Integrate this!

[dreamville_bg]

I came across this short story around our local blogosphere here, and though it isn't my creation, I've taken the task of translating it into English, and I would be grateful if the mods allow my version to be posted here, as I think it helps illustrate a point - even if it sounds a bit silly and hyperbolical. So here it is.

Comments

[dreamville_bg]

Methinks you completely whizzed past the idea of this whole lampoon.

[garote]

Well, that's just, like, your opinion man!

Perhaps "the point" is to characterize immigrants as disruptive and entitled, and the state and populace as naïve and posturing, but that's, like, borrrr-riiiing ;)

[dreamville_bg]

It's simple. It argues that bending over backwards to accommodate the sensibilities of people who explicitly refuse to be integrated, is doomed to fail - in part because the other side refuses to reciprocate. That's all this is about. It's got nothing to do with leveraging the sexual control of women or anything beyond what I just described. Anything you might be imagining beyond that, is, like you said, "your opinion, man".

[garote]

This satire could have been written without focusing on women's modes of dress, and the imminent threat of rape (and underage rape at that). But in fact it was one of the main themes: Foreign devils are oversexed perverts who want to undress all "our" women, and their ideas about liberation are just an evil plot to see more boobies.

Go through and highlight each sentence that constructs that argument. You'll end up with about half the document colored in. If you don't find that noteworthy, well, so what? I do.

[dreamville_bg]

The satire could have been written in a myriad of ways. That you've picked up one part of it to have a problem with, is solely your choice, and I don't think I'm going to entertain that line of thought any further. Because, like I said, that's not the point of said satire. Of course it's your prerogative if you'd persist with the attempts to derail it as much as you want. So please do have the last word in a sub-thread that I've grown increasingly disinterested about.

[garote]

:D

[luvdovz]

Women's modes of dress are a central part of the criticism against fundamentalist Islam, and respectively, a central part of Islam's criticism of Western culture. If the point is to presenting the issue of tolerating a foreign culture in a host society by means of turning the refugee situation in Europe on its head and presenting it as a hypothetical mirror situation in Saudi Arabia, then women's modes of dress, being a central part of both cultures, is something that should definitely be included in the narrative.

Underage rape is what many Middle Eastern refugees have been accused of committing, once they've arrived in Europe. Thus, it's being included in the narrative as well. Omitting it would've been disingenuous. The whole point is: should this sort of behavior be tolerated by the host society, solely based on the argument that any aspect of the refugees' culture is supposed to be tolerated for tolerance's sake? That's the question you should be asking - not whether the inclusion of underage rape is appropriate for this sort of narrative. It is part of the issue, therefore it should be included. But of course you have a problem with that. Because the very mentioning of it makes you feel uncomfortable? But that won't make the problem go away, and neither will it remove the fact that Europe's current response to that problem has been beyond inadequate.

[garote]

"Makes me feel uncomfortable?" I'm the one specifically pointing it out for discussion. Leave your strawman out of it.

[luvdovz]

Then stop pontificating and start discussing. Hint: proposing some solutions to the problem would be way more constructive than calling out the messenger for bringing the issue to the table.

[garote]

Yeah, see, this is what I'm talking about.

The author is invoking a stereotype of Western men as seen by fundamentalist Islam. (Specifically, that they are rapacious misogynists who are only paying lip service to women's rights for prurient reasons.) I am most definitely calling out "the messenger" for bringing "the issue" to the table, because "the issue," as brought to the table by "the messenger," is a ridiculous and deeply hypocritical stereotype that reveals as much about the author as it does about their intended target.

You want me to propose a solution to this? Here's my solution: Fundamentalist Islam needs to be called out, to do exactly the introspection that it is most afraid of, and that will cause it to dissolve from the fringes inward. It's not just an issue of modes of dress as espoused by a culture when that culture dictates those modes in law, and enforces them with religious police.

What's your solution, by the way?

[luvdovz]

Damn sure he is invoking a stereotype. The whole anecdote is woven of stereotypes, and for a reason.

My solution? Stop pretending that multiculturalism for its own sake would work, even if one side refuses to cooperate. Start calling things with their true names, and show some guts in handling outright outlaws.

[luzribeiro]

Last time I checked, a question mark at the end of a sentence is an indication of an inquiry, rather than assertion. Could you be the one trying to employ a strawman here?

[garote]

Nope.

I started this thread with:
"It's interesting to me that this narrative leverages the sexual control of women so heavily."

That is not the equivalent of
"I have a problem with this narrative leveraging the sexual control of women so heavily."

... however much it would be convenient for you to assume so.

Do I have a problem with it? It's a meaningless question, really. I think it's intriguing, and very indicative of the biases of the author, and perhaps the biases of the group the author is ostensibly speaking for. And that's what I spent the bulk of this thread arguing.

Do you have anything to add?

[luzribeiro]

You know what? Whatever. Central rule in metatalk: leave it after comment #3.

[ddstory]

I'd say the economic and religious part would constitute the majority of the highlighted sentences, but granted, our mileages may vary.

[nairiporter]

Presumably, the imaginary immigrant from the story is deliberately using notions and actions that are most extremely opposed to the fundamental principles of the Islamic culture (women's mode of dress included), to illustrate the disparity between the expectation of Muslim immigrants to have their cultural principles tolerated in the West, while refusing to grant the same tolerance to Westerners in the Middle East. In this sense, women's mode of dress is an extremely important part of the picture and cannot be ignored.

Sexual control of women, especially underage women, is prevalent in Muslim culture as well. What's more, it is institutionalised. In cases as extreme as Saudi Arabia, women who become victims of rape are even themselves accused of having "enticed" men to rape them, and are essentially punished twice - the second time for being victims. Meanwhile, that is a taboo topic there, which is why the situation that this imaginary immigrant describes is so extremely impossible, too. That cannot be ignored, either.

Even if, just like abomvubuso above, I cannot agree with the notion that trying to equate the mores of Saudi Arabian society with those of the modern, free world, is fair in any way, or could be used as a justification for anything, I at least can see why the extremely hyperbolic examples in this story have been used, and why exactly in this particular amount and ratio.

The problem here is not "why are we talking about the objectification of women so much". The problem here is "why is it being tolerated", and by extension, "whence the double standard".