The one with the least emotions loses

[andrewducker]

This discussion with slammerkinbabe got me thinking, and thence to face-to-face discussion with thishardenedarm about why it is that religious objections to dress codes are different to mere personal dislikes to them, and finally to the following thoughts, which still seem woefully unconclusive to me. Possibly one of you insightful chaps and chapesses can help out.

It annoys me that when a person says "If you make me dress in manner X then the sky fairies will be upset" it's given more credence than my own objections to simply "not liking wearing ties".

Partly this is because it seems irrational to me that appeals to the fantastical should be priveliged over appeals to simply grounded aesthetic preference, and partly it's because I don't have any sky fairies of my own to call own and frankly I feel jealous. (Which reminds me that my first ever girlfriend taromazzy originally started smoking because that way she got a five minute smoke break, whereas non-smokers didn't have an acceptable excuse to stand about for 5 minutes an hour.)

However, while I definitely think that way, on an emotional level, I can see their point. What thishardenedarm pinpointed for me was the issue of identity. Religion, and the things that go with it, are very deep seated in someone's sense of identity, while my dislike of ties is, frankly, not. No matter how much I may dislike them I don't have an absolute belief in their rightness or wrongness. And it's this lack of moral certainty that dooms me, because on the emotional plane true belief beats mere dislike any day of the week.

No, I can't quite place my finger on why, it just does.

To skip-paraphrase from Life, The Universe and Everything:

"The point is that people like you and me are dilettantes, eccentrics, layabouts, fartarounds if you like," said Ford. "We're not obsessed with anything, you see. And that's the deciding factor. We can't win against obsession. They care, we don't. They win."
"I care about lots of things," said Slartibartfast.
"Such as?"
"Well, life, the Universe. Everything really. Fjords."
"Would you die for them?"
"Fjords?" blinked Slartibartfast in surprise. "No."
"Well, then."
"Wouldn't see the point, really."

Sometimes I wonder if I'd be happier if I could _really_ believe in something. I'm fairly sure that studies have indicated that people do.

Comments

[pisica.livejournal.com]

Which reminds me that my first ever girlfriend [info]taromazzy originally started smoking because that way she got a five minute smoke break, whereas non-smokers didn't have an acceptable excuse to stand about for 5 minutes an hour.

I worked in a bookstore once where I took non-smoking breaks. :)

[chillies.livejournal.com]

did any of your co-workers complain about passive non-smoking?

[pisica.livejournal.com]

*rimshot*

[wychwood]

I think that thishardenedarm has a very good point. But even beyond that - if you had a profound moral revulsion against ties, while that might not win you points with bosses, it would have more argumentative power, I think, than just "dislike". I think you might, for instance, succeed in this sort of debate situation as a committed and active environmentalist.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

I'm kind of ambivalent on the subject as well. On the one hand I'm against religious discrimination, and I wouldn't want to tell anyone they couldn't wear their [insert religious symbol of choice]. On the other hand, like you say, it's not fair because *I* don't have any reason to sue people on dress code grounds. Also, (and this isn't meant to offend anyone, so, er, sorry if it does) it seems unfair that people should get advantages in life just because they're unthinking/ illogical enough to believe in sky fairies who enforce dress codes.

I have similar problems with the fact that single, childless people tend to get the bad end of the deal at work. One the one hand, obviously I don't want people with kids to have to work Christmas, or not take their kids to the doctors, or whatever. On the other hand, I don't see why I should have to work Christmas or work late or whatever, just because they chose to have kids and I didn't.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

I have similar problems with the fact that single, childless people tend to get the bad end of the deal at work. One the one hand, obviously I don't want people with kids to have to work Christmas, or not take their kids to the doctors, or whatever. On the other hand, I don't see why I should have to work Christmas or work late or whatever, just because they chose to have kids and I didn't.

Totally agree and I've experienced this in every work situation I've been in. While I'm not getting at anyone for having kids, it's unfair.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

These kids that you so disparage will be the ones paying taxes that make up your pension or wipe your arse when you're in a nursing home. Let's hope they grow up to believe that childless people deserve their attention.

[andrewducker]

Whilst I, personally, think that allowances should be made for people with children, I'd like to say that I'm currently saving money for my own damn pension, and I'd like to hope that whoever wipes my arse is doing it because they're being paid to work there, not because they happen to like childfree people.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

your pension funds are no doubt invested in the stock market, so when you want to buy that annuity, you're gonna need investors to sell to. The baby boomers will be dead; your contemporaries will be in the same boat; gotta be the next generation.

With the current demographic "timebomb", the number of people needing assistance will become sufficiently large that the people who can provide care will have a choice of who they want to work for. It'll not just be about the money; it'll be about the level of respect that's given in the job and terms and conditions. If the care home workers are berated for choosing to have kids and getting flexible working, perhaps they'll work somewhere better.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

So it's blackmail? Give us special treatment because we have children, otherwise we won't help you out in your old age? I'm not sure I'd want a carer like that, to be honest.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

It's not blackmail. It's freedom of labour.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

No, fair point. Everyone's entitled to go to the jobs with the best benefits. But your point - that we should give people with kids special treatment because we'll need more carers in the future - doesn't make sense; there's not a direct correlation between the two facts. Possibly we'll need to give carers better benefits in the future, because we'll need more of them, but that will apply whether they have children or not. It doesn't mean we should give all people with children special treatment.

[andrewducker]

Oh, and attacking someone whose actually taken the time to phrase things in a very reasonable way, deliberately staying that they _don't_ want people with kids to work Christmas, just makes you look unreasonable.

[chillies.livejournal.com]

yes, you're right. In my defense, I just imagined laserboy's final it's unfair came with a wee stomp of the foot. sorry.

[laserboy.livejournal.com]

It's cool. No stomping of foot. ;-)

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

It is unfair. It may well be the least unfair of the currently available options - people missing Christmas with their kids would be more unfair, certainly. But that doesn't mean it's fair that the childless should take up the slack.

[pickwick.livejournal.com]

Ah, that old argument. You'd think that was the main reason people had kids - to look after them in their old age. And then they say people without kids are selfish.

[moniqueleigh]

'Tis much the same for married, childless people. /voice of experience

[channelpenguin.livejournal.com]

just the point about kiddies that i was going to make...

[the-mendicant.livejournal.com]

You've hit the nail on the head there. Although your world view is as valid as the next person's, because you don't belong to some great big club, you only have the courage of your own convictions. Followers of faith have the backing of the collective - safety in numbers/the majority vote/lack of the need to be personally justified.

Your wistful last sentence is that little bit of doubt that every true non-believer must feel at some point. If atheists could band themselves together and work out some societal rules and dress codes, then they could wander around, getting self-justifiably hot under the collar when a 'believer' didn't show respect for their actions. As it is, you're on your own. Yes of course there are probably at least a million men in the UK who can't bear to wear a tie, ever, but you're not organised and recognised so you'll just have to carry on crying on the wind.

[nameandnature]

My response to the idea that religious dress is important because it's tied to religion and religion to identity is to say "so what?" Identity can come from many places, such as politics, sexuality, past-times and so on. We don't give those special privileges, by and large, above what we'd accord to someone by merely being civil. The fact that lots of people believe a thing more strongly than you do doesn't create an obligation on your part, or on an employer's, say. Time to stop kow-towing to the invisible-friend believers (hmmm... maybe I've been fired up by reading Dawkins's latest).

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

I wrote a long reply to this which LJ ate. Sigh..
Basically I don;t think the above holds because cultural identities are partial/overlapping/remittable while a serious religious identity is always-on. By which I mean, a goth (or A) can sigh and go to work in suit and tie and still feel like they are they , albeit not uber-happy ; while a serious observing Muslim cannot give up their belief, be Muslim at the weekend and atheist to go to work. For some faiths this can be got round by tokenism eg wearing a crucifix does not interfere with wearing suit or work clothes - but that's not an option with the veil. hence the crunch.

So I agree with V. But the veil still sickens me , on feminist grounds.

[darkoshi]

I haven't yet heard of an organized religion whose dress code forbids the wearing of ties or mandates the wearing of comfortable athletic shoes, or the like. If people were claiming religious beliefs like those, then yes, I might feel it unfair that my own dress preferences weren't considered as important, just because my own aren't religious.

But since most religious dress rules aren't what I consider desirable - having to wear a veil or a turban or a head covering, or needing to wear long sleeves and pants, etc... it doesn't seem particularly unfair to me when exceptions are made for those kinds of things.

Now on the other hand, if a company didn't allow the wearing of necklaces or jewelry, for example, but if Christians were given an exemption to wear a crucifix, or other religious jewelry were allowed, then I would feel it unfair that I couldn't likewise wear my own symbolic non-religious jewelry.