1 2 3 >  Last ›
 
   
 

It’s offensive to NOT wear a Hijab? Shame on Miss Michigan?

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 09:56
 

When asked to try on a hijab, Miss Michigan declined. Offensive? Really?

ex miss michigan

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7106
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
20 July 2019 10:37
 

Taken directly from the miss world america’s website regarding rules and regulations for the contest:

https://missworldamerica.com/terms-and-conditions-of-entry-mwa/

(g) is of good character and possessed of charm, poise, personality;
(h) whose background is not likely to bring into disrepute Miss World America Contest and Miss Teen World America Contest or title or the Licensee or Miss World America or any person associated with them
2. There must be nothing in the contestant’s background that could bring into disrepute any aspect of the contest or its sponsors (e.g. no drug use; arrests, DUI’s; participation in pornography).

Note, that as a contestant, she is explicitly understood to have agreed to these rules.

Some are are vague, but they do indicate a general “don’t make us look bad or you’re out” sorta sentiment.

So the question isn’t whether it is offensive not to wear a hijab, or make potentially racist comments, or to otherwise act in a political fashion, but whether one should be free from any consequences whatsoever when they do so.

Most corporations and businesses also have a ‘make us look bad (actively or by association) and you’re out’ standard agreement in their employment and hiring contracts.  So people can lose jobs if their social media posts create blow-back for their employers…

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 10:47
 

My question is something like: “Make us look bad because we have agenda X?”

I would guess that some PC stances would have been deemed acceptable. So should the competition state its leanings? Should such a competition be allowed to have political leanings?

 
 
Jefe
 
Avatar
 
 
Jefe
Total Posts:  7106
Joined  15-02-2007
 
 
 
20 July 2019 10:54
 
icehorse - 20 July 2019 10:47 AM

My question is something like: “Make us look bad because we have agenda X?”

I would guess that some PC stances would have been deemed acceptable. So should the competition state its leanings? Should such a competition be allowed to have political leanings?

Everyone has an agenda.
Most organizations don’t want a member/employee/contestant appearing in the news and thereby casting shade in their direction (shade being a relative term).

Consider christian organizations and companies that (illegally) require faith-statements for employees, or fire people who are a little to LGBTQ+ rights-forward, or co-habitating in extra-marital relationships.

The rule of thumb is don’t be dumb and potentially cause organizations you’re associated with to look bad.  If you do, expect repercussions. 

In this case, perhaps the Miss X Contest wants to be viewed as non-discriminatory and inclusive, and the person’s refusal to even try on a hijab may have been viewed as ‘exclusionary’.  And might have gone unnoticed if she hadn’t broadcast it over social media?

[ Edited: 20 July 2019 11:02 by Jefe]
 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
20 July 2019 11:09
 

We do not have the whole story, just one side.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 11:10
 

Your arguments are focused on how employees and contestants should stay under the radar, and of course as far as that goes, it’s good advice.

But I’m thinking that the organization should come under some heat for imposing such an extreme stance on it’s contestants. I would argue that the organization is demanding that it’s contestants temporarily relinquish their freedom of religion rights.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3394
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
20 July 2019 11:13
 

Pro-Trump Miss Michigan who refused to try on hijab stripped of title over twitter posts – report
https://www.rt.com/usa/464557-miss-michigan-title-stripped/

It appears that it is not the act itself of refusing to try on a hijab that brought this about, but her twitter posts, due to their “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” (as per quote in link).  I suspect that if Zhu had no history of such comments on social media, and had simply said that she preferred not to wear a hijab for personal reasons or because she did not share the religious views that it represents, it would have been a different story.

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 11:17
 
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:13 AM

Pro-Trump Miss Michigan who refused to try on hijab stripped of title over twitter posts – report
https://www.rt.com/usa/464557-miss-michigan-title-stripped/

It appears that it is not the act itself of refusing to try on a hijab that brought this about, but her twitter posts, due to their “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” (as per quote in link).  I suspect that if Zhu had no history of such comments on social media, and had simply said that she preferred not to wear a hijab for personal reasons or because she did not share the religious views that it represents, it would have been a different story.

From what I found, her tweets contained facts that were deemed not-PC.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3394
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
20 July 2019 11:36
 
icehorse - 20 July 2019 11:17 AM
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:13 AM

Pro-Trump Miss Michigan who refused to try on hijab stripped of title over twitter posts – report
https://www.rt.com/usa/464557-miss-michigan-title-stripped/

It appears that it is not the act itself of refusing to try on a hijab that brought this about, but her twitter posts, due to their “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” (as per quote in link).  I suspect that if Zhu had no history of such comments on social media, and had simply said that she preferred not to wear a hijab for personal reasons or because she did not share the religious views that it represents, it would have been a different story.

From what I found, her tweets contained facts that were deemed not-PC.

That’s your take, to call it “not-PC”.  The fight against political correctness does not mean that anything goes anywhere, and that there are no responsibilities or repercussions to what we say (see Jefe’s post #3). 

Although you chose to title this thread “It’s offensive to NOT wear a Hijab? ...”, that is what she is claiming, but not the reason that was given for removal of her title.  Like many of her fellow Trump supporters, she appears to be seeking support by diverting attention from her actual views.

 

 
 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 12:02
 
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:36 AM
icehorse - 20 July 2019 11:17 AM
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:13 AM

Pro-Trump Miss Michigan who refused to try on hijab stripped of title over twitter posts – report
https://www.rt.com/usa/464557-miss-michigan-title-stripped/

It appears that it is not the act itself of refusing to try on a hijab that brought this about, but her twitter posts, due to their “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” (as per quote in link).  I suspect that if Zhu had no history of such comments on social media, and had simply said that she preferred not to wear a hijab for personal reasons or because she did not share the religious views that it represents, it would have been a different story.

From what I found, her tweets contained facts that were deemed not-PC.

That’s your take, to call it “not-PC”.  The fight against political correctness does not mean that anything goes anywhere, and that there are no responsibilities or repercussions to what we say (see Jefe’s post #3). 

Although you chose to title this thread “It’s offensive to NOT wear a Hijab? ...”, that is what she is claiming, but not the reason that was given for removal of her title.  Like many of her fellow Trump supporters, she appears to be seeking support by diverting attention from her actual views.

The other point was a tweet citing a statistic concerning blacks killing other blacks.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  3394
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
20 July 2019 12:13
 
icehorse - 20 July 2019 12:02 PM
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:36 AM
icehorse - 20 July 2019 11:17 AM
Jan_CAN - 20 July 2019 11:13 AM

Pro-Trump Miss Michigan who refused to try on hijab stripped of title over twitter posts – report
https://www.rt.com/usa/464557-miss-michigan-title-stripped/

It appears that it is not the act itself of refusing to try on a hijab that brought this about, but her twitter posts, due to their “offensive, insensitive and inappropriate content” (as per quote in link).  I suspect that if Zhu had no history of such comments on social media, and had simply said that she preferred not to wear a hijab for personal reasons or because she did not share the religious views that it represents, it would have been a different story.

From what I found, her tweets contained facts that were deemed not-PC.

That’s your take, to call it “not-PC”.  The fight against political correctness does not mean that anything goes anywhere, and that there are no responsibilities or repercussions to what we say (see Jefe’s post #3). 

Although you chose to title this thread “It’s offensive to NOT wear a Hijab? ...”, that is what she is claiming, but not the reason that was given for removal of her title.  Like many of her fellow Trump supporters, she appears to be seeking support by diverting attention from her actual views.

The other point was a tweet citing a statistic concerning blacks killing other blacks.

Ya know it does matter what one’s motives are when quoting such statistics, right?  And that the overall tone of the writer usually indicates what these are.  Are they stating facts, or justifying racist thinking?

 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
 
Avatar
 
 
Antisocialdarwinist
Total Posts:  6749
Joined  08-12-2006
 
 
 
20 July 2019 12:21
 

The hijab is like the Confederate flag in a way.

Most people who fly the Confederate flag do so to identify themselves as “rebels.” But many people take it as a symbol of racism and are offended by it. Most women who wear the hijab do so to “retain their modesty and morals.” But many people take it as a symbol of Sharia (stoning adulteresses, cutting hands off thieves, executing homosexuals, women as property, etc.) and are offended by it.

In each case, there are both benign and malevolent reasons for displaying the symbol. In the case of the “rebel” flag, the malevolent reason is used to justify the wrongness of flying it; people who are offended by it are given priority over people who aren’t. But in the case of the hijab, the benign reason is used to justify the rightness (or non-wrongness) of wearing it; people who perceive it as benign are given priority over people who are offended by it.

It seems to me that this is a double standard. If the feelings of people who are offended by a symbol are deemed more important than the feelings of people who aren’t, then shouldn’t that standard be applied in both cases? Or, conversely, if people who aren’t offended by a symbol are given priority over people who are, shouldn’t that standard be applied in both cases?

Why is it okay to offend people with a hijab but not with a “rebel” flag?

 
 
LadyJane
 
Avatar
 
 
LadyJane
Total Posts:  3322
Joined  26-03-2013
 
 
 
20 July 2019 12:49
 
Antisocialdarwinist - 20 July 2019 12:21 PM

The hijab is like the Confederate flag in a way.

Most people who fly the Confederate flag do so to identify themselves as “rebels.” But many people take it as a symbol of racism and are offended by it. Most women who wear the hijab do so to “retain their modesty and morals.” But many people take it as a symbol of Sharia (stoning adulteresses, cutting hands off thieves, executing homosexuals, women as property, etc.) and are offended by it.

In each case, there are both benign and malevolent reasons for displaying the symbol. In the case of the “rebel” flag, the malevolent reason is used to justify the wrongness of flying it; people who are offended by it are given priority over people who aren’t. But in the case of the hijab, the benign reason is used to justify the rightness (or non-wrongness) of wearing it; people who perceive it as benign are given priority over people who are offended by it.

It seems to me that this is a double standard. If the feelings of people who are offended by a symbol are deemed more important than the feelings of people who aren’t, then shouldn’t that standard be applied in both cases? Or, conversely, if people who aren’t offended by a symbol are given priority over people who are, shouldn’t that standard be applied in both cases?

Why is it okay to offend people with a hijab but not with a “rebel” flag?

A hijab can represent a symbol or a functioning form of clothing.  A flag is just a symbol.

A more appropriate analogy might be a “wife beater.”  It can represent a symbol for hating blacks and homosexuals and treating women as property or functions as an under garment.

We all have the right to wear what we want and we all have the right to be offended.

We all just don’t have the right to enter a beauty contest and not play by the rules.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
20 July 2019 15:10
 
LadyJane - 20 July 2019 12:49 PM

We all just don’t have the right to enter a beauty contest and not play by the rules.

Yep.  The Constitution is a contract between the government and the people.  She did not lose her constitutional rights, she lost a job - big difference.  If she feels she was treated unlawfully then she may hire a lawyer and test the lawfulness of the employment contract.  Instead she chose the usual route of haters (aka “conservatives”) and proclaimed to the public at large of the victimization she suffered for her beliefs.  I sincerely believe her posts were not as benign as she wants us to believe, and that her side of the story is incomplete and self-serving.  Also, being an asshole to the one who signs your paycheck and make him/her answer uncomfortable questions from reporters is a good way to get fired.

It is really tiring having to explain what free speech means, and usually the people who need re-education are the same ones who like to tell everyone how much they hate someone else and get huffy about the blowback.

Let me know when the government tries to restrict her speech, then I will have sympathy.

 
icehorse
 
Avatar
 
 
icehorse
Total Posts:  7654
Joined  22-02-2014
 
 
 
20 July 2019 15:14
 

skip:

..Instead she chose the usual route of haters (aka “conservatives”) and proclaimed to the public at large of the victimization she suffered for her beliefs..

Oh, I don’t think that playing the victim card is exclusively the domain of “conservatives”.

 
 
Skipshot
 
Avatar
 
 
Skipshot
Total Posts:  9599
Joined  20-10-2006
 
 
 
20 July 2019 15:25
 
icehorse - 20 July 2019 03:14 PM

skip:

..Instead she chose the usual route of haters (aka “conservatives”) and proclaimed to the public at large of the victimization she suffered for her beliefs..

Oh, I don’t think that playing the victim card is exclusively the domain of “conservatives”.

”Playing the victim/race card” has become a way of dismissing a grievance.  Sometimes it is a true grievance, but in this woman’s case it is not.  Let her get a lawyer and argue her case if she feels strongly about it.

 
 1 2 3 >  Last ›