This was a good diavlog, especially the second half. I wish I had something meaningful to contribute, but I don't, so I'll just say it was a pleasure to listen to. Thanks, M & D.

The problem is that both Michael Jackson and Gov. Sanford are excrutiatingly boring after the third day. I'm fast-forwarding to the Burka section. .... Isn't France full of Catholic convents run by a hierarchy of patriarchs where nuns wear not only take weird vows of celibacy and poverty at an early age, but also are sometimes cloistered (imprisoned) and literally barefoot for life? Doesn't France have a population of ultra-Orthodox Jewish women, also subjugated by an all-male clergy, who not only are forbidden to touch a man (as in shake hands with the President of France) but also must dress in long sleeves, long dresses and wear wigs? I think Michelle G. has Sarkozy's number on the dog whistle to the Islamophobic far right. Obama's pro-veil statement, however, may also appeal to the right wing -- in a different way -- assuring conservative voters at home that no one in his government will ever mess with faith-based behaviors.

About the second half. I don't really believe that attitudes towards personal freedoms of religion are all that different between europe and the united states or that differences in the legal system matter that much. Didn't public schools have public prayers in the united states until some atheist women fought against that? The USA doesn't have 30 million muslims and riots. Seems like an important difference between France and the USA. Legally, it is a matter of interpretation. The question some german constitutional scholars and one supreme court judges have raised, is, whether Islam can be regarded as a religion as understood by those who wrote the constitution. Nobody really cared to define "religion", but it is doubtful it was the intention that "freedom to practise one's religion" should entail the freedom to establish social structures, legal systems and defacto enforcement, which function to deny individuals within a group the very individual freedoms and equality before the law that the constitution is trying to grant in the first place. The burqa ban seems to be mostly symbolic in nature. The intention being probably to make europe for devout muslims

I enjoyed watching Michelle Goldberg squirm and sputter when discussing the burqa but ultimately took it as a good sign; unlike most feminists, she has actual principles and just can't bring herself defend the indefensible. Which is what happens when you buy into multi-culturalism: you're made to feel embarrassed for noticing some things truly are evil. And regarding other religions in France and their treatment of women: as long as there is no coercion, and non-believers aren't forced to participate, who cares? The problem in France is that non-believers ARE being affected and there IS coercion of Islamic women not to mention the all-too-frequent murder. The French situation is one where the "slippery slope" theory that conservatives are always yammering about has a good chance of becoming fact.

Quoting Mari Dupont: I enjoyed watching Michelle Goldberg squirm and sputter when discussing the burqa but ultimately took it as a good sign; unlike most feminists, she has actual principles and just can't bring herself defend the indefensible. Which is what happens when you buy into multi-culturalism: you're made to feel embarrassed for noticing some things truly are evil. And regarding other religions in France and their treatment of women: as long as there is no coercion, and non-believers aren't forced to participate, who cares? The problem in France is that non-believers ARE being affected and there IS coercion of Islamic women not to mention the all-too-frequent murder. The French situation is one where the "slippery slope" theory that conservatives are always yammering about has a good chance of becoming fact.

This is exactly right, the main issue with a multiculturalist view is that is often abstains from making value judgments about what is better and what is worse in terms of values and morays. It's why I think the reason assimilation in American seems to be more streamlined is that there is a greater adoption and promotion of a larger

Your heart goes out to the fully covered Muslim woman in Brooklyn? Does it ache for the orthodox Jewish women in that borough with long sleeves and dresses below their ankles and wigs who can't shake men's hands on really hot days? Are you as upset about women cutting their bodies open to stick filled plastic bags in them? Women parading in excruciatingly uncomfortable pointy stilettos, bound, yet "sexy"? Women riding polls topless for male viewing and "tips"? Women not eating (starving) to appear desirable to men? Worry about patriarchy here which seems so neutral & natural that not only do we not "see" it, we celebrate its confines as "freedom". Sound familiar?

Quoting JonIrenicus: ... view is that is often abstains from making value judgments about what is better and what is worse in terms of values and morays.

[...[

The point is that the different morays are not equal parties ...

I have an eely feeling that you've forgotten your Latin.

Quoting Magawisca: ... Women riding polls topless ...

We should do a survey about that.

Morays ARE evil. I don't care what anybody says...

Quoting Magawisca: Your heart goes out to the fully covered Muslim woman in Brooklyn? Does it ache for the orthodox Jewish women in that borough with long sleeves and dresses below their ankles and wigs who can't shake men's hands on really hot days?

Are you as upset about women cutting their bodies open to stick filled plastic bags in them? Women parading in excruciatingly uncomfortable pointy stilettos, bound, yet "sexy"? Women riding polls topless for male viewing and "tips"? Women not eating (starving) to appear desirable to men?

Worry about patriarchy here which seems so neutral & natural that not only do we not "see" it, we celebrate its confines as "freedom". Sound familiar?

I guess I disagree. To me there's a fundamental difference between receiving less sexual attention because you refuse to do something, and being murdered because you refuse to do something.

Quoting Mari Dupont: .... And regarding other religions in France and their treatment of women: as long as there is no coercion, and non-believers aren't forced to participate, who cares? The problem in France is that non-believers ARE being affected and there IS coercion of Islamic women not to mention the all-too-frequent murder.

Bravo From 2005, still one of the best articles I've seen regarding Muslims in Europe: "Hirsi Ali is unrepentant on the cultural gap.

"I take back nothing," she said on a brief return from hiding to parliament. "The essentials of Islam are not compatible with liberal democracy. In the Koran and the Hadith, it says that woman is below man, that nonbelievers have to die, and that people who renounce Islam have to die immediately." She was scathing with suggestions that her stridency was to blame for the threats. "Moderate politicians like Cohen and Aboutaleb are on the Islamists' death lists," she said. "It doesn't matter what tone you take."

Quoting bjkeefe: This was a good diavlog, especially the second half. I wish I had something meaningful to contribute, but I don't, so I'll just say it was a pleasure to listen to.

I'm in general agreeance, but I would like to add just one thing: I love Michelle Goldberg. That is all.

Quoting bjkeefe: I have an eely feeling that you've forgotten your Latin.

Thanks for that. Glad it's not just me who finds that stuff distracting. IMHO, using proper spelling and grammar (incomplete sentences and shortcuts exempted for online purposes) can't hurt one's rhetorical effectiveness. Whether using improper grammar and spelling has the opposite effect is debatable, I guess. Depends on who you ask. ;-)

Quoting Me&theboys: Depends on who you ask. ;-)

Whom. Oh yeah!!!

Quoting Ray: Whom.

Oh yeah!!!

Nice catch. I claim no exemption from my own proposal. According to every Brit I correspond with, I seem to use "gotten" when I should be using "got". And I'm invariably guilty of splitting infinitives. Or maybe I'm guilty of invariably splitting infinitives. Or perhaps of splitting infinitives invariably. Can't remember which. And I like to start sentences with And and Or. But I can assure you that I never dance topless on polls. ;-)

Quoting Me&theboys: Nice catch. I claim no exemption from my own proposal. According to every Brit I correspond with, I seem to use "gotten" when I should be using "got". And I'm invariably guilty of splitting infinitives. Or maybe I'm guilty of invariably splitting infinitives. Or perhaps of splitting infinitives invariably. Can't remember which. And I like to start sentences with And and Or. But I can assure you that I never dance topless on polls. ;-)

Nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English.* And I'm all for starting sentences with "and" and "or" and other casual usages fitting for the forum. I see that as quite different from either incomprehensible writing, consistently glaring spelling errors (though I'm an awful speller, so don't mean just the occasional mistake), or the use of texting style (painful to read). *Mainly just posted to say that, since I'm one of those people. However, as long as I'm posting, I'll go on.

The right isn't 'islamophobic'; it's anti-Islamist terrorist. (edit: I see you may have been referring to the European far-right... they're a bit different than the American far-right and they can be quite bigotted towards Muslims and/or Muslim culture) Far-right religious conservatives have been some of the most vocal and real proponents of Muslim religious freedom in the United States. It was Republicans in Oklahoma, for example, who prevented a school district from banning the hijab for secular reasons.

I thought the discussion about the burqa was interesting (agree that MJ and Sanford are past their prime as discussion topics already), and was going to question the comment that people on the right have less angst with the topic, as it seems to split both (as defined in the US, anyway). Feminists (and various liberals) wanting to argue against social structures that put women in an unequal position vs. respect for women's choices and other cultures and just the American view of the First Amendment generally,* but conservatives being caught between dislike of a particular culture (and willingness to say that ours is better) vs. a general dislike of the gov't interfering in religion and, in particular, to impose secular values. For example, it's normally conservatives who will take the lead in arguing that freedom of religion doesn't mean from religion and that banning religious symbols or personal prayer in public places (not state led) is wrong, and have a broader interpretation of what falls into that category. Perhaps not based on the conservatives here, however. *Which is what is the most significant factor for me. Banning a religious item

I agree.

There should definitely be a diavlog on feminism, multiculturalism, foreign policy and peace. This would be a great topic to discuss. This conversation has been going on strong since the U.S. started dropping bombs on the Taliban in 2002. Feminists who prior to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan ranted and raved about the Taliban's patriarchy all of a sudden shut up cause they didn't like Bush or didn't like war or didn't like U.S. foreign policy or didn't like America killing the "other". Then came the fame of people like Pim Fortuyn (pronounced For-tine, I think) and Hirsi Ali, who fly in the face of so many feminist/left-wing shibboleths. Reality is real bitch for so many women on the Left. It is totally fascinating.

Quoting stephanie: Nothing wrong with splitting infinitives in English.* And I'm all for starting sentences with "and" and "or" and other casual usages fitting for the forum. I see that as quite different from either incomprehensible writing, consistently glaring spelling errors (though I'm an awful speller, so don't mean just the occasional mistake), or the use of texting style (painful to read).

*Mainly just posted to say that, since I'm one of those people. However, as long as I'm posting, I'll go on.

I'm also of the view that there is nothing wrong with splitting infinitives, or at least, that a blanket proscription is nonsense. As I understand it, this "rule" came about from an unhealthy obsession with making English conform with Latin (where the infinitive form of a verb is a single word) in the 18 or 19th century. Here is a good post on the matter from Language Log. There are times when it feels unnecessary or even clunky to split an infinitive, to be sure, and in more formal writing, I tend to rearrange sentences to avoid at least some splits, but this is in general not something that can be used as an all-purpose weapon by grammar

Quoting Lyle: There should definitely be a diavlog on feminism, multiculturalism, foreign policy and peace. This would be a great topic to discuss. This conversation has been going on strong since the U.S. started dropping bombs on the Taliban in 2002. Feminists who prior to the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan ranted and raved about the Taliban's patriarchy all of a sudden shut up cause they didn't like Bush or didn't like war or didn't like U.S. foreign policy or didn't like America killing the "other". Then came the fame of people like Pim Fortuyn (pronounced For-tine, I think) and Hirsi Ali, who fly in the face of so many feminist/left-wing shibboleths.

Reality is real bitch for so many women on the Left. It is totally fascinating.

Reality appears to be something with which you are uncomfortable, as well. It might be nice if every question had a clear-cut yes or no answer. Unfortunately, the real world does not work that way. There are always trade-offs. In this instance, it is obvious to those in the reality-based community that a stance on women's rights has to be considered in light of other relevant factors, such

Yeah, no kidding. What did you think I was talking about?

Quoting Mari Dupont: I enjoyed watching Michelle Goldberg squirm and sputter when discussing the burqa but ultimately took it as a good sign; unlike most feminists, she has actual principles and just can't bring herself defend the indefensible. Which is what happens when you buy into multi-culturalism: you're made to feel embarrassed for noticing some things truly are evil. And regarding other religions in France and their treatment of women: as long as there is no coercion, and non-believers aren't forced to participate, who cares? The problem in France is that non-believers ARE being affected and there IS coercion of Islamic women not to mention the all-too-frequent murder. The French situation is one where the "slippery slope" theory that conservatives are always yammering about has a good chance of becoming fact.

I'm curious does the analogy of the "promise ring" comes into play here. Why not ban "promise rings" since both a head dress and a promise ring denote the idea that a woman in impure when "sexualized" ? I understand that boys are supposed to wear promise rings as well but a man's purity is not really the issue here is it.

Quoting dieter: Religious arbitration is another issue. If some imam acts as a judge within his community, his mosque should really be shut down. The letter of the law isn't worth the paper it is written on, if the institutions which abide by it, don't have a monopoly within the borders of the state.

This is the crux of the matter for the French. Who has the ultimate authority in the state, and therefore in society? But I disagree when you say that the burka is a purely symbolic issue. On the contrary, as any visitor to a Muslim country knows, it is an integral part of an oppressive, patriarchial religious worldview that is alien and, in my opinion, obnoxious to the values of the secular West. This has been true ever since Montesquieu wrote his Lettres Persanes in the early 18th century and contrasted European atttitudes towards women, marriage etc. with the attitudes of Islamic Persia. Michelle Goldberg did a good job of explaining the differences between the US and France. Obama, on the other hand, gets a D+.

Quoting Magawisca: Are you as upset about women cutting their bodies open to stick filled plastic bags in them?

seems bizarre, but hey, they are free people doing what they want. I've been on the recieving end of very excited conversations about new boobs before. some women find it empowering.

Quoting Magawisca: Women parading in excruciatingly uncomfortable pointy stilettos, bound, yet "sexy"?

i've never had a girlfriend that was really into that sort of thing, but i have some female friends that love their high heels. seems people being free to do what they please again - i know that can be difficult when you have a really paternalistic view of the world. I fully endorse wearing comfy shoes, though.

Quoting Magawisca: Women riding polls topless for male viewing and "tips"?

I've known a couple strippers. all were making a hell of lot more money than i was. I was also selling my body - manual labor - developing life-long pains and joint and tendon damage. one of the women that was a stripper was quite psychologically damaged and did not do well in her life. I think the stripper life-style did not help. on the other hand, the other two i knew

Quoting Francoamerican: Obama, on the contrary, gets a D+.

Only from a French, European, or hard feminist perspective, I guess. I'd give Obama an A. He understands America that's for sure and what makes it different from Europe. (edit: different from, thanks for the grammar pick up Franco... I type fast and don't check for errors until well after I post, if ever)

Quoting bjkeefe: I have an eely feeling that you've forgotten your Latin.

More like never taken it to begin with. I do not recall ever seeing that word written, I always remember hearing it used in that way instead and so I put down my butchered spelling of the word I heard and deduced the meaning from based on its usage.

Quoting Lyle: Only from a French, European, or hard feminist perspective, I guess. I'd give Obama an A. He understands America that's for sure and what makes it different than Europe.

Different from. But I am glad to see that at least when Obama stoops to your level you reward him with an A.

Haha... Obama has stooped to my level? What does that mean? He recognizes that in the United States Muslims have more rights. If anyone has stooped, it's France and Europe, because Muslims have less liberty over there than here. Some might even say America is a better place for Muslims than France. Haha.

Quoting JonIrenicus: More like never taken it to begin with. I do not recall ever seeing that word written, I always remember hearing it used in that way instead and so I put down my butchered spelling of the word I heard and deduced the meaning from based on its usage.

Yeah. I was mostly just looking for the opportunity to crack a joke.

Untangling coerced behavior from non-coerced behavior when the potentially coerced are less powerful than the potential coercers is very difficult. Many people do not speak against, and often speak in favor of, behaviors that they do not themselves support but which they feel culturally pressured or coerced to support or tolerate or engage in. Witness Nazi Germany. To make assumptions about what powerless people want to do based on what they actually do or even, sometimes, based on what they say they want to do, would be foolish. It depends on the social dynamics, the behavior in question, and what people believe their live options are. I am quite sure that the practice of widow burning would never have started had Indian women been granted social status independent of their husbands. To claim that women threw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres because they wanted to is to misrepresent the situation. The greater the association between powerlessness and cultural practices that serve to exploit the powerless, treat them differently as a group, and/or perpetuate their powerlessness, the more suspect are the motives for perpetuating those cultural practices. Yes, there are women

Awesome post, Me&. Very well said.

It was Republicans in Oklahoma, for example, who prevented a school district from banning the hijab for secular reasons.

That's what I meant by Obama's pro-veil comment being a pitch to the religious right in the USA. A lot -- not all -- of these voters are lost to Obama. He still has to pay attention to the interfaith groups (Muslim, Jewish, Christian) that share a set of views on gov. involvement with religion. Pornography, for example, riles up all three groups. Obama, I think, killed four birds with one stone on his clever veil comment: 1) appeal to the aforementioned groups; 2) Appeal directly to the Arab/Muslim world where they love the veil; 3) Appeal to multiculturalists; 4) Appeal to everyone with residual feelings that Obama may have a radical agenda. Win-win-win-win. He only risks alienating a (perhaps small) group of feminists who are pro-abolishing Burkas, but of course he said nothing about Burkas.

Yeah, I saw that after I posted. I hadn't read your whole comment through. My bad. I totally agree with you though.

Quoting Me&theboys: Untangling coerced behavior from non-coerced behavior when the potentially coerced are less powerful than the potential coercees is very difficult. Many people do not speak against, and often speak in favor of, behaviors that they do not themselves support but which they feel culturally pressured or coerced to support or tolerate or engage in. Witness Nazi Germany. To make assumptions about what powerless people want to do based on what they actually do or even, sometimes, based on what they say they want to do, would be foolish. It depends on the social dynamics, the behavior in question, and what people believe their live options are. I am quite sure that the practice of widow burning would never have started had Indian women been granted social status independent of their husbands. To claim that women threw themselves on their husbands' funeral pyres because they wanted to is to misrepresent the situation.

i agree. there was a very interesting discussion on the last joshua knobe DV talking about "systemic support" behavior. it seem to support your ideas.

Quoting Me&theboys: Yes, there are women who say they want to wear a burqa....I could formulate an argument both

Quoting Me&theboys: No matter how much of a cultural or moral relativist one is, it is difficult to argue with any degree of seriousness that there are large groups of people (whole genders in fact) who genuinely want less personal agency rather than more. When you see people making this claim, it is most likely an illusion perpetrated and maintained by the powerful.

It's also difficult to seriously argue the opposite. That's because large groups of people (especially whole genders) aren't simple minded political constructs, which can be unfortunate for people who want to ascribe them united 'real' positions that don't match the conflicting-but-actually-observable 'illusory' positions.

Quoting popcorn_karate: could you also formulate an argument either for or against genocide?

I'm quite sure I don't want to, but I'm also quite sure someone could. I do think they are morally different issues, but that is because the act of wearing a burqa is not a moral issue. Being prevented from deciding for one's self without repercusions whether or not to wear a burqa is a moral issue. Thus my preference for the more abstract personal agency level of the argument, which makes for better moral equivalence.

Untangling coerced behavior from non-coerced behavior when the potentially coerced are less powerful than the potential coercees is very difficult.

I think that's right, which is what makes legislating so difficult. There is a very blurry line between coercion and choice. It's somewhat easier to decide when the questionable practices are vestiges of a culture of subjugation and oppression. Female genital mutilation is a good example. The idea is clearly to control female sexuality and subjugate women. Male circumcision in Islam and Judaism may be equally barbaric, but it's purpose is not subjugation, control or sexuality or oppression. It's more like an initiation tattoo. Is the Burka an extension of male supremacist ideology? Clearly, yes. Still, where does the state draw the line? What if a patriarch says, "Only X (religion) boys shall go to college. Girls must stay home and be married by age 20." Can the state require him to devote equal amounts of his income to female college education? Surely not. But the modern secular state would not let him get away with saying, "Only the boys in the family can learn to read."

Quoting Wonderment: Obama, I think, killed four birds with one stone on his clever veil comment: 1) appeal to the aforementioned groups; 2) Appeal directly to the Arab/Muslim world where they love the veil; 3) Appeal to multiculturalists; 4) Appeal to everyone with residual feelings that Obama may have a radical agenda.

Win-win-win-win. He only risks alienating a (perhaps small) group of feminists who are pro-abolishing Burkas, but of course he said nothing about Burkas.

Maybe, but there are women in the Arab/Persian Muslim world who hate the veil, to say nothing of the burka, and may find Obama's (and your ?)multiculturalist balderdash condescending. As for those hordes of pious Americans who think that any religion is better than none, well what can I say? You have Lyle on your side.

I was hoping you'd comment on the French double standard of toleration for Christian extremists like cloistered nuns or Orthodox Jewish women/girls and intolerance for Burka-wearing Muslims. I notice Sarkozy resolves the issue by saying, "The roots of France are essentially Christian," but I'm sure the French left is not so simpleminded.

Quoting pampl: It's also difficult to seriously argue the opposite. That's because large groups of people (especially whole genders) aren't simple minded political constructs, which can be unfortunate for people who want to ascribe them united 'real' positions that don't match the conflicting-but-actually-observable 'illusory' positions.

Pampl, my anti-book friend. Welcome to the discussion. Long time no argue. Your comment strikes me as a non-sequitur. Please clarify its relevance, if any, to the points I made.

Michelle Goldberg rocks. I only get 5GB a month here in Iraq, so I cancelled my BHTV RSS feed. But whenever I see her on I download the MP4, it is worth the Bytes. I hardly agree with her, but she is turning me around on some issues.

Quoting Globalcop: Michelle Goldberg rocks. I only get 5GB a month here in Iraq, so I cancelled my BHTV RSS feed. But whenever I see her on I download the MP4, it is worth the Bytes.

I hardly agree with her, but she is turning me around on some issues.

I'd be happy to buy and mail to you a copy of her book. Seriously.

Quoting Me&theboys: Pampl, my anti-book friend. Welcome to the discussion. Long time no argue. Your comment strikes me as a non-sequitur. Please clarify its relevance, if any, to the points I made.

It's fallacious to assume that a majority or supermajority of a group are in favor of something because it increases their personal agency. A majority of women support laws that prohibit public nudity, for instance. That there's reason to doubt support for the burqa by women in repressive societies doesn't lead one to the conclusion that in a fully equal society they'd democratically support making it optional.

Quoting Me&theboys: Being prevented from deciding for one's self without repercusions whether or not to wear a burqa is a moral issue. Thus my preference for the more abstract personal agency level of the argument, which makes for better moral equivalence.

so you are sticking with the moral equivalence of genocide and forced burka-wearing? you really sound like a loon.

Quoting pampl: It's fallacious to assume that a majority or supermajority of a group are in favor of something because it increases their personal agency.

OK. So it's a reading comprehension issue then. What I said was: "It is difficult to argue with any degree of seriousness that there are large groups of people (whole genders in fact) who genuinely want less personal agency rather than more." My point is that, if people have no personal agency, how can you (or they) possibly know for sure what they want, because they are not free to express it, nor do they even consider the alternate possibilities to be live options. I did not say or imply that personal agency will result in everyone wanting the same thing.

Quoting popcorn_karate: so you are sticking with the moral equivalence of genocide and forced burka-wearing?

you really sound like a loon.

(Sigh) I feel like Charlie Brown trying to talk to Lucy. Are you related to Pampl and Lyle?

the exasperated tone is a nice form of display for your supposed intellectual superiority, in a strutting-peacock sort of way. i'm afraid i don't buy it and I am not nearly insecure enough about my intellectual capabilities for it to be effective. instead of the strutting and posturing you could have tried to: a)walk back your rant about genocide being equivalent to various forms of female oppression or b) tried to defend it. you did neither, you were evasive by not responding to the central point of my first comment and now your are being petulant. i actually agreed with the meat of your first post, and cited a good DV that affirms your opinion. however, I thought you really went overboard when you brought in a moral equivalence to genocide. i have no apologies to make about my views or how i've expressed them in our interchange.

I'm agnostic Franco and Obama is on my side. Liberty! Liberty! Liberty! Furthermore, Obama's "multiculturalist balderdash" is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Sorry for going off topic, but I thought some of you might want to know:

Court rules for Franken; Coleman won't appeal

Republican Norm Coleman ended his bruising eight-month court fight over Minnesota's U.S. Senate seat this afternoon, conceding to Democrat Al Franken after the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Franken's favor.

The justices ruled today that Franken won the U.S. Senate election and said he is entitled to an election certificate that would lead to him being seated in the Senate.

"Affirmed," wrote the Supreme Court, unanimously rejecting Coleman's claims that inconsistent practices by local elections officials and wrong decisions by a lower court had denied him victory.

Two hours after the decision was released, Coleman said he would "abide by the results."

"Furtrher litigation damages the unity of our state," he said during a news conference held at his St. Paul home. "The future today is that we have a new United States senator."

Coleman said he had called Franken to "congratulate him for his victory. I told him it's the best job he will ever have."

(h/t: Wonkette)

Quoting popcorn_karate: so you are sticking with the moral equivalence of genocide and forced burka-wearing?

you really sound like a loon.

maybe this will help (see bold word added below):
"Being prevented from deciding for one's self without repercusions whether or not to wear a burqa is a moral issue. Thus my preference for the more abstract personal agency level of the argument, which makes for better moral equivalence discussions." And to elaborate in case its needed: my point is that couching dilemmas in terms of specifics rather than in terms of the abstract principles on which they stand tends to cause people to focus on the specifics of the issue rather than on the principle behind it. This is because the specifics tend to be associated with emotions to a greater degree than are abstract principles. And when emotions dominate moral decision making, a lot of questionable decisions are made. And in further clarification in case it is still needed: I am making no claims of any kind regarding the moral equivalence of forced burqa wearing and genocide

Quoting bjkeefe: Sorry for going off topic, but I thought some of you might want to know:

(h/t: Wonkette)

And they said it couldn't be done. That makes 60.

Quoting Wonderment: I was hoping you'd comment on the French double standard of toleration for Christian extremists like cloistered nuns or Orthodox Jewish women/girls and intolerance for Burka-wearing Muslims.

I notice Sarkozy resolves the issue by saying, "The roots of France are essentially Christian," but I'm sure the French left is not so simpleminded.

Cloistered nuns? Well, yes there are a few here and there (and a few cloistered monks too) but, as far as I know, they choose of their own volition to "withdraw from the world to serve God." We no longer live in the society of the ancien régime where fathers could force their daughters or sons to take vows---mainly for economic reasons. I will say nothing of Orthodox Jews because I know nothing about them.... except that I find the broad-brimmed hats worn by men and boys rather dashing. But you are missing the main point: Muslim women, at least those that come from traditional families, aren't given a choice: They are forced to wear the veil or, in the worst case, the burka because their fathers and brothers think that they would otherwise tempt men to rape or succumb to lustful temptations themselves.

Quoting Me&theboys: OK. So it's a reading comprehension issue then. What I said was:

"It is difficult to argue with any degree of seriousness that there are large groups of people (whole genders in fact) who genuinely want less personal agency rather than more."

My point is that, if people have no personal agency, how can you (or they) possibly know for sure what they want, because they are not free to express it, nor do they even consider the alternate possibilities to be live options. I did not say or imply that personal agency will result in everyone wanting the same thing.

The point that's over your head is that they might not want alternate possibilities to be live options, and that offering "alternate possibilities" is to assume that they secretly want to be like you. At any rate, "no personal agency" wasn't part of your point originally, and now that you've changed your point so that it applies to essentially no actual people, I guess I don't have any problem with it.

Quoting Francoamerican: ... except that I find the broad-brimmed hats worn by men and boys rather dashing.

Totally. Some of them are downright badass.

Quoting ohcomeon: And they said it couldn't be done. That makes 60.

And now, let's all channel our inner Jed Bartlets: WHAT'S NEXT? I call upon Sen. Franken to make it his first order of business to apply the full force of his new powers against his old nemesis. ;^)

Okay, how's this for a news angle that might not have immediately leapt to mind?

There are now more Jews in the Iranian parliament than there are Jewish Republicans in the U.S. Senate (it's a tie when you count all of Congress)...

No lie: this was near the top of the Google News results, at this moment. [Added] Summary of court ruling and link to full PDF available on MinnPost.

here is your statement: "We have no problem condemning those cultures that engage in genocide. Why our reluctance to *condemn with equal vigor* those cultures that engage in curtailing the freedom and equality" good day.

Muslim women, at least those that come from traditional families, aren't given a choice: They are forced to wear the veil or, in the worst case, the burka because their fathers and brothers think that they would otherwise tempt men to rape or succumb to lustful temptations themselves.

Ditto for Orthodox Jewish women. Same principle applies. And similar dress code, although the face is never covered. For example, men are allowed to sing prayers in front of women, but women are not allowed to sing (or speak, in some instances) around men because the sound of her temptress voice (Eve in the Garden) would provoke the virtuous men to unspeakable horny thoughts and erotic misdeeds, like spilling their seed.

In Orthodox Judaism men are generally not allowed to hear women sing, a prohibition called kol isha (Babylonian Talmud Tractate Berachot 24a). This is derived from Song of Solomon 2:14: "Let me hear your voice, for your voice is sweet ("arev") and your face is beautiful." The Talmud classifies this as ervah (literally "nakedness"). The majority view of later interpreters is that this prohibition applies at all times....

...And with regard to another woman [besides one's wife], it is

Quoting Wonderment: Still, where does the state draw the line?

It would appear that the state can draw and move the line as it wishes - isn't that both the point of having power and the reason to oppose its accumulation? The state generally requires folks to keep various parts of their bodies covered, said parts varying by gender. Is there anything to keep it from changing or adding to the current list of areas? The state also delegates the power to set mandates for appearance to other authorities, free to use that power rather arbitrarily. It has upheld the power of school principals to require or prohibit all manner of items or styles of dress and even to prohibit particular hairstyles.

Interesting point. I wonder what the French government (and Obama) thinks about parents who raise their children to be nudists. Does it matter if they do so as regular libertines or as members of the American Family Nudist Church? We've already been through this number on peyote and other substances that are illegal for the rest of the population, including the "religious" use of wine during Prohibition.

WTF statement of the day: “Ours is a government of laws, not men and women,” Mr. Coleman said, in a statement he read before reporters.

Quoting Wonderment: Ditto for Orthodox Jewish women. Same principle applies. And similar dress code, although the face is never covered. For example, men are allowed to sing prayers in front of women, but women are not allowed to sing (or speak, in some instances) around men because the sound of her temptress voice (Eve in the Garden) would provoke the virtuous men to unspeakable horny thoughts and erotic misdeeds, like spilling their seed.

It is all about numbers and perceptions. My impression is that Orthodox Jews are a tiny percentage of the total French Jewish population (app. 700,000: the third largest Jewish population outside Israel and the US), who for the most part are indistinguishable from French Catholics and Protestants, i.e. they adhere to the principles of French laïcité and republicanism. Muslims, on the other hand, represent about 10% of the French population (6 million), and many of them are recent immigrants who have not been very well integrated into French society. In this respect they are quite unlike the French Jews who have lived here for centuries. Some very prominent French families are Jewish and have been active in politics, the sciences and the arts since the 19th

Quoting Wonderment: WTF statement of the day:

“Ours is a government of laws, not men and women,” Mr. Coleman said, in a statement he read before reporters.

Heh. I saw that. I think he might have been trying to say something like, "I'm a fighter, so if it were up to me, I'd still be fighting." Could be seen as a way to forestall blowback from GOP zealots who wanted to take this thing to the US Supreme Court (to keep Franken out of office for longer). Chatter is that he's considering running for governor in 2010. If so, he needs to stay in the good graces of the party.

Nothing wrong with "gotten" either. In Britain, the past participle is just "got", in the US it's "gotten". AFAIK it's one of those words that died out in Britain but was preserved here. There are some other minor differences between American and British English with regards to how tenses are used, like they say "I've already done that" (present perfect) while we're more likely to say "I already did that" (simple past).

Quoting kezboard: ... like they say "I've already done that" (present perfect) while we're more likely to say "I already did that" (simple past).

Hmmm. Seems to me I use both forms regularly, to reflect something different about the past ... maybe to do with how recently? E.g.: Someone: Want to climb this rock?
Me: I've already done that. Let's find a new one. Someone: Check the oil before you start the compressor.
Me: I already did that.

Been there, did that.

Quoting Wonderment: Been there, did that.

I always say "Been there, done that." A regionalism?

Quoting pampl: The point that's over your head is that they might not want alternate possibilities to be live options

Actually, rather than it being over my head, that is exactly the point that I said would be very hard to argue seriously on behalf of. Here's the exact quote: "It is difficult to argue with any degree of seriousness that there are large groups of people (whole genders in fact) who genuinely want less personal agency rather than more." So if you want to make that argument, go for it. Or perhaps you can't, or don't really believe that, so instead you'll go again for the semantic and superficial argument and claim that personal agency is completely unrelated to freedom of choice among live options.

Quoting pampl: offering "alternate possibilities" is to assume that they secretly want to be like you

No, actually, offering alternate possibilities does not at all entail that they make the same choices as I would, or even imply that they must change their behavior at all. It creates an environment in which they can make whatever choices they want as opposed to having their behavior dictated

Quoting popcorn_karate: here is your statement:

"We have no problem condemning those cultures that engage in genocide. Why our reluctance to *condemn with equal vigor* those cultures that engage in curtailing the freedom and equality (of half of their population)"

First, saying that two things should be condemned with equal vigor is not the same as saying they are morally equivalent. I think rape and murder should be condemned with equal vigor, but I don't think they are morally equivalent. Perhaps you feel otherwise, but in any case, you incorrectly INFERRED something I did not SAY. Second, "curtailing the freedom and equality of half of their population" is not the equivalent of "forced burka wearing". The latter is merely a mild example of the former. In any event, I tried to clarify what I meant and you could not care less. Clearly you are far more invested in protecting your ego than in an actual discussion of the issue.

Quoting Me&theboys: Actually, rather than it being over my head, that is exactly the point that I said would be very hard to argue seriously on behalf of. Here's the exact quote: "It is difficult to argue with any degree of seriousness that there are large groups of people (whole genders in fact) who genuinely want less personal agency rather than more." So if you want to make that argument, go for it. Or perhaps you can't, or don't really believe that, so instead you'll go again for the semantic and superficial argument and claim that personal agency is completely unrelated to freedom of choice among live options.

No, actually, offering alternate possibilities does not at all entail that they make the same choices as I would, or even imply that they must change their behavior at all. It creates an environment in which they can make whatever choices they want as opposed to having their behavior dictated to them by others.

You still don't get it. I think I understand why you're confused, though. You're confusing "personal" with group identity. I don't want Americans to have free access to mortars and anti-tank weapons. Though that restricts my personal

Quoting pampl: There are more pro-life than pro-choice women in the US, but that doesn't mean they're volunteering to restrict personal agency because they're secretly being mind controlled by the evil patriarchal overlords

You're right, it doesn't - it means that they are freely choosing to be pro-life, which is the kind of freedom of choice I am saying we should pursue for people elsewhere who don't have it, even if they choose to exercise it in a way I might not agree with.

Quoting pampl: it means they want to restrict the agency of other people

Yes, it does, and I have a problem with people who want to restrict the agency of other people for no legitimate reason or for self-serving reasons (for example, requiring females to be infibulated.)

Quoting pampl: You're advocating forcing cultural change on other people to make their culture closer to what you want. That's not necessarily wrong (or right), but you can't pretend you're doing anything else.

OK, first, part of the point of my post is that "forcing" is an arguable term when the "cultural change" I am advocating may well be one that half the population would pursue themselves

i think you may want to have a look in a mirror. but your last post did finally address the issue i was wondering about. thanks, wish i could say it had been a pleasure.

Then came reports that the atrocities in New York and Washington had been greeted with cheers in parts of Rotterdam. Forum, the Dutch institute for multicultural development, commissioned an opinion poll of Dutch Muslims. It showed that 48% had "complete understanding" and 27% "some understanding" of the attacks. Overall, only 62% disapproved

That is honestly, hard to believe, that only 62% of Dutch Muslims disapproved of 9/11. Also, is Dutch society stratefied along ethnic or religous lines?

Quoting Starwatcher162536: That is honestly, hard to believe, that only 62% of Dutch Muslims disapproved of 9/11.

Also, is Dutch society stratefied along ethnic or religous lines?

Fun fact: before WW2 Dutch society was divided along Catholic/Protestant lines. It was call pillarisation. There were separate schools, hospitals, etc. (Even soccer leagues: the poorer Catholics had their league on Sunday because they often had to work 6 days/week, and the Protestants played on Saturdays and observed the sabbath. The lowest rung of the Dutch football system still has the Saturday and Sunday leagues.) Tolerance is something the Netherlands has fought hard to achieve.

I can't keep track of what you guys (pampl, m&tb) are debating. What's the crux?

Quoting claymisher: I can't keep track of what you guys (pampl, m&tb) are debating. What's the crux?

To summarize with an example that makes my position look better:
Going topless as a woman in NYC isn't a "live" option- there was a law enacted with fines or something as punishment, and the news of the moment some years back was that a higher court found that law to be Constitutional (or not-unconstitutional, I guess). Should we try to make this a live option, presumably by shielding topless women from NYC law enforcement, even though it goes against the express wishes of the people of NY as enacted by their democratic government? The crux is, are we allowed to assume that any of the relatively less powerful- i.e. women- who appear to support the status quo actually secretly want female toplessness to be legal? The main problem with that example, I think, is that the women of NYC really aren't very powerless. In cases where the power differential is more significant - like the ME - it's clearly makes more sense to doubt expressions of support for the status quo made the by weaker party. Is it also more reasonable to assume they are opposed

Quoting claymisher: I can't keep track of what you guys (pampl, m&tb) are debating. What's the crux?

Good question. Pampl likes to create arguments over points that have never been made. I've given up trying to show this to him. He's like a whack-a-mole - if you shoot down one of his arguments, he just makes up another one. And the relationship of each successive argument to the original point gets ever more remote.

Changed my mind, I don't care to continue this slapfight