Author
|
Topic: Muslim Women and the Veil
|
scribblet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4706
|
posted 10 June 2006 11:26 AM
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 04:57 PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
|
|
|
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 17 June 2006 03:26 PM
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 18 June 2006 06:52 AM
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
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
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
|
|
|
Michelle
Moderator
Babbler # 560
|
posted 18 June 2006 01:08 PM
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
|
|
|
Pride for Red Dolores
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12072
|
posted 18 June 2006 04:26 PM
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
|
|
|
Sven
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9972
|
posted 18 June 2006 06:58 PM
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
|
|
|
EmmaG
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12605
|
posted 18 June 2006 07:59 PM
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
|
|
|
bigcitygal
Volunteer Moderator
Babbler # 8938
|
posted 20 June 2006 01:28 PM
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
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
|
|
|