Clash of Civilizations?

[Dottie]

In sweden it is common that if you know a female person you greet her with a hug, while it is more rare that males who know each other hugs in the same situations. Is this a kind of discrimination, and against whom?

[C Elegans]

@ C Elegans I never used the word Islam. And I tried to (i can see that i might have failed there) make it clear that i meant that when the dress code for women and the handshake r combined in your religious beliefs the not shaking hands is a form of female repression.

Since the thread was about Irani's and you referred to "cover up every visible piece of their body" (a practice seldom seen in any other current larger religion) I thought you were referring to islam. In any case, regardless of which religion or culture we are referring to, one must be careful not to generalise all differences in behaviour to repression and discrimination. Many cultures have different custums and social treatment for married versus unmarried adults. This is not automatically to mean discrimination or repression.

The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women

There is no reason to believe all differences in group 2 must include or even be connected to, values that belong to group 1. This is a classical logical error in my opinion. Or do you mean all differences are a sign of repression?

I don't think we should take for granted that the handshake issue always means repression of women even when combined with covering clothes for women. On the contrary, since the no handshake paradigm exist also in muslim countries where the dresscode from women is not repressive at all, it may well be related to chastity issues and not repression issues also in a fundamentalist and women repressive brand of islam like Iran. This we cannot know in this specific case without investigation the devepment of religious tradition in Iran, but we should not take for granted it means repression of women since as I say, it has no general connection to that issue.

This brand of religious men shake hands (and kiss and hold hands). The point is they explicitly dont shake hands with women. And i cant see where i was generalizing. When custom in a culture is to bow to each other instead of shaking hands I dont see a problem either. As long as theyll also bow to women. In western culture an opened hand is considered a way to show you r no threat/friendly. Like putting up your hands defensively (Im not aggresive, so why should you be), nothing more nothing less. The fact that these Iranians refuse to shake hands with women explicitly is repressive towards women. Just because it's religious repression/oppression doesnt make it ok, or an acceptable cultural value.

Women also kiss and hold hands with each other. Women do not shake hands with men they are related to. Is that repression of men? You seem to fail to address that the separation of the sexes for chastity reason is the point here. It works the same both ways: men are not allowed to touch women they are not related to, and women are not allowed to touch men they are not related to. In some muslim countries, both men and women must cover the same body parts when they are in public. The infamous Taliban burquas, the differences in heritance of property and the differences in what professions are allowed for men and women that you see in some countries, are certainly "women's discrimination issues", because they contain limitations for women but not for men.

However, that men must go to male doctors and women to female doctors, that men and women have different bathing houses, that men and women do not touch each other unless they are related is segregation of the sexes but not discrimination since the rules are exactly the same for men and women.

What you are saying above can be interpreted as: "We Westerns do this act (handshaking) because it means something symbolic to us (friendship). If you don't accept our interpretation of this act you are discriminating." I think you overvalue the host's right to force his own cultural values on the guest.

In Eastern Greenland, it used to be a symbol of friendship and hospitality that you offered your guest to have sex with your partner. Just as the handshake in European culture. Do you think it is equally rude to refuse this? Is it repression of women if a man refuses to have sex with a Greenlandic women as a sign of friendship and hospitality?

[Audace]

In any case, regardless of which religion or culture we are referring to, one must be careful not to generalise all differences in behaviour to repression and discrimination. Many cultures have different custums and social treatment for married versus unmarried adults. This is not automatically to mean discrimination or repression.

You r generalizing here. Im talking about certain factions of Islam.

In any case, regardless of which religion or culture we are referring to, one must be careful not to generalise all differences in behaviour to repression and discrimination. Many cultures have different custums and social treatment for married versus unmarried adults. This is not automatically to mean discrimination or repression.

Just to point out...here you start basing your arguments on the concept of discrimination, again a word i never used. The two concepts might go hand-in-hand from time to time, they are by no means inetchangeable.

The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances

Again I did not generalize. Please point out where i generalized. I have specifically written ;"these Iranians" referring to these (in the article) Iranians and "Conservative believers". You can read in to this all you want, but you are the one who, unconciously, is generalizing here.

The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women


Generalizing. You can't capture entire religions in a two option model.

There is no reason to believe all differences in group 2 must include or even be connected to, values that belong to group 1. This is a classical logical error in my opinion. Or do you mean all differences are a sign of repression?

If I were to be talking about all religious people in general and abide by your model you might be right. Since I'm not but am targetting a very specific group and have been doing so from the start means you are not. I don't understand why you'd want to defend the undefendable to a point where you actually stop reading carefully and start to make assumptions about peoples ideas. you usually never do.


I don't think we should take for granted that the handshake issue always means repression of women even when combined with covering clothes for women. On the contrary, since the no handshake paradigm exist also in muslim countries where the dresscode from women is not repressive at all, it may well be related to chastity issues and not repression issues also in a fundamentalist and women repressive brand of islam like Iran.

And the handshake issue actually doesnt exist in most of Islam, but only in the more orthodox factions. If you want this to be just a discussion about the different ways of greating in the world, fine with me, then I'm done talking, but the topic and the thread was quite specific. Clash of cultures.

What you are saying above can be interpreted as: "We Westerns do this act (handshaking) because it means something symbolic to us (friendship). If you don't accept our interpretation of this act you are discriminating." I think you overvalue the host's right to force his own cultural values on the guest.

And again you are generalizing and extrapolating my words to the extreme. I said "The point is they explicitly dont shake hands with women. "

And again this is not about discrimination, not about chastity just about repression and control. Men can't control themselves so women are to blame. As old as Adam and Eve. It's called repression. It's treating women like property and like cattle. And please do research the particulars of the fundemantelistic religion in Iran. Pick up some Khomeini and some stories about the implementation off this kind of belief system. 'Cause this is not about just a simple handshake.

Edit. Interesting BTW how you use the word segragation without making an immediate connection to apartheid both in SA and the US.

"2.The policy or practice of separating people of different races, classes, or ethnic groups, as in schools, housing, and public or commercial facilities, especially as a form of discrimination."

[CM]

Ok on the subject if you do as roman's do. Does that mean the Finnish Prime Minister when visiting Saudi Arabia should wear a burqa, sit behind a screen and then talk to the Saudi King via an intermediary? Would that be acceptable? Of course not. As it is not in line the concept of diplomatic relations. However if people feel that you should do as romans do that should mean all the diplomatic perks like seperate diplomatic enclaves, that women are excused from the burqa in the arab world should be revoked.

It is about respect for the hosts customs, which the visitor should show, in my personal view/opinion but also from a diplomatic and buisness viewpoint.

If that is the cause no women from the EU should be sent in diplomatic missions to the arab world as they do not wish to interact with women. Or would that be discrimination? Its odd that one countries values are seen as the yardstick to measure diplomatic relations but the values of another culture are seen as discrimination.

Audace basically what you are saying is that since it is western culture others must agree and accept it. That is completely intolerant. Secondly the Irani's did not cancel the lunch. The Belgians did. Its like the Belgians only serving cow meat (a steak) for dinner when a Indian/hindu delegation is invited. Just to point out Indians reveer the cow as a diety figure so cow meat is sacred. So do you over ride Hindu religious restrictions because it is part of western culture?

Audace lets be clear in many things. Due to colonialism western practices have become common in the islamic world but shaking the hand of a woman is not accepted anyway where in Islamic society. I at the UN do not shake hands with any of the muslim women. Irani, Pakistani, Saudi or any. My ambassador doesn't either. Our most liberal diplomat at the mission drinks but he won't shake hands with women. Its a culture thing.

Just because it is part of western culture it doesn't make it universal nor does it make it right.

I have no problem with this thread going on a tangent on women and islam i will get WR to respond here as well, so someone with some actual experience in the "repression" can comment and nothing is discussed in a vaccum.

However i would specifically like to address the diplomatic angle first before we go on to anything else. Shaking hands is not part of Islamic culture. Drinking is forbidden by religion and by defacto diplomatic rules, religious restrictions are the yardstick of hospitality.

Edit: To add my own views on this.

1. The Irani's should not have to shake hands if they don't want to.
2. The should not have to drink if they don't want to or even have alcohol at their table.
3. They should not force their religious restrictions on others - just like chanak said.
4. The belgians shoudl not have cancelled the dinner. They should have kept the drinks away from the Irani's or covered them so they don't see them but still serve them.

I fault the belgians on this matter by being intolerant to religious and cultural restrictions.

[C Elegans]

Audace, it is getting clearer and clearer that we do not talk about the same thing. Since I have no idea what you are talking about, I will ask a set of detailed questions. Your text is in yellow, my text is in cyan. Quotes from your latest posts are quoted, in white as usual.

Audace:
And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions.

I said:
It is possible the handshake and the body covering is related in some countries, but not in all and not in islam in general. As I am sure you know, it is quite unusual that muslim women cover up every visible part of their body. No handshaking between the sexes unless related, is however present regardless of dress code. Just because discrimination of women occurs in islam, does not mean that all differences in conduct rules between men and women reflect this discrimination.

To this you replied:

Audace:
I never used the word Islam. And I tried to (i can see that i might have failed there) make it clear that i meant that when the dress code for women and the handshake r combined in your religious beliefs the not shaking hands is a form of female repression.

Then I replied:
C Elegans:
In any case, regardless of which religion or culture we are referring to, one must be careful not to generalise all differences in behaviour to repression and discrimination. Many cultures have different custums and social treatment for married versus unmarried adults. This is not automatically to mean discrimination or repression.

And now you say:

You r generalizing here. Im talking about certain factions of Islam.

Please try to decide what you actually want to discuss. The discussion becomes fragmented and unnecessary complicated if you first claim to talk about a certain subject, then reject that you are talking about that subject when I reply. My statements regarding religious and/or cultural differences are valid for both religions in general, for islam and for the recent Irani-Belgian incident CM posted about in his OP. Thus, my opinions will not change depending on your choice of discussion, but I would like to specify a choice since your current indecisiveness appears to me as you are avoiding my questions.

Before you entered the discussion, I was discussing discrimination, you introduced the word repression. Thus, in my reply to you I use both these words to explain my point of you. I am in no way obliged to use the same word as you all the time when I express my own opinions, which was what I did in this paragraph.

I have already pointed out where you generalised, and since you even quoted it I am surprised you still need me to point it out. Anyway, I copy and paste from my post above:

Audace:
And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions.

I cannot find anywhere in this statement where you have written "these Iranians". On the contrary, you used "The Iranians" and "they" to refer to the Iranians, but here you changed to "your" religion, which grammatically means you are not longer referring to the Iranis.

In any case, to this I replied:

This is where I think you fail to differentiate between repression and difference, and your failure to distiguish between repression and difference is what I illustrated with:

C Elegans:
The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women


To which you replied:
Subjetive interpretations of other people's putative unconscious thoughts or feelings belongs to psychoanalysis and not to serious political dicussion. Seeing we have not even met, you are not in a position to interpret my "unconscious". I would appricate if we could continue this discussion without unnecessary accusations.
This is incorrect. The handshake exists in all of islam, from liberal Jordan and Tunis where the women dress the same as in Western Europe, to fundamentalist Saudi. If you claim otherwise, please present some evidence. It is true that many muslims have adapted to Western culture and accept Western custums but even if they do this, they are by no means obliged to do so just because Europe has been an invading power and spread it's culture and they are more knowledgable about European culture than we are of theirs.

And this not shaking hands with women, you interpret as "repression of women". I critisise your right to judge this act as repression of women. This is what we are discussing in detail. I don't understand how your repeating of the sentence "The point is they explicitly dont shake hands with women" adds to your defence of your stance. Repeating your subjective interpretation of an event does not make it more correct. Please explain further if you want to continue this particular question.

I view it as ethocentric and even presumptious that you claim to know the background and motives of this refusal to shake hands. Especially since the erranous statements about islam you have posted in this thread give the impression of lacking a good deal of knowledge about islam.

I used the word "segregation" as synonymous to "separate", which you can see if you read my post again. Please leave you free associations out of this already overly messy discussion.

[C Elegans]

EDIT: I realised I had forgotten to respond to one paragraph in the post above, and when I did it exceeded the maximum word count allowed so I have to add the last part here.

Also, since you seemed to have missed this question, I repeat it and ask you to please reply to this. Since you think the Iranis should have shaken hands with the Belgian Senate President, refer to what handshaking as a Western symbol of friendship, and claim that refusal to do so is repression of women, I am very interested in your opinion on this:

In Eastern Greenland, it used to be a symbol of friendship and hospitality that you offered your guest to have sex with your partner. Just as the handshake in European culture. Do you think it is equally rude to refuse this? Is it repression of women if a man refuses to have sex with a Greenlandic women as a sign of friendship and hospitality?

EDIT2: You also seemed to miss this question:

Women also kiss and hold hands with each other. Women do not shake hands with men they are not related to. Is that repression of men?

[Audace]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]
Since the thread was about Irani's and you referred to "cover up every visible piece of their body" (a practice seldom seen in any other current larger religion) I thought you were referring to islam. [QUOTE]

As you might have noticed, I Quoted the same piece of text twice. Honest mistake, sorry for that.

You r generalizing here. Im talking about certain factions of Islam. Referring to the above quote to avert further confusion.

So you were assuming I meant all of Islam, which I didn't, made a model based on that assumption, which was generalizing, and used that as proof to say I was generalizing.

"Please try to decide what you actually want to discuss. The discussion becomes fragmented and unnecessary complicated if you first claim to talk about a certain subject, then reject that you are talking about that subject when I reply. My statements regarding religious and/or cultural differences are valid for both religions in general, for islam and for the recent Irani-Belgian incident CM posted about in his OP. Thus, my opinions will not change depending on your choice of discussion, but I would like to specify a choice since your current indecisiveness appears to me as you are avoiding my questions."

And here you state I am changing the subject because I don't agree with you on the fact that I am generalizing. And yes your statements (by which I assume you mean the slightly condescending: "One must be careful not to generalize" ) would still be valid if I actually was generalizing.

As for my "current indecisiveness": what do you want me to do? Generalize? This is were your beta background is failing you. There are dozens of different factions within Islam. There are dozens of different Islamic countires. There are dozens of different factions in these countries. There are different religious streams within these factions. There are different ways in which religious people within these streams and factions act on and with their religion (passive - active, moderate-conservative, public-private, aggresive-reflective etc. etc.). So I stated:

"And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions."

Given the knee-jerk condescending holier then thou discussion tactics prevalent on these forums I could've of course have expected that this would be viewed as an attack on Islam and as generalizing.

Hence your reaction amongst others :

"It is possible the handshake and the body covering is related in some countries, but not in all and not in islam in general. As I am sure you know, it is quite unusual that muslim women cover up every visible part of their body. No handshaking between the sexes unless related, is however present regardless of dress code. Just because discrimination of women occurs in islam, does not mean that all differences in conduct rules between men and women reflect this discrimination."

You say I know, but appearently refuse to believe that I am not generalizing. I'm sorry but can I take this as anything other then offensive?

"If the Iranians want to cancel .....

....This sais more about the intolerance and rudeness of the Iranians then about the intolerance and rudeness of the western diplomats."

Oh yes I can quite clearly see how I meant ALL Iranians here....?? Of course I am talking about the ambassadors here. Appearantly you explicitly wish to misinterpret me here.

"but here you changed to "your" religion, which grammatically means you are not longer referring to the Iranis. "

No it means I am reffering to those whose:"religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men"


"Before you entered the discussion, I was discussing discrimination, you introduced the word repression. Thus, in my reply to you I use both these words to explain my point of you. I am in no way obliged to use the same word as you all the time when I express my own opinions, which was what I did in this paragraph."

You were indeed replying to a quote of mine here CE. But of course i wouldn't want to force you to do anything. Just wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

"Subjetive interpretations of other people's putative unconscious thoughts or feelings belongs to psychoanalysis and not to serious political dicussion. Seeing we have not even met, you are not in a position to interpret my "unconscious". I would appricate if we could continue this discussion without unnecessary accusations."

I added the word unconscious on purpose, hoping you'd get the message about making assumptions. Too bad you didn't.

"
What do you mean with "defend the undefendable? Also, I think it is an ad hominen to accuse me of not reading your posts carefully, but making assumptions about your ideas. Reread your own posts or the the beginning of this post, and you can see that your statements about what your are discussing, have changed more than one time.

Also, please answer my question: do you mean all differences are a sign of repression?"


Defend repression of women of course. And since you are still making assumptions about my character in your last statement, I shall ignore the middle part of this quote.

"This is incorrect. The handshake exists in all of islam, from liberal Jordan and Tunis where the women dress the same as in Western Europe, to fundamentalist Saudi. If you claim otherwise, please present some evidence. It is true that many muslims have adapted to Western culture and accept Western custums but even if they do this, they are by no means obliged to do so just because Europe has been an invading power and spread it's culture and they are more knowledgable about European culture than we are of theirs."

To CM as well: I could of course add Turkey, but as I tried to state before, this is not about countries, that would be oversimplifiyng the discussion. And using personal experience as proof just doesn't cut it CM. I'm gay. I've never been gay-bashed. Oh so gay-bashers don't exist. Right.

I'll continue a bit in a later post.

[Cuchulain82]

I have some personal experience that may be relevant. I used to date a girl that was a vegetarian- she ate fish, but no meat (red meat, pork, poultry, etc). When we went out to dinner I could have ordered meat, but I don't think I ever did. Why? Among other reasons, it just seemed rude to me.

I guess that my point is that I think the Belgians could have handled the situtation better. I am generally very Pro-Western, but I can't help but think that the Belgian government was uncouth, and perhaps even rude. I like CM's analogy of serving beef at a dinner with Hindus- even if there is another option, burgers are going to be offensive the guests.

Having studied a little bit about diplomatic/cultural interaction, I second Fiona in being very surprised that the situation even got to the level it did. Usually, as a guest, you try to go out of your way to show your host that you respect and value his/her culture. Your host likewise reciprocates this level of respect, especially when it comes to religious matters like diet, meeting times, etc. To a certain extent everyone the world over does business according to Western norms, but being polite is crucial no matter what.

[QUOTE=CE]In Eastern Greenland, it used to be a symbol of friendship and hospitality that you offered your guest to have sex with your partner.[/QUOTE]
Wow- is this true?! When did this custom die out? (Your husband doesn't happen to be from Greenland, does he? )

[C Elegans]

Audace, you totally mistake what I think you are generalising. Let's try again.

[QUOTE=Audace]So you were assuming I meant all of Islam, which I didn't, made a model based on that assumption, which was generalizing, and used that as proof to say I was generalizing. [/quote]

No, not at all. I never thought you were referring to all of Islam. The generalisation I accuse you of doing, is the generalisation between an expression of repression of women (covering up the body) and gender differentiation in greeting method (men not shaking hands with women). The generalisation is that you automatically view a difference (handshake custum) as repression. This I thought I had stated clearly 2 times now, but I repeat it since you still misunderstand. You claim to know that the men and women not shaking hands with each other is repression of women just because there are other phenomena that are repressive towards women.

Please consider what I actually target my critisism towards before your next post, since much of the reasoning in your last post is centered around and dependent of this misunderstanding of the target for my critisism of you.

[C Elegans]

[QUOTE=Cuchulain82]Wow- is this true?! When did this custom die out? (Your husband doesn't happen to be from Greenland, does he? )[/QUOTE]

Oh, it is true. The custum died out very late at East Greenland, probably around the 1970's or so. Still though, it is viewed as polite to have sex with a visitor. The younger generation know it's not a custum in the industrialised world, and the men have learned that European women don't appreciate their straighforward offers of sex, but the elderly women have been less affected. A friend of mine who is in his 50's was constantly offered sex by women his age when we were in East Greenland 2 years ago, as a sign of welcome and friendliness. Btw, my husband is Swedish but Sweden in quite liberal too, you know

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Oh, it is true. The custum died out very late at East Greenland, probably around the 1970's or so. Still though, it is viewed as polite to have sex with a visitor. The younger generation know it's not a custum in the industrialised world, and the men have learned that European women don't appreciate their straighforward offers of sex, but the elderly women have been less affected. A friend of mine who is in his 50's was constantly offered sex by women his age when we were in East Greenland 2 years ago, as a sign of welcome and friendliness.[/quote]
That is quite the welcome! While the idea does have merit, it does strike me as far-fetched, and not even because of my American sensibilities- in the age before birth control, what happened when the son looked suspiciously like the milk man, if you get my meaning?

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Btw, my husband is Swedish but Sweden in quite liberal too, you know [/QUOTE]
Yeow! I actually come from a particularly liberal area of the US, and a particularly liberal area of that area! In my home state (Vermont), there is a lot of respect for privacy and rigths of the individual. For example, it was the first state in the US to ratify any sort of homosexual marriage/civil union provision.

See, this is a good clash of cultures. All this talk makes me think I should look for discount flights to Sweeden. I hear it's lovely this time of year...

[C Elegans]

@Audance: Since much of your last post refers to your misunderstanding of what I think you are generalising, it is difficult for me to reply, but I will comment on parts I'd like to clarify further.

"religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men"[/i] (a description that include several different religions including some factions of islam) then said you "never used the word Islam" (which seems to implicate you were not talking about islam) and then said "Im talking about certain factions of Islam."

As for my "current indecisiveness": what do you want me to do?

I would like you to define exactly what you are talking about, in order to avoid unnecessary complications in the discussion.

This is were your beta background is failing you.

What is beta background?

There are dozens of different factions within Islam. There are dozens of different Islamic countires...<snip>So I stated:

And a a side note, if your religion entails that women should cover up every visible piece of their body just to not fire up the hot blood of men (get some self control) then that religion is very much repressive towards women. It has nothing to do with "respect" towards women. Not shaking hands is just an extension of this sort of repressive religions.

Yes, but this does not clarify anything for me since, as I posted above, this paragraph could include several different religions during different timepoints, including factions of islam. Regardless of what religion it refers to, it contains the same generalisation as I have critisised you for all the time:

C Elegans:
The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women

thus clearly indicated that I think you generalise when you take for granted that the handshake issue is repression of women.

Given the knee-jerk condescending holier then thou discussion tactics prevalent on these forums I could've of course have expected that this would be viewed as an attack on Islam and as generalizing.

I have now explained many times exactly what I found generalising from your part. There is no reason to attack the entire forums for prevalently using a "knee-jerk condescending holier then thou discussion tactics". Instead, I think you should try not to be so upset when people disagree with you. If something is very personally sensitive and provocing to you, it might be better not to discuss it at an open internet forum where people may disagree and even critisise your opinions.

You say I know, but appearently refuse to believe that I am not generalizing. I'm sorry but can I take this as anything other then offensive?

I am sure you know that it is quite unusual that muslim women cover up every visible part of their body, yes. It does not however matter how common or uncommon this is, your mistake is still that you automatically view the handshake issue as repression just because you view the body covering as repression. Do you understand now it is nothing offensive with this?

Appearantly you explicitly wish to misinterpret me here.

Please try not to read in any malicious intent into this discussion. You are taking this far too personal if you believe my intention is to misunderstand you.

You were indeed replying to a quote of mine here CE. But of course i wouldn't want to force you to do anything. Just wish you would stop putting words in my mouth.

But surely, even if I am replying to a quote of you, I must be free to choose whatever words I like to describe my own opinion, which was what I was doing? How can describing my own opinion be interpreted as "putting words in your mouth?"

I added the word unconscious on purpose, hoping you'd get the message about making assumptions. Too bad you didn't.

On internet message boards, it is usually best not to try to communicate with hidden messages in serious discussion. I still have no idea what you meant, so please clarify further.

Defend repression of women of course. And since you are still making assumptions about my character in your last statement, I shall ignore the middle part of this quote.

Where and how am I defending repression of women? Can you point what support you have for this conclusision? Also, how is my question "do you mean all differences are a sign of repression?" an assumption of your character? Could you instead please answer this question?

To CM as well: I could of course add Turkey, but as I tried to state before, this is not about countries, that would be oversimplifiyng the discussion.

How does this statement related to my statement:

"This is incorrect. The handshake exists in all of islam, from liberal Jordan and Tunis where the women dress the same as in Western Europe, to fundamentalist Saudi. If you claim otherwise, please present some evidence."

You claimed "the handshake issue actually doesnt exist in most of Islam, but only in the more orthodox factions".. I replied with statement above. So what is your evidence that the handshake issue does in fact not exist in most of islam?

[C Elegans]

That is quite the welcome! While the idea does have merit, it does strike me as far-fetched, and not even because of my American sensibilities- in the age before birth control, what happened when the son looked suspiciously like the milk man, if you get my meaning?

They take care of the child, just as all other children. Children used to be more "community" raised than core family raised anyway even if the biological parents were known. Still, especially in the small villages, responsibility for the children is spread among all adults and if one couple have many children and another couple no children, they may share the children between them.

See, this is a good clash of cultures. All this talk makes me think I should look for discount flights to Sweeden. I hear it's lovely this time of year...

Hehe! It was about 25C today, unfortunatly I will be leaving for Greenland (!) in 5 days!

[Cuchulain82]

[QUOTE=C Elegans]They take care of the child, just as all other children. Children used to be more "community" raised than core family raised anyway even if the biological parents were known. Still, especially in the small villages, responsibility for the children is spread among all adults and if one couple have many children and another couple no children, they may share the children between them. [/quote]
I guess this works fine, but my suspicion is that it has something to do with the relative size and isolation of Greenland historically. I can't imagine there was much threat other than pregnancy- limited disease, relatively small population to interact with, etc. Are all/any of the other "northern" cultures as sexually open? I once dated a girl (not the above-mentioned vegetarian) who had lived in Finland. All she ever said was that Finnish guys knew only one way of hitting on girls- getting ridiculously drunk and dancing poorly with them. Her impression was that it was a relatively introverted culture. I don't know if this is true or not, but I am kind of surprised to hear that Greenland had such an open sexual culture.

(Surprised, but heartened! I mean, people do so many things that are unhealthy because they feel good. Sex feels good and is, imho, anything but unhealthy when done safely)

[QUOTE=C Elegans]Hehe! It was about 25C today, unfortunatly I will be leaving for Greenland (!) in 5 days! [/QUOTE]
Out of the pan and into the fire! How long are you going to Greenland for, and are you going for business... or pleasure?

[Jaypee]

It's more like clash of religions and clash of religions and secularity. I know where I stand.

[Audace]

I'm just gonna skip over the discussion about our mutual intentions because it will just result in a very long drawn out trenched discussion which would serve no purpose whatsoever.

C Elegans:
The reason I think you generalise in your interpretation is because you don't differ between discrimination and difference. We have two instances:
1. a religion contains elements of repression of women
2. a religion contain differences in social custums for men and for women

Islam sprung forth from a culture. Spreaded amongst more and developed into a multi-facetted religion. Though it may not be custom to shake hands in Islam, in only the most orthodox factions(Like the Salafists) of Islam it is religious doctrine not to shake the hands of women (they do shake hands with men, just to be clear that it is not about custom but about religious doctrines). It just is not that big a deal in most of Islam. Especially not "when in Rome". Hence my "immediate assumption". There is a very thin line between a chastity custom(like not walking around naked in public) and customs that are part of a larger frame repression. We must be careful not to generalize. We must also be careful not to fall into a universal moral equivelance. This is not just about a handshake. This is not just about a custom. But since this is a religious issue there is not much room for discussion. If you think that this kind of, in my opinion, dangerous religious doctrine should be acccepted by your elected representatives fine. I just do not agree. Wether this should have been ironed out by diplomacy is another issue.

What is beta background?

In Holland that would be a background in 'exact' sciences, like physics etc. as opposed to an alpha background in the more muddier sciences like history and sociology.

[Lestat]

A bit late in reacting, but maybe useful

As a Belgian who has travelled and worked in countries & regions with significant muslim populations, I have a few comments to make.

Regularly in this thread the words diplomat, diplomacy and ambassador crop up. None of the parties involved in the incidents are part of the diplomatic corps. Herman De Croo is president of Chamber of Representatives, Anne-Marie Lizin is president of the Senate, the visiting Iranians were delegates of the Iranian Parliament. So stop the talks about diplomats not doing their jobs: these were politicians doing what they do best: politicking.

Apart from that, concerning the lunch: if a religion (or an interpretation thereof) imposes limits on what people of other religions or non-religious convictions can do or not do, especially in their own country, I think that religion has problems. One person's freedom ends where another person's freedom starts.
And concerning the handshake: I must say I find Ms Lizin at fault, in this case. Here it is she who imposes her value and belief system on the visitors.

Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...

[boo's daddy]

Very interesting story, and a good read on this thread!
[QUOTE=Lestat]
Alas, the incidents should also be seen within the light of interior Belgian politics: Mr. De Croo's party stands to lose to the extreme right Vlaams Blok (campaigning on a Flemish-Nationalistic and Islamophobic platform) if he is seen to be caving in to what to most of my countrymen seem to be exaggerated demands (do not come between a Belgian and his beer!). Yes, this is politicking of the basest kind, but it has played a role...[/QUOTE]
Aha! The explanation at last.

A bit like Bliar and Chirac winding each other up to boost their domestic images, then. Poor show.

[Cuchulain82]

@Lestat

Excellent post- I actually meant to mention something similar in my previous post, but I guess I was distracted by other topics...

For anyone else who doesn't know, there is a bonafide clash of cultures* right now in the Netherlands between the "native" white/European Belgians and a very strong, vocal muslim minority. Most of this minority are immagrants who cling to their culture(s)- Muslim, Middle Eastern, North African, etc. The Belgian side says that the Muslims are actively threatening a way of life that, as immigrants, they should respect. The Muslim side says that they are treated as second class citizens, and that the Belgians say they are willing to welcome people, but only those who conform. This is a very rough paraphrase, but there is no shortage of articles about this. Recently this situation became violent with the killing of filmmaker Theo van Gogh.

*I suspect this is the clash of civilizations alluded to in the thread title- CM...?

[CM]

[QUOTE=Audace]Islam sprung forth from a culture. Spreaded amongst more and developed into a multi-facetted religion. Though it may not be custom to shake hands in Islam, in only the most orthodox factions(Like the Salafists) of Islam it is religious doctrine not to shake the hands of women (they do shake hands with men, just to be clear that it is not about custom but about religious doctrines). It just is not that big a deal in most of Islam. Especially not "when in Rome". Hence my "immediate assumption". There is a very thin line between a chastity custom(like not walking around naked in public) and customs that are part of a larger frame repression. We must be careful not to generalize. We must also be careful not to fall into a universal moral equivelance. This is not just about a handshake. This is not just about a custom. But since this is a religious issue there is not much room for discussion. If you think that this kind of, in my opinion, dangerous religious doctrine should be acccepted by your elected representatives fine. I just do not agree. Wether this should have been ironed out by diplomacy is another issue.[/QUOTE]

Factually incorrect but i am happy that someone else reads Foreign Affairs. The problem with the definition of "Salafism" and this discussion is that it is illogical, incorrect and absurd. "Salafism" is supposedly according to Foreign Affairs another form of Wahabbism. Problem here is that Shia's can not be wahabbis and by that they can't be part of the Salafist school of thought. We are dealing with one sub-sect of islam and secondly a school of thought conjured up purely in the minds of western "intellectuals".

Something people forget is that 99% of the words Sunni populations of Islam are wahabbis and thus a salafist. I am myself a wahabbi or a salafist. And sunnis are easily 60% of the muslim population. So you see you are dealing with nearly 650 million people which share the same faction or denomination as OBL, Hamas, Islamic Jihad and the GIA.

I posted a thread along time ago Cuch on assimilution and integration and discussed this very concepts. Muslims do not move for social or cultural reasons. They move for economic reasons and thus they do not need to assimilate. They need to integrate. That means they should learn the language and mingle with the host citizens. That does not mean you give up eating halal meat or going to prayers. It does not mean you start drinking and adopt every single cultural aspect of the host society.

I personally will never assimilate into another society because i am proud of my cultural heritage and i don't feel the need to. However i will integrate. I will learn the language or try atleast. You can bump up the thread if you want.

Additionally i was alluding to the thesis by Samuel Huntington and his notion that Islamic society and Western Society will always be at odds.

Just a point to note i do truly love it that western "intellectuals" define the conflict between Islam (religion) and western ideals (freedoms). Its such an uneven and biased comparision its amazing. These same people of course forget that western society is responsible for racism, slavery and nazism. (this is not directed anybody on SYM. It is just a comment on the way these others think).