What we can do
Christina Patterson accepts a little too much.
I accept that people should, except in certain professional situations which involve dealing with the public, be allowed to wear whatever they like, and that laws which prevent this are self-defeating, and that you can’t stop parents, or rabbis, teaching little boys that adult women shouldn’t even be brushed against on a bus, and I accept that some of these things are an inevitable consequence of a modern, and in many ways magnificent, multi-cultural society.
I don’t think we have to accept that you can’t stop parents, or rabbis, teaching little boys that adult women are contaminants. We have to accept that you can’t forcibly, physically stop them, but we don’t have to accept that you can’t slowly and carefully and fairly stop them by teaching them better. We don’t have to just shrug and say “oh well if parents or rabbis want to teach little boys that women are filthy, there’s nothing we can do about it.” Yes there is, and we have to do what we can about it, just as we do if parents or clerics are teaching children that black people, or dalits, or Jews, or foreigners, or atheists are filthy. We have to do what we can, consistent with liberal norms of freedom and autonomy, to counter ideas of that kind: ideas that are baseless and harmful and at the extreme dangerous.
Actually, towards the end, Ms. Patterson does seem to indicate that one option open to British society is to mandate secular schools for all, and, I assume, if that can be mandated, then it might be mandated, too, that no religious dress be permitted in such schools, and no religious prohibitions or distinctions either. I still think that laws prohibiting concealing dress in public spaces could be established too. I see no reason at all why people should be able to wear their religion so aggressively in places not set apart for their peculiar rituals and oppressive customs. But no schools should be permitted to teach and promote one form of religious or political believing. They should be places of education, where children learn to think for themselves. The war for children’s minds should not go by default to religious organisations whose beliefs and rituals can no more be justified than those of the kids in Lord of the Flies.
Yeah, I think actually agree with the Patterson quote. Though I also agree with your response to it — I don’t think the two are contradictory.
I do think that, generally speaking, trying to forcibly fix cultural problems via prohibitive legislation is often not going to work out so well. As Patterson says, those types of laws tend to be self-defeating. But we all out to speak out against it as loudly as possible!
I also agree with Patterson that FGM doesn’t fall within this “It’s wrong but impractical to legislate against, so let’s just speak out against it” category. Not even close. Lock ’em up and throw away the key.
I vacillate on the issue of the hijab/niqab, but this passage sounds a lot like “I wouldn’t mind the gays if they weren’t so in your face about it, what with their holding hands in public.” A liberal society cannot simply outlaw expressions of irrationality that do no harm to others.
So the Isles were Anglican in 100 CE, were they? (Damned hard to find the beginning of some of Patterson’s sentences.)
In the US, we have secular public education available in every part of the country. Nevertheless, parents…[remain]… free, with no state intervention at all, to teach their children whatever sexist, racist, dangerous, violent and yes, ill-mannered, nonsense that they like. And, if you don’t live in a community homogeneous enough to have a school supporting your prejudices, you can home-school your kids. That’s become very popular.
Well, there are a couple of important differences… For one, we could debate whether a symbol of misogyny really “does no harm to others”. For another, we could observe that, while it would be rather intolerant to insist that gays don’t hold hands in public, it would be quite reasonable to suggest that LGBT (and straight people!) not be allowed to engage in hot wet sloppy sex in the lobby of a public building. So there are legitimate limits to the extent to which one is allowed to “express” one’s sexuality in a public place… The question is where the line is drawn, of course.
Lastly, I can’t speak for what Eric MacDonald was implying, but the few places where I possibly support a restriction on the burqa/niqab etc. are places where there are serious practical reasons to disallow head coverings, e.g. like banks. If we were in some alternate universe where two men holding hands inherently created a serious security risk (but for some reason, a man and a woman holding hands didn’t create the same risk) then it might be reasonable to put a limit on it, observing that there is no inherent right to express one’s sexuality (or religion) in every way and in every circumstance.
Of course that scenario is absurd, which is why there are no good reasons to say things like “I’m find with teh geys as long as they don’t hold hands in public,” whereas there might be some good reasons to oppose head coverings in public. Or at least in some public places.
James, perhaps I was unclear. I was objecting to the statement “wear their religion so aggressively”, which doesn’t sound like the issue is harm to women, but instead forcing others to view religious expression. I think a niqab ban can be justified on a number of grounds, including that it indeed may harm women. But Eric’s statement, without further explication, sounds like it would potentially address things like Hasidic men wearing black with peyots and beards, or Hare Krishnas wearing saffron robes, as these too are “aggressive” signs of their faith.
My point was simply that a liberal society cannot ban symbols of faith simply because they are symbols of faith. There has to be some other, more legitimate, reason, such as the practice negatively affects others in some serious fashion. (I think the hijab/niqab may meet this criterion, whereas the garb of Hasidic Jews does not.)
I agree that Patterson was basically saying what I was urging her to say – basically in the piece as a whole. It’s just that I think she said too much in that one sentence, and that it’s important to remember that we don’t have to throw up our hands entirely when it comes to things like treating women as contaminants.
Imagine a white child on a bus leaping up and changing seats if a black person tried to sit down next to her/him. We can’t force people not to train their children that way, but we can offer lots of opposing teaching, and we can impose lots of social pressure. A bus full of people would be quite likely to do that.
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Sharon McTeer, Ophelia Benson. Ophelia Benson said: What we can do http://dlvr.it/37NJq […]
Guys, you can talk about the theoretical aspects and advantages of atheism v.theism, religion all you want. The fact is that Christina Patterson’s piece was downright, outright anti-Semitic (not to mention anti-Muslin in a different way). The fact that you priotise promoting atheism over treating Jewish people, Orthodox or no, as human beings first and foremost rather than representatives as their religion and ignore her language and her hate, is absolutely shocking and unforgiveable.
“women who roam the streets with double-decker pushchairs and vast armies of children”,
yup, roam the streets like animals with vast litters of pups.
“wear frock-coats, and funny suits and hats covered in plastic bags, and insist on wearing their hair in ringlets (if they’re male) or covered up by wigs (if they’re female).”
yup, because only Orthodox Jews wear odd things, poor Christina better never visit Camden then.
“I didn’t realise that a purchase by a goy was a crime to be punished with monosyllabic terseness, or that bus seats were a potential source of contamination, or that road signs, and parking restrictions, were for people who hadn’t been chosen by God.”
Yup, this is clearly an incisive critique of religious theology and not just outright ignorant, incorrect, bile that has been used by anti-Semites through the millenia to justify the annihilation of Jews.
The *only* person who is dehumanising others here is Christina Patterson, not the religious Jews and Muslims she is aiming her bile at.
She is attributing motives and beliefs to Orthodox Jews vis-a-vis their driving behaviour (and pretty much everything else) that she cannot possibly know. You know what? I have far more often, despite having frequently been in Stamford Hill (my Grandma used to live there) been nearly run over by white van men or BMW drivers there. But I don’t assume fat WASP men with tattoos are somehow culturally or innately being brought up to be rude, I just assume that they are individually w*nkers.
Seriously guys, a secular, just society is something to be aspired to. Casting Jews’ humanity under the bus, however, is not the way to do it.
Dehumanizing is a serious charge. There is no doubt that dehumanizing Jews is part of the education of millions. (Billions?) But I’m not sure I’m ready to accept the charge against Christina Patterson.
Are we to understand that Patterson did not actually experience a sense of exclusion, and that only anti-Semitism explains how she failed to recognize the graciousness of her neighbors?
I did not read this as a story about Hasidic Jews. I read it as a story of religious orthodoxy in general, and the difficult interface between orthodox communities and secular culture.
I didn’t understand the driving references, though, which seemed petty and, frankly, confusing.
The accusation of anti-semitism is clearly mistaken and we need waste no time on it. The point about education is at odds with the idea of restricting clothing choices by law. If woman are not allowed to wear absurd clothing they would most likely be forbidden from leaving the house at all, and their interaction will be restricted to the religious echo chamber as houses like that would also control access to books, TV, and the Internet. As the raising of children would also be contained inside this closed environment there would be no hope for the next generation.
Ken
July 29, 2010 at 2:23 am
The accusation of anti-semitism is clearly mistaken and we need waste no time on it
Ah evidence-free dismissive assertion by a privileged white man, how I have missed thee. Not.
I just love the extra addition of the word – accusation – why not say ‘describing’ this piece as anti-Semitism or ‘attributing’ these views to anti-Semitism. Language matters Ken and your language speaks volumes.
Refute my points about problematic language Ken. ‘Roaming’ the streets implies aimlessness, pointlessness, whereas more likely than not *any* mother out with her children is either taking them to school or doing some shopping. Explain the relevance of using the phrase ‘vast armies of children’. Not a ‘big group of children’ a ‘whole crowd of children’ or ‘lots of children’, but ‘vast armies’.
Explain the relevance of commenting on *some* people’s driving habits and making links to the Orthodoxy of their religion. Explain other Ken Pidcock, why this woman’s sense of exclusion couldn’t be her imputing a lot of stuff – given that she thinks they believe they have been ‘chosen by God’, a classic and false meme about Jewish theology and that they look odd and weird and abnormal to her – onto Orthodox Jews whilst no doubt ignoring the bad manners of other people.
There are lots of Greek Cafes populated exclusively by men on Green Lanes which women are not welcome, as a woman, I am and feel excluded, but I don’t see anyone writing a screed in the Independent about the intrinsic sexism of Greek culture and how it’s problematic. Ditto Somali and Polish cultural centres. Ditto dodgy white men’s pubs in Bermondsey. It’s culture, not religion or theology. Working in Hackney and otherwise, personally I have met lots of Orthodox Jews, including Rabbis who have gone out of their way to be friendly and inclusive. I’ve also met a lot of idiots, but never would I attribute their manners one way or the other to their religious Orthodoxy and paint them ALL as odd, strange, disgusting as Christina Patterson has done. That is anti-Semitism.
Language speaks volumes. You are just too ignorant and privileged to want to hear.
I cannot explain how this couldn’t be. To the best of my direct knowledge, it remains a logical possibility that Christina Patterson is a viciously spiteful anti-Semite. I just wasn’t so certain of it.
And since this is B&W, and this is fashionable nonsense…
Yeah, I know. God has imposed this burden on them. His son does the same thing to evangelical preachers all over the world. I don’t see anybody seeking to be relieved.
Just to clarify, Ken and Ken Pidcock are two different people. Perhaps I should start using my surname to spare other Kens.
I agree, WestEndGirl, that Christina Patterson may be antisemitic, but that’s by no means clear from her article. When people isolate themselves in cultural/religious ghettos, it should not surprise them to find that they really have isolated themselves. Nor should they be surprised if their neighbours find them uncongenial.
Is this bigotry? Reverse (equal and opposite) bigotry? Or simply what one should expect if one makes claims to social/cultural/religious distinctness and then acts on it? As I recall, there are neighbourhoods in Jerusalem where conservative Jews have made themselves unwelcome because of the division they introduce into the neighbourhoods. Religious claims to special divine favour on the one hand, and true faithfulness on the other, can look very much like prejudice and intolerance. If someone points this out, is this, in itself, intolerance, or a disappointed reflection on the intolerance of others? As Ophelia quite rightly says:
Ken Pidcock:
“I don’t see anybody seeking to be relieved”
Well, let’s get this right. Being Jewish – Orthodox or no – is not clearly as simple as issues of theology, is it? And since this is Butterflies and Wheels, let’s not dispute an objectively true FACT: both Hitler and Stalin spent much time tracking down non-religious, secular, converted, and otherwise Jews for their special, ahem, attention.
There are aspects of ethnicity, race and culture that have grown up around Jews that are not analgous to other religions. So when we talk about this issue, it is not simple a question of whether we approve or disapprove of Jewish theology.
The fact that *you* are not able or cannot be bothered to distinguish between what most/many people would consider to be a reasonable critque of Orthodox Jewish theology (talking about attitudes to women, gays etc, all up for discussion obviously) and Christina Patterson imputing and attributing negative characteristics to Jewish people’s behaviour AS A GROUP based their alleged theological beliefs, just shows a weakness of analysis and common humanity on her and your part.
I am quite happy to say that I dislike intensely some aspects of Orthodox Jewish theology. I do not, however, DISLIKE and write negative articles about ALL Orthodox Jews in the street as people based on *my* interpretations and assumptions of what *I* *think* *they* believe and the behaviour that *I’m* *assuming* result from these beliefs. It would be arrogant, wrong and in the case of Jews, anti-Semitic.
Loving your parents is one of the Ten Commandments. Is Christina Patterson commenting favourably on the way that elderly Orthodox Jews are integrated, revered and respected within the community? No. She writes about Chosen-ness.
I could go on. However, ignoring all good behaviours that *might* possibly run from a certain set of religious beliefs, instead highlighting all the negative behaviours that *might* possibly run from the same set of religious beliefs is at best closed-minded and at worst, well, I’ve already made myself clear.
Actually, I have to agree with WestEndGirl — the descriptions Patterson gives are extremely disparaging (e.g., she is apparently a “normal looking woman”, as if a white middle-class Anglo-Saxon person defines “normal”). I do think that it is important for atheists not to inadvertently slip into or support the rhetoric of racism, and in discussions of Islam and orthodox Judaism that is all too easy.
This is my first post on this blog, which by the way I read first thing every morning and enjoy very much.
Something to consider: Does being tolerant of other cultures include tolerating intolerance?
I lived near a Hasidic community in the US for most of my childhood and young adulthood. I then went to a college at a school with a large population of Orthodox Jews. I often experienced the same type of treatment described in this article. Most of us outside the Hasidic or Orthodox communities just let this kind of thing go. It’s annoying but probably not harmful other than increasing the insularity of these communities, which I think they consider desirable because it keeps their culture and customs intact. The larger problem in my opinion is the indoctrination of the children. Yes, I agree that it is sad.
I just read in The Bookseller of Kabul that, in Afghanistan anyway, nobody wore a burqa until sometime between 1901 and 1919, the dates of the reign of a certain Pashtun ruler. (No more certain date was given.) I had no idea it was so recent; perhaps wearing the burqa has a longer history in other countries.
The author asserted that this Pashtun leader, with 200 wives and a neurotic (my word, not the author’s) need to be sure that no other man saw their faces, decreed that his wives had to wear burqas. Note: one ruler, just his wives, nobody else, and no religious idea behind it.
The upper class Pashtuns adopted burqas in order to be cool with those in power, showing off in silk burqas with gold embroidery. Then in 1959 the prime minister appeared in public with his non-burqa’d wife, and asked everybody to stop wearing them. Rich ladies who didn’t need burqas anymore gave them to their servants and poor relations, at which point the upper crusts were free of burqas, but burqas then became a status symbol for those lower down the food chain, and spread to those who weren’t even Pashtuns. In the 60s there came to be no-burqa laws for government workers and such like, and by the 70s, burqas had practically disappeared. Then came the Taliban.
Hard to believe, then, that the women who happily didn’t wear them in the 70s are freely, without bullying, and only to express their religious devotion, choosing to wear them now.
It doesn’t help that the Sunday Times (why do I even still bother to read it?) illustrated a news item–in which a female government minister here in the UK said that wearing a burqa “empowers women”–with a closeup of the beautifully made-up eyes of a woman in a niqab. A) That isn’t a burqa. B) Women have been beaten and jailed for wearing makeup under their burqas or niqabs; the photo shows the niqab as a fashion accessory which perhaps for some women it may be, but everything I’ve read suggests that it would be a tiny, tiny proportion of burqa- or niqab-wearing women who think of it that way.
No, but I don’t think that mere rudeness and insularity count as “intolerance”.
Also, to be clear, this issue is not just one of religion — there are plenty of insular communities that are not formed around religion (and arguably even religious communities have a significant “cultural” component that is not strictly religious). If one’s concern is the negative impact of irrational supernatural beliefs, this gets one rather far afield.
Oh, hey, Tulse! Bit sensitive, aren’t we? I have no idea whether Christina Patterson is white or black. She could be black and be quite a normal looking woman, couldn’t she? I recall living in Bermuda. Same accent for everyone, black or white, same dress, same customs. Normal, in that context, was, well, normal. It was the Rastafarians who looked odd, dreadlocks and colourful woolen hats for the most part. So far as I know or knew Ms Patterson could be black, simply not religiously ghettoised.
I created a Facebook page opposing the fact that in Saudi Arabia all adult women are required to have permission from a male guardian to do many things; for example to travel, study, work or even go to court to make a complaint about domestic violence. It would be great if you would click the link button or write on the wall to get the page rolling:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Women-Dont-Need-Guardians/138248439539086?v=wall&ref=ts
<a href=”http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/christina-patterson/”>She’s white</a> — as the mention of “my (black) friend” would suggest even without looking at her headshot.
Let’s try that again: a link to Patterson’s photo.
I have to agree with WestEndGirl. Patterson’s piece is soaked in antisemitism of a particularly nasty (English) sort. So the Hassids are insular… Any other groups we know? I can think of a few.
There is, I’m sure, nothing in the Koran to indicate that hacking off a girl’s labia is an all-round great idea, just as there’s nothing in the Torah to say that Volvos should always be driven with a mobile phone in hand,
Some of them have bad driving habits? Ah, must be because they are “chosen”. It’s all the same, innit? I mean driving Volvos and GSM?
Vile stuff.
FGM, above !
(I certainly wasn’t thinking of wine… http://www.wine-searcher.com/grape-577-gsm )
You’re quite right. Didn’t notice the headshot; didn’t remember the black friend. But her black friend. Is she not normal? I still think it is oversensitive to read ‘normal’ in that context as a racist remark.
You miss my point — she is saying that she is somehow “normal” and that Hasidic people aren’t, as if she is somehow defines “normal”. So yeah, that’s racist, isn’t it?
Tulse, you said:
No, it’s not, because in that situation there are people who are living in the past, and claiming a kind of special status for themselves that excludes others. If you want to live that way, that’s fine, and you have every right to, but you mustn’t think, when you do so, that others around you will not find it odd and that oddness somehow distancing. And if it affects the way you treat others, as it almost certainly will, then you can expect to feel their displeasure too. As I say, it may be racist, but it is not obviously so.
When I grew up in India, Canadians tended to clump together, because they shared something in common, a common history, culture, manners, language, etc. But we were not normal, in a quite straightforward sense, and often when we were in the bazaar, people would often crowd around the car to take a look at these strange white people. If we had behaved in a haughty, privileged way, we’d have been rightly despised. I don’t think it would have been racist, but simply the natural reaction of people to difference, and, if that is how we had behaved, a false sense of privilege. But, of course, it might have been racist too. The difference is fine, and not necessarily clear, which is all that I wanted to claim.
There’s a difference between describing something as “normal”, which implies a value judgement, and simply noting that something is different from the majority. Should I describe my Sri Lankan co-worker as not “normal” because he works in a Canadian office with a staff that is otherwise of Anglo-Saxon extraction? Should I be surprised if he gets offended if I say he’s not “normal”?
Patterson’s use of “normal” was not just descriptive — she was implying that being white and Anglo-Saxon was not merely the majority, but is normative, and should not be objected to by anyone, while she objects to the Hasidim as abnormal. That’s racist.
Well, Tulse, I shan’t argue further with you about this. I think you’re probably reading more into it than I would, that’s all.
Fair enough.
“A bus load of people would be quite likely to do that”. A bus load of people in a philosophical thought experiment, perhaps, but in the real world, where we all live, that’s rather unlikely. How many passengers would risk(depending on the circumstances) being accused of sexism,racism, and religious prejudice,not many, I’d bet.
she is apparently a “normal looking woman”, as if a white middle-class Anglo-Saxon person defines “normal”
I don’t think that was necessarily about her ethnicity. She could have meant that she didn’t look drunk or horribly disfigured or covered in pustules (not that it’s all right to recoil from sick people either, but it’s sad when being a woman is treated as a similar ‘condition’)
ophelia:
many in the jewish community are really quite upset about this piece. it seems to me so confused about what points to make that it ends up making no point well and a lot of points in a quite unnecessarily offensive and ignorant fashion.
this is *not* what is taught. hasidic sects are very stringent about the separation of the sexes, quite unnecessarily so in my view and, when unchecked, as in jerusalem, insist on their own gender-segregated buses, because of the risk of touching someone who you’re not permitted to touch. there’s an issue of degree here, not of principle – the little boy in question would be functioning on the principle that to touch or be touched by *anyone* of the opposite sex outside the immediate family without a professional qualification (e.g. a nurse) is tantamount to sexual interaction. this is *not* about “contaminants” – the same would be the case if it were a middle aged man and a little girl. i would argue that just as we would all (presumably) frown on sexual interaction between these people, you are just operating to a different level of stringency. of course, christina patterson apparently lacks knowledge of this, or sensitivity, she just reacts to what she thinks is going on.
the trouble is, for me, that even though this case isn’t what it would appear to be to her, hasidic perspectives on sexual politics are not going to win any prizes here on “butterflies and wheels” – but neither are they really representative of normative jewish thought. even their attempts to impose gender segregation on jerusalem buses have met with anger and resistance from other religious jews.
i agree – but in this case, that is not *actually* what is being taught – and if it were, it would be contrary to jewish law as i understand it.
in Talmudic terms, we should “draw close with one hand and push away with the other” – i hate to say it, but it has to come at least in part from a place of love, just like it does if you expect other insular groups to do any kind of integration.
precisely. a truly liberal society would not allow me my liberties on the condition that i didn’t exercise them.
so do i – and i happen to be a religious jew. we don’t have a systematic theology, so it’s perfectly possible to work around them and isolate them. one point i do have to make, though – and miriam shaviv makes a version of the same point over at the jewish chronicle today – is that the driving thing is a big, big issue. i don’t live in stamford hill, but the area i live in is full of religious jews, which is one of the reasons i moved there, of course. however, the standard of driving is APPALLING. i have lost count of the number of so-called religious jews i see driving with mobile phones. not only is this a violation of uk law, but it is also in violation of any number of jewish laws, in particular dina de-malkhuta dina (jews are obliged to obey the law of the land) and any number of regulations concerning proper behaviour, deportment, courtesy, not to mention reckless endangerment of the lives of others. i do *not* see how they feel this kind of behaviour to be permissible if they call themselves religious. the same goes for any interaction – that is one of the meanings of the oft-repeated phrase in the Torah “you shall be holy to G!D”; in other words, you’re supposed to be setting an example. when jews act in such a way as to bring dishonour on our community, this should not be tolerated by the community. unfortunately, the ultra-orthodox community is singularly poor at this and many of the points about rudeness and discourtesy ring true. however, the way it is described in this piece crosses the line in so many places i don’t even have to point it out, several commentators have already done so – and comparing rudeness in shops to FGM is, frankly, outrageous.
b’shalom
bananabrain
Russell W – if a kid on a bus jumped up in horror because a black person tried to sit next to him/her, you don’t think there would be a stir of disapproval? I think there would. I think some people might speak up, too.
Well, a Seattle bus anyway. And a bus in many other cosmopolitan cities.
Lovely post bananabrain. I don’t know why you say “I hate to say it” before saying “it has to come at least in part from place of love”, as I would think that is a sentiment we could all agree on. Miriam Shaviv’s entry for the 29th of July is interesting (what a difference a day makes) though I was amused that she quoted Damian Thompson’s description of Stephen Pollard as “brilliant” which subtly undermines everything else he has to say.
Ophelia,
That’s a particular case and something of a straw man argument , isn’t it? Does this principle hold for all ethnic/religious groups and between all ethnic/religious groups? That’s the question. If you think you can persuade,by moral suasion, members of religious groups that their time-honored prejudices and discriminatory practices should be subject to the sanctions of secular society,by a bus load of passengers, good luck! Double standards anyone?
In complaining about racism how many of those who complain about CP’s article have similarly complained of the racism of religious fundamentalists who operate the price tag policy against Palestinian Israelis in the Occupied Territories. How many have complained about the racist Rabbis who wrote The Kings’ Torah, or the fundamentalists who throw chairs at women to dare to pray at the Western Wall?