Hairy Sikh lady on Reddit

[Guest Anonymous]

You're right. The name of this site should be changed to "It's None Of Our Business, Jinger." Every person here who has snarked on someone is imposing their beliefs on them.

No, I don't think so. Think about the word "impose". I think 2xx1xy1JD meant that, if you were to fulfill your fantasy and actually shake this woman, telling her that her god did not care about her appearance, then that would be imposing your beliefs on her. Snarking on someone on an internet forum is not imposing anything on anyone.

I think that's what 2xx1xy1JD meant. She is free to correct me.

Edited to remove things that are beside the point.

[valsa]

You're right. The name of this site should be changed to "It's None Of Our Business, Jinger." Every person here who has snarked on someone is imposing their beliefs on them.

Wha? As much as I snark about the Duggars and other fundies, I've never imposed my beliefs on them. I've never tried to take away their ability to have 20 kids, to have women wear skirts only, to use courtship instead of dating...

[theologygeek]

Even if she's not freely choosing to not cut her hair, is she freely choosing the religion that requires her to not cut her hair?

As long as she can say "I know that this religion will require me to not cut my hair, even if I may want to, and I choose to practice this religion anyway", I'm fine with it.

That's the big question. We don't know if it was forced on her and she learned to like it, or she went into it later in life and chose it knowing what it entailed.

[valsa]

That's the big question. We don't know if it was forced on her and she learned to like it, or she went into it later in life and chose it knowing what it entailed.

From what's been quoted here, she's seems like an intelligent woman who is secure in her beliefs. Shouldn't the assumption be that she's doing this of her own free will, until we actually have some indication that she's not?

[theologygeek]

Wha? As much as I snark about the Duggars and other fundies, I've never imposed my beliefs on them. I've never tried to take away their ability to have 20 kids, to have women wear skirts only, to use courtship instead of dating...

Saying something as simple as the Duggar girls have crunchy curls and need to fix their hair is imposing your beliefs on them. Aren't they entitled to have control over whether or not they scrunch their hair?

[Guest Anonymous]

Saying something as simple as the Duggar girls have crunchy curls and need to fix their hair is imposing your beliefs on them. Aren't they entitled to have control over whether or not they scrunch their hair?

I know I should let valsa handle this. I suspect that 'imposing' requires an overt act. If I went up to Michelle Duggar and forbade her from using hair product, that would be imposing something on her. Saying that I don't like her hair does not stop her from wearing her hair as she pleases.

[valsa]

Saying something as simple as the Duggar girls have crunchy curls and need to fix their hair is imposing your beliefs on them. Aren't they entitled to have control over whether or not they scrunch their hair?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impose

Definition of IMPOSE

1 a: to establish or apply by authority

b: to establish or bring about as if by force

Until I try to pass laws that make having crunchy hair illegal or try to force the Duggars to have non-crunchy hair I am, in fact, not imposing my beliefs on them.

[valsa]

I know I should let valsa handle this. I suspect that 'imposing' requires an overt act. If I went up to Michelle Duggar and forbade her from using hair product, that would be imposing something on her. Saying that I don't like her hair does not stop her from wearing her hair as she pleases.

Exactly.

I find it both problematic and insulting that having an opinion is being compared to what fundies try to do- pass laws and vote in politicians who want to take people's right away. Is it my opinion that Michelle shouldn't have 20 kids? Yes. Would I ever try to pass a law preventing her from having however many children she wants? No. One is simply having an opinion, the other would be trying to impose my opinion on someone else.

[2xx1xy1JD]

Sogba and Valsa - you both understood my point.

Theologygeek - I'll admit that making fun of fundies for their appearance alone may not be that different than making fun of any person of faith who has a distinctive look. It's not part of my personal snarking style. Some comments that posters make are somewhat health related - if having endless back-to-back pregnancies visibly ages someone, for example, I see nothing wrong with pointing that out. I also think that if someone goes out of their way to tell others how to dress, then they have put the issue out there and its fair game.

Also, please note that the name of the site is not "Free J'Chelle". The name is a reference to the eyerolls of a certain J'slave, who was a minor at the time and had no choice about being given responsibility for caring for siblings and household chores and being used as a religious and political propoganda tool and being denied a proper education. Those eyerolls suggested that she may not have been fully on board with the decisions that were being made about her life.

[theologygeek]

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impose

Until I try to pass laws that make having crunchy hair illegal or try to force the Duggars to have non-crunchy hair I am, in fact, not imposing my beliefs on them.

Valsa, this site shoves their views down people's throats. It's on the internet for everyone to see, and other people are talked about, gossiped about, and made fun of. I like it here and am not saying it in a bad way. But it is what it is. 2x111 used "shove." I used "imposed." Either one is done here. What do you think treemom did to Steve Maxwell? Personally, I thought it was awesome and so did everyone else who congratulated her. Sometimes shoving your views down people's throats is a good thing because it brings awareness to the problem of being forced to do anything in the name of god.

[valsa]

Valsa, this site shoves their views down people's throats. It's on the internet for everyone to see, and other people are talked about, gossiped about, and made fun of. I like it here and am not saying it in a bad way. But it is what it is. 2x111 used "shove." I used "imposed." Either one is done here. What do you think treemom did to Steve Maxwell? Personally, I thought it was awesome and so did everyone else who congratulated her. Sometimes shoving your views down people's throats is a good thing because it brings awareness to the problem of being forced to do anything in the name of god.

Except it doesn't. No one is forcing anyone to read here.

Even what treemom did wasn't imposing her beliefs on him. Granted, she imposed hearing her beliefs on him (to an extent, as he could have walked away), but when did she try to force him to adopt her beliefs?

[Alecto]

You keep using the words "shove" and "impose."

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

FJ does impose some things on people. They are called rules and the TOU. However, people are free to leave. No one other than me has ever been forced to read anything on Free Jinger. That's like saying that someone is IMPOSING shitty fanfiction on me because I choose to read it.

[theologygeek]

You keep using the words "shove" and "impose."

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.

FJ does impose some things on people. They are called rules and the TOU. However, people are free to leave. No one other than me has ever been forced to read anything on Free Jinger. That's like saying that someone is IMPOSING shitty fanfiction on me because I choose to read it.

2xxx used "shove." I used the same word she did to state that what she said is done here all the time. And it is.

[theologygeek]

Except it doesn't. No one is forcing anyone to read here.

Even what treemom did wasn't imposing her beliefs on him. Granted, she imposed hearing her beliefs on him (to an extent, as he could have walked away), but when did she try to force him to adopt her beliefs?

Uh, 2xxx brought up the "force" and the "shove." If you read my posts, I said that I don't agree with being forced to look a certain way. 2xxx took issue with a figure of speech that says you want to shake a woman for feeling that she must look a certain way because of her god. Go back and read to see where the bunny trail started.

[Arete]

What is done here, and what was done by treemom et al., is not shoving or imposing anything on the people being snarked on. These people are being snarked on because they have a definitive plan and goal to gain political power in order to change laws to line up with their interpretation of scriptures. That is an imposition and an attempt to limit a non believer's freedom.

Snarking on appearance, even when it is distasteful, is not imposing rules on their bodies. Steve Maxwell having his beliefs challenged in public is not the same as the Steve Maxwell's and Jim Bob Duggars of the world attempting to legislate their belief on others. That is imposing and shoving.

[MonkeyMomma]

What is done here, and what was done by treemom et al., is not shoving or imposing anything on the people being snarked on. These people are being snarked on because they have a definitive plan and goal to gain political power in order to change laws to line up with their interpretation of scriptures. That is an imposition and an attempt to limit a non believer's freedom.

Snarking on appearance, even when it is distasteful, is not imposing rules on their bodies. Steve Maxwell having his beliefs challenged in public is not the same as the Steve Maxwell's and Jim Bob Duggars of the world attempting to legislate their belief on others. That is imposing and shoving.

QFT. I think I was trying to say something similar with more words and less focus!

[Antipodes]

She does not cut her hair because her imaginary friend aka God told her not to via Guru Gobind Singh (a bloke).

If we could go back in time and change the Sikh doctrine of Kesh ( not cutting hair) would she be sporting her beard today?

She's a fundie Sikh and the people who are praising her for her choice as if she's some feminist example are missing the point. She's tailoring her appearance due to the dictates of a bloke just like all the other fundies.

[Arete]

Feminism has nothing to do with the way you dress or whether or not you are a person of faith.

This lady is not attempting to impose her standards against cutting her hair on others. She did not make her decision because legislation forced it on her, and there is no evidence she was ever physically threatened by her family. How her faith affects her appearance is between her and her creator, as is her choice. The problem is not that fundies make different choices regarding appearance, the problem is that they try to impose them on others.

[Belle0000]

There is an article on Balpreet in today's Lantern (OSU's student newspaper):

http://www.thelantern.com/campus/faith- ... -1.2915514

[emmiedahl]

What is done here, and what was done by treemom et al., is not shoving or imposing anything on the people being snarked on. These people are being snarked on because they have a definitive plan and goal to gain political power in order to change laws to line up with their interpretation of scriptures. That is an imposition and an attempt to limit a non believer's freedom.

Snarking on appearance, even when it is distasteful, is not imposing rules on their bodies. Steve Maxwell having his beliefs challenged in public is not the same as the Steve Maxwell's and Jim Bob Duggars of the world attempting to legislate their belief on others. That is imposing and shoving.

Treemom did not go to Kansas and crash Steve Maxwell's church. Quite the opposite, he came to *her* city to convince people of that church, some of which are her friends and coworkers, to convert to his cult.

Who is imposing again?

[itsnikki05]

She's following her beliefs and not forcing it on others. Kinda ticks me off that some are offended by that. Oh yes, it's SO offensive that she is not shaving. I think they should just turn their tender lil eyes away if it offends them sooooo badly.

I'm a lil hairy myself. Got the oh so lovely dark hair and light skin. And thick hair. I get a mono brow if I didn't use the lil razor thing to take that off... and a mustache (Thank you great grandma!! Really.) and hairy arms. ROFL! I don't think it's that big of a deal. I do remove the hair on my face, and the usual pits and legs, but my arms? Oh who cares. Like I said, if it annoys someone that bad they can turn their lil eyes elsewhere.

I don't know why we really HAVE to shave. Men can have all the body hair they want! Geez! Not fair! I shave because I don't like the way it feels to have lots of body hair. But I could care less if anyone liked it or not. LOL

[Anise]

She does not cut her hair because her imaginary friend aka God told her not to via Guru Gobind Singh (a bloke).

If we could go back in time and change the Sikh doctrine of Kesh ( not cutting hair) would she be sporting her beard today?

She's a fundie Sikh and the people who are praising her for her choice as if she's some feminist example are missing the point. She's tailoring her appearance due to the dictates of a bloke just like all the other fundies.

Wait what? Feminism means not following the dictates of any male figure?

I don't know how long you've been around, but there are plenty of female leaders in the fundie world (Mary Pride and that creepy woman who says "womb-man" for starters). The beliefs are not problematic according to the sex of the person who originated it, but rather according to the inherent inequalities it may create or justify. Sheesh.

[Antipodes]

I don't find it offensive that she's not shaving.

However I do find it sad that she's chosing to tailor her appearance according the dictates of a Guru who because of the period he lived in (1699) and because he is male possibly did not anticipate the dilemma a Sikh woman might find herself in regarding Kesh.

[valsa]

I don't find it offensive that she's not shaving.

However I do find it sad that she's chosing to tailor her appearance according the dictates of a Guru who because of the period he lived in (1699) and because he is male possibly did not anticipate the dilemma a Sikh woman might find herself in regarding Kesh.

As opposed to tailoring her appearance according to the dictates of popular culture?

[Anise]

I don't find it offensive that she's not shaving.

However I do find it sad that she's chosing to tailor her appearance according the dictates of a Guru who because of the period he lived in (1699) and because he is male possibly did not anticipate the dilemma a Sikh woman might find herself in regarding Kesh.

Wait, you're complaining that she is following beliefs of a long-dead male guru because he didn't anticipate that she might experience social pressure from other men to shave herself? I think that's kind of backwards. Shouldn't that be: it's sad that contemporary society with all its pressure on woman to conform to a particular beauty standard does not leave space for women of particular religious beliefs.