Except it’s not a religious dress.
That's just because culture and religion are somewhat related. This does not make religious garments not religious.
But yeah, sure just make it like all Muslims are fanatical terrorists, that will include them well in the society.
Strawman
Do we ban metal heads then because they’re satanist worshipers?
Strawman
"We" actually told everyone what NOT to dress, because some dresses are actually not (only) garments but religious symbols. Again, if you use this argument I will play the devil's advocate and support people going in KKK uniform to school. Wouldn't we want to tell boys how to dress, no? Or a good ol' SS uniform.
Clothes sometimes are more than pieces of cloth we cover ourselves with, and some of them have religious value, whether you acknowledge it or not. You can argue that for you schools should NOT be a neutral space (regarding religion), but you can't make up argument such as religious clothing being worn for modesty.
I believe there are a huge number of ways we want to avoid young people express themselves in school. I am thinking for example about Nazi simbols, but the examples are countless. It's just that according to you religion is not "one of those things". I bet you wouldn't defend someone to express himself by coming to school in full KKK outfit in the same way, would you?
Also, given the fact that the law applies to everyone, I don't find it racist, and not even discriminatory. Again, Muslim people are disproportionally affected just because Islam has many of such symbols and garments, not because the law targets them specifically.Christians's veils are banned as well (like the one nuns wear),the difference is that only few people in specific contexts wear them.
The school did not ban children though, nor because of their religion.
The school complied with a law that forbids religious symbols/garments. Also the children were not banned, were asked to wear something else and most did.
Muslim children are perfectly able to attend school, provided that they do so without visible religious symbols, exactly like everyone else.
Accprding to https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_law_on_secularity_and_conspicuous_religious_symbols_in_schools you seem incorrect. The point is exactly that of preventing religious displays in schools, and I wouldn't call it fascism. In fact, fascist regimes have done exactly the opposite, giving huge visibility to religion and (the case in Italy) making Christianity religion of the state.
The comparison with same sex couple showing displays of affection seems completely ridiculous to me, especially because Muslims are disproportionally affected only because Islam is a religion in which there are more symbols, but it is not targeted specifically against then.
What is important is that people can, if they choose to do so, freely profess their own religion, or the lack thereof. This does not mean that this can be done in any space, and I am personally a big supporter for schools being very neutral spaces.
Christian crosses are actually forbidden in French school (from what I read). I don't know if anybody ever got removed from school from it, but the rule is there. I can't talk on what is against or not French constitution as I am not qualified to do so (not even for my own country), but I trust that if that's the case, courts will determine that.
A final remark, being Muslim is a choice, is not a birth condition nor a race (or ethnicity). This means that at most you can talk of religious discrimination, not racism. Coincidentally religious discrimination is very common in very religious countries (including Muslim countries), both towards other religions and even more against atheists or apostates.
As you can read in the article, most simply agreed to wear something else. For those who refused, some talks with families will follow. To me it seems a fairly rational way to enforce the rule.
All other religious symbols are also banned (in schools), so this argument seems pretty weak. One can agree or disagree, but considering religion a private matter that should stay out of the public buildings is a perfectly legitimate stance, in my opinion.
Honestly, as a European, there is no such thing as democratic socialism here. There a handful of countries with a decent welfare system, others who used to have a decent one but which are demolishing it bit-by-bit since the 80s/90s.
There are way less differences between the US system and European systems than between European system and what a Democratic socialism looks like.
Those money are numbers on computers. I guess this is what OC referred to as making money out of thin air.
on someone else’s experience in life based on a single forum comment
You keep insisting on this point. I am not doing any of that. I am challenging the generalization of the analysis of those episodes to the whole sector. I am not interested in discussing or disputing your personal experience.
You don’t work for my company so I’m not sure why you are acting like the culture at your company where you can’t get promoted contradicts anything.
From how you wrote it, I did not understand it was specifically a statement regarding your company. In general I think that's not the experience of most people especially in the last 2 years (given the layoffs), but obviously, if that's what happens in your particular company, I have no way to dispute it. It is not representative of the general environment though, I hope we can agree that people are not thrown promotions generally out of nothing, and that employers try to squeeze employees as much as possible, even if men.
You are free to discuss your grievances, but for some reason these things only come up when women start talking about their experience…
I speak about these topics almost everyday, with colleagues and people in general. Not sure what are you trying to imply.
It’s just another “what about the men” comment that always comes up when women try to have a discussion. It’s a pattern of behavior that actually backs up my experience rather than refutes it.
My comment has nothing to do with this argument. This is just a strawman that you are using to win internet points, falling back on cliches. My argument is "the workplace is a warzone, full of conflict and discrimination. Certain behaviors that you describe can be sexist bu can also not be, and instead be classist, ageist, racist and also the result of distorted incentives for workers that end up fighting each other". In fact, I would argue that ageism in tech is a problem as big as sexism, but apparently you are not interested in having this kind of conversation.
It contradicts a ton of research
Research shows a lot of ageism in tech. So actually refusing to acknowledge that certain behavior can be the result of other form of discrimination as well or even not a result of discrimination at all, but the result of the way power structure is, seems to be contradicting research. My statement is far from being absolute. I am not saying that sexism does not exist in tech, I am not blind, I am saying that those two very specific common patterns that you described (and that I challenged) are not inherently sexist (but can be). My overall intention is to expand the critique to the toxic working culture in tech looking at it from multiple angles, but again, it seems you are not interested and you really want to only look at this through the lens of gender discrimination.
To me, this seems shortsighted, partial and, if I may, also oppressive towards the many who are discriminated in the very same way but from different reasons. It is detrimental to the overall effort that us -workers- should do to shape the culture in tech in another way, that should push for structural change that would drastically modify the incentives people have and so on.
Your comparisons are strawman arguments because they are argument nobody (definitely not me) made, which you are using to try to deligitimize other arguments that you can't challenge (apparently), by somehow pretending that your strawman and my arguments are similar.
Talk about the poor state of French schools if you wish, it is an important topic, but this doesn't make religious garments less religious. Your argument was that these are cultural markers, and NOT religious symbols, which is a pretty easy claim to debunk with a quick research on why those garments exist, who wears them, what they represent, etc.