Leila Ahmed's
Women and Gender in Islam

Joanna Hicks

quote:

---

For feminist academics of the industrialized world, the subject of Muslim women is an extraordinarily complex issue to undertake. The act of a Western woman observing and describing Muslim women is inevitably fraught with tension because this conjunction lies at the crux of several contested areas within contemporary academia. First, the enunciation of the foundations of the women's movement and feminist ideology within the industrialized world has been dominated by white, middle-class women. These women often unreflexively set forth their concerns within their societal context as most important, uncritically use their culture's norms to judge others, and finally, leave unexamined their positions of privilege as citizens of formerly colonialist and, in many cases, neo-colonialist countries. Although these feminists, who try to help women in the "Third World" liberate themselves, might be well-intentioned, they still bring their own ethnocentric and racist assumptions along with their trenchant critiques of patriarchy in the deployment of context-insensitive feminism. Secondly, most Western non-feminist scholars look at the countries that are predominantly Muslim through the lenses of Orientalist mystification, Western colonization, and Euro-American denomination, in addition to ethnocentric and androcentric assumptions. Finally, there are the discourses "within" a culture about the relationship between the socially constructed categories of "men" and "women" and the position or status of women. These discourses are usually controlled by men, or work in favor of men. In the ideology of gender in Islam, as in other ideologies, many different interpretations are discarded in favor of a monolithic interpretation which serves the purpose of those in power. These are the types of discourse which are habitually deployed by a hegemonic group or region to justify their invasion and subversion of another group. These are the discourses that Leila Ahmed, in Women and Gender in Islam (1992), skillfully critiques in order to both found the basis of a global feminism responsive to colonial, racial, cultural, and class issues in order to engender a greater understanding of Islam as a historical, political, and lived reality for women in the Middle East.

---

While women in predominantly muslim countries may "appear" to have it rough, from our western colonialist and patricarchial viewpoint. It is only through a careful analysis of the subject, taking into account "colonial, racial, cultural, and class issues in order to engender a greater understanding of Islam as a historical, political, and lived reality for women in the Middle East" is the only way to truly find the answer.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]

So down with academiaspeak! (although I think I can guess what the pomolitcrit post-structuralist femi-Lacanian being linked to is getting at - ouch, my head hurts)

I have never trusted writing that requires a PhD in philosophy, epistemology, literary theory and comparative linguistics to unravel. But then, that might just be me.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

One of Canada's best kept secrets: McGill philosophy prof Charles Taylor, one of the world's greatest living philosophers, perhaps the greatest living expert on Hegel, the NDP's former VP in the 1960s, and Jack Layton's former prof.

I had a a few classes with the man in the early 1980s. Crystal clear thinker, crystal clear classroom speaker, crystal clear writer.

So in summary, the point of views so far expressed, other than by Mr. Magoo, is "I don't understand."

Excelent and no further discussion of cultural steroetyping is required, as we have the answers.

Par for the course, I am sure that Ms. Ahmed would agree.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

If someone is such a bad writer that she can't express her ideas clearly without going into excessive jargon, then she has only herself to blame when people don't want to read what she has to say. After three years of philosophy and women's studies courses, I am totally sick of reading academics who think that the more jargon they stick in their prose, the more valid their point is. It's elitist and goes against every principle of inclusivity in my feminist body. It's academic snottery and I can't stand it.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Michelle ]

1) the article does not say anything that new - writers are influenced - often unconsciously - by the values and circumstances of their culture.

2) the article uses what I think is an unfair rhetorical strategy quite common in academic discourse as far as I have seen recently in the social sciences: anyone you happen to disagree with is "androcrentric" or "ethnocrentric" or neocolonialist or racist or some other bad name, without nuance or distinction. This must make for some very friendly conversations at faculty meetings

3) the article deploys the concept of "orientalism". I am reading a book called "Orientalism" by an author called Macfie (published in 2002). It is an examination of how academics of various persuasions have used Edward Said's notion of orientalism to analyse how Western scholarship has viewed the East or constructed an image of the East, specifically Muslim and Arab countries. "Orientalism" has become a very broad theoretical concept that allows a writer to attack anyone who disagrees with the writer. It tends to paint a picture (very explicit in Said's case) that ALL scholars in the West, in practically ALL disciplines have misunderstood that part of the world. The strokes are just a bit too broad for me. The writer who accuses others of "orientalism" places himself or herself above all others on some plateau of untainted intellectual and political purity. "I understand the truth, but you are all ethnocentric". It is an interesting rhetorical device. I take it with a grain of salt - there is truth in it, but it feels to me like it is used more for the purposes of polemics than to enlighten and analyze.

I agree with your comments about bullies.

As for clarity of language, one of the most famous sayings in the French language is "ce qui se conçoit bien s'énonce clairement et les mots pour le dire viennent aisément": a clear thought can be expressed in clear language and the words to express it flow easily. This cannot be said for the text we have been asked to analyse.

Ambiguous academic sludge-talk should always be considered as an attempt on the part of the author to hide unclear thinking.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

What she is saying is that, much of western feminist analysis of Islam is refracted through the lense of the image of Islam as developed by western men, among other things.

It is extremely shocking that the first thing that happens when Arab women start actually talking about what they think and feel they are attacked for being dense, verbose, and opaque. There hasn't even been an attempt to understand.

All of the discussion has been about the form, as an offense, not the content. Like this:

quote:

---

Ambiguous academic sludge-talk should always be considered as an attempt on the part of the author to hide unclear thinking.

---

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

Pomo post-this, post-that academics are. And deservedly so. I know exactly what Michelle is talking about.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

From what I'm able to decode with my trusty decoder ring, it seems to revolve around the assumptions that accompany Western study of the lives of Muslim women & how to recognize and abandon these assumptions (basic ethnocentrism, but with bigger words attached).

Seems to me that while one can be more rigorous or less, there's always going to be biases so deeply engrained as to be transparent to us... with the end result being no difference in kind, just a difference of scale.

So, I'm back to my original question: why not just ask Muslim women whether they're happy? Or if "happy" is a culturally loaded Western word, just look to see if they're smiling

quote:

---

These women often unreflexively set forth their concerns within their societal context as most important, uncritically use their culture's norms to judge others, and finally, leave unexamined their positions of privilege as citizens of formerly colonialist and, in many cases, neo-colonialist countries.

---

But enough said. I am not interested in this discourse, as it has nothing to do with the questions and point of veiw raised, except as an example of it.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

Perhaps it is the fact that less intellectual analysis is unavailable and less widely distirbuted, because the perspective and theory of women in the Arab world is ghetoized, in english speaking world, within the university systems.

quote:

---

I literally have no idea what you might be referring to. Which is fine. For someone who is not interested in a topic, you do respond an awful lot. Talk to the other people here if you prefer.

---

White feminists and women of colour feminists have been at odds since the beginning of feminism because of so many roadblocks. I think part of feminist theory is recognising that certain groups of people have more power and therefore the ability to marginalise, dismiss or silence those who do not. I think that this writer has been dismissed and silenced and I think that as long as this continues (especially on the larger scale) feminism will never succeed.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

The problem with the ethnocentric arguments is that it means no one can speak about anyone but themselves and family. If I as a white male cannot speak about issue concerning women from visible minorities no problem, I agree that my insights are from the outside looking in. What I have never understood is why those same women can make sweeping generalizations about white males. Duh doesn't the same logic apply?

We must strive to understand the other and that willalways requitre speaking in discourse about more than just oneself. I suspect that Moslem women will be all over the place. Some happy, some feeling oppressed and others felling abused. The questions is how is that related to religion and how is it related to culture. Western Christian thought used to believe that women were secondary partners in a marriage but that isn't the current view. Is the residue of that cultural or religious.

quote:

---

I agree that my insights are from the outside looking in

---

Sometimes that's where the best insights come from...the outside looking in.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: sheep ]

google islam feminist

google islam woman gender

islam feminist gender

I wanted to add some. Now I have assignments of my own to finish.

[ 27 January 2003: Message edited by: Shenanigans ]

It's impossible for me, as a Westerner (and especially as a Westerner who did not encounter Muslims much growing up), not to be biased when thinking of this. I can only really be aware that I am biased.

One thing that kind of shocked me, actually, was my own reaction to a woman in a face-covering. I see women in hijab all the time, and I'd find it pretty hard to accept those lively, opinionated women as "oppressed," but I'm not used to seeing women with their faces covered, and the one time I did see a woman with her nose and mouth covered as well as her head, my reaction was almost physical. I was not expecting that, and it disturbed me that I would be so immediately judgmental, but it also just disturbed me, period.

I don't think we can often compensate for our reactions in the immediate. We can keep them inside and then analyse and process them within the group (as opposed to caucus). I'm not used to women with their faces covered either and I sometimes have to catch myself making judgements or assumptions. I think then we can work to a point where we don't react at all.

I think reading feminist texts of women of colour from around the world have really helped me in a sense, because even though I am a woman of colour, I am totally immersed in Toronto culture and as great as that is, in the whole picture, it's pretty small and biased too! That said, (imnsho) there is the responsibility on our hands as women who fall under western culture (I'm assuming here, so please correct me if I'm wrong) to challenge and educate other feminists about their reactions to women veiling, and their own biases on islamic women.

While I do not know the experience of an islamic feminist wearing hijab, and therefore not speak from that place, I can question other feminists as to why they are having such strong reactions to the hijab and to examine that for themselves.

quote:

---

the enunciation of the foundations of the women's movement and feminist ideology within the industrialized world has been dominated by white, middle-class women. These women often unreflexively set forth their concerns within their societal context as most important, uncritically use their culture's norms to judge others, and finally, leave unexamined their positions of privilege as citizens of formerly colonialist and, in many cases, neo-colonialist countries.

---

This quote is a fine example of racial profiling and one of the most outrageous examples of a straw woman arguement I've encountered in quite sometime. You can dress an argument up in fancy language and at its core it can still be very weak.

This is brief, but clear, and written by a female Muslim academic.

A longer treatment of the subject. As interpreteed by this author, the scripture certainly doesn't appear egalitarian, but it's not misogynistic, either.

Obviously, I'm not qualified to evaluate these articles, but you know, they're readable...

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Smith ]

It seems to me trying to figure out whether hiding one's face is self aware modesty or a sign of repression by the Islamic patriarchy is like trying to figure out whether wearing extremely sexy clothes in public is a sign of empowerment or enslavement to a patriarchal culture that glorifies women as objects.

quote:

---

This quote is a fine example of racial profiling and one of the most outrageous examples of a straw woman arguement I've encountered in quite sometime. You can dress an argument up in fancy language and at its core it can still be very weak.

---

Class analysis is 'racial profiling?' Note the use of ther word 'often.' This is to indicate that the phrase is not absolute.

I think there has been plenty of work, academic and otherwise, that examines class in the women's movement. Are you suggesting that people's economic status does not change their point of view? That their race does not change the way society treats people, and therefore the way people perceive society?

How is the argument weak?

quote:

---

It seems to me trying to figure out whether hiding one's face is self aware modesty or a sign of repression by the Islamic patriarchy is like trying to figure out whether wearing extremely sexy clothes in public is a sign of empowerment or enslavement to a patriarchal culture that glorifies women as objects.

---

This is a really sailent point.

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

Your class and race to not determine how you view the world. Your experience growing up helps form your world view it doesn't determine it. So I guess you would prefer that Bush toady Rice's view of the world than Judy Rebicks?

When anyone makes sweeping generalizations about what others of another race believe and do, those remarks should be held to the same standard. The authors remarks are in fact the same thing she complains about a slanted opinion based on the authors view of another group.

I read the article as simply an example of a rhetorical dispute among academics vying for theoretical advantage. Or more precisely, as an attempt by one specific group of authors to use very abstract and generalizing ideas about "Race" capital-R, "Class" capital-C, "Ethnicity" capital-E, to argue against another group of authors.

The article is addressed polemically at other academics, not at actual women's movement organizers or workers out "in the real world", in real organizations. Like many other intra-academic debates, it does have a feeling of abstraction about it. From many of the people I know, in real life movements, people do tend to listen to each other more. A prime example, again in the Quebec context, would be the hijab issue in public schools in the mid-90s in Montreal where the French Quebec feminist movements worked very closely with the North African feminists (many of them refugees) from the Centre Maghrébin de Recherche et d'Information to fight against fundamentalist religious elements in Quebec. On the ground, the picture is very different from what is portrayed by hyper-theoretical academics.

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Mimichekele2 ]

quote:

---

When anyone makes sweeping generalizations about what others of another race believe and do, those remarks should be held to the same standard. The authors remarks are in fact the same thing she complains about a slanted opinion based on the authors view of another group.

---

But they are based on substantive analysis, and not thrown out as absolutes. They are not based on prejudice, but analysis of the prevailing social condtions. The author does not say: White people are like this because they are 'white,' they are saying that white people are born into a culture and economic relationship that makes them have a specific world view in relationship to non-white people. It is not their 'whiteness' that it the problem, but their social position.

It is the kind of analysis that could establish that Arab people might have similar misconceptions about Celts, had Turkey the ability to split England into two so as to provide a homeland for Sufis.

The relationship between Persians and Arabs has traditionally been of this kind.

quote:

---

The article is addressed polemically at other academics, not at actual women's movement organizers or workers out "in the real world", in real organizations.

---

quote:

---

Perhaps... (this is) because the perspective and theory of women in the Arab world is ghetoized, in (the) english speaking world, within the university systems.

Perhaps this is because the only Arab women who get even the marginal space to speak to this issue, must prove their worth within academia in order to get published at all.

---

Perhaps you should make an effort to read it for content, even if you find the mode of the article difficult, or find other examples which you think are clearer or better.

What wass the hejab issue in Quebec public schools?

[ 28 January 2003: Message edited by: Moredreads ]

quote:

---

It must be terrible to be a white feminist woman and burdened by such total lack of understanding and no sensitivity either tsh tsh.

---

Actually I know plenty of white feminists who are amazing. My best friend for example is leagues beyond most feminists. I wouldn't say that ALL white feminists are middle class and do not "get it" just like I'd hope that most people would not assume that all women of colour are ready to tear white women a new one. I don't suppose I'm going to get that though am I? I do know that white middle class feminists who are highly regarded by all feminists would probably take you to task for screaming racism because someone is criticising *some* thoughts and levels or lack thereof of awareness.

quote:

---

Mmm. I can accept that the concerns put forward by Second Wave feminists in the '60s and '70s tended to be those of white middle-class women, but sheesh, they were only human; they dealt with the injustice they knew about. And their efforts are, in a large part, what made it possible for other women to be heard.

---

I think many women are grateful and respect the efforts and accomplishments of second wave feminism. However the conciousness that it arose from was quite limited in terms of who it covered. Certainly, now some of the most popular names when people think of second wave feminism are those of Audre Lorde, or Gloria Anduluza, both critics and women struggling to find a voice. I think now as we move away from second wave, we need to create a new level of awareness to fight patriarchy, one that encompasses all women, instead of continuing to build on second wave, which was hard fought, hard won, but not applicable if women truly want to be seen as equal now (or then for that matter).

May I ask those who are cheering the movements of solidarity across Canada between white middle class feminists and feminists of colour if they are looking through the scope of women of colour?

quote:

---

The whole discussion of eradicating racism and oppression within feminist organizing and organizations has not even begun. If you were to ask World Majority Women,First Nations women, women with disabilities, poor women how well the mainstream feminist movement has addressed the issues in their lives you would understand how much work is required and that work begins with acknowledging systemic racism & oppression and our need to challenge this both personally & politically.

---

I don't think I could agree more. And stated more eloquently than I could hack.

quote:

---

This discussion so mirrors a thread I read on racism within the NDP???

---