This kind of thing always reminds me of a blog post I once came across from an African-American woman.

It involved a black man accused of rape and she was trying to decide whom to support.

The question was whether loyalty to ones sex should overcome loyalty to ones race.

Not whether the accused was actually guilty.

If your goal is genuinely justice, there is only one agenda.

(As an aside, I am not surprised that loyalty to ones race is greater than loyalty to ones sex. The chances are that half your close relatives are of the opposite sex, and less than half are of a different race.)

hcdarcpb…

Thanks for the link.

“the conduct must be done with the purpose of, or have the effect of, violating your dignity”

You say that the intent is irrelevant, but surely by reading the above quote, it appears that if the intent is there, OR if the words are actually taken as offensive, then a complaint can be submitted.

I was not aware that the second scenario could automatically be applied, and thank you for bringing this to my attention.

I still have huge problems with this article from title (which already turned me off) onwards, and I also find it quite dated. Sticking all “ethnic” women together, not providing any geographical, sociological, class analysis is also a problem. We can no longer look at these issues and use blanket ethnicity as a reason.

No there wouldn’t. The intent behind the comment or action is irrelevant, it’s the impact on the person on the receiving end that counts:

“the conduct must be done with the purpose of, or have the effect of, violating your dignity, or of creating an intimidating, hostile, degrading, humiliating or offensive environment for you”
http://www.eoc.org.uk/default.aspx?page=15306

Interesting article Sunny. Of course men have a part to play in fighting for women’s equality, but without wanting to sound sexist, men always seem to want to take over, that’s why a lot of feminists are reluctant to allow them into the ranks……

In a purely social environment, I agree with you. However, I was thinking of matters from a legal perspective. If for example, somebody was taken to an employment tribunal for an alleged sexist comment, then there would have to be some sort of criteria to decide whether the comment was sexist or not. If you only go on the opinion of the person who the comment was aimed at, then you could end up with the undesirable situations I described in my first post. Therefore, you will find in such situations, the approach will often be similar to what I advocated.

Perfect? Probably not, but better than the alternatives that spring to my mind!

Sofia,

Agreed. However, as the intent was not there, I do not believe that they can be accused of sexism. It should be explained to them though of how their words can be interpreted, so they can avoid future mis-haps if they so choose!

“If I cook clean and run after my husband out of choice, then am I in denial of sexist behaviour? according to Zohra I am…because I function within the culture of a dominant ethnic group which espouses this.”

I also agree that Zohra has slightly skewed the issues at hand with that argument. Certainly not all women would be in denial of sexism who are in that situation. Many would simply not have questioned the cultural norms that they live under.

No it isn’t. So many (young) Asians are quite willing to admit amongst themselves that forced marriages are a huge problem in the UK – but if a white person mentions the issue, they seem to go into “automatic denial” mode – and try to pretend that it’s a “one in a million” thing.

Suddenly “not wishing to re-inforce stereotypes” becomes much more important than the truth (that the abuse of women’s rights is a huge problem amongst the British South Asian population).

making “the community” allegedly look bad in the eyes of the wider population,

And more commonly, due to concerns about admonitions/retribution/fallout from immediate family members and their close social circle due to the latter being angry that the woman’s actions reflect badly on all of them in the eyes of the rest of “the community”.

Basically it’s all very Victorian, like that movie “The Age of Innocence” over the weekend starring Michelle Pfeiffer. Same sort of gossipy, sweep-everthing-under-the-carpet, oooh what a scandal, “what will people say ?” bukwaas.

It’s about pandering to how the community sees itself, not to protect how its viewed by others.

Basically it’s because many of the women concerned are afraid that they’ll get hassle from members of “the community” (especially immediate family members) for making “the community” allegedly look bad in the eyes of the wider population, not because they’re necessarily worried about making “the community” look bad themselves.

gosh, what a read.

“It is also accomplished by propagating the myth that feminism, or the struggle for equality between women and men, is the purview of ‘western’ or white women, and that non-white ethnic minority women have a non-existent, sceptical or antagonistic relationship with the idea of women’s rights.

too much of this stuff is all over the place, i’m so fed up when i’m faced with this myself.

“Sometimes, this denial is more nuanced: sexism is acknowledged, but is positioned as less important to the group’s overall wellbeing, compared with challenging wider racism or religious discrimination.”

yep.