Equality is largely about everyone having equal choices and options. In the US in the 70s and 80s, some (educated, career-prepped, privileged) feminists spoke out against “housewives” and their choice to make a career of managing the household and/or raising kids responsibly. This was wrong. It was fair to point out that some women felt they had no choice but to be “housewives.” It was fair to point out social and economic factors that discouraged women from any other occupation. It was even fair to point out social factors that predisposed women to make that choice. But it was never right to suggest that women who chose to embrace a traditional wife/mother role were some sort of traitors to women’s liberation.
And of course, shaking their heads all along at this ruckus, were the women who never had any choice but to somehow both earn a living and raise kids.
A debate has arisen since France started talking about banning public wearing of the burqa. France says they’re concerned about maintaining secularism and equal rights for women. Is this the same France that condemned the US recently for attempting to extradite a child rapist?
CNN’s “Belief Blog” has up a video article about women in the US who choose to wear the niqab or hijab. It interviews women who say if they didn’t want to wear Islamic face veils, then they wouldn’t, because it’s not required. One woman, Nadia, chooses to cover her face and body because it’s a way to cover those body parts “you don’t want seen by people who are not in your close family… You don’t need to see my whole body to know me. You can just speak to me.”
What a novel concept. In societies like mine, what I wear and how I look in it is constantly assumed to say something about my sexual availability/desirability to the master gender. Every time I attempt to engage socially with another human being, there’s a risk that their ongoing inner dialog about how my body looks will drown out everything I have to say or offer. This woman uses these Islamic garments to force people to either go deeper or leave her alone.
Aliya feels the same way about a hijab forcing people to engage her on an intellectual level rather than a body-appraising sex-object one. But she elects not to wear the niqab or full burqa because she feels it would hinder her professional aspirations (I assume she means by making her stand out more from her peers than the hijab alone).
These women born and raised in the U.S. have been lectured by random strangers at grocery stores about how “we don’t do that here.” Of course, this demonstrates that no matter what a woman does, some people are going to judge her appearance. But there’s nothing we can do about that alone. How different is the choice to wear covering religious garments from the choice to wear a mumu, or spandex exercise wear or whatever else a woman chooses to wear? When comes the part of equality where we get to stop being judged like cattle at a county fair?
{ 96 comments… read them below or add one }
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →
As someone who can’t really read facial expressions I tend to just listen when conversations come up like this. While I sometimes find it helpful to look at someone’s lips when they’re talking, for the most part it wouldn’t affect me at all if they were in a niqab (especially if they spoke clearly). I know not everyone (or most people, even) have this experience, so I’m not trying to judge how important that feedback is for other people.
But I’m more comfortable communicating on the phone or online, where there are fewer cues to read, and I know there are tons of people who CAN read facial expressions who feel this way too. If a woman is more comfortable giving herself a certain degree of… anonymity, I guess, is it really the right of her audience to demand that her motives and reactions be apparent to them? I don’t even mean that in a loaded way, I recognize that that could create a disparity for two people with comparative processing abilities, but it does make me wonder about who sets the boundaries for how much feedback somebody is required to give.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
Has anyone told you you’re awesome lately?
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
Who told you that the niqab protected women from the predation of men? That’s frankly rubbish. Incidents of groping and street harrassement in Cairo, to give just on example, are skyrocketing in direct proportion to the Islamisation of Egyptian society and therefore increased incidence of hijab & abaya wearing.
Which is not an argument against veiling, it’s just an argument against your argument in favour of it.
MarinaS(Quote) (Reply)
Quite. And I will add, we should not privilege one aspect of rape culture over another for reasons of intercultural tact.
I’m not sure if it’s a legitimate link, and I haven’t thought about it in detail so may be talking out of my arse here, but, it’s interesting to me that there’s a conversation currently happening in France about topless sunbathing, too, and the debate fractures along many similar conceptual lines.
MarinaS(Quote) (Reply)
I would love to see topless women defending the niqab and veiled women defending toplessness, actually – make a real show for freedom of choice!
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
If you note the beginning of my response I specifically indicated that I was talking about the historical aspect of the garment rather than the way that it is currently seen and used. As such it wasn’t an argument for or against wearing one in current times, rather it was a very short attempt at an explanation as to why the garment became popular, and so got entrenched in their culture.
As with many other things in the world, original meanings and reasons do not always apply in the modern era, however they do give us an understanding of why things are the way they are and allow us to better decide whether something old is also something that needs to be replaced or discarded.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
I would be amused if the answer turned out to be that topless sunbathing was bad, and so everyone (men and women) had to have their breast area covered at all times.
But that’s just me thinking that 1 rule for men and 1 rule for women is a little silly in most cases.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
That seriously would rock, in so many ways.
Lika(Quote) (Reply)
Marina, you’re reading a comment that makes it super-clear that it’s discussing an historical context on which modern day problems of Cairo have no bearing at all, and castigating him for something he never said. That’s a straw man argument, and it’s against our comment policy. This is the second violation of that policy I’ve seen from you today. If you have questions about the comment policy, please feel free to email me about them. Otherwise, please consider this a formal warning.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
I want to add that the history Dragonlord is talking about isn’t true. The niqab/hijab wasn’t coming out of a wife-snatching culture, but instead out of a culture where Muslim women in particular were harassed and targeted by non-Muslims, and were accused of being whores. Also there was a lot of kind of body shaming, with the idea that women shouldn’t flaunt their riches (IE their beauty) in the same way a rich man shouldn’t flaunt his riches (IE by wearing gold, which Muslim mean aren’t supposed to do).
I’m adding this because I think it’s important to talk about history seriously, and not amorphously with a misty past where Othered people wife-snatch and with few details.
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
What I’m arguing against is the entitlement some people feel to declare this practice unilaterally wrong, even in the case of strangers they’ve never met and can’t possibly know what’s best for, thereby making the choice for everyone. That’s no different than forcing the hijab on them was in the first place.
I understand. Someone mentioned earlier than going topless in the US is a legal offence: don’t this very same laws stem from the same sort of entitlement? An entitlement, as I understand it, born from the collective personal views/feelings of the majority. I also think that had not been by the existance of Islamic terrorist organizations, we would hardly be debating this issue -just as no one is discussing whether is right or wrong that orthodox Jews wear wigs, longs skirts, payot, hat, etc.
In a nutshell: is ok for a woman to wear niqab? Sure, if she feels like it. Do niqab-wearing women in western countries do so freely? I believe not. Can there be a minority of women who wear niqab truly because they just like it? Sure, but I believe this group, if existant, must be very, very small.
Nuria(Quote) (Reply)
Not sure about the US, but there definitely was a veil-related discussion going on in Germany before 9/11.
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
@Maria – A quick bit of research turned up this article
“The second stage of the veil, popularly known as hijab these days, was occasioned by the wayward behavior of many men in Medina. According to Fatima Mernissi (2), “Women, whatever their status, were being harassed in the streets, pursued by men who subjected them to the humiliating practice of ta’arrud – literally taking up a position along a woman’s path to urge her to fornicate, to commit the act of zina. At this point, the Prophet’s problem was no longer freeing women from the chains of pre-Islamic violence (because he did not have unchallenged authority, author), but simply assuring the safety of his own wives and those of other Muslims in a city (Medina) that was hostile and out of control.””
This journal article about marriage by capture which is a practice that has appeared in many cultures around the world through history.
Both of which, when added to the fact that the forms of dress we now refer to as niqab, hijab, burka, etc pre-date islam lead to us both being right (IMO anyway) about what we’re saying, while still running into that sticking point
.
Also thanks for pointing me to that history aspect as it made fascinating reading.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
I have one single nit picking to do:
Saying wearing hijab is wrong is not putting down people, so I believe it is perfectly okay to do so, as long as you are name calling the people who do.
Other than that agreed.
I think the discussion of covering in USA is post 9/11. Europe each country has its own story and reasons to bring discussion. E.g. I would guess the reason for bring the topic up in Germany would be the Turkish immigrant population in the country. France, Algerian minorities as somebody pointed out.
A.(Quote) (Reply)
@Maria – Just a thought that I had on my way home, but can we both agree that the original reasons behind the various types of dress under discussion were to protect women from men, and quibble about which origin is more correct at another time, as for the purposes of this discussion they both appear to agree in principle, if not detail?
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
No worries — what I more wanted to get at was the idea that it was a wife-snatching culture (IE more of one than another cultures in the same historical time-period). Saying stuff like that makes particular cultural identities (normally Othered ones) take on the burden of a particular -ism, like how “black” music is seen as being OMG unusually sexist (it’s not especially so when put into conversation with other genres) or how black culture is seen in the mainstream media as being OMG homophobic (it’s not like mainstream culture in the US is substantially more accepting).
I didn’t want this to be a conversation that devolved into “THEY’RE SEXIST THROUGH AND THROUGH unlike us in the West that have solved sexism with feminism, go us!” and was trying to challenge that. (Also my computer froze so I actually didn’t think my comment went through.
)
Thank you for the articles!
Maria(Quote) (Reply)
The legal status of going topless varies by locale in the USA. In the city I live in, it is perfectly legal. People just rarely exercise it outside of certain community festivals and such.
Patrick McGraw(Quote) (Reply)
That may have been your original meaning, but where is your evidence for it? Veiling was practiced in all kinds of cultures for all kinds of excuses, but AFAIK the sexual assault index remains more or less constant – inasmuch as we can measure such things retrospectively at all. So it’s not at all clear why we should accept that the “all men are animals and women need to be hidden from their view” argument was any more true in the past than it is now.
MarinaS(Quote) (Reply)
I’m not sure how it can be super-clear that customs that are justified on grounds of tradition and history have no bearing on current developments in those customs of vice versa. Yes, the past is not the same as the present, but if that makes any analogy invalid then we have a canker at the heart of the discourse around long standing cultural norms that I would struggle to reconcile.
MarinaS(Quote) (Reply)
Please read the comments between maria and myself for various bits of evidence about why the garments came into being and were adopted by islam.
Also just because the sexual assault index remained almost constant for the period in time doesn’t mean that the garments didn’t work. After all not everyone (or even a large proportion of everyone) would have worn these garments, and, like a robber that’s just seen your burglar alarm, the would be molester would just move onto the next target. This would mean that if you were measuring sexual assaults that happen to islamic women, you’d see a noticeable drop after the introduction of these garments.
Another point would be that if the garments didn’t work, then they would have been discarded shortly after they were introduced as a protective item of clothing.
As for the assumption that I’m advocating that we accept that “all men are animals and women need to be hidden from their view”, that is all it is, as I have not stated that, and AFAIK have never stated that.
What I did say on the historical aspect, is that by understanding how and why the garments came into the culture, we can then understand why they are entrenched.
Better understanding then means that we can then better martial our arguments against them, if it still proves necessary.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
Just want to say that,
“Another point would be that if the garments didn’t work, then they would have been discarded shortly after they were introduced as a protective item of clothing.”
is wonderfully optimistic. There are so many practices and wisdoms out there that don’t work and have survived nevertheless, though, I find it hard to believe that
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
I meant in the short to medium term (when they were introduced and just after). After all pragmatism is very important when it’s your survival at stake.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
Well, I’m pretty involved in the skeptic community, and I don’t want to start a huge discussion here, but the question would be how you define “work”. Even the illusion of safety might make these clothes stick around, either by the women themselves or by the family patriarch. Every victim without a niqab would be proof, and every victim with one some kind of exception.
Not saying that’s what happened, but it’s unfortunately possible, if people want to believe strongly enough.
The Other Patrick(Quote) (Reply)
Agreed about the discussion POV as it would likely be long and involve a lot of assumptions about the structure and mentality of the people in that era.
(assumptions a’plenty after this point)
Suffice to say that I think what I think because it was a male dominated culture where the men had a lot of say over what the women would have worn when they were out and about, and were also coming from cultures where (for many of them) women would have been considered property. And as with house and car burglar alarms, when they were first introduced they were probably very effective, which is when the impressions would have been made. However as with house and car burglar alarms, as they became more ubiquitous their usefulness probably would have dropped off, but still being slightly more useful than going without.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
Added to above
And as with car and house alarms, it doesn’t stop targeted attacks, just attacks from people that want any good looking women, and don’t want the hassle of finding out what’s under the veil.
DragonLord(Quote) (Reply)
MarinaS, show me precisely where DragonLord said anything “justified” the custom. Explained, yes. Justified… I missed that part. Could you point it out, so I won’t wrongly assume it’s yet another straw man argument?
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
It’s easier to dismiss someone’s basic person-hood if you don’t have to look them in the face. That’s why people who seem ‘nice’ will turn into trolls the moment they have the benefit of anonymity on the internet.
GardenGoblin(Quote) (Reply)
No, it isn’t, because “France” didn’t make either one of those statements. Those are positions of groups of people, and they’re not always both held by the same people within the French population.
I totally agree with you that a given culture will tend to be very progressive/feminist on some issues and more regressive on others. And it seems surprising at first, because it seems like you should be able to place countries on some sort of linear sequence of enlightenment. But the reality is a lot more complex than that. In the same way, you’re oversimplifying when you imply that a whole country is of one mind on political issues.
chanson(Quote) (Reply)
Maybe so, but the French GOVERNMENT certainly holds both of these positions. Nicholas Sarkozy is so adamant about the niqabs you’d think one personally burned down his village and slaughtered his family before merrily skipping on to stalk him from seedy bars for the next 30 years, but there wasn’t a peep about the Polanski issue, nor did he take issue with the fact one of his Ministers wrote a book where he directly admitted having “sex” with “young boys” in Thailand.
That goes, largely, with the rest of the government as well. Nobody’s dropping judgments on the French people, but when the government of a country acts a certain way, it is certainly appropriate to say that the state is responsible for those acts, just as “the US” is responsible for starting two wars in the Middle East or violating the civil rights of detainees in multiple prisons, even if the majority US population disagrees with those actions.
Shaun(Quote) (Reply)
I apologize, because I DID mean “the French government” in the way Goblin is describing. I assumed that would be understood because it’s so ludicrous to suggest that even the citizens of a tiny country all agree with each other on something. I often say “The US” when what I mean is the US government, too.
Also, I have never considered the idea of countries being in a linear sequence of enlightenment. We are SO backward as a species – so insular, so xenophobic, so excited to be so ignorant – that I don’t think of any country as enlightened at all. Socrates was half right – the closest we’re capable of getting to wisdom is knowing that we know nothing.
Jennifer Kesler(Quote) (Reply)
← Previous Comments
Next Comments →