For Friggin Chrissakes, The Teacher NEVER Demanded To Not Work With Men!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

In regards to this thread:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2400745&mesg_id=2400745

I'm in total disbelief at how many people have repeated this ridiculously false assertion.

Not sure what video they all watched, but on the one I watched she only said that she has to wear the veil in the presence of men. She NEVER demanded whatsoever to not work with men. Those were words the government minister put in her mouth. He was basically saying that if she's not allowed to wear the veil, but would only accept not wearing it if there were no men around, that she's basically saying she's demanding to not work with men. I personally found that spin to be pathetic, and am extremely disappointed that this has been spread here so ignorantly as if it were fact. All she's saying is that her religion requires that she wear it in the presence of men, and since at times there are men present she therefore must wear the veil. Again, she NEVER demanded whatsoever to not work with men.

One thing we pride ourselves on here is the ability to find facts and not allow disinformation to be spread. I don't know why this piece of information has been allowed to go on, as if fact, for as long as it has in the 500+ post thread. I did want to at least visibly and publicly make it known, however, that this woman in NO WAY declared such things, so it is quite unfair to attribute those things to her.

This has nothing to do with how I feel in regards to her teaching situation or what side I'm on with it. But I can't stand blatant inaccuracies, especially when they are used as spin to smear somebody. Here's the video link for all those that missed the facts of what she said:

Story with video link:
http://www.channel4.com/news/special-reports/special-reports-storypage.jsp?id=3603

[immoderate]

1. Any friend of Zorro's is a friend of mine.

Did anyone ask the kids what they thought?

--IMM

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

2. Don't Care. Wrong Thread.

Feel free to discuss those points in the 500+ post thread I linked to, since that's the one focused on the discussion of the rights or wrongs of her actions. This one is meant to simply set right a huge misconception in that thread that was thrown around repeatedly and ignorantly. This thread's intent was to educate.

I mean, you can still discuss the rights or wrongs of her position here if ya want, but I'm not going to respond to it since that wasn't the point of this thread. The other thread was really designated for that type of discussion.

[immoderate]

3. Yeah, I got you.

Since my comment was well buried in that thread, I took advantage.

I certainly got your point. Sorry for the snark.

--IMM

[elehhhhna]

17. Thank you for clearing that up.

[notadmblnd]

4. I read that she is not a teacher, but a teachers aid

It really makes no difference to me what her job title is. To me it's pretty much the same argument as the fundie pharmacists make in regards to birth control. If selling BC drugs is against their religion, then they're in the wrong profession. Using god as an excuse is just wrong. She has a choice and could chose to work in a field dominated by women (all girls school, seamstress, work from home, etc). In fact, maybe she could stay home and hope that her god will drop her manna from heaven to provide for her and hers?

BTW, isn't the Middle Easts solution to this segregated schools?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

5. Once Again, Wrong Thread.

This thread was simply to correct a huge misconception being thrown around the other thread. Setting that misconception straight by providing fact has nothing to do with the arguments of whether she should or shouldn't teach there. The other thread I linked to is really more for that debate. This one was simply for the purpose of correcting a grossly negligent error.

[fishnfla]

6. facts, disinformation, blatant inaccuracies, whatever

we dont du that

oops wrong thread!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

8. Talking About The Blatant Inaccuracies And Disinformation Is What

this thread is in fact about. So on that note, it is the right thread LOL

[notadmblnd]

9. Thank you.

I thought about replying but you know what they say.. If you have nothing nice to say.. then keep your mouth shut. Or something along those lines.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

11. For What? And Feel Free To Reply. I'd Like To Know What You Found So So

wrong about my post, that would require you to have nothing nice to say in return.

All I did was reply with a straightforward statement that this thread's purpose was not to debate the in's and out's of her ongoing debate, as the other thread/flamefest exists for that purpose.

This thread was started to clarify a huge misconception being thrown around the other thread that had not yet been set straight. So why you'd get offended when I simply wanted to clarify the OP since you didn't address the facts within it at all, but instead just responded as if this was a continuation of debate from the other thread, is quite an enigma.

Pretty simple concept: This thread is setting the record straight. It is in no way condoning or condemning her position, as I've taken no position in that debate. This thread was written to provide educated fact in order to overcome a dishonest and repeatedly reissued smear against somebody.

I mean, you do appreciate facts and corrections to misconceptions don't you?

[notadmblnd]

15. I did address the fact that she is not a teacher but a teacher's aid

a bit of mis-information that you didn't bother to fact check. Your post came across as self rightous outrage at comments that you deemed not to be facts, while you went ahead and posted something that was not fact either. Then you dismissed both me and another poster when we replied. Yeah, maybe I'm a little touchy today.. but it pissed me off.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

18. How Disingenuous.

First off, I couldn't fit it all in the header. I figured DU'ers to be bright enough to know who I was talking about, and since that extremely petty difference in no way affected the context of what I wanted to say, decided it was fine to keep as I had. I just needed the header to indicate the topic I was referencing and I'm quite certain anyone reading it knew what I was talking about.

But to actually think for a second that a petty distinction of teacher vs teacher's aide, which actually has not a thing to do with the value of the thread at all, is equal to the grossly inaccurate statement that she demanded to not work with men, is quite disingenuous in my opinion. Furthermore, upon referencing it you did not in any way correlate it to the message of the OP at all, but instead used it as a springboard to discuss the actual merits of her position, which is why I said this wasn't technically the right thread for that discussion.

Now if you had said the teacher's aide comment, followed by a context of "But yes, watching the video I see that she truly did not say that" etc.., then I'd find it more genuine and geared towards this thread. But you didn't reference the OP whatsoever. You simply issued further opinion on her position and rights to it, so I responded with the clarity that this thread wasn't really to debate that, but rather to provide the fact that she never said the statement attributed to her.

But yes, she was a teacher's aide....

[notadmblnd]

22. Call me whatever you like...

this is the title of your post:
"For Friggin Chrissakes, The Teacher NEVER Demanded To Not Work With Men!"

these are your words:

"I mean, you can still discuss the rights or wrongs of her position here if ya want, but I'm not going to respond to it since that wasn't the point of this thread. The other thread was really designated for that type of discussion."

Look, you were nitpicking and deemed it necessary to start an entire thread about a fact you thought people refused to believe. Believe it or not.. some people do post with out reading the entire thread first, especially if they are reasponding to the OP. I was pointing out that even you could get facts wrong and yes, I did offer my opinion in regards to that too. But as you can see from your own words...

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

25. Not Really.

You actually didn't even issue the statement as a declaration or correction, you issued it as an aside merely to jump into your opinion. In fact, your reply had nothing to do with pointing out fact whatsoever.

Furthermore, if you consider correcting probably over a hundred replies that were smearing the hell out of somebody unfairly as nitpicking, then I truly feel for you.

Lastly, like I said, the inaccurate part of my thread you mentioned was an insignificant part of it and was only used to explain who I was referencing, which was quite clear. In addition, many could argue that teacher's aides are teachers in their own way as well, so it really is a semantical argument. You also have repeated several times now as if I wasn't aware of the fact, though you are completely wrong in that assertion. I know damn well she's a teacher's aide, but I consider teacher's aides to be teachers as well to a degree. The distinction was irrelevant in regards to what my purpose of the header was since the purpose of the header was to reference what was inside, and I could only fit so much. I'd say anyone reading it knew exactly what I was talking about. But even regardless, your intent was only to provide a self-righteous "gotcha" that had no real consequence in relation to the message of the OP to begin with. Now that, I consider to have been petty nitpicking.

But hundreds of bitterly angry smears against somebody for a statement they didn't even say, is not a petty issue. It is actually quite an important one to correct. But if you want to rank the two as being equal then go for it. Wouldn't surprise me, since you somehow actually believe the correcting of a blatantly inaccurate character attack and smear on somebody is equal to a petty semantical argument of teacher vs teacher's aide that had been completely outside of any argument.

[notadmblnd]

28. of course, after all only your opinions are important and only you

are capable of determining what is worthy of being posted in your threads. I am but dirt beneath your feet. I bow at your superiroity. Happy now?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

29. Oh The Melodrama.

:rofl:

[notadmblnd]

31. well I do have to admit, you are the expert on that.

nt

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

32. You're Right. I Am Absolutely Brilliant At Recognizing It When I See It.

In any case, this useless outside the context of the OP failed to see the important point of it to begin with subthread has passed the level of ridiculous quite some time ago. See ya! :hi:

[Taoschick]

7. She was told

She would have to unveil in class. She's a teaching assistant and told the school she wouldn't unveil if any men were present. I think that's a distinction that needs to be made. In order for her to meet the terms of her employment and respect her cultural values, they would have to discriminate against male teachers by not allowing them in the same room she's assisting.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

10. Fact: She Never Demanded To Not Work With Men, Period.

Fact: Repeatedly asserting that she said such a thing is completely foolish, dishonest and ignorant.

All she has said is that it is her religious duty to wear the veil in the presence of men. All she is fighting for is that right to wear the veil. SHE HAS NEVER presented an argument or fight that if they want her to take the veil off they must fire all the men or refuse to hire men. If she had ever stated "Fine, I'll take the veil off, but you BETTER make sure there are no men here and you never hire any more men" then your argument would have legitimacy. But she hasn't come close to such declarations. Spinning it in such a way is a pathetic exercise of dishonesty in my opinion, and one that should be absolutely shunned by our community.

She has one fight and one fight only: That she has the right to wear the veil in school. That's it, period.

[sandnsea]

12. Thank you for the clarification

I see your point completely. She wants to veil completely, all the time, due to the occasions men would be present. That is different than refusing to work with men.

So the issue reverts to religious tolerance. Our Constitution is pretty clear on that front, I don't think we can legally prevent someone from exercising their religious customs, except perhaps for security reasons or if they move into proselytizing in the public square. This doesn't seem to fall into those categories to me. At the same time, I do not personally like the values it would bring into a school at all, we aren't supposed to make women responsible for the sexual behavior of men in our society. I've got no answer on this one at all.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

14. Thank You.

Thanks for being the first to actually read the OP and grasp its intent.

I'm with ya on the complexities of the argument. I can so easily take both sides of this issue if I wanted to, and I'll be damned if I know yet which side I appreciate the arguments of more. But regardless of position, it did really bother me to see like 20 or more people repeating the completely false assertion that she is 'demanding to not work with men'. There is a HUGE distinction between reality and that statement, and since that statement portrays so many additional negative connotations to the person in question, I found it quite unfair that it kept being attributed to her.

[piedmont]

13. It WAS noted in that thread

But some plowed on anyway saying/thinking otherwise.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

16. Yes, But You Noted It After I Had Already Posted The Sentiment.

I had already posted that in that thread ten minutes before you had, and at that time there were absolutely NO replies correcting that fact whatsoever. I then chose to re-write my sentiment into a thread itself in order to correct the embarrassing error put forth by dozens of DU'ers. You ended up posting a similar concept while I was in the middle of typing this one.

Glad you recognized it as well though. I'm absolutely shocked at how many replies, probably in the hundreds, were written under the false notion that she actually said such a thing. It's like all reality suddenly flew out the window.

I know you're new here, but trust me when I say DU as a whole is normally FAR more accurate and responsible with facts then what might be gleamed from that thread.

[piedmont]

19. not knocking you

Actually, it was the earlier posts (including yours) I was referring to. Mine came way too late in the discussion to do any good. It was really odd to see such a massive thread on DU mostly made up of mis-infomred posts.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. I Knew You Weren't :o)

I was just explaining why I had asserted that no one had addressed it. Besides yours and mine in that thread, I couldn't find a single one! I'm still quite in awe of that, to be honest, since there were SO many posts angrily fighting her for that statement, even though she never said it. After the first few, I dismissed it as a "ehh, there will always be some posters that provide misinformation". But then after I read reply after reply after reply repeating the same thing, it turned into a huge mental "WTF?????" :)

[Bunny]

21. It's a distinction without a difference, as they say.

And my response is logical, rational, sane, intellectual, cool, calm, collected and correct, so no reply is necessary or even, dare I say, possible.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

23. Actually It Makes No Sense Whatsoever.

But whatever makes ya happy!

[Bunny]

24. On the contrary. It is the only possible correct response.

There can be no sane,rational disagreement with it. There is simply no other acceptable answer. I know this is true because I said it is so. Disagreeing with me may make you happy, but you would also be wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

26. If Only You Knew How Truly Illogical And Nonsensical That Statement Was.

I know the premise you are trying to portray, but in this context it is a completely misguided and faulty one.

That attempt at being witty would've been better saved for a thread that it actually would've applied to, with all due respect.

[Bunny]

27. Of course you would see it that way.

But sadly, you are incorrect. My opinion is the only logical and sensible one possible. I've arrived at it through cool, careful deliberation. This is true because I said it is. There is no need for you to try to correct me, as you are wrong. Since you refuse to be enlightened and see the real truth, I will spend no more of my valuable time on this. If you choose to get the last word, you can do so now. But you will still be wrong.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

30. Of Course I Would. I Lean Towards Favoring Fact As Opposed To

nonsensical, inaccurate, misguided, illogical, inappropriate, non-contextual, faulty-premised, delusional,think-they're-right-when-they're-not, inane babbling, unsubstantiated, non-defensible, foolish, undefended, irrational, misplaced, stubborn, blatantly-wrong-yet-presented-as-fact, provocative, rooted in ignorance and immensely false on their face type arguments.

So ta ta! :hi: