seems to me that "not wearing something on your head" is a weird part of a uniform.

I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Robvalue's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: