Shocking story from this blog post:
Sunday, a Muslim woman scolded me for inappropriate behavior in her neighborhood. I was running up Bedford toward Williamsburg, following a part of the marathon course I often branch from to go over the bridge into Manhattan for a longer run. That day I elected to just do a fairly mindless 35 minutes out and back, a route I don’t have to think about…
By the time I turned onto Bedford, I was feeling pretty good. My iPod was dishing out tunes that make me dancingly happy and I was starting to feel the effects of the runners’ high, moving at a speedy clip and jogging about in place when traffic lights held me up. I’d just hit my half-way point and turned around when she stepped toward me on the sidewalk, shook her finger and said, with a disapproving frown, “you can’t go like that through here.”
…But then a bit of defensiveness kicked in. This is not Riyadh, it’s New York freakin’ City, and to the best of my knowledge I can “go like that” anywhere I damn well please. I’m not sure what’s on the books legally as far as lewdness and public attire, but I’m pretty sure a jog bra and baggy shorts are well within reason.
OMG THE MUSLIMS.
(Well, except that I changed the text in her original post: from “Hasidic” to “Muslim” and from “Jerusalem” to “Riyadh.” But it’s still valid, people! I mean, come on! Think how much we appeased the Jews! And now they are everywhere forcing their bagels and comedians and bar mitzvahs on us! THERE IS A LESSON HERE, PEOPLE!)
Related Articles
33 users responded in this post
as soon as i read “Bedford toward Williamsburg” I knew that it must have actually been in reference to some hasidim.
I agree with what you’re going for here on its face. I agree that the frothing-at-the-mouth “We Can’t Be Appeasers and Lose Our Culture To The Scary XYZ’s!!” is just another aspect of the resurgence of this Know-Nothing style bullshit.
However, I think there’s a difference between the arc of how the Jews settled into America (particularly New York) and how the Muslims are settling into certain Western countries, particularly in England and Europe. I don’t think there is a risk of violence when going through a Hasidic neighborhood today as an outsider and I sincerely doubt that would have been the case in the unceuponatime of massive Jewish immigration to America. I think that in some Muslim neighborhoods, particularly the ones complained about within Europe, this is not the case. The fear is over the top and exaggerated, but it’s inspired off of very real incidents of individuals acting out in accordance to their religious mandate, rather than the societal mandate of the community they’ve chosen to live in (I suppose the most high-profile incident would be the murder of Theo Van Gogh in Amsterdam). I’m not making whole-sale excuses for Jews over Muslims or saying that one group is more violent than the other. I mean, jeez, if Isreal is any indication then Jews are capable of being just as violent, vengeful, and destructive as the rest of the human race (of course, of course). And of course there’s a good chance that the aspect of violence has a little (if not as much) to do with economic-class factors as religious/culture factors…. But I wouldn’t be frightened for my life in a Hasidic neighborhood after being told “Don’t wear that here.” …In a Muslim neighborhood? I might think twice. I hate to say it, but I would.
I read a well thought out blog-post recently which looked at sharia law capably functioning under existing law (was it here? thought it was here, but can’t find it). I do think this is possible as far as those desiring sharia law are willing to subordinate it to the greater rule of law of the society they live in. But I also fear that it has a large potential for failure as allowance for some sharia law might make some feel that there is allowance for all aspects of it. Trying to resolve the conflict in my mind and heart and come to a conclusion which would work frustrates me greatly.
The other issue I think that is in play here is the idea of What Is Against The Law vs. What Is Within The Bounds Of The Law, But Youre Still Being A Dick. I guess in a perfect world both these ladies would have been a bit more respectful to each other. The older Hasidic woman explaining that “You shouldn’t go through here dressed like that” and maybe why…. and the younger woman finding a different route. Bottom-line is, though, that man’s law (hopefully) trumps God’s law in this case.* Through the Law we’re supposed to get our freedoms. “Freedom to’s” as well as “Freedom from’s” … In this case there are two of those things sorta butting heads, but I’m on the side of the “Freedom to’s” here… and I think it’s the other side which has to come around and adjust….
*not to badmouth God’s law and anything, I do believe that God’s law DOES trump man’s law… Just MY God’s law, not their God’s law. Also, i think there’s nothing man can or should do re: God’s law, but that’s an entirely different and ridiculous debate.
Sorry if this was terribly unfocused. It feels unfocused.
Sharia law already exists as a system in the UK. Thousands of Muslims in this country will take their problems to unoffcial sharia courts and judges rather than a legal system they feel (rightly or wrongly) doesn’t work for them. The only question is whether we afford this system offcial recognition and bring it under the control of western courts (as is already the case with Jewish courts) – as Rowan Williams suggested before the press started twisting his words into “Theocracy NOW!!!!1” – or whether we just let them get on with whilst feeling terribly smug about what an advanced secular society we are.
I dunno, maybe it says something about my relationship to religion as a whole, but I would have found that to be a perfectly reasonable response whether it was a Muslim, a Jew, a Christian, or any religion you care to name. Because you know what, she’s absolutely right. This isn’t (fill-in-the-blank), it’s New York freakin’ City, and there isn’t a goddamned neighborhood there where religion gets to decide who gets to walk through that neighborhood and what they wear. Part of moving to this country is, or should be, sucking it up and learning to accept the fact that you are going to meet people who don’t follow your religious codes, and there’s nothing you can do about it.
Sorry, but few things get on my nerves more than people who think “freedom of religion” means “freedom to impose your religion onto others”.
I feel like maybe I’m missing the point. Reading your version, I thought “seems like this jogger had a reasonable and justifiable reaction.” Then, reading her original version, I thought “seems like this jogger had a reasonable and justifiable reaction.” I agree with John Seavey: nobody in New York City should tell you “you can’t come through here like that” (though I admit in certain cases it might be good advice, as far as gangs are concerned). Regardless of the specific religion, this speaks to somebody trying to assume an authority that they don’t have and don’t deserve.
I thought that MGK’s point was more that we’re used to hearing “OMG Muslims!” stories like the one he posted, but that the “OMG heavy handed puritans from A.N Other religion” stories don’t get reported to the same extent. If MGK’s story had been the original I imagine the Conservative blogosphere and opinion factories would have descended on it like vultures on a ripe gazelle, as it’s the jews I doubt it’ll warrant a second mention.
Really? Because I see more “ZOMFG dem fundie Christians is trying to jesus up eferyting!” than I do about Muslims.
A Fundamentalist Christian would’ve, in all probability, said the same thing to the runner. Ugh, religion.
Ghoast wrote:
However, I think there’s a difference between the arc of how the Jews settled into America (particularly New York) and how the Muslims are settling into certain Western countries, particularly in England and Europe. I don’t think there is a risk of violence when going through a Hasidic neighborhood today as an outsider and I sincerely doubt that would have been the case in the unceuponatime of massive Jewish immigration to America.
Several of the most well-known Chicago gangsters were Jewish. Not Hasidic, mind you, but Jewish nonetheless. The Jewish gangs of that period (which is around the time when many Jews came to America) were just as dangerous as the Italian gangs, the Irish gangs, etc.
Post World War II, the situation is generally different, of course, and especially within a Hasidic community (though the movie Pi tries to convince otherwise).
I think its the fact that the lady was wearing a sports bra with no top and I believe that she may well have got a similar response in a family area.
Also there is a difference between freedom of speech, dress, whatever and being understanding. If you go through an area where people dress modestly it is appropriate, and more importantly polite, to carry a t-shirt or strappy top with you and put it on when going through that area.
I see this is the same way as builders being made to where t-shirts in certain areas. I am a student and live in a student area of Britain and builders are not allowed to work bare chested where I live. I am very grateful for this and when I go to my parents home can see the difference, where I live builders are polite, they don’t shout at the female students, whistle or stare and part of that is because they have been told to act appropriately for the area they are working in.
This lady was jogging through a conservative area and although the Jewish lady could have addressed her in a better way I think she still had a valid point. Plus this IS New York City home of many cultures and a liberal place. Part of being liberal means being accepting of other values and views even if they are more conservative than you own.
p.s. sorry if I seemed rude to builders I’m sure there are many polite and friendly builders unfortunately I just haven’t met any of them I just get the arseholes who shake there beer belly at me while shout that I look like a good fuck.
God’s law can’t exist in a legal system run on facts and evidence – mainly because there’s more evidence to support the ridiculous notion that storks deliver babies than there is to support that either God exists or a soul exists for that matter.
If neither Muslims nor Right-wing Conservatives can deal with the reality that each person has the right to their own aesthetics and each household has its own culture, then they should all just get the fuck out.
That said, the Amish would have pelted her with tomatoes for wearing an iPod.
Part of living in a free country is freedom of expression. The jogger was expressing herself in one way (her dress) and the woman was expressing herself in another (her vocal displeasure). Each has the right to feel the way they do and express it in an appropriate manner. It’s when the expression becomes something less than appropriate (hurtful, violent) that Human law is necessary.
That was such a reasonable well established post and quite valid.
New York is suposed to be a city of blending, and even though there are a million cultures in one spot, the goal is to live in (reasonable) harmony.
Break the walls and go jogg wherever you want without fear
Now, about the “jews” part? Was it suposed to be a joke? It really didn’t do anything for me.
Mike: I agree with you in principle, but I think it is worth noting that the jogger was expressing herself in a personal way, whereas the woman was expressing herself by attempting to deny somebody the right for their own expression. Both could be considered equal in terms of expressing their freedom, but from a moral standpoint, it seems to me like the jogger was in the right.
The Amish would not have pelted her with anything. Projecting onto others is not how they roll.
In response to itbox’s comments, I thought the same thing with respect to this post’s intentions, but are conservative blogs really that hard up for things to be outraged by that they would kick up a shitstorm over someone telling someone else off? Really? That’s what they spend their time typing about from their parents basements? Really? I am going to include one more ‘Really’ to show that I watched Weekend Update last night. Really?
I guess what I was trying to get at is that I think that the ol’ Muslim for Jew switcheroo approach that MGK took would have been more effective if violence or intimidation were part of the story.
10FootBongz: You realize the last big kerfuffle over MUSLIM APPEASEMENT was caused by Rachael Ray wearing a scarf in a Dunkin’ Donuts commercial, right?
Bah: the woman was expressing herself in a personal way too – expressing her opinion of what was right/proper – and she had as much right to express it as the jogger, or as you and I do in expressing our opinions about the situation. Just because you don’t agree with what she is saying (and I am not saying that I do either) doesn’t mean she was ‘in the wrong’. Neither party was in the wrong if our society truly has ‘freedom of expression’. The woman would have been in the wrong had she physically attacked the jogger because our society has agreed that you can’t do that without breaking a law of Man.
You missed out on a part of the original post where she writes “…I wouldn’t have dreamed of baring even my ankles in *parts* of Jerusalem.” (Emphasis mine)
Which I think sort of contradicts her point. Trust me, Jerusalem is not Teheran. A jogging bra and shorts wouldn’t get rocks thrown at you (or even warrant a comment) in most of Jerusalem, as long as you avoid the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods (which actually have signs posted: ‘Please do not pass through our neighborhood in immodest dress’).
I’m not saying they have the right to ban people from their neighborhood, but they do have the right to request certain consideration from those passing through (similar to a family neighborhood asking that people not blast music late at night, etc.)
I think the problem is that they’re both New Yorkers.
I read the story carefully and unless I missing something, there was nothing specific about the woman jogger’s appearance, just that “you can’t go like that through here”.
Perhaps the little old lady didn’t mean “you can’t go DRESSED like that through here” but “you cant go RUNNING like that through here” because there are elderly people and babies in strollers who might get hurt if you bump into/trip over them.
This anecdote is becoming something of a rorschach blot, isn’t it?
There are functioning Torah-based courts in New York City *right now*; the wholesale diamond business has a very high percentage of haridim who believe that they should resolve disputes (including accusations of criminal behavior) through religious, not secular, courts.
Oh, and Lister Sage? I’m not sure what backwater you’re from, where “New Yorkers are all SUCH assholes” comments are the height of comedy, but that podunkery don’t play here on the intratubes.
I agree with John Seavey. It’s New Fucking York and she can jog topless through that neighborhood if she so chooses.
Elizabeth: I live in a highly family oriented Connecticut suburb and we’re not nearly so backward as to care if someone jogs through wearing a jog bra. Honestly, I can’t imagine it even being worthy of comment.
Moslem problem areas in Europe? 60 knife attacks a day in Britain say ‘YES’.
Jonathan – That’ll be the 60 knife attacks predominantly commited by afro-carribeans then?
You know – predominantly commited by NON MUSLIMS?
but but but but… What is this about “we’re all appeasers?” She didn’t do anything to appease this woman, nor did the woman do anything to appease her. Moreover, the editorial changing of the religion and geographic reference is pretty suspect, dude, since those things DO have context (although in my very humble opinion a fundie is a fundie is a fundie, and some groups at certain times and in certain places are less homicidal than others, but they’re all anti-democratic assholes). But she was jogging in Brooklyn, which has a whole heck of a lot more Hasids than Moslems, and that is important. But it was like, an interesting and slightly shocking anecdote about insularity in the midst of cosmpolitanism (I think) and not some giant diatribe addressing all the implications of religion versus jogging. Right? I still don’t get the appeasement thing — which frankly, is kind of muddled by the conflation of a piece of language we use to talk about ‘appeasing’ Hitler, with some contentions about how we (I assume the US) ‘appeases’ the Jews…
Also, what’s with this comment about the Purple Gang (the Jewish — but non-Hasidic Gangsters — although Hasidic Gangsters might be kind of hilarious)? I don’t accuse my friend Tony Zanoni (and yes, that is his name) of being part of the mob. I don’t assume that Kareem Abdul-Jabar harbors psychotic ill-will toward anyone. WTF. Why would you bother to bring up the inter-cultural, or trans-cultural capacity for violence. Duh. Again. Duh. And irrelevant.
Before I totally remove myself from this fine purveyor if iced beverages, I’m going to put forth the idea that looking at the original source of this story and some of the other stories by this blogger will be helpful in grounding the commentary — also, this blog (spindlegirl.com) is kind of cute in general, and worth looking at regardless.
“You can’t go like that through here.”
–If she had said “shouldn’t” she’d have been expressing an opinion. As it was, she was trying to restrict someone else from doing as they wilt.
And I’m even sicker of the “can we survive teh Islam” stories in the press. @$$#0!3ry is still the same, no matter who’s comitting it. This continent survived Christianity, it’ll manage Islam.
When Ontario was faced with a choice about legitimising and formally recognizing Sharia courts (a thoroughly ridiculous notion) or shutting down exisiting Hasidic courts, it chose the latter path.
Unfortunately, when faced with ditching the “Our Father” in Parliament, they decided to throw in every other superstition as well.
I suppose that’s balanced, sorta.
But I note that they do not pray to the FSM. So they won’t get the beer volcanoes, and they will never see the stripper factory.
Ra-men
Elizabeth said…
>I think its the fact that the lady was wearing a sports bra with no top and I believe that she may well have got a similar response in a family area.
>Also there is a difference between freedom of speech, dress, whatever and being understanding. If you go through an area where people dress modestly it is appropriate, and more importantly polite, to carry a t-shirt or strappy top with you and put it on when going through that area.
If that’s so, why don’t the immigrant women stop wearing their stupid headscarves when they’re in my part of the town? I hate that accessory. Makes it look like it’s 1850.
Furthermore : http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511192.stm