babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


Post New Topic  Post A Reply
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » walking the talk   » feminism   » Muslim Women and the Veil

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Muslim Women and the Veil
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706

posted 10 June 2006 11:26 AM      Profile for scribblet        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
It is good to see this being discussed, hopefully Muslim women can ultimately be free and not have to wear this.

The following are excerpts from a discussion about the veil between Iqbal Baraka, editor of the Egyptian women's magazine Hawaa, and Al-Jazeera TV news presenter Hadija bin Qinna. The show was aired on LBC TV on May 28, 2006.
http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=SD118306

TO VIEW THIS CLIP: http://www.memritv.org/search.asp?ACT=S9&P1=1163

Interviewer: "How do you view the phenomenon of celebrities taking up the veil, Iqbal Baraka?"

Iqbal Baraka: "In my personal view, this phenomenon has less to do with religion than with social, economic and political factors. Women are intimidated and terrorized. The Arab woman is subjected to continuous pressure to wear the hijab. The Arab man tries to gain control and hegemony in any sphere, to compensate for his utter failure in the political sphere. So he puts pressure on the woman. Some say that the hijab is a religious duty - as if Allah had ordered men to observe five religious duties, and ordered women to observe six. This completely contradicts the equality between all human beings in Islam."

[...]


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 June 2006 04:54 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Its too bad you have to refer to the known agitation and propoganda firm Memri, run by a former Mossad officer. There are other sources.

Memri is well known only to publish, print or show material that reflects badly on Arab peoples.

It is essentially a hate site. As if I only published material from the worst people in Israel, like the Kach Party. After a while it would begin to look I was smearing Israelis by only publicizing there bad side.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 10 June 2006 04:57 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
The dangers of this one sided reporting can be seen when compared with other kinds of material available, such as this from the New York Times:

Muslim Women Don't See Themselves as Oppressed, Survey Finds

quote:
According to the poll, conducted in 2005, a strong majority of Muslim women believe they should have the right to vote without influence, work outside the home and serve in the highest levels of government. In more than 8,000 face-to-face interviews conducted in eight predominantly Muslim countries, the survey found that many women in the Muslim world did not see sex issues as a priority because other issues were more pressing.

When asked what they resented most about their own societies, a majority of Muslim women polled said that a lack of unity among Muslim nations, violent extremism, and political and economic corruption were their main concerns. The hijab, or head scarf, and burqa, the garment covering face and body, seen by some Westerners as tools of oppression, were never mentioned in the women's answers to the open-ended questions, the poll analysts said.


8000 face to face interviews is a survey of substantial sociological weight, and far and away better that Mossad people cherry picking and then publicizing the worst of the Arab world.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 17 June 2006 02:02 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scribblet:
Some say that the hijab is a religious duty - as if Allah had ordered men to observe five religious duties, and ordered women to observe six. This completely contradicts the equality between all human beings in Islam.

What is it about women's hair? I heard tonight on a TV show that, in ancient Rome, a woman risked divorce if she went out in public with hair uncovered. It says here:
quote:
The only women who ever wore togas were girls (but this ended by the early Empire), and disreputable women, which is to say prostitutes, and those found guilty of adultery. During the Early Republic, women's clothing covered most of the body, similar to the traditional garb of nuns. Apparently the wife of C. Sulpicius Gallus was divorced on the grounds that she had gone about in public with her head uncovered, although this may have been a pretext.
Early Jews had the same issue:
quote:
Even among the Hebrews, the rabbi’s taught that it is a “godless man who sees his wife go out with her head uncovered. He is duty bound to divorce her” (Kethuboth 2).

Short hair was also a no-no.
Early Christians had the same problem: the fashions of the day
quote:
for a woman not to be covered (evidently with a veil) was as shameful as if she had her hair cut short.

In 1 Corinthians 11:13 Paul asked the question, “Judge for yourselves; is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered?” He clearly expected that the Corinthians would agree that it was not proper.

Paul assumed that the Corinthians would feel that the shame of a respectable woman having her hair cut short before the world would be unbearable. By equating that sense of shame with a woman having her head uncovered when she prayed or prophesied, Paul wanted them to understand that their neglect of these head-coverings could bring serious disrepute on the individual women and on the community. If they understood this, he believed that they would have a powerful motive to respect this sense of shame and to make sure that all women were covered when they prayed or prophesied. Similarly, for a man to have his head covered brought dishonor (kataischyno), and thus he must always uncover his head when he “prays or prophesies.”



And even more recently:
quote:
Restrictions on women were very broad in the congregations in which I grew up. Women and girls were forbidden to teach any boy or man who was baptized or to do or say anything in the public worship except join in congregational singing. On the other hand, those congregations did not continue some practices that I knew my grandmother honored, such as women always attending church wearing a veil (usually on a hat) and never cutting their hair.

Prostitutes flaunted their hair:
quote:
Jesus was at the house of a Pharisee named Simon eating dinner when he encountered this woman identified as “a woman of the city, who was a sinner” (Luke 7:37). Her name was never given, and she said not a single word. Rather her actions became an eloquent testimony to her faith and love. She appeared with an alabaster flask of ointment. Standing behind Jesus, as he was reclining with his feet pointed away from the table, “she began to wet his feet with her tears, and wiped them with the hair of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment” (Luke 7:38). Jesus knew full well just who this woman was. Jesus seemed to be the only person in the room who was not embarrassed or indignant at what this woman was doing and expressing by her action.

At a banquet six days before Passover, Martha served the meal and Mary anointed Jesus’ feet with a costly ointment and wiped them with her hair. The contrast is not really between Mary and Martha but between Mary’s act of devotion and the cynical and disrespectful comment of Judas Iscariot about her gift. Jesus rebuked the male disciple / betrayer and approved Mary’s extravagant gift as belonging to his burial.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 17 June 2006 09:57 AM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
As far as I know, there are a variety of reasons women hijab. Some wear it for religious reasons-because one is supposed to be be modest , men and women. Chrisitianity does that to- modesty before God- one doesn't go to Church wearing hotpants, and what nuns wore is essentially a headcovering as well.
Others wear it as a mark of ethnicity, to say they are part of a cultural group and proud of it.
Some see the hijab as liberating, because it forces men to not pay attention to their physical form but to the inside.

I think its wrong to put all Muslim women who do hijab in the same group- Muslim women come from diverse places, cultures, and have a diverse politics as members of rabble do. They are also differently empowered, and you can't rightly posit them as all oppressed equally based on one factor.
Additionally, I think that there are more oppressive issues than what a women wears on her head- such as ending violence aggainst women, rights, etc. Solve those problems first, and those women who wear the hijab involuntarily will be able to remove it because the sexist ideas that enforce its wearing will not be there.

[ 17 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 June 2006 09:58 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So do all these women from different cultures have long hair and/or head coverings from choice or due to societal norms dictated by men?

Are the women free to choose or are they chattels of the men?

I don't intend to be inflamatory here but previously marriage was more about money and property.Women were given in marriage or given period to seal the deal,so to speak.

Women should have free choice whether to wear a head covering or bikini or have an abortion.


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 17 June 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think the problem is the premise of your question - are the ALL oppressed, or are they ALL free to choose?

I think it's somewhere in between. In Iran, for instance, there's no choice. You cover your hair outside, whether your family cares or not, or the fascist religious assholes that run the country persecute you.

But there are lots of people who, even in Canada, wear a veil. I don't think all of them are being forced by their families to do it, and I don't think all of them are doing it out of free choice. Just like women from all cultures, including North American culture, don't always participate in traditional norms out of choice or out of oppression.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 June 2006 10:22 AM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
So what about Western women who conform to the atificial societal norms imposed upon them by the advertising industry.

Women who wear high heels and attractive but uncomfortable clothing,makeup etc because they feel it required,rather than from choice?

Is this similar to expectations for women in other cultures to conform to the expectations of others?


From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323

posted 17 June 2006 11:17 AM      Profile for unionist     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by jester:
Women should have free choice whether to wear a head covering or bikini or have an abortion.

Simultaneously?


From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 17 June 2006 12:38 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I'm of the understanding that in a country like Afghanistan, the wearing of the Burka style of veil hadn't been enforced by Islamic law on a wide scale in over a hundred years.

But Afghani women were declared open season even before the Taliban came to power, particularly between 1994 and 1996, when Kabul was bombed to smithereens by warring mujahedeen factions. They left so little infrastructure standing that the U.S. military couldn't find any significant targets to bomb themselves. Women refusing to wear burkas were accused of being Russian sympathizers. Women were beaten, and in a lot of cases raped, by factions wanting to prove their credentials for the most militant brand of Islam. Militant Islam is biggest threat to social democracy and social justice in Central Asia today.


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 17 June 2006 01:03 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:

Simultaneously?


I have seen this kind of thing. Not necessarily Bikini, but tight jeans and fuck me boots.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 17 June 2006 03:26 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Michelle, I think you hit the nail on the head.
And unionist-

And jester, the thing is that not evereything is completely oppressive or completely libereating- allot of the time the world is shades of gray. I like wearing heals, I like wearing nice clothing because they make me feel good about my body, glad that it is substantial and curvy. That said, allot of the clothing and makeup industry is horribly exploitative of women's insecurites, and sets impossible standars about what a beautiful woman is- blonsde, blue eyed, and usually white with a tootpick for a body. I hope you see the contradiction here.
Equally, I'm sure that many Muslim women find Islam beautiful, and feel good about being Muslims, even if there are parts of it that ain't so good when looking at it through a women's issues lens.
Fidel- there are multiple sources of trouble for democracy, chiefly ourselves and how we treat other, in addition to economics, the environment, etc. Don't put all the blame on what is dressed up as Islam ( think the witch-hunt during the inquisition which was often a political tool).


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
jester
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11798

posted 17 June 2006 09:54 PM      Profile for jester        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
PRD: The point I'm making is that the choice should be freely made by the individual.
From: Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in vain | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 June 2006 01:27 AM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]


From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 June 2006 03:52 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
That's nice and everything, Fidel, but I'm not sure how that fits in the feminism forum.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 18 June 2006 06:22 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Actually I was asking a real question: what was it about women's hair in older times? Before TV, did men have nothing better to do than be mezmerized by women's hairstyles? Why was women's hair equal to breasts as a cover-up zone? And how did modern western civilization lose this obsession with women's hair? If I understood this, then I might know what to think about cultures where some women still feel the need, or have that feeling imposed on them, to cover their hair.
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 18 June 2006 06:52 AM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Wilf, many writers (academic and otherwise) have examined how sexual desire is constructed and how fetishization (breasts, feet, hair, hands, etc) is completely socially constructed. Therefore, going from culture to culture we find many different outward expressions for "masculinity", "femininity", "sexual desirability". All such expressions are arbitrary, they change over time, and they change both within and between cultures.

Let's say that at this point in time culture A sees X as sexy and culture B sees Y as sexy. You are asking the question, "Why does A like X? Why does B like Y?" This is placing the focus, IMO, on how desire is particularly manifested. You could keep asking those questions forever and not find an answer.

Some books that might help:
"Bodies that Matter" by Judith Butler, "Brazen Femme: Queering Femininity" edited by Brushwood-Rose and Camilleri, "The Gender of Desire: Essays on Male Sexuality" by Michael Kimmel. I've only read Brazen Femme, but have heard good things about the other 2. (I've never been able to read Butler and understand her, but others seem to be able to!)

As far as the Western obsession with the veil, I think enough has been said about it and I have nothing to add to that discussion. If non-Muslims can't hear and accept the experiences of women who wear the veil, with or without reasons that are "good enough" then that's a whole other issue.

And just to put it out there: is there any room to look at the discourse of "choice" and how that gets framed? And what about substituting "thong" for "veil"? (Ah, remember the thong wars? I lurked.... )

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: bigcitygal ]


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 18 June 2006 07:24 AM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I agree with Michelle, it's not a black and white, all or nothing issue. In a women's studies course a few years ago, we were given a reading about some women who choose the veil and who resent the attitude that some Western feminists have about the veil.
But, there are many women I'm sure who would love to feel the sun on their skin and who would love the choice.

There are many more indicators of female oppression than theocratic dress codes though, and we so often like to generalize the "Middle East" as Westerners. Take Saudi Arabia: women can't drive, can't have their pictures in the newspaper and face more pressure from the religious police than men. Then we hear Bush talk about "liberating women" in Afghanistan and his Saudi allies in the same breath. It all makes me glad I ride my bike and don't buy that much oil, which may be funding Saudi religious totalitarianism.

I disagree with Cueball's characterization of MEMRI, though. How is quoting a particular Arab woman's personal opinion showing Arabs in a bad light?

And, Fidel, maybe you can leave the disgusting trash talk for another forum, preferably not the feminist forum?


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
Cueball
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4790

posted 18 June 2006 12:19 PM      Profile for Cueball   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Actually I was asking a real question: what was it about women's hair in older times? Before TV, did men have nothing better to do than be mezmerized by women's hairstyles? Why was women's hair equal to breasts as a cover-up zone? And how did modern western civilization lose this obsession with women's hair? If I understood this, then I might know what to think about cultures where some women still feel the need, or have that feeling imposed on them, to cover their hair.

Probly as women became more commodified as sexual objects, as their primary exchangable use value, as opposed to valued social power commodities traded and exchanged to form alliances and build discrete social power networks, there was more preassure for women to bring attention to their sexual qualification, as opposed to their social status.

You'll notice, that womens fashion as it evoloved in the late capitalist period in the west featured the acceptance of dress styles in the mainstream that had previously only been worn by women who used their sexual value to access the power to aquire security, and financial independence (what we call prostitutes, or "ho's" in the common vernacular.)

We notice that women in societies where women are still valued for their social connections and valued as central powerbrokers in families, in societies where families are still an essential mode of political power, women are far less motivated to assert their value by exposing themselves as sexual objects.


From: Out from under the bridge and out for a stroll | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged
jeff house
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 518

posted 18 June 2006 12:55 PM      Profile for jeff house     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think bigcitygall makes agood point about sexual signs being constructed, though I would say "substantially constructed." Some parts are just all-around nice.

A favorite social construction for me is the Japanese view that the vertebra at the base of the neck, which appears as a small bump, is fatally exciting.

Kimonos are generally designed to expose this feature of the female anatomy, yet I am unaware of any other culture which esteems it.


From: toronto | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560

posted 18 June 2006 01:08 PM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Wilf Day:
Actually I was asking a real question: what was it about women's hair in older times? Before TV, did men have nothing better to do than be mezmerized by women's hairstyles? Why was women's hair equal to breasts as a cover-up zone? And how did modern western civilization lose this obsession with women's hair?

Do you think it has? I don't. It's not the same way as in "olden times" with the covering of the hair, but I think most women have run into the whole "Oh my god, please, please, pleasepleaseplease don't ever cut your hair!" thing from men in their lives. (Yes, I know, babble will be full of guys who like short hair on women. I'm not saying that all guys are like this. I'm saying that enough are that long hair on women is seen as a beauty point.)

How many women conform to this? I often have when I've had a significant other who fetishizes long hair. In fact, my father and I often joked with each other that he knew when my relationships with the two most significant partners I've had were turning sour - it's when I chopped off all my hair.

I prefer my hair long. Is it because I just like long hair or because I've internalized the "long is beautiful, short is not" pressure I've had from various important men in my life? I don't know. Probably. I do know that when I consider cutting it shorter, I immediately think about whether whomever I'm with at that point will think I'm ugly if I do.

I don't think my experience is unique, since I've talked to tons of other women throughout my adult years who have experienced the same thing.


From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594

posted 18 June 2006 02:58 PM      Profile for Fidel     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I went out with a woman with very thick reddish-brown hair. She showed me photos of when it was long, and it was a different person as far as looks go. She wears it short now and has it thinned on purpose. She said the weight of the hair was enough to make her scalp ache. She looks fab with it short. And then there are the legs, you know. They go all the way up ...
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 18 June 2006 04:26 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
May I say I am very pleased that bigcitygal has joined the discussion, as I was worried that no one with a strong view and well informed view on race was in the forum. I'd really like to hear the voice of a few Muslim women in this forum on this topic.

With regards to choice and gender, I agree than choice and gender and race is actually quite relative.
We are engendered right from birth- we receive information about "how to be a woman" from the media, our friends, our family, our schools, from evereywhere. We live in a sexist culture, and it is the rules by which we live and breathe anbd interact- it is ground into our subconscious, so that we don't even realise we are enacting our gender roles.
With regards to race, it is similar if not the same with race. The fact is that Canada is a racist country, just like the rest of America. Views about non-caucasian peoples and discrimination against the other is equally ingrained- otherwise we would have had a non-white Prime Minister by now. Some have argued that racism is even ingrained in the contstitution and the Charter of Rights.


-Edited for spelling mistake

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: Pride for Red Dolores ]


From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sineed
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11260

posted 18 June 2006 04:33 PM      Profile for Sineed     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
I think veils are so contentious because we still aren't used to seeing them. It's only the last 10-15 years we've started seeing veiled women more often than just occasionally in Canada, and culturally we're still trying to wrap our heads around it (so to speak).

Surely it's disingenuous to say that veils are nothing more than a matter of personal choice, end of story, when we all know that millions of women worldwide are compelled to wear them under threat of dire punishments. I wonder how much of a choice it is when I see women dressed in black from head to foot on a 35 degree day like today.

At the same time, though, emancipation should mean being able to dress how you like without people second-guessing your motives everywhere you go. And is my neighbour who is forced to wear a veil by her husband (she told me) any different from a woman whose husband forces her to keep her hair long? Hard to say.


From: # 668 - neighbour of the beast | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972

posted 18 June 2006 06:58 PM      Profile for Sven     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by EmmaG:
I agree with Michelle, it's not a black and white, all or nothing issue. In a women's studies course a few years ago, we were given a reading about some women who choose the veil and who resent the attitude that some Western feminists have about the veil. But, there are many women I'm sure who would love to feel the sun on their skin and who would love the choice.

I think the key here is the word “choice”. If a woman freely chooses to wear a veil, for whatever reason, then a general criticism of veil-wearing is actually an attack on women’s autonomy. But, however much a general criticism of veil-wearing may not be in line with women’s autonomy, I think that mandated veil-wearing against a woman’s choice is a far worse attack on her autonomy. It’s one think to merely say a woman should not wear a veil. It’s quite another to actually force conduct (veil-wearing) that a woman is opposed to.

That all being said, I think we in the West would be wise to support a woman’s right to wear a veil but also support her right not to wear a veil.

[ 18 June 2006: Message edited by: Sven ]


From: Eleutherophobics of the World...Unite!!!!! | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072

posted 18 June 2006 07:54 PM      Profile for Pride for Red Dolores     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Since oppression is forcing someone to do something, or not letting them do something, forcing any women to wear her hair long, or wear a veil is wrong- same for forcing her anything she doesn't want to do with her body. So basically I think Sineed and Sven have hit the nail on the head.
From: Montreal | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605

posted 18 June 2006 07:59 PM      Profile for EmmaG        Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Choice was meant to be the operative word in my post, Sven. There is a difference between a religious figure telling a woman in a secular society what she should do, and her choosing to follow these beliefs and a religious/moral police enforcing the wearing of the veil.

(although nudists would likely argue that our police enforce a dress code...congrats for "topless" Ontario though)

I think that France's decision to ban the veil outright from public schools was the wrong move. It is the same approach as banning the appearance at school without the veil.


From: nova scotia | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged
kropotkin1951
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2732

posted 20 June 2006 11:44 AM      Profile for kropotkin1951   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Fidel:
I'm of the understanding that in a country like Afghanistan, the wearing of the Burka style of veil hadn't been enforced by Islamic law on a wide scale in over a hundred years.


I don't know whether it was enforcement or choice but I spent over a month in Afghanistan and never saw an Afghan womans face. That was in the early '70s. It was quite stricking to see the burkhas especially since I had just travelled through a number of Moslem countries where that style of full face covering with a mesh that hid the face totally was not used.

I travelled overland from Europe on public buses and trains so I think I got a fair impression of normal lives. In Turkey there were no burkhas and the veils when used reminded me more of Orthodox Christian women. In Iran under the Shah at the same time most women wore head coverings with veils but not the full head coverings with mesh. Some women in Iran in the early '70s did not wear either veils or burkhas but not many.

I suspect in Afghanistan that the main enforcement was cultural not governmental but I don't know that for sure.


From: North of Manifest Destiny | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938

posted 20 June 2006 01:28 PM      Profile for bigcitygal     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
Thanks for your kind words about me, Pride for Red Dolores. To be clear, I'm not a Muslim woman, just in case anyone concluded that from your post. And yeah, I'd love to have Muslim women post on babble but there's no way I can see that happening in the near or far future.

However, I continue to be bothered by this "choice" talk as if that's all that matters for "us" in the West, in order to decree whether a particular Muslim woman is oppressed or not.

"Your husband forces you to wear the veil? Aww, you poor oppressed woman, you."

"You wear the veil by choice in a non-Muslim country like Canada? Good for you, you're not oppressed!"

That's just so icky, for obvious reasons. Muslim women don't have to justify jack to non-Muslims.

Is it at all possible for us to look a few degrees deeper than this kind of analysis? Why the Western fixation on the veil? Why the obession and the fetishization of "choice" as the ultimate in feminist hegemony?


From: It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent - Q | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
Naci_Sey
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12445

posted 20 June 2006 03:21 PM      Profile for Naci_Sey   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post  Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Pride for Red Dolores:
Since oppression is forcing someone to do something, or not letting them do something, forcing any women to wear her hair long, or wear a veil,, is wrong.
Then there is the oppression of majority opinion in Western cultures. We say "as long as she has a choice...," but when a woman chooses to cover herself in ways other than those 'chosen' by 99+% of women in our society, she is assumed to be misguided.

I scare-quoted chosen in the last sentence because Western women are as oppressed in our way by the rules of fashion as many Muslim women are in Eastern countries. There is some appeal to covering up from head to foot. I'm neither a Muslim nor a follower of any other religion, yet I've sometimes wished I could go out into the streets veiled. The irony is that while I might feel more protected from unwanted attention and male violence, my strangeness would make me a target of racist, Islamaphobic hatred.

[ 20 June 2006: Message edited by: Naci_Sey ]


From: BC | Registered: Apr 2006  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca