Not trying to make it hijab day here at Feministe, but Russell sends on this article about Tunisia’s attempts to limit the headscarf in public, and I think it illustrates fairly well why this issue should matter to feminists.
For too long, the headscarf/veil has been seen as synonymous with “oppression.” Let me be clear: There are certainly oppressive aspects to any article of clothing that is required to be worn by women under patriarchal authority. The headscarf is no exception. Certainly, though, Western culture and Christian traditions aren’t free of these things either, and we continue to wage our wars over women’s bodies here, too.
But the headscarf debate matters on both ends: It matters when it’s required of women (socially or legally), and it matters when it’s banned (socially or legally). The reasons why headscarf requirements are problematic have been gone over many times before, and are obvious enough where I don’t feel the need to detail them. But bans on headscarves are equally problematic, but for different reasons. Bans on headscarves, veils, burqas, hijabs, or chadors turn particular classes of women into prisoners of their own homes. It confines them to the private sphere. It blocks them from public participation in the name of “modernism.” It only hurts women and girls, and therefore is no great victory for women’s rights.
A bar on headscarfs in public doesn’t have the effect of women leaving their scarves at home — it means that women who believe they have a religious duty to be covered will not participate in the public sphere. It means they won’t go to school. They won’t run for public office. They won’t work.
I’m not arguing that wearing the headscarf is a choice that’s entirely freely made. It’s made about as freely as my choice to wear moderately modest clothes to class now that I’m in professional school. That is, we’re fooling ourselves if we think that all of us in the West have complete and total freedom when it comes to how we dress, and we’re fooling ourselves if we argue that women who wear the headscarf in countries where it’s not required are making a choice independent of all other social, religious and political fetters. But there is a unique emphasis on the headscarf, from both inside Islamic societies and from outside of them. It’s tied up in culture, religion, sex, politics, and ideology. When it’s required, it largely reflects assumptions about men, their inability to control themselves sexually, and their inherent rights to public participation — that is, since men are naturally deserving of their place in the public sphere, and since men are also saddled with an innate uncontrollable animal sexuality which makes any woman an immediate distraction and a potential victim, the burden should be on women to cover themselves and protect themselves from men, who serve as both protector and aggressor. It’s backwards, but it’s not something that’s confined to any single religious belief. And from this perspective, the headscarf is problematic.
But the headscarf also gives certain classes of women greater mobility in their daily lives. It means that they can walk down the street without being harassed. It means that they can advocate for certain goals — like women’s rights — without having their religious credibility questioned. It means that they can escape being perceived as a sexual object for male pleasure.
None of these things should be viewed as endorsements of the headscarf. The fact that it gives women reprieve from a sexist society doesn’t actually do anything to combat that sexist society — but in the day to day, it makes life that much easier for many, many women and girls. And that matters.
When it’s banned, the only people it hurts are the women and girls who are deprived of education, of work, and of public interaction. It puts all the burden of combating extremisim, embracing enlightenment, and balancing religious belief with modern life on the backs of women. The arguments about it only reinstate the idea that women are what they physically present to the world, and that religious and governmental authorities have the right to dictate how women present themselves, because that presentation is representative of the greater culture and its “values” — which are largely shaped and determined by the men in charge. It treats women as symbols, not as autonomous beings deserving of full and unqualified human rights. And, again, it puts women in an impossible situation, where they must negotiate their religious beliefs, their political persuations, their physical safety, their social standing, and the laws of their country, and make a decision which will inevitably be under attack from someone.
As feminists, we should discuss the various social constraints imposed on women, including our clothing. What we shouldn’t do is support policies which, in the name of “modernism,” only serve to limit the mobility and the public rights of certain women and girls.
I’ll end by borrowing from an incredible post by the incomparable Ms. Lauren:
She answered the other students’ questions patiently. Most of all, she emphasized one thing: Yes, she would don the hijab on Monday. Underlining this statement was that demeanor I couldn’t place before. I could look just like you, she seemed to say, but I don’t want to.
I can’t even comprehend the courage it must have taken to take off that scarf, or the courage it will take to put it back on. I am still completely blown away.
Although I am aware that many feminists question hijab and women’s choice to don the Muslim head scarf, and that I myself have been skeptical of the choice to adhere to religious law associated with the Taliban, consider that in America being “hijabed” may be a radical act, an assertion of identity, willful acceptance of life on the margins in a time of a seeming holy war. Consider wearing the hijab as a feminist act, a performance of aggression against the hypersexualization of young women in America.
I think the best Western analogy to the hijab is the bra. I wish the feminists who so glibly dismiss the reasons a woman would want to wear the hijab for her own comfort would contemplate how they’d feel giving a presentation at a board meeting, wearing a thin knit top, dress pants – and no bra. I wouldn’t ask them to actually do it, of course; that kind of bravery is only expected of Muslim women.
(and yes, the social requirement for large-breasted women to wear bras at all times is indeed sexist, just as the requirement to wear the veil or the headscarf is. Yes, it can be physically uncomfortable not to wear one; no, the physical discomfort has nothing to do with the requirement to wear one or face harassment, insult, and catcalling.)
And, besides, lots of us would feel uncomfortable giving a presentation at a board meeting without one who aren’t in the least big enough to need one for physical comfort.
[...] g Jill’s previous post covered by bobhayes here, I’ll make some pointers on the headscarf debate matter. Or rather, a single extended point. [...]
I disagree. I feel like wearing a veil to fend off catcalling is pretty much in line with its original oppressive intention, rather than a statement againt the hypersexualization of women. They want you to cover up, or suffer the consequences: unwanted, uncontrollable attention from men. That sounds like hiding to me.
And it really doesn’t matter what a woman wears. You get hit on in all your sweaty, track-panted glory at the gym. You get hit on in your miniskirt and heels. You can get hit on in a hijab too.
A lot of things that women wear have a not-so-nice underlying message. Heels hobble you, etc. But I don’t think we have anything that is quite like a veil over your face. Your interactions with people are completely different when your face is covered. And in the workplace, where gender issues run rampant, how are you supposed to get taken seriously when you’re a voice and a pair of eyes underneath a bunch of fabric? Even a man would get Othered pretty quickly if he did something like that.
I’m not saying it has to be outlawed… I’m just saying that it seems being veiled is a step back.
Why do you hate America, Jill?
;)
I’ve been saying this for years. Thank you for articulating it in a way that I couldn’t Jill. In Cairo, the men still catcall the women in higab. It stops nothing. I personally think many muhaggib (women who wear higab) are pretty sexy.
Jill isn’t just talking about a veil, she’s also talking about a headscarf.
Although I see the head scarf as something oppressive I also see forcing women not to wear it as being oppressive.
After all they still do not have a choice, until women can choose to do with their bodies what they wish to do it does not matter what the woman wears or does not wear, until women have free choice they will be subjugated by an authoritarian patriarchy.
I have worn hijab (hair, never face) in Saudi Arabia and Jordan and Syria (simply so I would not stand out as an American) and have been catcalled, and even pinched. I had the same experience in Iran in the 70s. I have also gone about with my hair uncovered and have noticed no difference. Sexual harassment from men in Islamic countries is just part of the landscape. If you speak Muslim women who actually live in the middle east (as opposed to women who live here) they will tell you that they are harrassed by men and boys CONSTANTLY. The “harrassment” that the hijab protects a woman from is the harassment of being gossiped about, of loosing her reputation; the whole damn thing is about honor. Hijab does not protect women from sexual abuse, harassment or rape. It does protect a woman from being accused of being a slut. Which could save her life–as honor killings can be/and are committed based simply on rumors.
I wore a scarf covering most of my hair for many years. I was regarded as eccentric, nothing worse. I suppose now people would assume I was Moslem.
The reason was actually the same reason that Moslem women wear them: I got hit on more, and in more offensive ways, if my hair was showing. And this is in the nominally Christian US in the seventies pretty much up to the end of the century, when I cut my hair short (got a crew cut in fact).
So I totally understand the appeal of hijab.
In other words, exactly like a bra.
In other word, exactly like a bra. /broken record
(I am not disagreeing with either of you.)
(I am also not equating all forms of sexism across cultures, pretending that they are the same, no matter how minor or severe. That “six 6 harem” essay, for example, was an unconvincing and poorly argued failure. However, the hijab isn’t even as uncomfortable as a bra, let alone as constrictive. There’s a very real equivalency here.)
This seems overly dismissive: “We do things, too” does not in this case connect to “so this is OK”. Yes, there are patriarchally-imposed things which women are “expected” to wear by society. But there is no flipping comparison to the hijab. really. I mean, can you show me a “western culture” thing women MUST WEAR? Bras aren’t in that cetegory.
Are you still talking about the UK? Because news reports from the UK don’t seem to support the view at all. Plenty of people are harassed because they’re Muslim.
On the one hand you keep saying “no endorsement” and “not good” but overall your piece comes off as, well, endorsing it. Which is it?
This seems to ignore any potential benefits of banning certain types of religious dress (of which the hijab is only one). The press has focused on the hijab. btu the UK has discussed a variety of dress restrictions in the past. Are you familiar with them?
Wonderful post, Jill.
I can understand where you are going, but I can’t say that I agree (that it is the best analogy, anyway). It may just be personal, since I find that going out in a “comfort bra” (read – nothing or a band of spandex that does nothing), I get less attention and I *feel* more modest. I don’t do it often, of course, because it hurts to be in it more than an hour or two.
More importantly, I can’t function without a bra. It isn’t just “uncomfortable” – it is debilitating. I wouldn’t just be confined to my home, sadly…I’d be confined to my bed/couch.
I guess that most of this is a reaction to the fact that you seem to be discounting people who cannot function (due to pain) without support. I agree that many women (most, honestly) wear bras on a daily basis due to modesty, but not all. What I am saying is that it is a good analogy, just not a perfect one (though few are).
I do agree that it is important to help western women understand that the hijab is about modesty (and religious belief, of course). I don’t like seeing modesty forced on anyone – nor do I want to see the state or any authority tell women what they cannot wear, if they choose. That is the important thing to focus on, I think. The is about controlling women’s bodies and actions – and I am always against that.
Thanks for an excellent post.
Sophonista at 3:56
No, not exactly like a bra. If a woman in many Islamic cultures/families behaves in a way which can jeapardize the family honor, she can pay with her life. Not being “properly covered” can lead to gossip, which can lead instantly to her male relatives killing her to salvage their honor and reputation. There is no 3 strikes and you are out–it is serious, serious business.
I have gone without a bra in this culture (ironically, it is not as common as it was 20 years ago) and it wasn’t really a big deal because I still get “hit” on by strange men on the street wearing a winter coat! And I have never ever had to fear for my life because I didn’t wear one. The only place I have been “required” to wear one is in job situations, but frankly, I would rather wear a bra than a necktie as I hate tight things around my neck, including turtlenecks.
.
Jill, I’ve read several of your posts about the hijab or headscarf, and they’re always intelligent and well-informed, but I’m always left with the same question. You generally seem to be defending the hijab, or at least rebutting criticisms of it, on purely pragmatic grounds. At times it seems that your position is, I agree with the critics that the hijab is bad and with the reasons they give, but banning it would be even worse. But then at other times your argument seems to veer more towards defense of the hijab as a choice some women make. In this post, for instance, at points you seem to me to be suggesting an equivalency between those who would ban the hijab and those who would require it, because both are defining women chiefly or exclusively in terms of their appearance. I guess my question is, to the extent that you are “defending” the hijab, is it on purely pragmatic grounds, that banning it restricts the freedom of countless women more severely than most feminists in the West can even imagine? Do you see the hijab as a patriarchal imposition, so that we have to be suspicious whenever a woman, the Middle East or elsewhere, claims that she has “chosen” to wear it? Or do you think it can defended in more positive terms?
But there is no flipping comparison to the hijab. really. I mean, can you show me a “western culture” thing women MUST WEAR? Bras aren’t in that cetegory.
Surely this depends on just which Muslim culture you’re talking about? Just as you can’t lump the hijab, niqab, and burkah all together as being the same degree of restrictive clothing, so, too, there’s a difference between wearing the hijab in Iran, where it’s imposed by law, and in other places, where it’s imposed by social pressure (and also differences in the degree of social pressure involved). Not everyone who wears a hijab is wearing it for fear of force or honor killings.
I’m not convinced that wearing a bra for modesty’s sake in some Western country is drastically different in nature from wearing the hijab for modesty’s sake in the same country.
I guess that most of this is a reaction to the fact that you seem to be discounting people who cannot function (due to pain) without support. I agree that many women (most, honestly) wear bras on a daily basis due to modesty, but not all. What I am saying is that it is a good analogy, just not a perfect one (though few are).
This I’ll agree with. For my own comfort, the less support the better, and I try to make the nod to convention with bras that do as little as possible. But I know other women’s mileage varies a lot here. And, though a hijab not particularly constrictive, it also doesn’t serve any useful purpose other than signalling modesty, as far as I know. So, yeah, a useful analogy, but not a perfect one.
I’m enormously conflicted about this. I have no problem with the French headscarf ban in schools, actually, largely because I think the oppression of the required headscarf is worse than the oppression of not being allowed to wear the wanted headscarf. As for this country, I remain conflicted, but accepting of what Jill and Lauren suggest, that it can be an act of feminist rebellion. I am prepared to believe that the same garment can be so flexible as to be an act of independent defiance in one context and a symbol of oppression in another.
Seriously? The oppression of being forced to wear a headscarf is worse than being unable to attend a secular school? Because while I’m sure there are instances of girls choosing to attend school without their headscarves, whether they were forced to wear them or not, I’m also sure there are instances of girls or their parents deciding that it’s better for them to attend a religious school rather than violate what they believe to be the dictates of their religion. And I think it’s really shitty that girls have to make that choice, especially since boys don’t. I think girls not being allowed to get an education is worse than girls being forced to wear a hijab. But that’s just me.
I feel like bras are often more immodest than modest, in that they’re meant to call attention to your chest. I mean, in the case of large-breasted women, maybe it’s more about modesty and support. But in a lot of other cases, bras are about making you look “better.” All of mine have padding or some other method of giving me the illusion of a great bustline.
My bras make me feel more attractive. I think they do that for everyone (assuming you’re wearing the right size). All I get off of the hijab is a sort of shame.
Anyone ever read al-Muhajabah? She has an actual muslim perspective on veiling. And is a pretty good blogger anyways.
And I haven’t been keeping up with this thread (honestly, as someone who grew up muslim, it all sounds to me like ‘are americans oppressed by having to wear jeans’ or something) so I don’t know if this has come up already, but muslim men have almost exactly the same constraint on their clothing that muslim women do. If you look at the traditional dress of muslim men it’s the same loose robes that don’t show the shape of the body accompanied by a head covering that women wear.
Al-Muhajabah wrote an article on this, and if you scroll down about halfway you can see some photos of men in islamic attire.
I just find it interesting that nobody ever mentions this. (If somebody mentioned this, nevermind. I’m too lazy and busy to read the whole thread.)
Actually, for me, to tell the truth, bras are entirely about making sure my nipples don’t show through my clothes (or making it less likely, anyway). That’s the only thing they do for me. None of mine have padding, and I’m too small to need the support, so my bustline doesn’t look any better in them. If I’m wearing an outfit where I’m quite sure no one can see my nipples, I’ll skip the bra, and hope no one can tell I’m not wearing it.
On the other hand, I have worn head scarves that made me feel prettier, but then, they were attractive headscarves, that I wore for decoration, and I didn’t have anyone to tell me I was immodest if I didn’t wear them.
Once, I spent some days wearing a hijab as part of some solidarity with Muslim women thing (but dropping it at work, because I couldn’t bring myself to go so far as to look weird at the office). The main thing I remember was that I felt as I couldn’t do ordinary things like browsing Cosmopolitan in the checkout line, because if I was dressing so that I could be mistaken for Muslim, I didn’t want to be mistaken for a bad Muslim woman. So I was kind of glad to go back to regular Western clothing. I don’t know how I’d experience it, though, if I’d actually grown up with the expectation that I wear it.
Also, if you go to this page and scroll to the bottom there’s some pictures of the different styles of hijab, just so people can compare to the male pictures (and so they know what they’re talking about).
(my first comment is in moderation so that may not make sense)
How did you get that I think it’s ok? I thought I was pretty clear in the post that I don’t think it’s ok that these wars are waged over women’s bodies. I think it’s bad, wherever it happens. I was just pointing out that social arguments over body covering isn’t a phenomenon that’s isolated in the east.
As for women who “must wear” the hijab, are you talking about all Muslim women? All women in the Middle East? All women in Islamic countries? Who?
There are plenty of Muslim women who don’t wear the hijab. There are plenty of majority-Muslim countries where the hijab is discouraged or even outlawed. Believing that it’s a universal requirement is fairly ignorant.
While the hijab has many negative connotations in our culture it still comes down to the choice of the woman in my opinion.
If a woman chooses to practice a religion and adhere to it’s customs of wearing specific clothing, praying at certain times, celebrating specific holidays, it is still feminism.
Feminism is about the freedom of women chosing for themselves what their lives will be. Those choices all have consequences. Each woman must decide on her own. The glorious thing about freedom is that not all of us have to make the same exact choices.
I’d no more take off my pentacle that I choose to wear than I would expect a muslim woman to take off her headscarf, nor a christian to remove their cross necklace, nor a married woman or man their wedding rings.
Banning any type of clothing is not going to resolve the core issue. The core issue is one of the foundational beliefs of all three monothesist religions. That belief is that women are the downfall and weakness of men because of their sex. Each of these religions teaches that men are not responsible for many of their actions because of the sexuality of women. Women make a great scape goat and have made a great goat for thousands of years.
The question comes down to… How does one undo the belief that a “god” is not the sexist savage homicidal with no self control primitive people have made “god” out to be?
It’s complicated. That’s the answer. If you’re looking for a black-and-white “This is always bad in all contexts” or “This is always good in all contexts,” you’re in the wrong place and you’re talking to the wrong girl. My point is that I think the veil/headscarf/hijab springs from a sexist society, but that it’s evolved to where it can mean many different things to many different women, given their context. It can be an anti-colonialist statement, or a statement against the sexualization of girls and women, or a reclaimation of traditionalism. It can be all of those things and at the same time remain patriarchal and “bad.”
Complicated.
This is a good question, and it’s hard for me to answer. I think part of the reason that it’s difficult is that I’m fairly conscious of my position as an outsider looking into a culture that is fairly foreign to me. The hijab, to me, is a striking symbol — to women who have grown up with the hijab just being what everyone wears, it doesn’t hold that same symbolism. That said, I do think that it’s a patriarchal symbol, but it’s a patriarchal symbol that can also mean many different things in a modern context. That doesn’t mean that it’s enough for one to argue that it’s a “choice” to wear it and that’s that. I don’t think that Western feminists can even argue that about our own conformist clothing choices.
So I primarily defend the hijab on pragmatic grounds, because banning it is a net ban for women and girls. But I also think that there are situations where it can take on multi-layered meanings, and that wearing it in those situations can be positively defended.
An example that I gave in another thread was that of a female Muslim comic, who didn’t wear the headscarf in her daily life, but often wore it during her shows. Her point in wearing it was to dispel Western notions of who the woman behind the headscarf is — to show that she can be funny, loud-mouthed, intelligent and witty, and that she isn’t automatically passive. In that instance, is it fair to say that the hijab is simply a patriarchal symbol and is therefore “bad” unless it’s worn out of necessity? I don’t think so.
Hope that clarifies things a little bit. As usual, I’m still sorting out my thoughts on this one, and it’s always complicated.
Is this true? I thought that the modesty requirement was dictated by the aura — that is, you’re required to cover the “aura” parts of your body. My understanding is that the aura for men was the genital and surrounding area, and for women it’s the whole body. But I could be wrong. Or I could only be talking about one school of Islamic thought.
Now I certainly could be wrong too, and it could be one of those things where the sacred texts-say-one-thing-society-does-another things that has driven me to atheism, but in muslim circles modest dress is not a female-only thing. My father, for instance, doesn’ t wear shorts or short sleeves, even in the summer. And he prefers to cover his head with a little cap (called a kufi).
In my experience (and granted, that’s only in America where people are *pretty much* free to do what they want) modest dress is about wearing loose fitting, non-flashy clothes that don’t reveal, and to cover your head/hair. Not about hiding (just) women.
I think I remember hearing someone who fought in the first gulf war talking about a boxing magazine they couldn’t get there because men with no shirts on was ‘pornographic.’ Just an anecdote.
But really, if you look at traditional islamic dress for men and traditional islamic dress for women there’s not a huge huge difference.
(Insert obligatory statement that I’m against law or social custom that forces people to dress a certian way against their will, not that I should have to insert that because it’s obvious to anyone who isn’t willfully stupid that that’s bad…)
Okay, so I looked it up. For men, the “aura” is from navel to knee, and for women it is from upper chest to knee. Which is pretty much the same standard of ‘naughty bits’ we have in America.
Also, I think it dates to a time when men did manual labor outdoors in the hot desert sun, so had to have the ability to take their shirts off (and of couse in a patriarchal society they’re the ones making the rules and can leave themselves this ‘loophole.’)
But modest dress for men is definitely observed amongst muslim men as well as women, at least all of the muslim men I’ve known.
Modesty in dress for muslims fits into a bigger framework of a sharp divide between public and private life. So, the body is private and only to be shared with your spouse/family.
re: the whole thing with the bra v. hijab
I think that the bra is being compared to the hijab because the woman would likely find it shocking to go without it suddenly. When I was younger, I only wore short sleeves to mid forearm and I was nervous to transition to sleeveless. I’m sure that seems silly to a lot of people (and it does to me, because during the summer I pretty much wear nothing *except* sleeveless), but those few square inches of fabric were a big deal at the time. Likewise, when I read sophonisba’s post, I gulped a little at the thought of not wearing a bra, since I’ve worn one practically half my life. I can see that if you’ve had your head covered your whole life, it would take a lot of adjusting to if you decided to go scarf-less.
I don’t think all Muslim women wear veils. Particularly in more secular countries and in Central Asia. Even those who decide to don hijab do so to a varying degree.
As a feminist, I do have issues with the idea of women veiling because they believe female bodies are inherently sinful. (In fact, I think that Muslim men who force women to wear burkas so they will not tempt men and Western men who think that women in shorts deserve street harassment, have the same viewpoint – that women’s bodies are dirty sex objects.) But I’m not Muslim nor do I live in a part of the world where the predominant culture is Muslim, so I’m somewhat reluctant to make many sweeping statements.
Sort of OT, but about bras, I think some rather busty women *do* need and want the support. I worked in lingerie for a while and a woman who was a 38D or DD asked for a pushup bra. I registered some surprise and she explained that pushup bras are the only ones with stiff/thick enough fabric and sufficient underwire to provide support for her. Even though I’m a 34A-B who doesn’t need a sportsbra to run, I know that jiggling can be uncomfortable, sometimes painful and even result in injuries. Although I mostly wear bras for the security blanket thing, because I’m very used to wearing another garment underneath my shirt.
Actually, referring to the post that Jill references above, it appears Muizza wore something that was more like a Dupatta, judging from the PP link.
One idea people should absolutely dump is that the hijab is some kind of anti-imperialist/anti-colonialist form of resistance. The hijab/veil/burqa, besides the various critiques already given on this blog, can serve as a form of Islamist/Islamic recuperation. Let me argue with an example.
In the Iranian revloution 1979 Iranian leftists aligned (with grave consequences) themselves with the Islamists to get rid of the Shah. A few months following the revolution Ayotollah Khomeni imposed by law the wearing of the veil. Thousands of Iranian women immediately mobilized and protested in the streets against these dress restrictions. They were denounced by the Iranian Islamists as bourgeois, perfumed westernized women. Most of the Iranian left remained silent or also ridiculed these women. Suffice to say soon the Iranian left was killed, exiled, jailed, tortured or repressed.
Anyways religious dress was a tool used to recuperate the revolutionary anti-western/anti-shah movement into the consolidation of the Islamist state. I would say the hijab functions as way of handing power to a religion. Though fighting it with bans is in most cases probably the wrong way to go.
Not to be argumentative, but my boyfriend and I both attend large public universities, with numerous international students (in addition to mine having a diverse American-born student population), including many Muslim students. Of the male students, I cannot think of any who dress in such a way as to distinguish themselves from non-Muslims (that is, in the traditional clothing from the link above). None cover thier heads, wear loose robes, or anything other than typical student clothes (usually jeans and t-shirts). Female Muslim students, on the other hand, generally (but not always) wear distinguishing clothes (usually a headscarf and other clothes of varying degrees of modesty). I’m not entirely sure how I feel about the situation in England, but I think it is worth pointing out that in my experience (two different large public universities in the South) the restrictions on male dress are not observed in the same way as those on female dress.
I don’t think that’s right. I think that it’s easier for male Muslims to comply with standards of modesty without calling attention to themselves, because those standards don’t require them to do anything that ordinary Americans don’t often do. I don’t know whether someone is wearing long pants because he prefers long pants or whether he’s wearing them to be modest. Whereas Muslim requirements for women often (subject to interpretation) require women to cover their hair, something that isn’t common in mainstream American culture. Therefore, they stand out more.
So I guess that’s the kicker. Is the big deal that the clothes are oppressive, or is it that they “distinguish themselves from non-Mulims”?
But here’s the other thing. You say these women are international students. Let’s think a bit about what that entails. In all likelihood they came alone to a place where they didn’t know anyone, in a country which they might well perceive to be hostile to them, to study in an educational system which is probably quite different from the one they’ve been in to date, in which classes may well be conducted in something other than their first language. (All of that is true of most international students.) These women are brave and independent and career-minded, and someone has given them the message that they’re entitled to take chances and make sacrifices and leave their families to pursue their education. Why is all of that overshadowed by what they choose to put on their heads?
Jill, I have tremendous respect for your writing and opinions on all matter of issues, but here I feel you are really missing the boat.
You have a point that, sure, in the west, we have battles over what women wear, and sure, there is a matter of choice involved. But you are missing the point that the hijab is a forceable barrier between Muslim women and the ‘West’.
It is a way for them to take their fundamentalist roots with them everywhere they go. Back in oppressive Islamic countries, they have to do it for safety or honor (which is sometimes the same thing, see honor killings). In the West though, the hijab is used by men to prevent ‘the West’ from infiltrating good Muslim women with our licencious culture. It IS a barrier, that is why it is so important.
Convincing Muslim women to engage in western society fully is the key to a revolution in women’s rights in the Muslim world.
(Yes, your point that it might prevent some women from engaging initially is taken, but in the long run that is just not a realistic option, at least in a healthy society which forces girls to go to school even if it against the wish of their families)
Preventing the willfull segregation of Muslim communities, ala Europe is a key to fighting the ‘Clash of Civilizations’ forces at work (in both the West and Muslim world).
Even if you don’t like the idea of enforcing our ideas of women’s rights on their communities, it is fine to say if that if they decide to come to the west, they have to play by our rules and leave that crap in Tehran.
And if you don’t think removing the overt oppresion of women in the Muslim world is a cultural norm worth imposing, then you have no claim to its universality at home.
Thanks for a thoughtful analysis of a complicated issue.
I had an incident in which construction workers whistling and carrying on, and I turned around to reveal my very pregnant stomach. Catcalls ceased immediately. A perfect example of the whore/madonna stereotype that women must face.
I like the bra analogy. If a woman doesn’t wear the proper garment, she’s a whore. No one is asking men to cover themselves, and there’s no male insult comparable to “whore.”
Jinny – There are a fair amount of Muslim women at my college. Although they do dress modestly, most of their clothes look like they were bought in the West – most of them wear a headscarf, a knee length dress, bootcut jeans and a sweater. However, you’re right to the degree that I assume there are also Muslim men at my school, but I can’t pick them out right away. There was a Frontline special recently that had footage from a Muslim Pakistani community in California, and the men there *were* wearing caps and shalwar kameez (I’m not sure if that’s the right term, but the long robe and trousers). FWIW I’ve also seen some Sikh men wearing turbans, but other than that, they basically dress like Western men.
I agree with Sally,too, that it says something that we’re actually seeing these women in public – they are outside the house by themselves and getting educations. I’ll also add that a few of those Muslim women aren’t afraid to be seen in public with me, even though I’m clearly not Muslim.
And are all headscarfs inherently bad, like the debate about the teacher seemed to indicate? What about presumably Orthodox Christian Russian women wearing headscarves? What about the retro-style Western headscarf? For that matter, what about Mormons who have to dress modestly (I knew a Mormon girl whose parents wouldn’t let her wear sleeveless shirts)? Or Orthodox Jewish women who cover their hair? Or even Sikh women (like in the movie “Bend it like Beckham”) who wear “traditional” clothing? Or is it only Muslims who are the problem?
Sue: I don’t think the headscarf has sole responsibility for the segregation of Muslim communities in Europe. Racism, xenophobia and religious prejudice on the part of the Europeans also plays a role. (And yes, even self-professed liberals can be bigoted.) Furthermore, if you think about the Pat Buchanan types in the US wailing about losing “our culture”, (white) American culture is only 200 some years old, whereas some European states have traditions that date back over a thousand years – they have more of a culture to lose than we do. They don’t have a tradition of immigrants like we do, and until relatively recently, most were small and fairly homogenous nations. (I do understand that some European countries have religious/ethnic minorities, but they are white, native to the country and not comparable to people coming from thousands of miles away). The US, for all its faults, and I’ll be the first one to tell you that racism still exists in this country, has at least struggled through controversies regarding slavery, segregation, civil rights and yes, immigration. Most European countries really haven’t. I’m a US citizen descended from nonwhite immigrants and personally I would be afraid to go to Europe because of the racism.
P.S. Ian Buruma’s book “Murder in Amsterdam” does a better job of boiling down the immigrant situation.
Sally, my point was that no male Muslim students that I am acquainted with in either school wear the traditional garmets from the link above– none in robes, etc. None cover their head, none cover their arms, etc. (I can’t say for sure about the pants vs shorts because the students I am familar with at one university are required to wear long pants to use the labs, and pants are the norm at the other because it is kept very cold inside.However, I would note that many of the men wear tight pants, not anything particularly loose or unreavealing.) Its not that I don’t think the women are brave for coming here to study so far from home– I do! I am just pointing out that the norms of modesty are being enforced unevenly. Female students’ behavior is being constrained in a way that male students’ is not, even when the pair of students are a married couple.
exangelina— I feel ambigously about any religious expression in public, so no, it isn’t just Muslims. In any case I think if such expressions are going to be allowed, just a headscarf is fairly unobjectionable, whereas something that covers the face is much less so. To be fair, none of the Muslim women I have referred to cover their faces. While a few dress the way you describe (pants, etc.), most at the least wear a skirt, and some where robe-type garments. I just wanted to be clear that both sexes are not conforming to the dress requirements in the same way.
Here is an interesting article by a Muslim woman in Britain who tried out niqab-wearing for a few days: Even Other Muslims turn and look at me.
I am personally extremely uncomfortable with blatant prostelizing of religion, particularly in public educational situations. I would be extremely uncomfortable if a teacher in my child’s school read the bible (to herself) during classtime. I would be uncomfortable if the bible was prominantly displayed on her desk. I would not care if a classmate carried or read a bible. Teachers are role models, and if a teacher was “blatant” about her religrion, I would see it as a covert/overt attempt to influence children (many modes of Islam, like Christianity purports to be the be-all end-all in terms of religion). I would be very upset if a Muslim teacher had to stop a class in order to conform to a strict interpretation of a prayer schedule, and I see niqab-wearing in that vein. It is a very rigid interpretation to a code of modesty for which there is no universal aggreement even within Islam. I also find myself thinking of the Jewish families in Delaware who were forced out of their school districts due to the local insistence on incorporating evangelical Christian prayers and beliefs into public school events.
exangelena I never said the headscarf was soley, or even significantly, responsible for Muslim segregation in Europe, all of the things you pointed out are true.
I did say that it is a way that the fundamentalist patriarchy attempts to keep that segregation going. I think people are begginning to wake up to the idea that some of the logical extensions of hardline multiculturalism just lead towards ethnic segregation.
It is natural for recent immigrant communities to be relatively homogenous, but the hope is over time, with repeat exposure to mainstream culture and society, that generations become completely integrated into a nations fabric (the US is a good example of this with the notable exception of the African American community).
At this point, I seriously have doubts that a sexual reformation is going to be able to come from purely within the Muslim world. It is going to have to be the examples of Muslim women living fully integrated western lives which, by demonstration and repatriated activism, gets the ball rolling.
I admit it is a rather extreme move, but we have to take strong positions to make up for the lost time. We have been losing an argument we didn’t even realize we were having for the past 30 years. It is time to show the world that we take women’s rights seriously, even if their oppression is cloaked in religion and identity politics.
A lot, I suspect, depends on where you are when wearing the headscarf.
Wearing it in a traditionally Muslim country because your family will kill you if you don’t is certainly not a feminist statement.
But wearing a headscarf, or dressing modestly (with or without religious inspiration) can be a profoundly feminist statement, in places like the US.
You’re going to judge me based on how stylish my hair is? You can’t. Because I won’t let you see it.
You say I have to shave my legs, and exercise to have the “ideal” figure? Maybe I do, maybe I don’t, but you won’t know unless I choose to show you.
You say I have to wear a bra? Maybe I am, maybe I am not, but you can’t tell.
At least in the US, there is the assumption not just that people can judge you by your looks, but that they have a right to see you, and you have an obligation to show them. Throwing a wrench into the system, the assumption of showing and being judged, challenges the demands made of women, does a great deal of feminist good.
[...] Headcoverings
Posted by zuzu @ 1:33 pm
Okay, so in comments to one of the Hijab Monday posts folks got onto the subject of what kind of [...]
I think Western democracies should ignore and/or accommodate Muslim (and other) religious headgear in the public sphere. I’ve got my own theories about whether certain cultural practices are misogynist, at home and abroad. But outside academic discussion, many of these distinctions don’t really matter. These garments shouldn’t interfere with full public participation unless we let them.
If people who are free and equal under the law choose to cover their hair or their faces, we should respect their religious and cultural expression.
The hijab and other forms of religious covering are becoming more popular because religious conservatives have reframed public displays of piety as symbols of resistance to racism, imperialism, and other social and political problems. (This is hardly unique to Islam.)
The more the West demonizes and denigrates the hijab, the more powerful the symbol becomes. As long as there are xenophobes who rail against the hijab and scheme to take it away, the hijab remains a way to defy the xenophobes and assert one’s religious and cultural identity. Heck, part of the reason I cheer on girls in headscarves is because they’re telling the racists to fuck off!
In the West? Word.
In the West, yes-and anywhere else where women have both the right to refuse and majority social pressure to reject the veil.
This is an example of what I would call an ignorant statement. While I’m sure you didn’t mean it, this is simply stated false. In Egypt, the upper class reject the idea of the Hijab in no uncertain terms. You are considered to be an ignoramus, backwards and “village-y” should you wear it. In Morrocco, Tunisia, Pakistan, Indonesia, Sri Lanka, and even the United States, it’s the same concept. The “elite” (in most Islamic countries) reject it in its entirety to the point of disowning their daughters should they choose to practice this tenant. Even in Saudi Arabia, in a country which forcibly makes the women wear it in public, the elite (and even the middle class in the attempt to mimic the elite) take off the Hijab as soon as they get on the airplane.
I’m a Muslim woman who was raised here and would consider myself “practicing” as well. While I cannot obviously speak on behalf of every Western Muslim woman, I can say that I take extreme offense when someone states that what I wear is because of patriarchial influences *only* and therefore, I’m doing it not because of MY DECISION to wear it, but because it’s just a bunch of bulls*** I’ve been fed. No one and I mean NO ONE is in a better position to tell me what my thoughts, motivations, feelings on any given matter are other than me. And if you think you are, then you are nothing more of the same for which you claim to be against: patriarchy (be it from male or female perpetuity.)
I think in the end, what some people can’t get past is the idea that I *WANT* to do this to myself and they can’t reconcile that with what they believe is “best” for me. What can I say, other than get over it… Live and let live for God’s sake, and let’s find some common ground like Education, Advocacy, Voting Rights-none of which is being contested by those who wear the damn 4×4 piece of fabric or freakin’ micro-mini….
Sorry Lindsay! After re-reading your original comment, I believe you did not negate what I was getting at!
:: blushing ::
I guess you could say I’m used to taking issue w/this I’ve become agitated and didn’t read through correctly!
No problem, Sylvs. Sorry if I was unclear.
Sue – Sorry if I misinterpreted your comments. While I don’t know your ethnic background or nationality – I’m curious as to what you mean by “complete integration”. Do people have to give up all the traditions of their Old World ancestors and act according to Anglo-Protestant-American norms? Is it rocking the boat to celebrate St. Patrick’s Day, Cinco de Mayo, Chinese New Year, wear a yarmulke or wear a kilt? Although my family has been in the US for almost a hundred years and English is my first and only language, would I be out of line if I decided to wear a kimono or observe Obon, because I might offend Anglo-Protestant-American sensibilities? And despite the facts that I mentioned earlier (US citizenship, a lifetime spent in the US), would that refusal to go along with said standards make me un-American? What traditions are harmful (like, obviously, honor killing or footbinding), which ones are ok, and who gets to decide?
By the way, I’m not sure what you mean about American blacks not assimilating into American culture. They have been here longer (with the exception of African and Caribbean immigrants) than pretty much anyone else except for Native Americans and people who came over on the Mayflower.
Ursula said:
Word. The west has its own oppressions of women, which are conveniently ignored during this conversation about muslim women and what they should/should not wear, which ironically, sounds like the same ‘ole tune with just a few new lines.
Sue says:
Your rules? Who do you speak for? Who is this mythical ‘our’ that so many of us have to heed to? Hasn’t that ‘our’ meant a white man atop a horse with a whip in his hand and a dollar in the other? Just checkin’ here cause my idea of a ‘free and secular society’ doesn’t have the ‘play by our rules or get out’ clause.
exangalena says:
I hope that this was just an oversight of articulation and that you certainly do not mean to say that the US is all done or even appropriately begun on a larger cultural level, to deal with how over 200 years of its growth came from the free labor of millions of captive peoples and the attendant cultural/economic developments around this fact.
sue says:
I don’t know what you mean by homogenous, you mean homogenous amongst themselves as sharing their own cultural mores and identities? Or that immigrants more quickly assimilate?
What in god’s name is this “national fabric” of which you speak that one must integrate with? Is it the James Dobson/Pat Buchanan world of anglo/christian dominance? I don’t understand.
In my community, to which many refugees settle, many women wear traditional dress, including beautiful fabrics from their native Africa in flowing robes, head scarfs and might I add, beautiful dark, dark skin that radiates like a beacon among a sea of white faces here.
They must in fact learn a new language, see snow for the first time, learn to drive, get accustomed to a whole plethora of new standards and cultural mores, including the good old “N—er go home” standard that every person of color must endure here. Can they not have the freedom to hold onto that which is familiar and dear to them without further fear of shame and retribution? Who must they keep happy? Their immediate family or the iron hand of the state? The state which ironically, they’ve been told is all about freedom to practice one’s own religion without fear of restriction or retribution.
Like another poster said, I am more concerned with women being allowed to vote, having access to proper medical care, education and economic opportunity.
The only restriction that a hijab incurs for a woman wearing one in the us would seem to me, to come from the backward attitudes of the white/anglo majority.
Much like wearing high heels or any other attendant accouterments of attire for women in the us, they are restrictive and symbolic of oppression of women. But, western women claim they have the ‘right’ to choose to wear such dress and to restrict them smacks of another more serious oppression. Why the double standard?
And your statement about African American community? Frankly I find this statement ignores the fact that the African American community, stripped of their African names, history and roots, has had no choice but to wear the identity handed to them for the last 200 years. In my mind and from my own observation and experiences in various black communities, a rich, strong and resilient community does exist that they’ve carved out for themselves in spite of the restrictions laid on them at every turn. Of all peoples in this country who have suffered oppression and forced assimilation, nothing in my mind can hold a candle to what my black brothers and sisters have endured and still endure.
kate – Never did I say, or even imply, that the US is some racial-egalitarian paradise. I am nonwhite, and even though I live in a fairly diverse suburb in a blue state, I have still experienced racism and bigotry. I meant to say that in the US, we have at least had to *face* the issues of racism, segregation, racist immigration quotas, etc, even though they’re nowhere close to being resolved. We have had minorities actually agitate for their rights and attain some of them, although again, the US is not perfect by a long shot.
We’ve been a nation of many races for hundreds of years, whereas in Europe, most of the countries were white and Christian (with oppressed Jewish and Gypsy minorities), until the last half of the twentieth century. (A digression here – but yes, I do realize that white Christians in European countries have had ethnic/religious conflicts with each other, like Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland, Flemings and Walloons in Belgium, etc.) Although Europe tends to accept liberal/progressive values regarding race, most Europeans did not actually have large numbers of nonwhite people living in their countries until recently. Now they have to put their money where their mouth is, so to speak.
I hope I’ve articulated myself better.
That being said, I don’t want to get into what punkassblog called the “oppression olympics”.
Just happened to jump back before leaving. Now I get you exangelena and agree.
To Know a Veil
I’ve written before about the Moslim veil thing, something that has elicted much comment in the last week or two thanks to Mr Straw. For the most part what we are seeing in the responses is some sort of competitive victimhood where sexism vies agains…
The BBC has a little snippet today that seemed germane to this discussion.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/talking_point/6059860.stm
How far does this go? If I wear a small chai or star of David around my neck, am I disqualified from teaching? What about if my brother, who actually is a high school teacher, wears a yarmulke? How do you know if he’s just observing his faith or if he’s trying to influence Jewish students to become more observant?
I definitely have issues with direct prostlytizing in class. But I don’t see wearing religiously-sanctioned clothes as a form of prostlytizing. And I am really uncomfortable with barring observant members of minority faiths from the teaching profession, which is what this is going to do. It won’t bar observant Christians from teaching, because the entire society is designed for the benefit of observant Christians.
Sally, I wish I had an answer to that question. I think that it boils down to what one considers prosteletizing. There have been some very interesting cases in the news recently just between Christians and Jews, or between Christians and atheists. I am thinking particularly of the horrific situation with the 2 Jewish families who were forced to remove their children from the local schools due to Christian religious bigotry. The defense of the Christians was that it was oppressive or discriminatory for them to be forbidden to use their prayers etc in school ceremonies, eg, praying in the name of Jesus at a graduation ceremony. To an evangelical Christian, it is inconceivable a) to mark any kind of celebration without a prayer and b) to not do it in the name of Jesus?
When the Jewish families objected to their children being sbjected to this sort of ritual at a public ceremony, they were attacked by Christians who felt that their freedom to practice their religion was being attacked. I was entirely sympathetic to the Jewish families in this regard.
For me, a headscarf is one thing. It is much like a yarmulke or a peice of religious jewelry. It identifies one as being part of a particular religion and it is worn due to religious conviction. But with Islamic women’s clothing (as well as other religious clothing) the road gets slippery becuase the certain kinds of religious clothing accompanies certain practices (women who wear the niqab are really really not supposed to speak to non-Mahram men, which would include boys over a certain age). I am not sure what the line is, but this whole discussion makes me very nervous because I see a lot of people straying into territory which can be used by a fundamentalist Christian majority to shove their religion down everyone else’s throat. School prayer, ten commandments etc. Clothing is not always simply clothing. A niqab is a powerful statement, not simply because it covers the face but because it insists on a whole set of religiously motivated attitudes/behaviors/practices which are in essence a form of prostelitizing, such as when a male teacher is “not allowed” to speak to a female colleague because he is not her mahram. Or because she requests/demands that she never be given a male supervisor due to her religious convictions. Now, in the case in the UK, I did not hear of this being a problem, but I could see how it very easily could be. All I am saying is that if Muslims can claim this, the Christian fundies will have a field day with it.
The curious thing about all of this is that in both Islam and Christianity there are large swaths of their respective populations who believe that their version of their particular religion is the only way. And isn’t it interesting that it is usually people from these wings who end up at the center of these stories.
[...] rce material for this kind of politicking in the Feministing comment-a-thon. Head over to Feministe if you want to talk about why headsc [...]
Just to clarify something, Jack Straw was not condemning the headscarf, he said that he would not meet with women in the full niqad, where the only thing a women is allowed to reveal is the colour of her eyes (because otherwise men could not contain themselves from raping them)
and kate, my point about african americans was meant explicitly as a conceit that the traditional american model of integration has FAILED the african american community. And that while other ethnic groups have come to the US, and initially settled in ethnically homogenous communities, this tends to dissipate over time as they become culturall ‘assimilated’. Whereas for whatever reason, this has not happened with the african american community, not doubt slavery and racism being big factors here.
And when I say integration, I never said they had to give up their own culture. This is the big misunderstanding perpetuated by ‘multi-culturalists’, integration and assimilation doesn’t mean you don’t retain part of your original cultural identity, but it DOES mean you:
a) consider yourself primarily american (or Canadian, or French or whatever)
-so for example in the UK, even third generation Bangladeshes consider themselves more Bangladeshi than British. Again, this isn’t their fault, it is a problem with the system of integration. The classic barometer here is which sports teams immigrants cheer for.
b) accept some of the founding principles of the society you find yourself in.
-Your little rant against ‘our’ rules is completely self-destructive. WE do have rules, and the feminist movement is an attempt to change that foundation to a more equitable stance. Yes they were originated by rich old white men, but so what, we have basic tenants that are a requirement to live in our society.
-Freedom of speech
-Freedom of religion
-Seperation of church and state (even if it is under fire lately)
-equality of opportunity and participation in the public sphere
-hell, that the physical violence and oppresion of women is unacceptable
All you have to do is look to Europe to see that their model, of “we’ll give you a ghetto in the part of town and make no effort to convince you of the tenants of our society” aint working so well.
Whether you want to eat your face and lay down for women’s rights (as it appears you do) because the allure of multi-culturalism and identity politics is too salient for you is of no matter to the rest of us. If you want to say we shouldn’t be arguing for our way of life, you have to posit a reasonable alternative, and I don’t see one.
And all you have to do is look at modern-day Iran and Afghanistan to see that the model of “We’ll force modernization and outlaw veiling in order to do it” didn’t work so well, either.
What he said was that he, an elected official whose job is to serve all of his constituents, would deny constituents their right to petition their representative, because he didn’t approve of their clothing choices. It’s a profoundly anti-democratic move: the whole damn point of the exercise is that we’re all supposed to be represented equally by our elected officials. The duty to meet with one’s constituents isn’t some sort of social courtesy. It’s fundamental to the whole practice of representative democracy. What he’s saying is that his willingness to represent you is contingent on your following his fashion dictates. The right to be represented is a *right*, not a privilege that should be granted to those who follow arbitrary rules.
So you want to educate people about the tenants of your society? Then maybe you should hold your government officials responsible for actually adhering to those tenants.
Oh, please. It’s terrible social policy to shove anyone into a ghetto. That kind of policy has created awful social problems in the U.S., where most ghetto-dwellers are Christian. But the problem is the ghetto, not headscarves. In France, Muslim girls are faced with a brutal choice between taking off their headscarves or forgoing their right to public education. In the U.S., Muslim girls’ have a Constitutionally-protected right to wear hijab in public schools. Yet in the U.S., Muslims are much more integrated into the mainstream society and much less disaffected than Muslims in France. I’m sure that the U.S.’s commitment to religious freedom has something to do with it, but the big reason, I think, is that U.S. Muslims have more economic opportunity. So maybe French people should stop obsessing about headscarves and start addressing the underlying reasons that so many Muslims have no choice but to live in ghettoes.
(Of course, it’s super-convenient to blame headscarves, rather than European social policies, for Muslim disaffection, because it takes the blame off of the mainstream society and puts it on the Muslims. And one should never accept responsibility for one’s mistakes when one can offload the blame onto some vulnerable minority.)
jtkdueryrc
vewwwebtum cctsyzgw pusqiwq gzurbjzsk
Preach on Sally. The blame shifting is mind-boggling. While I have no issues with asking, persuading and/or outreach to the Muslim community to accept gay rights for instance, it’s another thing to support nation-wide prejiduces and then say, “See? Why can’t they get past trivial things like that and just be “like us”?
I think, when it comes to what is and isn’t acceptable from a feminist/liberal perspective, an important line lies between the hijab (modest clothing, headscarf) and the niqab or burka.
A hijab, on its own, does nothing to limit a woman’s participation in society. There are students at my law school who wear hijab, and I’ve met hijab-wearing women in most professions. On a purely practical level, it doesn’t raise feminist concerns. (Although associated prejudices and restrictions in some communities do.)
But a niqab or burka, which obscures the face, strikes me as more troublesome. First, because it is socially more closely linked to limiting women’s behavior than hair-covering. And second, by hiding the face, because it is dehumanizing.
The person wearing the garment looses their individual identity. It also limits human senses – obscures vision, muffles the voice, blocks scent, etc. With blocked senses, ordinary activities, such as driving a car or walking down the street become more dangerous, and independent movement becomes impractical. With a hidden face, emotions are hidden and expressions are obscured, limiting the ways in which a woman can communicate her needs and interests.
And dehumanizing women is a larger problem in society. Women become interchangeable, and expendable. Crimes against women aren’t crimes against them as people, because they, literally, aren’t seen as people, as individuals. (At most, it becomes a crime against the man or men who have claim to the woman-object.)
A garment that limits physical autonomy and obsucures one’s identity as a unique human is a problem,