Guest post: Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?

April 23, 2015 • 9:10 am

JAC:  Reader Diane G. and I have had some email exchanges about the bad treatment of women by hyper-Orthodox Jews, including the several incidents I’ve reported when they wouldn’t sit next to women on a plane. These men also have religious strictures against touching or shaking hands with women. I asked Diane if she would mind writing a post about it for this site, and she kindly complied. Her mini-essay is below:

*******

Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?

by Diane G.

Here at WEIT Jerry’s written more than once about the Hasids-on-a-Plane culture clash (e.g., here and here).  For anyone who’s been out in the field for the past several months, in brief this involves Orthodox Jewish men taking commercial flights and refusing to sit near women because their religion prohibits it.

What’s been interesting to me in the resultant conversations is the occasional male commenter (and perhaps there have been females as well) who doesn’t view this as discrimination or misogyny.  People who I would have expected to say, “your religious beliefs stop at my right to sit where I am” argue instead that this is simply a matter of courtesy and respect, that changing seats is the polite thing to do.

The Washington Post‘s Amanda Bennett noticed the same pushback, and wrote a column that appeared in the April 19th edition, Why is it okay to discriminate against women for religious reasons?   In addition to the plane incidents, she begins her article with an anecdote about running into an Orthodox man at a social function:

Not very long ago I met a young man at a business function. “Hello, I’m Amanda,” I said, sticking out my hand in greeting. He kept his arms glued to his side. “I don’t touch women,” he said.

That exchange–which I thought was a particularly pointed description of these slap-in-the-face moments–received as much or more attention in the WaPo comment section as did the plane behavior.  Those who disagreed with Bennett sensibly stressed (and stressed and stressed and stressed) that no one should ever feel required to shake hands, raising all the legitimate reasons one might not want to: germ-avoidance, arthritis, mere dislike of shaking, etc.

Unable to shake (heh) my conviction that Bennett had been rudely dissed, I reread her short description until I decided it was the brusque delivery of the message that made it discriminatory. New worry: does this make me a Tone Troll?  Surely, if you know your customs clash with Western 21st century standards, you could at least use humor, self-deprecation, or any of the other ways society’s developed to disarm verbal conflicts. Perhaps, say, a smile accompanied by an “I’m sorry, my religion forbids me from shaking your hand.”  Hmmm; that still doesn’t sit well.  But I do think that’s the way to avoid shaking for all the other reasons; just bringing out the charming, contrite smile, and a simple, “Sorry, I don’t shake hands,” would do.

Nevertheless, the theme of WaPo comments such as the following disturbed me, although the last thing I want to appear as is a pomo-feminist SJW:

Mutual respect, “live and let live”, isn’t good enough for the politically correct crowd, they demand not just tolerance but endorsement. This is tyranny and not conducive to a peaceful society.

***

The liberal Outrage Lobby strikes again. So now, sincere religious belief is trumped by Amanda Bennett’s desire to shake hands. Amanda, the next time someone refuses to shake your hand, you might consider it’s actually because you are an anti-religious bigot.

***

The really important question is why the woman writer feels humiliated because another person does not shake her hand for religious reasons? The lefties love creating social turmoil and this is a favored strategy, being “offended” by the practices of others that the lefties can pretend are motivated by an intent to cause them “anguish.”

***

This whole discussion amazes me. A shomer negiаh sees his or her practice as respectful and chaste. This is a cultural divide which Ms. Bennett disrespects perhaps because she feels every thing is about her.

Does this mean I’m a narcissist and a traitor to my politics? Someone even saw Bennett’s reactions as anti-Semitic:

This article may be about discriminating women [sic] but it only shows the discrimination that Religious Jews face. How anti-Semitic is it to not take into consideration that Orthodox men feel uncomfortable with any physical contact with woman.

There were the expected (and in this case, unintentionally self-refuting) remarks from those who’ve drunk the Kool-Aid:

No, the Bible actually has no contradictions in it (apart from typos and translation errors). The creation story is given as an overview in Genesis One, then the particulars of the creation of man is given in Genesis Two.

Moreover, “rib” is a poor translation of  “Neged” (whence “negative” is derived). Adam was the compilation of both male and female (I am not speaking physically) until the female attributes were removed into a separate individual.

The woman has never, biblically, been considered inferior to the man; just at a different rank. It is the same as saying that a colonel is no more or less valuable as a person than a major; he simply has greater authority.

And from a woman for whom I feel very sad:

My husband and I have had myriad social experiences professionally with rich, powerful, educated persons etc. My skirt is below my knees, my dress has sleeves or a jacket, no plunging neckline, shoes without cutouts, no bare legs, and I walk just behind my husband so if someone throws something-it hits him first. Provacative [sic] attire/behavior is for entertainers or people who don’t mind being attacked.

For those of you who think this subject has already been talked into the ground here–I’m not helping!  But I know someone else has also sent Bennett’s article to Jerry, so perhaps I’m not the only one interested in continuing this discussion.  Finally, I heartily recommend a book, written before the Great Online-Atheist Schism, which is a cogent, exceptionally readable, egregious-example-filled treatment of the overarching topic here:  Does God Hate Women?, by Ophelia Benson and Jeremy Stangroom. Please consider reading this volume no matter what you think of one of the authors in light of subsequent events.

Readers’ wildlife photographs

April 23, 2015 • 8:00 am

Reader Richard Bond sent some photos of ungulates from Kenya:

These are some more photographs of animals in Tsavo East that I took during the same visit as those of elephants that I recently sent you.

The first two are female (no horns) waterbuck (Kobus ellipsiprymnus), from the defassa group of sub-species). They need ready access to drinking water, hence the name, and I saw these near to the Voi river, one of the few reliable water sources at the end of the dry season.

1_Waterbuck_1

2_Waterbuck_2

The next two photographs are male (with horns) impalas (Aepyceros melampus). Those horns are extremely sharp. I used to wonder if their name came from the Latin impalare, but it is merely a happy coincidence. I find it interesting that the flight alarm pattern on their buttocks is similar to that of the waterbuck, although black instead of white.

3_Impala_1

4_Impala_2

Next is a Grant’s gazelle (Nanger granti, not sure of the sub-species), almost certainly male, judging by the length of the horns. Horn shape in this species is quite variable, but these are particularly elegant and look pretty efficient. Like those of the impala, they are extremely sharp. One guide told me that gazelles occasionally kill careless cheetahs. The males fight to control small harems. One feature that I only noticed later is the folding of the skin on the neck. I thought it odd that such animals would carry any fat, but it turns out to be very thick skin, presumably selected for success in fighting other males. Impalas show something of the same thing.

5_Grant's_Gazelle

Rather surprisingly, since they are generally so common, I only saw one small herd of plains zebras (Equus quagga boehmi). If I had been quicker I would have caught warthogs (Phacochoerus africanus massaicus) in the same shot, but they are so nervous that I have never managed to get a decent photograph of them.

6_Zebra

Next are some of the smallest of the African antelopes: Kirk’s dik-dik (Madoqua kirkii). The one in front without horns is a female, with a male behind. They are about the size of a domestic cat, with longer legs, and with females larger than males. Like warthogs, they are extremely shy. I have seen them quite frequently as monogamous pairs, but they usually vanish into the bush before you can get your camera ready. I asked the guide why these were in a group and not as shy as usual, and he said that it was the breeding season. I do not know why monogamous animals would lose their shyness and form herds to breed.

7_Kirk's_Dik_dik

In contrast, the next is one of the largest of the African bovids: a cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer caffer). My Field Guide to African Mammals says that they rarely exceed 800 kg, but I think that this grand old bull must have been one of the few. He had probably been chucked out of the herd by younger rivals. Judging by the state of his horns he must have had plenty of fights; since losers tend not to come back for more, he probably won most of them and sired many offspring. The birds on his back are two species of oxpeckers: red-billed (Buphagus erythrorhynchus) and the commoner yellow-billed (Buphagus africanus).

8_Buffalo

Two cats for Thursday morning

April 23, 2015 • 7:15 am

Every day I must receive at least fifteen items about cats from readers: photos, articles, websites, and so on (the most recent was a spate of emails about baby bobcats, who are über-cute). But were I to post all of them, this would turn into a cat website and I would be inundated with people telling me to knock it off. (By the way, don’t be one of those people.)

But today there were two cat-related items in the mail that I want to post anyway.

The first is a link, sent by reader Macro Phyte, to the tale of a finicky Irish cat named Jerry. The true story by Frank McNally, “What’s new, fussy cat? An Irishman’s Diary on Jerry, the fussy feline,” was published yesterday in the Irish Times. It’s a short but lovely account of an old cat who refuses to drink tap water, preferring rainwater or, better yet, bottled mineral water. First, here’s the curmudgeonly old moggie:

image
“The old fusspot absolutely refuses to drink tap-water”

And here’s the beginning of McNally’s story:

One of the side-effects of the current dry spell is that I’ve had to start buying mineral water for our ancient cat, Jerry. Being a reluctant cat owner, I consider this just the latest in a series of new lows to which he has reduced me over the years. But the problem is this – the old fusspot absolutely refuses to drink tap-water.

Showers

He instead depends on the sky to supply his needs. And this is normally a reliable source in Ireland, where the leftovers of the last shower have rarely evaporated before the next one arrives.

But over the past 10 days or so, Jerry has exhausted all his reserves – starting with the puddles; then the various containers in the back garden; then the crevices in half-full refuse sacks, and so on; until there was nothing left.

Time was I could trick him on occasion by topping some of these up from the kitchen sink when he wasn’t looking.

Or if that didn’t work, my attitude to his subsequent bouts of self-imposed dehydration was that, sooner or later, one of two things would happen – either it would rain again, or the cat would lower his standards.

Volvic

But I came home of an evening recently to find that he had sought asylum with a new neighbour – a kindly Portuguese lady who had poured Volvic (non-sparkling) into a bowl. Did I know who owned him, she asked, as he lapped it up like a camel that had crossed the Sahara since his last drink: “He looked a bit . . . unhappy”.

. . . And so it has come to pass. Next time it rains, I’ll have buckets under the drainpipes. In the interim, I’m buying him mineral water: Supervalu own-brand, until he decides that’s not good enough either.

There’s a familiar pattern here vis-a-vis the cat’s ever-increasing needs – first puzzlement on my part, then resistance, then capitulation. After years of trial and error, for example, a while ago I finally discovered a brand of food he will almost always eat. It’s some sort of taste-enhanced stuff, made in France for “chats difficiles”.

So now every couple of months I have to cycle to a pet shop in Crumlin and haul back a 12-kilo bag over the handlebars.

“See this?” I told Jerry the first time, pointing at the “chats difficiles” and translating. “It means you’re a fussy c**t”, I said, “if you’ll pardon my French”.

It continues, and is worth a read, especially if you have a chat difficile. Macro Phyte adds, “Give the comments section a miss, some of them are just pointlessly anti-cat.”

*******

And reader Grania sent a short tw**t with a great picture from the great Twi**er website Why my cat is sad:

Screen Shot 2015-04-23 at 6.37.33 AM

(Go here if you want to learn Irish words relating to cats.)

Thursday: Hili dialogue

April 23, 2015 • 4:44 am

Is it Thursday already? Just yesterday it was Hump Day, and tomorrow is Friday, when we must choose our seats. I have a day of hard work ahead, with the only thing to look forward to being a big latte with two shots of espresso (made in my office). Well, I’m better off than most, I guess—my hard work doesn’t involve mining gold at 18,000 feet (see the latest New Yorker).

Meanwhile in Dobrzyn, the Princess (and Editor) continues to have a better life than all of us:

A: Could you go and conspire somewhere else?
Hili: Don’t listen to him. This is my desk.

P1020576

In Polish:
Ja: Czy możecie spiskować gdzie indziej?
Hili: Nie słuchaj go, to jest moje biurko.

Snowball et moi: In which I visit a renowned dancing cockatoo

April 22, 2015 • 2:32 pm

I meant to write something about the Tsarnaev trial and the death penalty today, discuss a new survey of world religion, and address the new legal ruling on the rights of chimpanzees, but those will have to wait, for I am working on two essays and a talk (you try putting up eight posts a day on top of everything else!). Instead, I offer you badinage.

When I was in South Carolina, I had the privilege of seeing Snowball the Dancing Cockatoo, a male specimen of the medium sulphur-crested cockatoo (Cacatua galerita eleonora), and a world-famous bird who’s been the subject of three scientific papers. Snowball happens to be the owner (and I mean that!) of reader Irena Schulz, who happened to be my host for my two-seminar visit.

Snowball is famous for being, well, as Wikipedia puts it, “the first non-human animal conclusively demonstrated to be capable of beat induction — perceiving music and synchronizing his body movements to the beat (i.e. dancing).”  And I got to watch him dance on his special perch—to a variety of music. As reported previously, I can verify that Snowball varies the rhythm of his dancing to match the beat of his music. Sadly, he is a curmudgeon, and you can’t touch him or he’ll bite. But he’s also a diva, and really does crave attention. (I can’t figure out the evolutionary underpinnings of that craving, for it’s not accompanied by a food reward.)

In a few days I’ll put up more pictures of the bird (and my trip) and some videos I took of Snowball in action. Meanwhile, here’s a photo taken by reader and artist Su Gould (see the cartoon below) showing me recording Snowball’s dance moves (he has 17 of them!). As he stamps his feet to the beat, sometimes raising one leg high in the air, he also waves and circles his head wildly, sometimes erecting his crest. It’s an amazing spectacle, both hilarious and biologically fascinating. In the meantime, you can see more professional videos of Snowball’s dancing here.

• snowbie P1200803 copy

Su also produced a new comic strip in her continuing series about Snowball and his pal Buddy P., a palmetto cockroach; and she was kind enough to feature me in the cartoon, including the photo above.

11170355_10153123882046598_4812552567518434170_nGoodtimes!

 

More college madness: White people (and men) banned from an “anti-racist” event at University of London

April 22, 2015 • 12:30 pm

As the Brits would say, “Sir, this is too damn much!” (Well, I don’t know if they’d say that, but it sounds like something they’d say.) And it shows, as reader Pyers said when he sent me the link, “You just cannot, I repeat cannot, make this up….” Indeed.

According to Laura Predergast at today’s Spectator and Colin Cortbus at The Tab, a student organization at Goldsmith’s, a unit of the University of London, banned white people (as well as males) from an anti-racism event held yesterday.  As The Tab reports, the event was aimed at “’challenging the white-centric culture of occupations’, ‘diversifying our curriculum’ and building a ‘cross-campus campaign that puts liberation at the heart of the movement’”.

Here’s a FB post from Bahar Mustafa, Welfare and Diversity Officer of Goldsmith’s Student Union (“BME” stands for “Black and Minority Ethnic”):

bah

I love the patronizing “Don’t worry lads we will give you and allies things to do 🙂 “. Yes, something other than participating in the event. Imagine if it were held by Muslim men, for example, and said, “Don’t worry ladies and kaffirs, we will give you and allies things to do. :-)”  Doesn’t sound so good that way, does it?

This isn’t Mustafa’s first go-round promulgating racism and sexism. In February, Prendergast reported that

Last week, one faction of the union hosted a screening of the film Dear White People and advertised it as being ‘for BME students’.. . . [A] poster specifies that this screening is for students of ‘African, Caribbean, Arab, Asian and South American ethnic origin’. The union’s welfare and diversity officer and education officer both reiterated this message on Facebook and Twitter, then stated that before the screening, there was a BME ONLY social happening at Cafe Natura.

1011

This woman is clearly an authoritarian.

The Tab reports:

A senior Student Union society president, speaking on condition of anonymity, slammed the event and the Track record of Bahar Mustafa.

Speaking anonymously, they said: “For Bahar to have the nerve to write this is patronising beyond belief.

“She (if that is her preferred gender pronoun) has made it very difficult for white cis males on campus who feel like they can’t say anything for fear of retribution. the irony that she (or they) think that they are diversifying the student community in the name of feminism and multiculturalism is laughable.”

Goldsmith’s SU is clearly wonky.  In 2014 the student assembly rejected a proposal to “commemorate Holocaust Memorial Day and genocide.” Why?:

Education officer Sarah El-alfy urged students to vote against the proposal, rejecting it as “eurocentric”.

. . . One student added: “The motion would force people to remember things they may not want to remember.”

Another suggested she couldn’t commemorate the Holocaust because she thought the Union was explicitly “anti-Zionist”.

One of the students present said the proposal should be voted against as it would affect the Union’s stance on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

. . . One student named T. Walpole, present at the Assembly, objected: “Our union is anti-Zionist.”

They added: “This is a colonialist motion. Vote it down.

“White people should not be proposing motions to condemn genocides without a lot of thought. This does not have that thought.”

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t have any objections to a BME Society, and I suppose if they want to hold events only for members, and bar others, then that would also be technically okay if other organizations were allowed to do the same.  But it all seems deeply counterproductive if their goal is really to foster a diverse curriculum. To do that, they’ll have to have conversations with men and non-BME people.  And really, banning white people from an anti-racism campaign? Did Martin Luther King ban white people from his rallies?

Finally, what’s the point of banning men from a BME anti-racism event? It’s about racism, not sexism, and even if it were about sexism, shouldn’t males get to hear what’s said?

If these young people really want to change society, they’ll have to get out of their echo chambers at some point and engage the people whose views they want to change. That, after all, is what they’ll encounter when they leave university.

Clearly this kind of identity-politics virus has crossed the pond. I’m just not sure in which direction.