The appropriate clothing issue that's being discussed in many places keeps bringing up a response that's really irritating me. It's not only irritating but it's ignorant too, showing a complete lack of understanding, a lack of awareness, tunnel vision.
It's been pointed out in a couple of blogs I've just been reading. Geoff Pound has a post titled 'Malls should not sell clothes inappropriate to the UAE', which is a quote from a reader of Gulf News' article on the subject.
Samurai Sam includes in his post on the subject 'Of course about 345 people have already pointed out that the malls themselves are selling the clothes'.
Firstly, the clothes themselves - and I assume they're talking about women's revealing clothing - are not inappropriate to the UAE nor are they contrary to the culture.
What goes against the culture is for revealing clothing to be worn in public or in mixed company.
In private, and in particular at women-only gatherings, revealing clothing is not at all unusual. (Mrs Seabee was at an Emirati friend's pre-wedding party recently so I have a first-hand report).
For shops to sell the clothing for women to wear here in private or in female-only company, or for residents and tourists to buy here to wear overseas, is not inappropriate. Nor does it encourage buyers to wear it inappropriately.
Secondly, there are very many products on sale which are not for use in the malls, including, for example, cigarettes, skate boards, lingerie, bikinis, sheesha pipes.
There's not a problem with the products themselves, nor with selling them. There's only a problem if they're used in the wrong place.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Sunday, August 09, 2009
Indecent or inappropriate?
News that Dubai malls are becoming active in the issue of what visitors wear has created a bit of a stir.
The Gulf News feature calls it an 'anti-indecency' campaign, which in my opinion is misleading and that's what's caused a lot of the comment.
There's also the use of 'respectful', also not the right word in my opinion, and it's all exclusively about the way women dress.
But that's only half the story.
Surely it's really about what's appropriate dress in the country and what's appropriate dress in the specific location.
Go to, for example, Thailand and visit temples as most tourists do, and conservative clothing is required. I don't see any debate about whether that's right or wrong, or people insisting that 'nobody can tell me what to wear'.
In this area it's inappropriate for women to wander around the city or malls in hotpants, mini skirts, low tops.
But as far as I'm concerned it's equally inappropriate for men to wear beach clothing in cities, malls and restaurants. Not just here, by the way, but anywhere.
For example, we were having dinner in a restaurant the other evening. Nice restaurant, tablecloths, waiters in formal uniforms etc. At the next table were two young men in thongs, football shorts and singlets. Totally inappropriate - and the restaurant was at fault for allowing them to dine in their beachwear.
It's hot outside? That has nothing to do with it. You're in an air-conditioned restaurant or shopping mall, usually at an uncomfortably low temperature.
What's appropriate clothing in Dubai is not a new issue by the way. People who've been here a while have always known what was appropriate. There was no need for guidance to be issued by the authorities, no need for coverage in the media.
That all changed with the big boom which started six or seven years ago.
Hundreds of thousands of new people arrived together, they didn't mix with the old hands, they simply brought their own standards with them and ignored the local culture.
Added to that is the influx of millions of tourists, again with little thought for the local culture.
Dubai's authorities and tourism industry must share a large part of the responsibility. They thought only of the commercial benefits and didn't anticipate what else the huge influx would mean.
They've allowed standards to be ignored for the last several years and now there's a predictable backlash from Emiratis, concerned that they're being swamped by the influx of foreigners, that their culture and standards are being lost.
So now, several years too late, there's action being taken to try to re-establish standards.
The backlash is not unique by the way, the same complaint is made by people all over the world about newcomers to their country. Think of the UK, Germany, France, Australia for example, where there are complaints that immigrants don't fit in, don't assimilate, and there are campaigns to stop immigration.
People arriving here say that they weren't aware of the dress code, and that argument has some validity.
But there's also an arrogance about people, with examples given in the Gulf News feature.
Tania N. a 29-year-old Russian businesswoman, said she got confused when a security guard at the Mall of the Emirates handed her a brochure on how to dress appropriately.
"I respect Dubai, its religion, culture and people, I come here frequently for business and pleasure...I used to wear a sleeveless short gown or miniskirt and according to my background it is a decent outfit and doesn't cause any kind of embarrassment.
Asked whether she will adhere to the mall's dress code, she said: "I really don't find it necessary, besides I don't have long or covered outfits, and the most importantly I didn't do something bad to Dubai or its people."
Katayoon Tahmoress M, an Iranian writer based in Dubai agrees with Tania.
"I love Dubai and I like its style. But the way I dress is completely a personal matter and I don't allow anybody to educate me on what to wear and what not to wear."
So we have a combination of arrogance, lack of awareness, lack of knowledge, lack of information and standards allowed to be ignored in the pursuit of dollars.
The Gulf News feature is here.
Friday, August 07, 2009
Celebrity koala's sad end
You might remember this photo from my post back in February:
A koala with badly burned paws from the terrible bushfires which devastated Victoria taking water from a firefighter.
She was treated an animal hospital and recovered well from that ordeal.
But now ABC has reported:
Sam the koala, made famous by footage of her drinking from a firefighter's water bottle during Victoria's bushfires, has died.
The badly burned koala became a symbol of hope for the survivors of the deadly bushfires that killed 173 people and left 7,500 homeless.
But just months after her rescue from the fires, Sam was diagnosed with cysts linked to the life-threatening disease chlamydia that has ravaged the koala population.
The four-year-old koala was due to have surgery on Thursday to remove the cysts but John Butler of the Morwell Vet Clinic discovered Sam had severe changes in her urinary and reproductive tract that were non-operable.
"Unfortunately Sam has been put to sleep. It's very, very sad," said Peita Elkhorne of TressCox Lawyers on behalf of the Southern Ash Wildlife Shelter.
"It was so severe that there was no possible way to be able to manage her pain."
A sad end to what was a heartwarming story.
The ABC report is here.
A koala with badly burned paws from the terrible bushfires which devastated Victoria taking water from a firefighter.
She was treated an animal hospital and recovered well from that ordeal.
But now ABC has reported:
Sam the koala, made famous by footage of her drinking from a firefighter's water bottle during Victoria's bushfires, has died.
The badly burned koala became a symbol of hope for the survivors of the deadly bushfires that killed 173 people and left 7,500 homeless.
But just months after her rescue from the fires, Sam was diagnosed with cysts linked to the life-threatening disease chlamydia that has ravaged the koala population.
The four-year-old koala was due to have surgery on Thursday to remove the cysts but John Butler of the Morwell Vet Clinic discovered Sam had severe changes in her urinary and reproductive tract that were non-operable.
"Unfortunately Sam has been put to sleep. It's very, very sad," said Peita Elkhorne of TressCox Lawyers on behalf of the Southern Ash Wildlife Shelter.
"It was so severe that there was no possible way to be able to manage her pain."
A sad end to what was a heartwarming story.
The ABC report is here.
Thursday, August 06, 2009
Here's one to get you going.
Discrimination. An interesting subject and one which causes heated debate.
Not just debate of course but abuse and extemist ranting. It's been a while since the ranters have screamed abuse at me, so here's an opportunity.
Anti-racism body welcomes UAE efforts to combat discrimination
Geneva: The UAE reviewed on Tuesday the achievements it has made regarding the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination before the committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
That's the beginning of a story in 'Gulf News' this morning.
Note that the presentation outlined the steps and measures taken by the country to enforce the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
All forms of racial discrimination.
Also in today's 'Gulf News' there are very many employment ads which are distinctly discriminatory and wouldn't be allowed in many other countries. Examples:
Accountant, Indian, age below 30,
Sales Consultant, Indian, with experience
Cashier (6 Nos.), Filipino, female.
IT Technician, Filipino.
Outdoor Sales Executive, female, Pakistani.
Young Pakistani, diploma & BSC in Electronics.
Pharmacist & Dentist, Arab, male, required.
Arab National Sales Manager.
Western Commercial Manager.
Legislation in many countries wouldn't allow those ads not only because they're specific about nationality/ethnicity but also because of gender and age specifications. Australia is a typical example, where the law forbids mention of nationality, ethnicity, male or female, or the age of the candidate because to do so would be discrimination.
In spite of the UAE reporting that it is eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, we have ads on a daily basis which are blatantly discriminatory.
So should it be banned? It's actually companies simply specifying precisely what they're looking for. There's an argument that it makes sense for, as an example, an Indian company with Indian employees and a mainly Indian clientele to want an Indian salesman and to be able to say so in its advertising. If they weren't allowed to be precise and had to say simply 'salesman required' very many people of other nationalities would apply for the job. But they'd be wasting their time and effort because the company would employ an Indian anyway
There's no question that it discriminates against all the other nationalities.
I think the most interesting point about banning discrimination is where the line is drawn.
Vilification and abuse based on ethnicity, certainly the line has to be drawn before that.
But should it be unlawful for an employment ad to specify a nationality? And for the company to deny other applicants the job based on their nationality?
And what about name calling?
An interesting insight into that came up not so long ago, about the term 'Paki'. In the UK it's a term of abuse, used and taken as an insult. In Australia it's just an abbreviation, so newspaper posters for example will refer to cricket along the lines of 'Paki bowlers tear through Aussies'.
So in the UAE, where is the line going to be drawn I wonder.
'Gulf News' has the story here.
Not just debate of course but abuse and extemist ranting. It's been a while since the ranters have screamed abuse at me, so here's an opportunity.
Anti-racism body welcomes UAE efforts to combat discrimination
Geneva: The UAE reviewed on Tuesday the achievements it has made regarding the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination before the committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
That's the beginning of a story in 'Gulf News' this morning.
Note that the presentation outlined the steps and measures taken by the country to enforce the international convention on the elimination of all forms of racial discrimination.
All forms of racial discrimination.
Also in today's 'Gulf News' there are very many employment ads which are distinctly discriminatory and wouldn't be allowed in many other countries. Examples:
Accountant, Indian, age below 30,
Sales Consultant, Indian, with experience
Cashier (6 Nos.), Filipino, female.
IT Technician, Filipino.
Outdoor Sales Executive, female, Pakistani.
Young Pakistani, diploma & BSC in Electronics.
Pharmacist & Dentist, Arab, male, required.
Arab National Sales Manager.
Western Commercial Manager.
Legislation in many countries wouldn't allow those ads not only because they're specific about nationality/ethnicity but also because of gender and age specifications. Australia is a typical example, where the law forbids mention of nationality, ethnicity, male or female, or the age of the candidate because to do so would be discrimination.
In spite of the UAE reporting that it is eliminating all forms of racial discrimination, we have ads on a daily basis which are blatantly discriminatory.
So should it be banned? It's actually companies simply specifying precisely what they're looking for. There's an argument that it makes sense for, as an example, an Indian company with Indian employees and a mainly Indian clientele to want an Indian salesman and to be able to say so in its advertising. If they weren't allowed to be precise and had to say simply 'salesman required' very many people of other nationalities would apply for the job. But they'd be wasting their time and effort because the company would employ an Indian anyway
There's no question that it discriminates against all the other nationalities.
I think the most interesting point about banning discrimination is where the line is drawn.
Vilification and abuse based on ethnicity, certainly the line has to be drawn before that.
But should it be unlawful for an employment ad to specify a nationality? And for the company to deny other applicants the job based on their nationality?
And what about name calling?
An interesting insight into that came up not so long ago, about the term 'Paki'. In the UK it's a term of abuse, used and taken as an insult. In Australia it's just an abbreviation, so newspaper posters for example will refer to cricket along the lines of 'Paki bowlers tear through Aussies'.
So in the UAE, where is the line going to be drawn I wonder.
'Gulf News' has the story here.
Monday, August 03, 2009
I don't understand, again
All too often our newspapers publish incomplete stories, quoting statements from officials and leaving it at that. Questions are not asked which would provide clarification of what the statement means.
There's another example in this morning's Khaleej Times, the headline being 'Ministry Launches Campaign Against Female Cross-dressers'.
Apparently the Ministry of Social Affairs has launched a campaign called "Excuse me, I’m a girl" to combat a trend of girls cross-dressing as men.
The Ministry has 'several solutions to combat the practice, including providing psychological treatment and social counselling to affected girls'.
As part of Sharjah's decency campaign in malls and residential areas, the police will question and arrest cross-dressing women and men.
By the way, according to the report this doesn't just apply to the northern emirates. It says that in Dubai 41 men and women who indulged in cross-dressing were arrested between May and July 2008.
Expatriates will be deported and UAE nationals will be referred to the public prosecution, so this is a serious matter.
So don't you think that the journalists should have clarified exactly what a female can and can't wear before filing the story?
Male cross-dressing is straighforward. A man wearing a dress, stilleto heels, make-up would fairly obviously be cross-dressing.
But a female?
Trousers? Jeans? Reeboks? A jacket? No make-up? What about something that's quite common, jeans under an abaya?
I expect an official will announce tomorrow that 'everybody knows' what female cross dressing is.
I don't.
The story's here.
There's another example in this morning's Khaleej Times, the headline being 'Ministry Launches Campaign Against Female Cross-dressers'.
Apparently the Ministry of Social Affairs has launched a campaign called "Excuse me, I’m a girl" to combat a trend of girls cross-dressing as men.
The Ministry has 'several solutions to combat the practice, including providing psychological treatment and social counselling to affected girls'.
As part of Sharjah's decency campaign in malls and residential areas, the police will question and arrest cross-dressing women and men.
By the way, according to the report this doesn't just apply to the northern emirates. It says that in Dubai 41 men and women who indulged in cross-dressing were arrested between May and July 2008.
Expatriates will be deported and UAE nationals will be referred to the public prosecution, so this is a serious matter.
So don't you think that the journalists should have clarified exactly what a female can and can't wear before filing the story?
Male cross-dressing is straighforward. A man wearing a dress, stilleto heels, make-up would fairly obviously be cross-dressing.
But a female?
Trousers? Jeans? Reeboks? A jacket? No make-up? What about something that's quite common, jeans under an abaya?
I expect an official will announce tomorrow that 'everybody knows' what female cross dressing is.
I don't.
The story's here.
Sunday, August 02, 2009
Magic & monsters
To brighten up a gloomy day (see previous post) we have a continuation of reports of magic and monsters.
The National has a story on each this morning.
The magic story is that two magicians have been offering to double people's money by using magic powder.
Sadly the powder wasn't magic really and it was nothing but a con.
According to police "a massive number of people, not some, lost money to them. They swindled one person out of Dh6 million (US$1.6m)"...with most of the victims - inevitably - coming from the northern emirates.
The CID mounted a sting operation, the suspects offered to double an undercover cop's money using the magic powder and they're now in Al Slammer.
Laboratory tests showed that the powder consisted of flour and washing powder. How disappointing.
Then there's the monster story.
On Friday there were reports of panic on an EgyptAir Abu Dhabi to Cairo flight when a crocodile started wandering about the cabin.
Only a baby mind you, about 30cm long, but a crocodile is a crocodile and keeping a cool head is not an option when confronted by one, especially whan it's rampaging around an enclosed space.
Had there been residents of Ras Alkhaimah on board it would probably have been identified as a dragon.
However, now that the panic's subsided it's been identified as a common lizard and has shrunk down to 'between 15 and 30 cm'
Magic powder arrests.
Croc was a lizard.
I have some previous posts on this kind of thing here.
The National has a story on each this morning.
The magic story is that two magicians have been offering to double people's money by using magic powder.
Sadly the powder wasn't magic really and it was nothing but a con.
According to police "a massive number of people, not some, lost money to them. They swindled one person out of Dh6 million (US$1.6m)"...with most of the victims - inevitably - coming from the northern emirates.
The CID mounted a sting operation, the suspects offered to double an undercover cop's money using the magic powder and they're now in Al Slammer.
Laboratory tests showed that the powder consisted of flour and washing powder. How disappointing.
Then there's the monster story.
On Friday there were reports of panic on an EgyptAir Abu Dhabi to Cairo flight when a crocodile started wandering about the cabin.
Only a baby mind you, about 30cm long, but a crocodile is a crocodile and keeping a cool head is not an option when confronted by one, especially whan it's rampaging around an enclosed space.
Had there been residents of Ras Alkhaimah on board it would probably have been identified as a dragon.
However, now that the panic's subsided it's been identified as a common lizard and has shrunk down to 'between 15 and 30 cm'
Magic powder arrests.
Croc was a lizard.
I have some previous posts on this kind of thing here.
It's awful out there.
The blazing Arabian summer sun
We've had dust hanging in the air for days now but today must be the worst yet.
Not much cheer from the Met office either, it may clear on Tuesday but it'll be back Wednesday.
They're warning people with respiratory problems to stay indoors but it's so bad I'd say it applies to everyone, asthmatic or not. Breathing this stuff in has to be bad for everyone.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
