I had trouble responding to a post by Lauren on Feministe entitled “Consider the Hijab: Blogging Against Racism” – or rather, it wasn’t the article itself I had so much difficulty reacting to, it was the discussion that followed. Par…

I don’t think a lot of Muslim women necessarily embrace it in that manner — for many it is tied up a lot more with spirituality and modesty and what they believe God wants than it was for me. And while a lot of girls talk about the objectification of women’s bodies, they may not be aware of how the hijab often represents the flip side of that coin — in America women’s bodies are sexualized, bared, and exploited; in Muslim communities women’s bodies are sexualized, covered, and closeted. In either case, women’s bodies are implicitly and explicity viewed as primarily sexual objects.

On a personal level, I have been increasingly dismayed to find that my attempts to buck the system while very successful in American society, are coupled with a lot of baggage in Muslim societies. There is an assumption that those who wear hijab are more pious and pure, which I reject completely, and that wearing the hijab means you accept the notion that men are uncontrollably attracted to women’s bodies. In compensation, I am known for arguing against the mandatory nature of hijab (as one posted pointed out, it is NOT in the Qur’an), and try to poke holes in Muslim peoples’ assumptions about me and the meaning of hijab. At the same time, it is frustrating, although I understand why non-Muslim people see it this way, to have to deal with the common stereotype that hijabbed women are submissive and oppressed.

Nonetheless, in a place like America, wearing hijab is a young woman’s choice, not something forced on them. I mean, honestly, how hard is it to walk out the door with your scarf on to please mommy or daddy, but the second the bus turns the corner, or you get to school, off it goes into the bookbag or the locker? Especially in a situation like the one with Muizza, where there aren’t any other Muslim kids to tattle.

An interesting dynamic that we’re finding in the Muslim community these days, in fact, are kids who are wearing it in defiance of their parents. Many parents are, for good reason, gravely concerned about their kids experiencing unpleasant or even violent racism in response to the hijab. Some worry that public school teachers will discriminate against them because of a choice. Some come from countries where hijab is not the norm and can’t quite understand why the kids see it as being so important. Others worry that like the Bangledeshi girl in NY, their daughters will be hauled in by homeland security. So, often, it is actually an act of defiance against the parents, as well as a rejection of the beauty myths of this country.

But, be all that as it may, I am increasingly uncomfortable with the perceived symbolism of hijab and the fact that my wearing can/might be interpretted as sympathy for those elements (particularly overseas) that require it (ala Iran, Saudi Arabia, and various Islamist parties who do violence to women who do not cover), or who interpret it as preserving a woman’s dignity, honor, etc. As though a woman without a head scarf cannot be modest, has no self-respect, etc. (Which, it should be clear, I consider pure bull-sh**). I’ve often said that if I were living in a country where there was intense societal pressure to wear one, I wouldn’t. I actively work in the Muslim community to combat the stereotypes of hijab/no hijab = purity/lack of purity

After 9-11, hijab has become more and more a political symbol — those who wear it associated with political Islam (correctly or incorrectly) and as being apologists for some of the more egregiously anti-women aspects of muslim society. (Whether it be the lack of leadership roles within the mosque, gender-defined social roles, or a defense of polygamy as a man’s right, etc). While I have for years felt that my personal stances and pov, which I have never had any hesitation to voice, compensated for some people’s misperceptions, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that I can no longer wear this scarf because there is no way in hell I want people (Muslim and non-Muslim) to think I approve of or condone current misogynist practices in various countries, or the Islamist/apologist parties that promote them. I cannot reconcile my rejection of those movements with wearing a piece of cloth that says to most people (Muslim and non-Muslim) that I accept them, even if I find it personally useful.

For many years, I vociferously disagreed with anyone who tried to tell me that my choice wasn’t essentially feminist. Sure, there are other ways to get the same message about objectification across, but this was my way, and it was damned effective too. Now, I am much more conflicted about it. I don’t want to give up a tool that I found useful, and in particular, I don’t want it to become a symbol of something that stands for exactly the opposite of why I started wearing it. But I’m afraid it is a losing battle, and I will in a very short time feel the negatives outweigh the positives enough that I will abandon it.

Anyway, that was WAY too much commentary, but thanks for posting such a thought provoking article.

He was the one who had the stuffed tiger, right? Great strip.

But I’m hardly going to take my information on immortality and the afterlife from a seven year old in a comic strip.

That would be silly.

that’s, of course, ignoring “words and symbols mean different things in different contexts” not being nihilism.

of course, that might not be true. all words and symbols are universal. so Blood gang members are actually communists. and so are states that voted republican. V-fingers always mean victory, so hippies were celebrating their victory in the bloody battle of Pentagon hill. also, Texas Longhorns fans are really into heavy metal. or the occult, I’m not sure which. and carrying a copy of Mao’s little red book is counterculture. even in China. you’re against the establishment if you have that book, which was once mandated by law that you carry in China. so China made everyone counter culture.

Possibly. It will be entirely your own choice, if so.

Take it up with Mr. Calvin. He seems to have a different view.

Entire ex-Catholic major world religions.

Oh, and a great many self-identified Catholics themselves, for most of those “centuries” to which you refer.

There is literally no limit to any argument if nothing can be defined and left as defined. Commenters here have seriously argued that the Roman Catholic eucharist doesn’t mean what it bloody well has meant for centuries–that because some people, including at least two priests, who consider themselves Catholic don’t believe what the eucharist has meant for centuries, then it doesn’t really mean that.

A hell of a lot more people than a few priests. Entire ex-Catholic major world religions. The analogy isn’t from Catholicism to Islam, but Christianity, Shakers through Gibsons, to Islam. Islam is not homogeneous. The eucharist, like most Christian rituals, has been defined in many different ways by different people. It makes no sense to insist that one broadly available definition is more valid than any other broadly available definition. Which is why I don’t think you understand this argument, to wit: To them. It doesn’t really mean that to them. And therefore not to their audience, or to the people evaluating their intent.

If that cannot be accepted, then what hope is there that any meaning of the hijab as a symbol can be had, here? Wasn’t that the topic? Ironic that I’m the one you scold for not thinking hard enough; think it through: how could this possibly end in so much as a hypothesis, still less an answer? Thanks, still, for your concern. It’s not hard-thinking that makes the meaning of the eucharist an open question–it’s quasi-intellectual, pomo preening.

Don’t confuse multiple meanings with a lack of meaning. The rationales for the hijab are variable. That doesn’t make the symbol overdetermined if the wearer chooses and communicates a particular meaning, any more than the eucharist in a Catholic ceremony is less meaningful because it also has a place–and a conspicuous lack of place–in rituals belonging to other Christian sects. Ignoring her interpretation of this symbol, one which certainly has a precedent beyond her, means ignoring a large part of the history and meaning of this symbol. It would be like pretending that Catholics are the only Christians ever to comment on the eucharist.

Okay, so I’m going to hell.

Possibly. It will be entirely your own choice, if so.

Thank you, Msgr. Bob.