What I mean is, how is it measured? What can or cannot an integrated immigrant do vs one that isn't?
He can refrain from beating up his disobedient wife, his slutty daughter, and his gay son?
...I put this in the same category as "darkie = terrorist, white = lone madman". So darkie beating wife = savage misogynistic culture, whitey beating wife = an abnormal guy with mental problems who needs help.
Of course you do. That's not because you have evidence. That's because you're you. You've trained yourself to see a racist behind every curtain and to regard our culture judging other cultures as taboo.
No culture is ok with domestic violence. It's taboo everywhere and in every culture. At most it is tolerated.
No. You just made that up. You don't have a reason to believe it. ...
According to Wikipedia's
Domestic Violence page:
... "Globally, wife-beating is seen as justified in some circumstances by a majority of the population in various countries...
Going by past performance, this information will roll off you without leaving a mark. ...
But it's no less common in these parts. Granted that statistics on this are unreliable.
I.e., you
recognize that you don't have a reason to believe domestic violence is no less common in these parts, and you believe it anyway. There's a word for that. You are a man of faith.
From the same Wikipedia page:
Research has also shown there to be a direct and significant correlation between a country's level of gender equality, and actual rates of domestic violence.
Are you also going to claim Sweden has the same level of gender equality as Jordan and India and Afghanistan?
So picking this as something that is a greater problem among immigrants because of their foreign culture is just racism IMHO
I.e., you have no moral qualms about accusing another person of racism based on nothing but faith. ...
I think you're doing two things:
1) You're seeing things you want to see
2) You're connecting dots that don't necessarily belong together.
I never said we beat women as much in the west as they do in the not-west.
What you said, and I quoted, and you quoted back to me, was "But it's no less common in these parts.". If you didn't mean "the west", which parts are the parts you were claiming woman-beating is no less common in? Is Stockholm perhaps a hot-bed of domestic violence far beyond what's typical in the west?
You're choosing not to see things you don't want to see. Such as, for instance, yourself, making idiotic assertions, which you later choose to believe you didn't make.
But you are flat out wrong about the beating of women not being taboo in every culture. It is. And if you could be bothered to actually read the sources you cite you'd realize this.
Funny story about that. The source I linked doesn't say the beating of women is taboo in every culture. That's a figment of your imagination. It says the exact opposite. I quoted it saying the exact opposite. Let me draw your attention to the beginning of that last sentence.
I quoted it. You accuse me of not reading it; you claim it contradicts me; but
you didn't quote it. You're the one seeing what you want to see. If the reason you thought it said the beating of women is taboo in every culture had been because it actually said so, then
you would be able to quote it saying so. You didn't quote it saying so, because you can't, because it does not support your idiotic assertion.
You have no basis for thinking the beating of women is taboo in every culture. You have no basis for thinking "actually reading the sources I cite" communicates the information that the beating of women is taboo in every culture. You are making up nonsense about Afghan culture and other cultures, and you are making up nonsense about me, because it's nonsense that it pleases you to believe. Where is there a centimeter of difference between you and angelo?
Yes, it has all to do with gender equality. The more gender equality the less beaten women.
But why does the West have more gender equality? It has nothing to do with our fine upstanding culture. If you look back in western history you won't have to go far back to find the same...
What the heck hole did you pull such a dumb-ass argument out of? What, our predecessors didn't have a fine upstanding culture two hundred years ago, ergo, we can't possibly have a fine upstanding culture now?!? Cultures change! Duh!
The realization that our culture had something deeply wrong with it spread, and so we tried to correct the defect, and now, consequently, we have a better culture. It would be lovely if all cultures would make that transition. Thankfully, several other cultures are on the same trajectory. Tragically, not all. In some countries gender inequality has been getting worse since the 1970s.
So it has to be because of something else. Can it possibly have something to do with an advanced economy? In an industrialized home women don't need to stay at home to take care of the family, so they won't. So they go out and get jobs. Which shifts the power balance around.
And yet the west had an industrialized economy for a hundred years before the women's liberation movement became popular and successful. What triggered the change in how western culture sees women appears to me to have been Adolf Hitler. He murdered millions of Jews for no reason but stupid baseless prejudice. That's how western culture finally got it through its thick skull that racism is wrong. It had been oppressing non-whites for no reason but stupid baseless prejudice, for hundreds of years, through agricultural and industrial economies alike, and right up through the 1930s it was perfectly respectable in white upper class society to regard Jews and black people as subhuman. Then the Holocaust happened, our culture realized racism was evil, and we started correcting it -- and we got the civil rights revolution of the 50s and 60s.
And then when black people finally got to be treated as equals (theoretically), their example was an inspiration to millions of women to think "They get to be equal; why not us?".
And then when women finally got to be treated as equals (theoretically), their example was an inspiration to millions of gays to think "They get to be equal; why not us?". For some stupid reason, western culture seems unable to get directly from "All men are created equal*. (* White straight Protestant men are more equal than others.)" to "Everyone is created equal." in one jump. For some stupid reason, discriminated-against groups are required to take turns winning their long-promised equality. Currently it's gays' turn.
So are you going to deny this progression and propose instead that the reason gays can suddenly marry one another all over the west is because heteronormativity was necessary in an agrarian economy but it's obsolete in an industrial economy, and two hundred years into the Industrial Revolution we've finally crossed a threshold and become so industrial that we no longer need to make gays make babies? When you ignore the historical context of incremental enlargement of the circle of equality, and seek an explanation for the transition to gender equality that only applies to gender, what you're doing is explaining the extinction of the dinosaurs with the old "The mammals ate the dinosaurs' eggs." theory: a theory that ignored the context that three quarters of the non-dinosaur species went extinct at the same time.
But the west isn't perfect. The west is still horrendously gender unequal. ... So we are on no position to get up on any high horse.
There's a danger in focusing on differences. Just because we can find someone who performs worse than us, doesn't make us fine.
And that's what this is all about, isn't it? You aren't making idiotic claims about non-western cultures that fly in the face of all evidence because you
care about those cultures, are you? You're making those idiotic claims because in your mind to fail to make them is the same thing as putting the west up on a high horse. Is that it? Dude! Get a grip on reality.
Everything isn't all about us! Quit being so bloody
provincial. Quit imagining your complex and conflicted feelings about
western culture can tell you anything reliable about
Syrian culture.
He cannot pick out a spouse for his kid?
This rarely survives into the second generation of immigrants. Never a third.
In the first place, how the heck do you know the third generation never does it? ...
Ehm... I just can't be arsed to argue for this. This falls into the category of the bloody obvious IMHO.
As spoken by the faith-based everywhere.
This is an issue for immigrants fresh off the boat. Also is typical for immigrants from farm communities. I've worked with plenty of Indian middle-class programmers (who live in India). They've never experienced it.
Middle-class Indian programmers are a representative sample of the people Europe is importing, are they?
Racist much?
Nope. Not that you care about the truth. Calling people racist for disagreeing with you is habit-forming and you are an addict. You don't have a reason to think what you said. It's libelous; it's unethical. But you think tribally; I'm in an enemy tribe; and ethical considerations are only for in-group in the tribal mindset. It doesn't bother you to make unjust accusations because in your mind if the person you accuse is not guilty of what you say, he's guilty of something else, so he deserves to be abused, so it doesn't matter that you were unfair to him.
That said, you're the one who drew attention to the middle-class programmers' Indian-ness, not me. I merely quoted your own words back at you. Furthermore, Indians and the people Europe is importing -- mostly Pakistanis, Afghans, Iranians, Turks and Arabs -- are the same race. It's a race called "Caucasians".
All this is painfully obvious. So you can't have imagined that your bogus charge would have any legs based on any rational concept of racism. Why, then, did you decide what I said was racist? Presumably it's because to you the suggestion that cultures aren't interchangeable is the same thing as the suggestion that races aren't interchangeable. It's the same place your insistence that beating women is taboo in every culture and it's no less common in these parts came from. It's religious dogma. You made a scurrilous false accusation against me because I failed to kowtow to your religion -- because I failed to strip out "Indian" when I quoted "Indian middle-class programmers" back at you, which I would have done if I'd shared your religious faith that culture doesn't matter. You made a scurrilous false accusation against me
because I'm an infidel.
Religious bigot much?
