Much like learning a new word and then suddenly seeing it everywhere, or humming a song you haven't thought of in years and then suddenly hearing it a dozen times on the radio over the next week, since posting The Culture Defence I have been running into example apon example of how tradition is pretty much the only reason anyone does anything. One of the more amusing ones is Amanda's take on crusive writing and how it should die a lonely death (if you don't read Pandagon evey day, you really should).
I won?t strain your intelligence pointing out why arguments from tradition are horseshit, but suffice it to say, if your main argument for something is that it?s a tradition, then that?s all the more reason to re-examine your attitudes about it.
The current annual hubbub over hajibs, for example. This is actually a pretty complex debate with a lot of good points on both sides. I have a similar stance on this argument as I do on circumcision- I hate hajibs and wish they'd fuck off, but at the same time I'd find legislation banning them to be even creepier.
I hate the Hajib (and it's way-creepy cousin the Burqa) because it's a method of controlling women. Yes, there are lots of choice-feminist arguments about it's advantages in a leery man's world, but none of them speak to the point that the Hajib is a method of controlling, and supressing, women. Now, if a woman wants to wear a hajib, or a burqa, or anything else, then of course she should be able to, which is why I don't support legislating against them- that is removing women's choices, not adding to them, and many women wear the hajib as a legitimate expression of their choices and culture. But the bottom line is that it is not a matter of choice for a lot of women. And it's safe to say that these very same women have little other choices in their lives, as well. And that's cultural, which again makes people afraid of coming at the issue directly, discussing it honestly, without the veil of tradition coming down the cloack the argument in offence.
Many people I've discussed this with cannot seem to hold it in their minds that I can't vociferously hate something, yet not want it legislated against. I find it perfectly reasonable. Let's take porn. There's a lot of ugly, violent porn out there that I don't think anyone should watch and I find really disturbing that it exists at all. Yet I don't want porn banned, because my choices don't override others, and a boring world it would be if they did. Yet I'll happily give my opinion on people who watch that sort of shit. So while I don't think the culture defense is a valid argument for supporting something, at the same time I don't believe in the 'culture attack'- my culture doesn't override yours.
This is a 
Never thought I?d say this but? my sympathies are with Jack Straw. All of the mothers of the kids I work with wear veils and a lot wear burqas ? it feels peculiarly aggressive to be staring right in someone?s eyes because that is all you can see of their face. (Quite apart from the fact that I disagree with it most strongly.) I heard a story about someone?s toddler son who was fascinated with a burqa-wearing woman on the bus and tried to post a piece of paper into the ?letterbox? ? a tragic-comic story which tells you all you need to know about how they turn women into invisible, inanimate objects.
What makes me really sad is when the little girls in my class wear them ? considering it?s all about sexuality, can?t they just be little kids? They just want to be like their mothers and grandmothers & big sisters, but it?s pure indoctrination.
Though clearly, I can't say that.
Firstly: UPON! UPON UPON UPON! NOT 'APON', 'UPON'!!
Secondly: The term "hajib" is not to be confused with the word "hijab", which is a headscarf for Muslim women.
A hajib was a government official in Spain and Egypt. They began as chamberlains but by 756 had evolved to be equivalent to a vizier.
Someone has clearly had a close family member maimed by a typographical error recently.
Everyone should learnt to write neatly. I can't read my hand writing.
The Brits call cursive "joined up writing" which points more to the death of the language than anything else.
You know their is an argument for tradition that is fully ok, and has no value aside from tradition itself. Not everything that we do can be explained away. Craig and I buy each other a t-shirt when we go travelling. Why I don't know. Just one of us started and the other reciprocated and now it's some sort of odd tradition. There is nothing wrong with examining and rexamining tradition. But their also is nothing wrong with doing something purely for traditional reasons. We are more complex social creatures than we think and for many things tradition gives us the ability to often interact from a common base or share some commonality. This is not an argument for against specific traditions, but just saying, that you can't really use the word tradition as a single thing to be continued or stopped or whatevered as if tradition was one thing to all people. Swopping t-shirts are obviously not the same as FGM, and forcing someone to do something is not the same as them choosing to do it. I'll probably write a blog post on this as a prelim to my circumcision blog post.
I also think their is a difference between something you disagree with but don't want legislated against (a choice) and something you disagree with and want legislated against (a wrong).
You can disagree with something (say porn) but agree with the choice of others to do it.
Or you can disagree with something (say kiddie porn) and think it is wrong for others to do it.
The question is, what should be choice and what is just wrong on pretty much an absolute level?
I would vote against a party that legislated against testing. But I would vote for a party that legislated to criminalise people who mistreated animals (you know the kind of person who has 300 dogs in 1 room)
I would vote for a party that allowed animal testing. But I would vote against a party that banned meat and forced everyone to be veggie.
I see myself as voting for choices but against absolute wrongs.
However what I see as a choice other people see as absolute wrongs. And what I see as absolute wrongs other people see as choices.
I can disagree with peoples choices but accept that they should be allowed those choices. Which I do understand your point.
But their must be things you disagree with on an absolute level?
Like if I started a movement to kill and deep fry all cats for example ...
Firstly: UPON! UPON UPON UPON! NOT 'APON', 'UPON'!!
Wait a second, what are you trying to say here?