Of course, that is too expensive, so now there is a recording of an islamic prayer over a loudspeaker.
Which is also the problem I had with the article: his rule only works when complying with the minority is cheap (playing a recording), if a halal chicken also had to have decent living standards making it 4 times as expensive, there would be a lot fewer halal chickens.
It can be hard to avoid eating Halal meat, because there is no requirement that Halal meat is labeled as such. Meat from Halal slaughter ends up in the regular supply chain. The vast majority of New Zealand lamb, for example, is Halal - but isn't typically labeled as such.
https://www.rspca.org.uk/ImageLocator/LocateAsset?asset=docu...
I suspect much of the EU works in this way.
We've been removing any reference to Christianity in state-related documents - which is fine but let's see some examples: Christmas holidays are renamed "End-of-year Holidays", just like Easter holidays are now "Spring holidays", and we're removing Christian days off here and there. Street names are renamed, churches aren't always maintained by Christian-adverse mayors.
On the other side, every vegetable mix is now a "tajin", often halal, the state is funding Mosques, and our streets fill up with women with the foulard (that thing to hide hair), our beaches with women in burkini, and males have Arabic dresses and beards. When there is some sand on the floor, you'd believe you were on the other side of the Mediterranean. Upon football matches, they burn the French flag.
Most leftish people insist that we should encourage this because "tolerance" (Fraternité). At the same time when they're introduced to a Christian they go on and on about priests raping kids and the Spanish inquisition. Ok, I get it, as a Christian I'm a murderer, and television headline news enjoy a lot conveying arguments against Christian representants.
I have the feeling that tolerance, mutual understanding and equality of chances only goes towards the 7% Muslims.
Same goes for women. Someone else in the thread pointed to a link which "10 sexist things", saying they didn't see them as sexist. I don't know, if there are fewer women in IT, it could also be that programming is hard and few people can live the life of a good programmer. Meanwhile all girls of my Engineering school were promoted way before men, and get a better salary than men I know, while having usually less technical knowledge. It doesn't match the usual message that feminists tell, but stats aren't built to find such results. Once again equality only strikes one way and women don't have to work as hard as men to succeed.
So how can we stop harassing the white, the Christian, the male, the hard workers? Do I really have to vote for that extremist party, or could women and Muslims have a bit of tolerance and check we still have an equality of work/results ratio even though we're white?
Goes back to running my own company, because I was never promoted while employed
For non-French readers, it should be mentioned that the degree of political-correctness in France often exceeds that of the united states, especially in the capital.
It's quite hard to imagine for those who haven't encountered it.
Regarding feminism, I think the problem is that internet-feminism (and indeed, most forms of feminism you see in the media) represent a very specific and strange brand thereof. Namely, it's a very vocal sliver of 3rd-wave American feminism, which appart from it's mind-boggling ethnocentricity, has it's roots in a very misandrous circle of American lesbian thinkers (or rabble-rousers, depending on your perspective). I should, of course, mention that I have no quarrel with the bulk of lesbians, American or otherwise.
In particular, this group is characterized by the ascetic rejection of biology as an explanatory factor for ... well... anything related to observed sex differences. Otherwise stated, they assume that all observed differences between men and women must stem from social injustice -- biology can have no role whatsoever, here. To claim otherwise is quickly met with accusations of essentialism, or worse.
As an interesting aside, I'm "surprised" they haven't taken up the cause of getting more men into nursing...
Lest this be interpreted as a rant, my point is twofold:
- The climate of political correctness in France is increasingly suffocating to the majority, and this in a climate of repeated bloodshed perpetrated by "a certain group that must not be named". The tension is palpable, and the majority (it seems to me) feels increasingly alienated, if not outright invaded. I'm not saying it's a fair assessment, but rather that the phenomenon exists, and will likely inform some very concrete changes in policy.
- Feminism is not fundamentally insane and I think sexism does exist. I also think its effects are vastly overstated by the profoundly anti-intellectual demagogues that have hijacked the feminist movement. By and large, I find the intellectual and moral substance of mainstream American feminism to be appallingly weak, and frighteningly zealous.
"Internet feminism" represents pretty much the entire range of feminism; if you disproportionately perceive some particular segment, its probably because you have a disproportionate reaction to it.
> As an interesting aside, I'm "surprised" they haven't taken up the cause of getting more men into nursing...
I'm surprised you think that they haven't taken up the issue of men in nursing , since its been a fairly common theme in feminist circles (including on the internet) for quite a number of years, including especially the idea that the lack of men in the field is directly tied to the same gender stereotyping that leads to disrespect for the field as "women's work". (And, frequently, this discussion also treats it as a failing of early waves of feminism that this issue was neglected in the past.)
See, among others:
http://feminismnursing.blogspot.com/
http://minoritynurse.com/rethinking-gender-stereotypes-in-nu...
Please stop playing with words, and please stop the thinly-veiled accusations.
Yes, the full range of feminism is represented on the internet, but far from proportionally. Some groups are distinctly louder, more zealous, and receive more "air-time" than others.
>I'm surprised you think that they haven't taken up the issue of men in nursing , since its been a fairly common theme in feminist circles (including on the internet) for quite a number of years
Indeed, though not in third-wave revolutionary circles that are the object of my criticism.
Please understand you're conversing with a feminist, and please understand that most people would be surprised by the (very valid) examples you bring up. This speaks to my original point: a very thin and radical sliver of feminism is over-represented on the internet and in the media, which in turn hurts our cause.
I'm not playing with words, and the accusation was direct and not veiled at all. Your description that internet feminism represents only the particular narrow subset that you claim is ridiculously unconnected with reality and only explainable by either a complete ignorance of the domain (which you deny, and I believe you), outright dishonesty (which I don't suspect, and, as the least-charitable interpretation, I wouldn't suggest even if I had suspicions in that direction), or the common human trait of magnifying the significance of things to which one has a particularly strong negative reaction.
They haven't, and here's the demonstration that absolutely no section of feminism is fighting for men. Try it yourself: http://femmes.gouv.fr and http://hommes.gouv.fr - It's outright blatant sexism, and the whole stack of society is just the same, full of advantages for women, €30,000 loans and €6,000 gifts for women entrepreneurs, BECAUSE OF THEIR SEX, along with many women-only benefits. The difference between men and women is that when a group or an advantage is male-only, it's not by design or by law, it's by mistake and we recognize it and work in fixing it - whereas women don't hesitate to seize the law to make some advantages based on sex, which makes them immutable once the advantage isn't necessary anymore. Women use the law to assign sex-based privileges against men, men don't do that.
Every single woman is persuaded they're victims of the males. Those who say the opposite ("I'm a feminist but not extremist, I'm all for equality") are usually still persuaded salaries are higher for men anyway, which is still up for scientific debate (I'll leave the demonstration for another comment). So basically any woman is ready to vote for more action against men than we already have.
If you look at the political party programs, at the line "Equality":
- PS (left wing): "More rights for the women! More benefits! More for females and children victims of rapists!" I like how they don't tell the sex of rapists, but they only fight for female victims. Absolutely no note of men's equality in PS's party program.
- LR (right wing): "More rights for the women in companies! Quotas for female board members! More Girls In Tech sexist groups!" Absolutely no mention of men.
- FN (extreme right): "Keep the same advantages we already have for women" (That's it, no proposal)
I've decided to choose my vote based on which party promises to NOT give more advantages to women than they already have. That party is FN, and I've started to consider that if they're right about women, they must have something right about Muslims too. And if anyone wants me to vote for a milder line, please start a #SheForHe twitter thread...