September 2010 Weddings
sunshine_day_dreams
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Can we discuss this?
I just saw this article on Yahoo. What do you think... is this discrimination, or no? Just ridiculous or warranted?
Re: Can we discuss this?
It shouldn't have gotten out of hand and turned into a brawl like that, but if the group was notified about the hat/headwear rule ahead of time, it was the group's responsibility to make sure their members knew about it, and that their headscarves would be included in that rule.
Seeing the number of hats, sunglasses, and cell phones that have been lost on amusement park rides, the rule is fair.
It's unfortunate that the situation escalated and so many were arrested.
TTC since 08/2010
Anovulatory since at least 12/2010 (probably longer, unDx)
Dx PCOS 3/2012
SA 5/25/12--normal
June 2012--50mg clomid+TI--BFN
July 2012--50mg clomid+Ovidrel+TI--BFN, lining at 5mm
August 2012--5mg femara+Ovidrel+TI
My first problem with this article is that it is written entirely from one point of view. Every story has two sides and the truth lies somewhere in the middle of each story.
That being said, the "no headgear" rule is a safety issue, it isn't a discriminatory rule. The park has the right to create safety rules and regulations that do no affect one group any differently then any other. Whether this was a group of muslim women or a group of teenage boys with baseball hats makes no difference. No headwear = no headware for everyone.
I do get that there are serious discriminatory actions that still occur in the world. However, I also believe that often situations like this are exploited into a front-page sensation just because it can be. Example: on a recent flight I was seated in an exit row next to a 9 year old girl. The flight attendant came by and told her family she needed to change seats with someone because children cannot be in the exit row. Her brother stood up and SCREAMED at the flight attendant, waving his hands in her face, that she was discriminating because they were muslim and his sister could sit where ever on the plane she wanted. After much discussion and the repeating of the fact that the FAA doesn't allow children in the exit row she moved and her brother sat down. It was ridiculous, but could have shown up in any newpaper as a discrimination article.
I think this happens often. "You're enforcing *arbitrary rule* because I'm *minority*," when really it's just a rule. I dealt with this a lot when I worked the customer service desk at a well-known nationwide discount retailer. But somehow, I would be "racist" if I said, "no it's just the rule, and it would be more discriminatory if I let you get away with it just because you're *minority*"
TTC since 08/2010
Anovulatory since at least 12/2010 (probably longer, unDx)
Dx PCOS 3/2012
SA 5/25/12--normal
June 2012--50mg clomid+TI--BFN
July 2012--50mg clomid+Ovidrel+TI--BFN, lining at 5mm
August 2012--5mg femara+Ovidrel+TI
I totally agree with the first point. Definitely one-sided for the media.
With the second point, I do agree that it's not a discriminatory rule, and that everyone should be expected to follow the rules, regardless. I wonder how the rule is worded, and if it explicitly says "no head coverings" or what have you.
I guess I sort of question whether comparing the scarves to a baseball hat or sunglasses or whatever is comparing apples to apples. I mean, a baseball hat isn't a religious/cultural thing, so is it on the same grounds, KWIM? And they're long enough that they're not going to just get blown off with a gust of wind like a hat. But... on the other hand... I can see where you're getting yourself on a slippery slope if you make an exception for the scarves. Then how do you say no hats allowed?
Also - that exit row story is kind of ridiculous. I feel like everyone is way too quick to pull the discrimination card anymore. Rules are rules. Caucasions have to follow them too!
For starters I ditto everything angie said.
I find it hard to believe that at an amusement park like this there are not signs at each and every attraction warning of the risks and any restrictions - like no loose articles on the riders - in plain view for all to see. The park took the extra step of specifically contacting this group to make them aware of the restrictions. From my limited viewpoint, it sounds like the park management went above and beyond.
I also think that while there are genuine cases of bias and discrimination that do and will always occur, some people who belong to minority groups take every infraction or perceived slight and scream discrimination because they can. There is an individual perception, whether real or imagined, that everyone and everything is against them and they'll yell as loud as they can to anyone who will listen. Oftentimes, their claims are given merit (or at least publicity) regardless of any basis in fact, reason or logic. Plus, they don't have a burden of proof - accusations are sufficient to get attention.
In incidences like the one in the article, you can bet an investigation will be conducted to examine whether the officers were excessive in their actions, but that will take time to be thorough. Meanwhile, the officers who responded will spend months being villanized by the offended group in the press until such an investigation can be completed.
YES YES YES YES YES!!!
But on a ride, a scarf is MORE likely to come off, because it's longer and will catch more wind.
I do agree the story was one-sided. I am also a little worn out by people turning everything into a persecution because they belong to xyz minority. In this case, it sounds like the park notified the group. There were probably signs up (in my experience, every ride at amusement parks has a long list of rules at the ride entrance).
While I understand it's a religious/moral belief, you can't have it both ways. You want to be accepted as a member of society, you have to follow the rules. If that means you can't ride a ride, then that's something you're giving up for your religious belief. I kind of see it as similar to Catholics & Lent - you're proving your faith by giving up something (very loose similarity, I know).
Also, according to the latest census numbers, whites are becoming the minority. Just a thought.
This. And as usual I see both points of view and cannot be convinced either one is more valid than the other. However the "excessive force" that the police chief said didn't happen, sure seemed like it did to me
See, this, to me could go either way. Of course, they're going to say they didn't use excessive force. And of course the other side is going to say they did b/c it makes their case stronger and makes for better media coverage.
It's hard to tell from this one article how far things really went - if the police got violent without justification, then of course that's an issue regardless of what it stemmed from. However, I see situations portrayed like this all of the time, when in fact it really wasn't that bad, so I don't know.
That being said, the park has every right to institute this rule and it makes sense to me. If some people must wear headgear for religious reasons, then they should celebrate somewhere that doesn't forbid headgear. It's not a discrimination issue, it's just common sense.
My only issue with this is the police and how they acted. I think that regardless of race or religion or whatever, if you are going to an amusement park you need to follow the rules to keep others safe.
I tend to lean towards the side that the police might have over reacted and gotten violent due to the fact that the people who were an issue were muslims but that is just pure speculation.
Blog
See...this bugs me. I don't lean toward one side or the other, because I think some policemen may be bigoted a-holes, but it's also extremely common for people to blow this kind of thing out of proportion. It really could be either way, or a bit of both.
There was recently an item on the news where people were claiming similar crap (police using excessive force due to discrimination), except it was African Americans instead of Muslims. The initial story I saw was blatantly one-sided, but I wasn't sure if the police really did overreact (since that happens, too) so I looked into it online, and it turns out there was a videotape. In the tape, it shows the 'victim' getting violent with police officers as they try to arrest him, and eventually they have to wrestle him down to the ground. Even then, I don't think excessive force was used - the guy got injured because he was resisting so much that he basically hurt himself on the ground. The guy had had a gun and just robbed a convenience store or something similar, which of course was not mentioned in the 'OMG the cops hate black people!' version of the story.
I agree, I don't even like myself for having this leaning! It is something I am working on. It is hard to have an opinion when you do not have both sides of the story, and I am sure that the people arrested WERE acting out, but I tend to think police brutality should never be used (so I guess I tend to lean more towards the police were being violent when they shouldn't have been, regardless of the people they were arresting?) I don't make much sense now...I cannot verbalize what it is I am thinking!
Blog