5 ms·

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is b

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

Geeek 8y ago
No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.
- telesilla 8y ago
  It was, in my view, an article about where copyright and ethics meet. An interesting take.
  - Geeek 8y ago
    I hear you. Still a very subtle take on things.
Veen 8y ago
I'm entirely on Kaplan's side in this, but the way you express it gives me pause. "All sexism is bad" is true from my perspective, but it clearly isn't true from the perspective of the community concerned. In the interests of pluralism (not relativism), I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to universalise social norms in that way.
- roel_v 8y ago
  "In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)
  - Veen 8y ago
    What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.
    - saalweachter 8y ago
      I think it's important within the pluralist framework to also recognize that we require conformance from all groups in more than just the small core. We require all groups to be law-abiding in action if not thought. Part of the democratic ideals is that if The People make a law, everyone will follow it, even as they campaign to change it. (Which glosses over some legitimate forms of protest, but this is an internet comment, not a book.) Whether there are laws on the books that could be applied to this case, or whether there should be, I am not a lawyer or a politician, but American pluralism doesn't require blind acceptance of any practice of another group, even religious practice (polygamy, for instance?). The core of our shared system provides mechanisms for deciding whether a behavior is acceptable, prohibited or obligate.
      - jimbokun 8y ago
        The US Constitution places very strict limitations on what kind of laws are allowed to enforce those “shared beliefs”. I think this is a net positive. I believe when people advocate for expanding the scope of what beliefs and behaviors government can enforce, they lack the imagination to wonder what could happen if you find your beliefs in the minority one day.
mikorym 8y ago
Again, why is this being downvoted? Sexism should be highlighted. Many of the comments here are trying to rationalise injustice.
- mgoia 8y ago
  Some people think sexism is only bad when Christians do it. Other religions have their reasons, of course!

Is there anything wrong with highlighting the sexism of the Hasidic community? Shouldn't religious intolerance be called out wherever we see it? All sexism is bad, regardless of its root cause.

Geeek 8y ago

No, it's good. But it wasn't clear to me, especially since an article purely focusing on sexism within the hasidic jewish community doesn't usually make it to the front page of HN.

telesilla 8y ago
It was, in my view, an article about where copyright and ethics meet. An interesting take.
- Geeek 8y ago
  I hear you. Still a very subtle take on things.

Veen 8y ago

I'm entirely on Kaplan's side in this, but the way you express it gives me pause. "All sexism is bad" is true from my perspective, but it clearly isn't true from the perspective of the community concerned. In the interests of pluralism (not relativism), I don't think it's a good idea to attempt to universalise social norms in that way.

roel_v 8y ago
"In the interests of pluralism (not relativism)" Honestly asking as I hadn't seen anyone side-stepping the moral absolutism/relativism question in this way before - where is the line between 'pluralism' and 'relativism'? At what point does 'accepting' an alternative set of morals become 'condoning' them? (again I'm not arguing a side here and I'm not asking in an attempt to tease out a standpoint I can attack - I'm interested in arguments from both sides)
- Veen 8y ago
  What I have in mind is cultural pluralism. Take the US; most people accept a certain set of political norms: democracy, the constitution, a republic-style political system. But people who accept those basic norms and institutions can have a wide variety of cultural and political beliefs. They can be left wing or right wing, Orthodox Jew or atheist, patriarchal or egalitarian. But they all accept the basic US framework and recognize that people with differing beliefs have every right to freedom of conscience and lifestyle. It's not relativism because I wouldn't claim that every group or culture's norms and practices are equally right. I might think some of them are completely wrong. But I do hold that, so long as their wrongness doesn't go against the core norms and institutions of the nation, then we live and let live, with the caveat that people are also free to leave their communities and join others. So far as I can see, this is the only pragmatic way to organize things, since people are going to disagree about important things and we all have to live together.
  - saalweachter 8y ago
    I think it's important within the pluralist framework to also recognize that we require conformance from all groups in more than just the small core. We require all groups to be law-abiding in action if not thought. Part of the democratic ideals is that if The People make a law, everyone will follow it, even as they campaign to change it. (Which glosses over some legitimate forms of protest, but this is an internet comment, not a book.) Whether there are laws on the books that could be applied to this case, or whether there should be, I am not a lawyer or a politician, but American pluralism doesn't require blind acceptance of any practice of another group, even religious practice (polygamy, for instance?). The core of our shared system provides mechanisms for deciding whether a behavior is acceptable, prohibited or obligate.
    - jimbokun 8y ago
      The US Constitution places very strict limitations on what kind of laws are allowed to enforce those “shared beliefs”. I think this is a net positive. I believe when people advocate for expanding the scope of what beliefs and behaviors government can enforce, they lack the imagination to wonder what could happen if you find your beliefs in the minority one day.

mikorym 8y ago

Again, why is this being downvoted? Sexism should be highlighted. Many of the comments here are trying to rationalise injustice.

mgoia 8y ago
Some people think sexism is only bad when Christians do it. Other religions have their reasons, of course!