Posts tagged aheram
Posts tagged aheram
I was like “oh well, she tried” and then I got to that last quote. Wooow.
My thoughts? Put it this way, can you imagine a girl in BLACKFACE doing this?
Why attack people who make an effort to gain empathy of what others go through? Sometimes, walking in the shoes of others allows you to gain perspective beyond that of merely listening of what others go through. I disagree with this condemnation.
and I read that other girls post, too. Big difference between living a life for years in Saudi Arabia, and doing this for one day. And how many people wear headdresses, its the new thing for hipsters! Give me a break.
the only thing worse than the experiments themselves are that these girls actually think they are saviors and bringers of truth, peace and knowledge, thinking POC needing white ladies to validate their oppression. here to save the day!
I think what a lot of this comes down to is motivation. I do not believe simply listening to others is the correct method of bringing any type of understanding either. We should aim to promote the stories of say, Muslim women, versus wanting to become their savior or their mouthpiece, putting their experiences in our words.
Participant observation is considered a valid research method by the social sciences. However, the key is participant. Going to the mosque is a good place to start. But discrimination against followers of Islam is deeper than dirty looks and bad customer service. It irks me when the “one day as _____” is touted as the ultimate in enlightenment. I don’t pretend to be an expert on other cultures, religions, etc. And wearing a hijab for a day doesn’t make you an expert either.
Maybe I’m not getting this across clearly, but I think this discussion and comments on the post are fantastic. Please, if any of my Muslim followers are reading, weigh in if you feel comfortable. I would love to get your thoughts on this.
TAKE A PICTURE OF YOU UNDER A BINDER PLS MEGGG.
I will find one or borrow one. But this will happen.
Some questions for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan.
I asked a bunch of questions in a series of tweets. It is serious business, you know.
These are all very serious questions that must be answered pronto.
I support the boycott. Except, not once did you mention the thing that made this a BIG DEAL: Boston mayor’s attempt to legislate Chik-Fil-A out the city.
I linked to where I’ve been over this before. As I wrote:
And for those bitching about government interference, it’s called zoning. It’s why the government can regulate whether or not a Dildo Emporium can open next to a preschool or if it must exist outside the city limits. If a business wants to open and that business engages in practices that my town has a law against, say non-discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender, that could conceivably fall under a government’s right to deny business permits. Think about a bar wanting to open in a dry county.
Opening a business is not a “right” necessarily. I don’t necessarily agree with pushing the business out, but to argue that Boston is 100% wrong is also not correct. For example, Massachusetts has strong protections for GLBTQ people. The business itself engages in hiring practices that would likely violate state law. Should Boston allow them to open? Maybe. But that’s a matter for the government of Boston and Massachusetts to decide.
If you want to open a business, you have to apply for permits, which can be denied. In Laramie, liquor licenses have become a big deal, as well as someone who wanted to open a hookah bar. The hookah bar encountered difficulties because we have an indoor smoking ban with little exceptions.
In summary, Boston likely make a misstep with trying to ban them from the city with little explanation, but they are also likely within their rights to do so.
Reductive description of groups of people from a Republican? Say, it is not so! Next thing you know, you are going to tell me that they describe a diverse, multicultural, multinational people belonging to a religion as “terrorists.”
If you’re referring to Prof. Stephen Bloom’s description, I’m pretty sure he’s not a Republican. If you’re referring to Huntsman quote, that might be more accurate, but Huntsman is probably the least likely to use a reductive description on the regular.
You’re 99% right. O’Connor chose to address the Equal Protection as well as Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment and wrote it was unconstitutional because of its violation of Equal Protection. However, she left the door open for rational basis review (a lower level of review) for other laws regarding distinctions between homosexuals versus heterosexuals:
That this law as applied to private, consensual conduct is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause does not mean that other laws distinguishing between heterosexuals and homosexuals would similarly fail under rational basis review. Texas cannot assert any legitimate state interest here, such as national security or preserving the traditional institution of marriage. Unlike the moral disapproval of same-sex relations – the asserted state interest in this case – other reasons exist to promote the institution of marriage beyond mere moral disapproval of an excluded group.
However, she does not elaborate beyond that, nor does she suggest that should be the standard. The issue she hit upon was that the law was not applied equally and created only one class of people to whom the criminal sanctions of the law applied.
Though if Lawrence had been decided along O’Connor’s reasoning, it would be much stronger precendent to fight discrimination.