Mallick: Time for someone to speak up for shy girls

Mr.Tea wrote:

Rebecca West wrote:

I cannot think of a mainstream religion, at its most conservative and orthodox end of the spectrum, that isn't sexist. 

Again, you're coming from the perspective of a Canadian atheist who, if I had to guess, has never actually taken the time to study the scriptures and doctrines of the religions you condemn. Why not ask the women who actually practice these religions whether THEY feel that they're sexist, rather than trying to speak on behalf of women you don't know and will likely never meet?

You're absolutely correct - I am Canadian and am an atheist.  The rest is what we call an ad hominem attack, based on nothing but bigoted speculation of who I am, what I know and who I know, because I'm atheist.  Attacking the individual and not the argument violates babble policy.  I suggest you give it a read.

I'd also like to point out to you - and those who seem to have forgotten - that this is the FEMINIST forum, a safe space for pro-feminist discussion. This is not a place where feminists have to defend feminist thought.

Islamic feminists have been pushing for equity in prayer and in the Mosque since the 19th century. Islamic feminism is based in the Qur'an and Islamic history, ie, since in the 7th century the  prophet Muhammad didn't put women behind partitions, the barriers are sexist man-made inventions. 

Virtually every major religion has feminist theology that looks to re-interpret scripture and doctrine to promote gender equity, but there is strenuous opposition by the entrenched patriarchy.

voice of the damned wrote:

pookie wrote:

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

pookie wrote:

The point is that in a society that mandates separation of church and state, the concern in public schools must always be for the student who feels FORCED to participate in religious activity rather than the student who WANTS to. Saying, oh but it's their choice whether to participate or not simply is not adequate, and hasn't been for a really long time.

But we don't have that. I went to a publicly funded, co-religious, Catholic-run, school. (Which, in retrospect... but you do a lot of dumb things when you're a teen, like fail to take spironolactone.) We don't have the same anti-establismentarianism in our laws that the Americans do..

Sorry, but this is simply untrue. Yes, part of the Constitution guarantees funding for certain denominational schools existing at Confederation (which most provinces have eliminated through bilateral amendment btw). That does not mean that state endorsement of religion in other contexts is ok. It is not. It violates the Charter.

Which section of the Charter does it violate? As RTTG points out, there is no non-establishment clause in the Charter. Has
the "freedom of religion" been interpreted by the courts as invalidating state endorsement? I'm asking, because I really
don't know.

It would violate sections 2a and 15 but would most likely proceed on the basis of 2a (freedom of conscience and religion).
And just to be clear, the lack of a so-called establishment clause is completely irrelevant to the question of the limits of state
entanglement with religion in Canada. The Supreme Court confirmed that in the very first Charter decision to deal with freedom of
religion: Big M Drug Mart. let me put it another way. Were this ever to be litigated in court, the fact that the Constitution
requires some religious schools to be funded would have absolutely no bearing on whether this policy violates the Charter. Zero.

ETA to answer your second question. Yes, that was the basis for the Big M decision.

In fact there is a strong argument that our Charter protects freedom of religion MORE broadly than the US because it includes "innocent" state action that nonetheless has negative EFFECTS. In the US, if the state does not intend to endorse religion it actually has quite a bit of leeway in its laws and policies.

And Alberta has not... there's nearly half the country. And to be sure, I'm surprised you didn't mention Jan Butterman's firing from ECS for having the temerity to be a man.

Anyway, I'd support compulsary public education in the official language, complimented by other languages of course, of the student's choice, and let religion happen in the private sphere, but that's me, and I do worry though that all the right-wing parents will start electing public school trustees then instead of catholic... but really that's just gerrymandering.

Just saying it won't be as clean a break and as unambiguous a decision as one thinks.

if you look at poll after poll in the US, for example, Catholics are more progressive and anti-sexist than the country

Well, more precisely, I think, people who answer "Catholic" to the religion question on polls and censuses are more progressive and anti-sexist than the rest of the country.

The problem is that Catholics have a confounding tendency to identify as Catholic, even after they've stopped going to mass or believing in church doctrine. For a Canadian example, you can see this most clearly in Quebec, which has extremely low rates of church attendance and adherence to Catholic doctrine, but an overwhelming number of its population identifying as Catholic on the census.

So, as far as Catholics go, those polls should really make a distinction between nominal and practicing.

Systemic discrimination does not rely on intent it is determined by effect.  I don't care what the original text says it is the effect the particular religious cult has on its members that is important. For example  being raised as a man to see myself as the head of the household instead of an equal partner with my wife is misogynist IMO. 

No matter the supposed nuances in the text the result is often asshole men with superiority complexes.

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

Mr.Tea wrote:

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

I agree with that and with what remind said: There's no need to "insult" anyone.  Just exclude all religion (and all elements of religion) from public schools.

Mr.Tea wrote:

I agree with you but I think that the "religion doesn't belong in public schools" point can be made without insulting a religion practiced by well over a billion people, and one most of us know little about, as being inherently sexist.

That's a strawman argument - no one here is insulting Islam or any other religion.  Some of us are critical of certain practises - in Islam and in all major religions in general - that exclude and/or segregate women.  Some are defensive of practises as they pertain to women. This being the feminist forum, it is our right as feminists to analyse what this means to us. 

It does not require a degree in theology, nor does it require one to practise one of the major religions to have this discussion.  It is supposed to be a discussion from a pro-feminist POV, which is a broad enough definition to ensure diversity of contribution.  If you refuse to - or cannot - understand this, and want to continue your discussion in defense of religion without any feminist analysis, please open a thread in another forum - Body and Soul for example.

I agree remind, this really doesn't belong in the feminism forum. I think the right is constantly trying to target feminists as being traitors to our cause because we haven't jumped on the islamaphobia train. These same followers painted feminists as traitors to our cause for not supporting the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. It's bullshit and it's an attempt to co-opt feminist sensibilities to justify their racism and aggression.

Probably it's here because of the segregation by sex which schools have done in a secular context as well.

The question then becomes...

Would we consider this to be an issue if the prayers were not segregated along gender lines?

In other words, is it the gender segregation, or the praying-in-school in and of itself, that is the issue? Heather Mallick's original article focussed on the segregation aspect, so that sort of became part of the discussion right from the start. Whether Mallick should have focussed on that is another question.

I absolutely would consider it an issue too. The idea that we have to accommodate prayer in school to be fully accepting of minority groups is, well, frightening.

pookie wrote:

I absolutely would consider it an issue too. The idea that we have to accommodate prayer in school to be fully accepting of minority groups is, well, frightening.

Wa accomodate plenty of extra-curricular minority activities, GSA's, inclusive public accomodations, sports teams for that matter, because the vast majority of the kids won't get any benefits from athletics. Chess clubs, technological societies... just because this particular set of values is one you find to be abberant doesn't mean the same accusations haven't been levied against these accomodations either.

Yes, I have no problem with a multi-faith prayer room, or a school saying, "where numbers warrant," in response to teaching children second and third, and fifth languages. Part of being a pluralistic society is accepting newcomer's customs and traditions with the caveat that it is implicitly understood that said newcomers respect the existing political values.

In the 1870's we heavily scrutinized the Irish because of the Feinians, guerrilas who attacked our country, murdered one of its founders, a great poet of confederation... And so everything that the Irish did, which was already fairly suspect, became evidence of their unthinking papism. You'll dismiss the paralell now, because you haven't lived in a country where the sectarian divide is intra-relegious instead of extra-religious, but it's there.

I won't discriminate against someone for not sharing my lack of faith. Nor will I let someone determine for their children what that faith or lack thereof is. They are not chattel and I reject any assertion that anyone is.

Quote:

I am getting to that point with people shoving religion down their kids' throats.

True, though you're contrasting your position on permissiveness as to ones relationship with food and activity with someone else's prostletizing religious choice.The comparison would be more accurate to what you're advocating and more comparable, if you said that allowing ones children to follow the same religion as you was harming them.

And as to the people it's damaged, society hasn't really given we atheists and agnostics a chance to do the same... I've seen plenty of post-religious bigots, including a professor from Cambridge Mass. who has equated my blood pressure meds to rape. Why not let people freely associate instead... the fear of losing parishoners due to irrelevance has made many churches much more responsible... preserving the social gospel that has been relevant for many people. (Tommy Douglas and Clement Atlee come to mind)

Red Tory Tea Girl wrote:

I'm not going to use that metric because, if we're eliminating philosophies that kill, among other evidence, we then have to present the murder of Arturo Gatti.

Sorry, I'm not sure I get your point here. I gather from wiki that Gatti was a boxer. But the article says that there is debate about whether he was murdered by his wife, or commited suicide.

Either way, which philosophy do you think can be held responsible for his death?

Many secular orgs and secular people are opposed to bringing these religions into the public schools.

Many difficult aspects to this arise. For example, for students, the peer-pressure of attending these prayers would be very high. As well, the permission slips required by parents, also exerts a very high social pressure to attend, which has been ruled against in the courts.

This has been dressed up in various ways, but its very obvious that in fact there are religious groups who are trying to get their religion into the public schools, to reach children with their religious beliefs.

If this is allowed to happen in public schools, there will be mass Christian prayers at other schools, even Scientology will be given a room for their "run-downs" and will also be allowed to bring a Scientologist into the school. There is no end to it.

Of course, a simple solution would be to release the school at 3:15 or so on Friday, and leave religion a private matter.

But that is not the objective. The objective is to bring religion back into public schools, using the backdoor. And the last thing we need, is for religous believers of all opposing stripes, to start bringing their belief systems into schools, to turn Canada into a religious battleground like most of the rest of the world.

Very strange that so many on the "left" refuse to see this. Don't think they would be saying the same thing if Harper was bringing Evangelical Christianity back into public schools with a weekly prayer rally for Jesus.

Judges have already ruled that "voluntary" prayers of this type exert peer pressure. So it seems this needs to be taken to the courts, and hopefully this backdoor religion into public schools will be closed immediately.

And please refrain from painting those who are against this as being some fringe group. This is a hot-button issue, that lost John Tory an election.

We'll see how those on the "left" will react when the Harper backed Evangelicals seize on this, and religious anti-abortionists get a plan together, and begin massive campaigns to get Jesus back into public schools this fall. After all, if the Muslim students are allowed about an hour after lunch in the Cafeteria, then so is everyone else. And everyone else will be allowed to bring their own preachers into the school as well. Won't be long until Pro-Life preachers are hitting the public school lunch hour circuit.

Mallick's obsession with Islam is disturbing.

Thank you Ghislaine and Timebandit.

The religious folks know very well, that if young girls are taught in school that in fact, they do NOT have to sit at the back of the bus, then they are not going to put up with it later.

So if they can bring the prayer into school-time, in a school-room, the young girls get the clear MESSAGE that before "God" they are at the back of the room, and the boys are up front.

Amazingly, there are some on the "left" who did an Editorial in the Star, that this was all fine, and just cultural. Its not.

I think people need to put serious pressure on these religions, and that might make them begin to modernize a bit in the west.

Its great that Mallick has stood up on this issue, and she's probably taking some serious heat for that.

Mentrating girls should not be singled out in a Canadian public school!! Absolute tribal madness.

Those schools next step will be to ban all sex-Ed, and just opt their kids out of anything they don't want. Its a real mess.

You know, I was going to rebutt some of the crap, strawmen and other useless juxtapositions in that linked blog, but I simply cannot be fucking bothered. I waste too much of my time combatting sexist crap in my real life, I need not do it in a so called progressive space that makes it clearer all the time they are not a feminist space.

I think this bears repeating:

Timebandit wrote:

The problem is that Christianity, Judaism and Islam are anti-feminist at their cores.  It's difficult for a secular feminist not to critique the practices and reasoning of any of these because they are active forces in the oppression of women in our milieu.  I realize that because the practice of Islam is linked to minority racial groups that there is a fuzziness of line in some peoples' thinking, but my feeling is that this should be secondary to the fact that as a religion and a philosophy, the opression of women is de rigeur and openly advocated - and this should not be respected or tolerated.  Certainly not within public institutions.  We'd be crying foul over any Christian religious group behaving or advocating for the same things in the same space.  I don't see why the reaction to Islam in schools should be any different.

Not all rights are absolute and there is a hierarchy of rights. The right to gender equality trumps religion. Public school is one of the places where this needs to be impressed on youth. Freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. Isn't that why public schools have ceased morning prayers? We live in a secular society. Very few (if any) people here would support Christian prayers led by a priest in a public school. Why must we support the same thing when the prayers are Muslim?

If the students sincerely believe they need to pray on a Friday afternoon then excuse them from school during that time. That would be a reasonable accomodation. If the students don't come back after they're done praying then give them detention or whatever it is that schools do for dicipline these days. Reasonable accomodation does not require that school spaced be used for a religious service.

observer521 wrote:

 Absolute tribal madness.

Absolute racist Islamophobic bullshit.

Yep....it just us western women's racism and "Islamophobia" at work....not nuttin to do with sexist religion and operant conditioning and opening the door for fully funded religious public schools.

So...we are supposed to ignore the reality that women in predominently Muslim countries are oppressed and are supposed to somehow believe that won't happen here too and if it does we are just supposed to accept it as 'choice'. Even though we know through history religion has done sweet fuck all for equality and women's rights. In fact quite the opposite.