Anne Applebaum comes out swinging against rudeness in all its forms: Drivers who cut you off on the roads and double-park, people who don’t flush in public restrooms–no, wait; that isn’t right. She’s only worried about the rudeness of wearing a full-face veil in a Western country.
Sadly, I am not making this up:
And yet, at a much simpler level, surely it is also true that the full-face veil—the niqab, burqa, or chador—causes such deep reactions in the West not so much because of its political or religious symbolism, but because it is extremely impolite. Just as it is considered rude to enter a Balinese temple wearing shorts, so, too, is it considered rude, in a Western country, to hide one’s face. We wear masks when we want to frighten, when we are in mourning, or when we want to conceal our identities. To a Western child—or even an adult—a woman clad from head to toe in black looks like a ghost. Thieves and actors hide their faces in the West; honest people look you straight in the eye.
Oh, Anne.
Some just-off-the-top-of-my-head issues I have with the above-excerpted paragraph:
I have the feeling from this Applebaum article that she’s simply reaching for a quick method of dismissing the presence of Muslim women in Western society without appearing to do exactly that. “It’s not Muslim women I am bothered by,” I imagine her explaining, “it’s that rude and oppressive veil I’ve got my issues with.” But a discussion of full-face veiling and Western attitudes about same needs to stay focused on the women who wear these veils and their reasons for doing so–not on traditional Western beliefs about the symbolism of obscured faces which, let’s face it, we’re not tied to; the argument from tradition is no argument at all. To phrase it Anne’s way, any discussion of the veil that excludes the women beneath them is intolerably rude.
There’s also that old attempt to universalize distinctly Western attitudes towards an article of clothing. It’s like assuming that Amish people can’t recognize their children or spouses or neighbors because the “English” have a hard time seeing past the blue shirts and bonnets.
Yes–or the other thing I had in mind here were the Hasidic women and children in the Hudson Valley region of New York. I think even Applebaum would balk at describing their attire as “rude,” but who knows?
I’m especially galled to see the old “honest people look you in the eye” attitude resurface. I had that notion shot down at a cultural sensitivity session I went to for my job in the early 90s. Can’t keep a good trope down, I guess.
Well, if they don’t want us to suspect them, they shouldn’t keep themselves apart and make themselves different like that.
I hope she would. Maybe some close friend will use this or a similar example to explain how idiotic this argument is, the assumption that your interpretation of their customs is their reason for maintaining their customs.
Maybe “reaction” is better than “interpretation:” that is, if this custom inspires fear and suspicion in you, they must be doing this to arouse fear and suspicion in you.
Come on, now, I think she’s got a point. She’s not saying that Muslim women shouldn’t be able to wear whatever they want on the street, but that there are certain jobs where hiding one’s face would be disconcerting/distracting.
Just as no one is forced to go to a Balinese temple, no one is forced to work at a particular job. Accommodations for religious customs have to have their limits.
Maybe I’m just inclined to cut Applebaum some slack because I was so impressed by her book “Gulag.” But employers should not have to adopt an “anything goes” attitude toward how their employees dress on the job, just because the employees are motivated by religion.
It is burdensome to expect people to find another job.
Those limits do not usually involve comforting bigotry. An employer cannot argue, for example, (at least in my state) that a cross-dressing employee would be offputting to transphobic customers and therefore should not be allowed to serve them to the best of his or her ability. It is irrational to interpret a veiled face as a hostile one, and therefore irrational to penalize an employee because she is veiled.
A lot of things are burdensome, including, some days, having to roll out of bed in the morning. The point is whether the burden is unreasonable.
I just don’t think this rises to that standard. The “right” to dress in an outlandish manner—and in this country, permanently veiling your face is outlandish—is not something that trumps the need of certain employers to have their employees be presentable.
Plus, a veiled woman will only strike people as an odd candidate for a serving or teaching or receptionist or administrative position so long as no veiled woman may be hired for those jobs. Beholders will adjust their interpretation as soon as reality ceases to support it. The analogy she made–an observant Jew who wants to take a job his religion prevents him from attending–is flawed; a better analogy would be an employer who refuses to hire a Sikh because he thinks bearded guys come off as shifty.
Exactly what piny said. The exception, of course, is when some religious symbol, item of clothing, belief or conviction interferes with the person doing their job. A woman who wears the hijab probably shouldn’t apply for work as a lingerie model. A Mormon probably shouldn’t work as a taster at the Heinekin factory. A Scientologist probably shouldn’t work as a pharmacist. A religious Jew probably shouldn’t pencil themselves in to work on Saturdays. Unless, of course, they’re willing to bend their convictions to perform the duties of their occupation.
But if the way someone dresses or appears isn’t interfering with their work in any tangible way — other than “It makes me uncomfortable” — then it’s not really just to expell or prevent them from being hired at that job, is it?
And it’s more than simply burdensome to find another job. In many areas (especially rural ones), it’s nearly impossible. If one has a highly specialized degree and they can’t get work in their field, that’s a problem — and it’s not a great solution to suggest that they simply go find a different job, which could very well be lower-skilled and/or lower-paid and/or less secure.
Forcing people to choose between their religion and their job is a very heavy burden, and it is “unreasonable” to ask people to give up religious observance not in order to perform their job, but in order to appease the prejudices of their employer’s customers. Your definition of “presentable” assumes that prejudice as valid.
When my eldest son was about 4 years old, and we lived in Student Family Housing at the university I was attending, we once went to the park, where a group of women were gathered, fully veiled in white. My son grabbed my hand, pointed, and said, “Mommy! Look! GHOSTS!”
So, perhaps this will assist Ms Applebaum (read carefully). I said to my son, “No, those women are from another country where women dress that way in public.” Never again, in his thus 16 years of life, has he spotted a veiled woman and cried Ghost. I would think, then, that if a 4 year old can understand this, so can we.
Also, is it not the pinnacle of American egocentrism to suggest that someone donning religious attire is a direct personal affront? “Did she wear that to dis me? She wore that to DIS me! I’m feelin’ dissed by your headress, sister, so you better take it on down the street before I open a can of whup-ass on you!” Are Afros also a form of rudeness, in which the wearer is saying, “Your hair can’t do THIS, can it? Nope, didn’t think so….” Is the Yalmulke (spelling leniency, please) also an affront?
I stop here, with eight million more “and, and, and…” and “but..” type comments boiling in my brain. Bless you, Ilyka.
The point, also, is whether the restriction on clothing is reasonable.
No one is arguing that we all have the unlimited right to wear whatever you want. And I disagree with the premise that veiling your face is “outlandish.”
Look: I don’t like the veil. I think it’s a highly problematic patriarchal symbol (I also think that its meaning shifts in varying contexts, but that’s a different story). But despite my dislike of it, I’m not willing to make the argument that women who wear it — either because they have to, or because it confers social benefits upon them within their families, or because they believe it’s their religious duty — should be punished for that choice. Depriving them of work is a punishment, no matter how you slice it. You may think it’s a valid one, but I wonder how far that belief would extend. Should, as piny pointed out, a transgender person be fired from their job if they don’t pass perfectly? I mean, it makes a lot of people uncomfortable when they can’t figure out what gender a person is. Someone who appears to be vaguely male but who’s wearing traditionally female clothing is dressed “outlandishly” to a whole lot of people. Is that an offense worth being fired for?
Piny! Thanks for the Sikh beard analogy! I’ve been struggling to find a good alternate example in my mind to explain why the “covered faces are untrustworthy” argument just didn’t work for me.
The only situation I can think of where wearing a veil in a office-like setting could cause a real problem is if a veiled woman works with someone who needs to lipread, in which case, they can figure out what works for them with the help of supervisors. Perhaps having a veiled woman as a receptionist where she has to communicate with deaf or hard of hearing customers is not the most ideal setup, but it could be managed.
Excellent point. It’s extremely self-involved to suggest that someone should not be able to wear their religious clothing/symbols because it bothers you — assuming that those symbols aren’t physically intrusive into the space of others, are worn in good faith and are worn because of a perceived religious requirement (i.e., a man wearing modest clothing to work because he thinks it’s required in his Christian belief system; as opposed to a man wearing an ABORTION KILLS BABIES t-shirt to work because his belief system dictates that abortion does kill babies).
The headscarf, the hijab, and the veil make some people uncomfortable. I can admit that I am one of those people. However, that discomfort is mine, and it’s up to me to own it and combat it — not up to others to shift their religious views to accomodate my personal preferences.
No, but do you have any idea how many of them secretly want to? Not to derail my own post, but how do you keep a Mormon from drinking all your beer?
Invite another Mormon.
Right to the central fallacy as usual, piny. “Veiling affronts my cultural background” simply isn’t a valid reason.
Now might be a good time to recall that Anne was discussing a recent event in the UK (apologies if that IS your country, Bitter Scribe), where it’s my (admittedly limited) understanding that veiled women are a more common sight than they might be in, say, a rural town in Kansas.
I really don’t get this. From what I can tell – and for all the talk of ‘empowerment’ – veil wearing is motivated by certain view about sex segregation. Namely that women shouldn’t let men look at their faces and should try to steer clear of men who aren’t relatives. People who wear them aren’t very PC.
Now shouldn’t signing up to these beliefs neccesarily exclude you from the modern workplace? I’ve read feminists complaining (rightly) about male co-workers doing things like socialising on golf clubs and strip joints, because the old-boys-network so formed excludes women. I can’t see how you can hold the opinion that that isn’t okay, but – in work time – refusing to let someone look at your face because they’re a man is.
Aren’t we entitled to expect certain standards of behaviour surrounding sex segregation in the work place? I would be uncomfortable working in a office full of women who were having face-to-face conversations with each other, but wearing masks in front of me. I wouldn’t be confident I would be getting equal treatment when hiring decisions were being made, for example. I’m sure this cuts both ways too. Wouldn’t any of you be uncomfortable working in a office full of muslim men who had similar views on sex segregation, and refused to shake your hand, wanted to minimise the time they were in contact with you, and so on?
So how does forcing people to accept our open face culture without allowing them freedom to wear what they want because of personal reasons make us any less opressive? These women don’t wear it to scare, they wear it (as I see it) as a protest to the hypersexualization of our culture, which might offend them! It wouldn’t be like this if Christians had something that they wanted to wear that people wanted to ban, cause that’s just unheard of in this country. A government forcing them to wear them is bad, that goes back to the Jews having to wear the Star of David so people could see what they were and by their own prejudice oppress them, but these women choose to wear it. And because they choose to wear it because of their religion isn’t any of anyone else’s business unless they are doing it to purposefully harm someone. And for these women teaching in schools and wearing the veil, it will only help teach these kids to be more tolerant of cultures that aren’t their own.
Here governments go again thinking that the decisions they make for women are what’s going to release us from a life of opression, like when they wanted to keep us in our kitchens so we could leave the cruel world outside to the boys. Why can’t they let these women make the choice, instead of biased politicians that think they are doing good when in reality they are just pushing us back a step from true freedom. I don’t know, I’m just fed up and this comment probably made no sense because I don’t make a whole lot of sense when I’m angry.
Those were instances of real discrimination–the women excluded from those events were excluded from networking opportunities and effectively cut off from career advancement because they were women. You’re describing discomfort, not harm. It’s not logical to say that a woman must live a regressive life because she subscribes to a religion with certain tenets you see as regressive. If a woman believes that her religion dictates the veil and permits a job outside the home, then that is her choice to make.
You’re describing people whose religious beliefs arguably make it impossible for them to perform some of the functions of their jobs, i.e. talking to their coworkers and making unbiased decisions about worker performance. I would indeed be troubled by a manager who seemed incapable of seeing me as a human being. I would not be troubled by a manager whose contact with me were restricted in purely formal ways because of his religious beliefs. Furthermore, I would be extremely troubled by a manager who believed that a Muslim man was incapable either of interacting with his coworkers or performing his job because he happened to be Muslim.
What strikes me as odd here is that one is not supposed to think the niquab is problematic. one is not supposed to dislike it. One is not supposed to feel uncomfortable.
Why not? Why are the feelings and/or views of those who wear the veil privieleged over the feelings/views of those who don’t?
It’s any person’s right to dress how they want to. It’s everyone else’s right to react how they want to, in response to that dress.
Merely because person A is motivated by religion and person B is motivated by secular thoughts does not mean A should “win” the argument. I don’t see religion as some sort of be-all-end-all right that trumps everything else. (I am well aware that it has protected status in the Constitution, thanks, but people seem to be arguing morals here, not laws.)
I do think, personally, that the ability to read someone’s face; see what their expression is, etc. is a pretty damn important part of communication. Yes, of course one CAN communicate without that. But few people would choose to do so–it’s simply not as easy for us to acheive. I like to meet my clients in person. I like to talk to other atorneys face to face.
I would hope not to have to work closely with someone whose face I could not see. Not only would they gain an advantage by the one-way access to expressions but i’d fear communication would be bad. I suppose that for negotiation purposes, I could always refuse to meet with them face to face. Or I could wear my own veil. (both are logical solutions to the ‘advantage’ issue, but ones which for some reason people think are improper).
Aren’t we all self-involved to some degree? What is so bad about it? You seem to be suggesting that acting in a way that makes me comfortable is “bad” and I’m curious as to why.
Symbols and clothing “physically intrusive” doesn’t parse…?
An odd requirement. Who gets to judge that? Do I? Do you?
And why should it matter? Why should the acceptance of a piece of clothing not be intent-neutral? It’s only clothing.
See “intent-neutral” comment above.
I cannot help but notice that the example you used is one which many folks here would like. See “who gets to choose?” above.
I hope you will elaborate on this some more. Why shouldn’t an “ABORTION KILLS BABIES” or “SINNERS WILL BURN IN HELL” T-shirt be allowed? Why would you classify those as unacceptable? After all, I am sorry to say that a significant portion of Americans would probably agree with both shirts, and would not feel uncomfortable seeing them. They’re probably, overall, statistically less likely to cause distress than a niqab.
Not to mention that they probably meet the “good faith” test for their wearers.
Because if one can wear, say, a niqab without having to give a shit whether anyone else likes it, then I’m not sure why any non-obscene outfit shouldn’t be protected. Religion is merely a viewpoint that happenes to involve a divine being. it’s not a stronger, or better, viewpoint than anything else per se.
Nobody has to shift their religious views. People are merely being asked not to act on them. That is a crucial distinction. It’s also a common enough thread in society that it seems pretty reasonable.
Also, if it’s ok to ban the veil because it is “outlandish” to conceal one’s face, then it’s not a big leap to also refusing to hire women who only cover their hair and wear modest (but mostly western looking) clothing because that’s “outlandish” too. I wear pants to work almost every day. That’s normal now, but 100 years ago it would have been considered highly shocking and, yes, outlandish. Does that mean that women should never have started wearing pants?
I grew up in Scotland, and went to university in London. I’ve had many interactions with bearded Muslim and Sikh fellow students, and with be-scarfed classmates too. Most of the Muslim women I’ve met did not wear head scarves to university, the ones that did wore western style clothing and simply had their hair covered. I have never had the opportunity to interact with a woman with her face covered, I can imagine it’s somewhat disconcerting at first, like talking to someone wearing mirrored sunglasses, but that’s all. Somewhat disconcerting, not painful or requiring me to alter my own behaviour or life view.
I do think it’s worth noting that Jack Straw, the Brit politician who started this recent storm, is hard of hearing, and depends partially on lip-reading. He requests that constituents in a private meeting with him uncover their face, he does not insist upon it. Though the quotes I read from him were a little patronising in tone, I did not recieved the impression that he was saying women should not wear the veil at all.
More to the point, they wear them for their own reasons, which are perfectly valid and don’t have to be explained or justified to us.
We could get into endless discussions over what is and isn’t unreasonable. And as far as using absurd examples goes, that cuts both ways. What if a nudist wanted to work as a schoolteacher without wearing any clothes?
The point is, employers have, and should have, considerable latitude in setting standards for employees who have to work with the public. Reasonable accommodation should be made for religious or other beliefs, but keeping your face covered at all times does not, IMHO, fall into that category.
And Ilyka, thanks for asking, but I’m a red, white and blue Amur’kan.
No. It is perfectly okay to feel uncomfortable about the veil, just as it is perfectly okay to secretly associate the name “Sarah” with homely women. It’s just not okay to think of those feelings as anything but irrational, emotional, reactions. The niqab is not objectively problematic, any more than a woman with an uncovered face.
In this case, these feelings are not just irrational, they’re associated with irrational prejudices that have done a lot of harm to this particular group of people. And this particular columnist thinks that employers may both act on them and act on the assumption that other people act on them.
These are not objective statements of fact. They’re an interpretation coloured by your experience as someone whose customs dictate uncovered faces and, therefore, interpretation of facial cues. These preferences are not inherent or natural; they’re the result of your culture. People whose experience includes women in veils do not think of women in veils as inscrutable or freakish or scary. Consider this, if you want to talk disadvantage: might someone with different mores not be discomfited by your bizarre appearance and mannerisms?
What if a woman wanted to cover her hair at work? That’s an outlandish and disconcerting costume.
[...] bout Piny
About Zuzu
Vintage
Advertise
« Just Call Her Emily Post
Home
10.24.2006
Thought [...]
“Why are the feelings and/or views of those who wear the veil privieleged over the feelings/views of those who don’t?”
Quite.
A thought experiment. You are a woman who works in manufacturing with some muslim women. You announce that you are going to have a sex change operation. When you return to work they are all wearing masks, which they take off when you leave the office and put back on when you return. It really does amaze me that the Feministe position seems to be that if you have a problem with being treated like this, then you are a bigot.
It’s pretty obvious nobody is going to agree on what is objectively reasonable to wear. These things are inherantly set by our cultures, upbringing and experiences.
One theme that is striking me is that a lot of people would seem to agree that it is mostly acceptable to require someone to cover up for work, or to refrain from wearing an item of clothing that might pose a safety hazard (lots of fringing on the sleeves when working with machinery), asking someone to expose themselves for the sake of propriety is generally less acceptable. Unless the job specifically involves exposing oneself, like stripping or modelling, or in some cases acting.
To a woman who has always worn long skirts or pants in public, being suddenly required to show her legs would be humiliating and a violation of her right to controll acces to her own body. As would a request to show cleavage, bare arms etc etc. To a woman accustomed to wearing the veil, a request to show her face is along the same lines, it is a request for her to expose a part of her body that she considers only for family to see, a part of her body that her cultural modesty dictates she should keep covered.
Somebody brought up shirts with agressive political statements on them, and it was argued that asking people to stop wearing them is as opressive as banning veils and/or headscarves. This is problematic to me because the interpretation of the hijab or niquab as “political statement” is a western-centric one. Since it is different it must be a statement right? I don’t think so. If I, a caucasian anglo-american woman, started wearing a hijab style head scarf, that might be a political statement, because I would be going out of my way to adopt an item of dress from a culture that is not mine, and I do not believe that my hair and face need to be covered for my appearance to be respectable. Wearing a slogan is pretty clearly a political statement, that’s the nature of slogans, they are not subtle.
Well, i’ll get to the objective bits later.
But again: why are you deprioritizing emotions on only one side? Obviously feeling of any kind (including religious ones) aren’t “rational”. But you seem to support HER “irrational” desire to cover up, and not anyone else’s “irrational” dislike of the process.
I certainly won’t argue that some folks have inaccurate prejudices. But (again) the existence of prior prejudices doesn’t explain why, right now, one person’s “irrational” should win over another person’s “irrational”….?
If it makes you less confused, I’ll say this: I neither grant any benefit nor burden to the religion behind the niqab. I just don’t like to talk to people wearing them.
They’re about as objective as is possible, I think. And I might note that a desire to communicate face to face is hugely prevalent in almost all of human history and almost all cultures–that’s objectively true, is it not? Don’t women remove the niquab whenever they can? Don’t they prefer to take it off when communicating with those who are close to them?
But anyway.
Is there ever, in your view, a way to look at this objectively? I mean, obviously the preference to see faces is cultural. And….so? The veil is also cultural, is it not? I’m not sure what that has to do with it. Is my culture “worse” than other cultures?
Well, sure. But, um… so? People who see anything on a regular basis get used to it. I’d bet that there are people in the world who don’t think of public floggings, or worse, as particularly inscrutable or scary. I’m not sure why that’s relevant.
Sure! Absolutely!
And…. if I cared, I would change. As I grew up and wanted to fit into society, I stopped wiping my mouth on my sleeve, belching in public, swearing often, wearing ratty clothes, etc.
See, I don’t mind if someone
the niqab. Anyone shoudl wear whatever they want. (My favorite one for oddity was the guy I saw in Vancouver, with “FUCK” tattooed in 2 inch bold block letters right on his forehead.)
And I don’t mind if someone has their own opinions about what I wear. If I care, I’ll change. If not, I won’t. I’m sure I don’t act in a Christian manner (I’m not a christian) and I eat during Ramadan, and I eat pork, and I drink beer, and I do all sorts of things which some people undoubtedly find highly offensive.
The only thing that I don’t like is the implication that grants niquabe wearers some sort of ‘magic shield’ where I’m not supposed to dislike it, or act on my dislike. I’m not willing to grant them that sort of special treatment.
You seem to be saying “their views are different” and I agree with that.
The part I don’t agree with is the “….therefore they should get to do what they want” conclusion.
You don’t seem to be justifying how you select the “winner”.
On the contrary; that would be a hell of a lot less bigoted than, say, forcing said hypothetical you to continue to use the women’s bathroom.
The feelings of both groups are respected, or disregarded, on equal footing; an analagous feeling to the discomfort produced by the veil would be discomfort produced by, say, a male coworker, or a female coworker with an uncovered face. It would also be discriminatory to refuse to employ those people because they might make their coworkers uncomfortable.
Mmm, straw. Look, I know it’s already been trackbacked here, but seriously, Jill hit this out of the park, and I can’t see anything antifeminist about one of her conclusions:
I’ve known for a long time that I am really unqualified to discuss the whys and wherefores of veiling, but Jill’s been keeping up with her reading and hasn’t got that problem. So go read, read, read.
Because your desire to do something is different from someone else’s desire to keep you from doing it. Her coworkers are not being asked to dress differently to suit her preferences, are they? That would be a parallel situation; this is a disparate one.
But they do not uncover their faces in interactions like the one you describe, and would be uncomfortable to do so. And no, there is no objective interpretation of an article of clothing whose meaning is culturally determined. Your culture is not “worse,” it is merely not better.
…So you don’t get to argue as though it’s an immutable preference, or something that would necessarily disadvantage you or advantage them. Face-to-face communication is not necessary for negotiating with someone, and its value is culturally set.
Of course you aren’t supposed to act on your dislike, not when acting on your dislike amounts to employment discrimination. In return, you’re entitled to claim discrimination if anyone insists that you conform to their religious preferences in order to take a job.
Yeah; why is this basic concept apparently so difficult, in so many different contexts? it doesn’t MATTER if her decision to cover up is “rational” or not. or “feminist,” or “godly,” it’s HER BODY. she’s not covering or uncovering anyone ELSE’S body.
and yes, that itself reflects a certain worldview/philosophy, no doubt; however, unless one is going to make some sort of appeal to absolute standards, but instead is relying on “but it makes me uncomfortable, what -she’s- wearing,” on FEELINGS–well, yeah, as piny says. I’m sorry, but i don’t see as how one has a leg to stand on.
Eh. Without discounting the various excellent comments in this thread, the fact remains that I’ve got to ask people who cover their faces to uncover them when I talk to them. If they were to refuse, I would consider that rude. Because in this particular context, it would mean they were making it impossible for me to communicate with them, as I need to read lips in order to do so. It’s always about context.
I had to blog about this too, because it was just too stupid. I like how she doesn’t even register that Muslims are – hello – a part of English and Western society. And if we can deal with, say, a glass eye in the socket or something or blind people talking to us, I think we can manage talking to someone who’s veiled.
Sara, but it is rude isn’t it? Perhaps not to you as a woman, but by wearing a veil these women are saying they have rather extreme views on sex segregation and want minimal contact with men who are not related to them. They can of course wear what they want in public. But what’s the correct response I should have to this? It’s hard for me to welcome a group of people basically saying they want nothing to do with me as a cultural practice I should respect. I’m not surprised lots of people find this to me extremely impolite.
That’s the best capsule description of the privileged entitlement viewpoint I’ve ever seen.
And it’s also a good working description of what life is like day to day for the less-privileged!
Personally, I find pretty much any and all non secularized (i.e., not Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny) public references to religion offensive, whether it is wearing the veil, crosses, praying in public, whatever. But that is my problem, not the problem of whoever is doing it. I’m of the opinion that so long as one meets the basic community standards of being neat and tidy, wear whatever you want whenever you want, so long as it doesn’t interfere with the performance of your job. One could argue that being veiled interferes with certain occumations (someone mentioned working with the deaf or hard of hearing), but I certainly don’t find the veil any more problematic than a crucifix or a yarmukle (sp?).
Really interesting discussion about this here
Apologies in advance for being a bad, bad spelling cop, but seeing as we’ve had a couple manglings of the word already, the Jewish head covering several here have referenced is variously spelled in English as yarmulke, yarmulka, or yarmalke–and probably a few more I don’t know about, given the leeway in translating Hebrew to English. Just get the “l” before the “k,” and you’ll at least be in the neighborhood.
And I’m going to go put myself in Time Out now.
IIRC, the general test of whether or not employers have to make accommodations for their employees’ religious beliefs is whether doing so would create an undue burden on the employer. So, for example, an employer who is only open on weekends, for argument’s sake, would not have to hire any Orthodox Jews. But if a reasonable accommodation can be made, then it has to be made.
I cannot see how in the vast majority of workplaces a woman wearing a veil would cause an undue burden for her employer. The discomfort of other employees doesn’t count. It has to legitimately cause them to lose business or be unable to deliver on their product/service for reasons other than their other employees are uncomfortable.
Some may think it’s unfair that this kind of treatment is granted to religious beliefs and not political beliefs (as per the abortion t-shirt example), but if so, amend the Constitution. Or deal.
The veil is a ritual prohibition, not one required by the Koran.
I’ve had the pleasure to work with women who are Muslim. To a greater/lesser degree they dressed modestly and wore headscarves. To them, such dress allowed them to publically witness to their faith.
But the full veil? Only eyes or no eyes at all?
I don’t care what their reason, cultural/political (and yes, wearing the veil has been and continues to be a political statement for many), I consider it anti-female. The fully veiled female may think it is her choice, but public self-humilitation is what she in engaged in in Western society.
You know the saying…. when someone does something so shameful that we state “he/she should never show their face in public again!.”
This veiling is female as “less than”, females as indistinquishable entities in a collective.
Social mores would have people understand each other to the best of their ability and meet each other minimally half way. But the tyranny of so-called “multi-culturalism” is, and as demonstrated by the supporters of full-veiling, a one way street where Western Civ must never criticize or question non-Western cultures or rituals else be label bigot (cue the sound of horses screaming).
I’ve seen more domestic violence cases then I ever care to, and there is a reason why our decision of whether to file charges or not independent of the wishes of the victim. Because we get both victims who co-dependents with their batterer and are actually hostile to us prosecuting, or they come from a culture where beating is accepted and they have so internalized their role they cannot escape on their own.
If fully veiled Muslim women wish to retreat from society at large and gather, ala the Amish, into their own insular communities, so be it. I would urge that if they cannot bring themselves to compromise with the majority culture they supposedly voluntarily entered.
However, while I would be perfectly civil with any who wanted to converse with me. Disagreement is no excuse for rudeness. I don’t engage in road rage and I would never further humiliate a veiled female in public by being rude or saying untoward things or pointing, et al.
I may be non-Muslim, but I will not be a dhimmi.
I don’t think the face-veil should be banned, I don’t think people who wear it should be barred from certain jobs, and I don’t think that they should be treated any differently.
But I don’t like it. On one level, it makes me uncomfortable used as I am to respond to body language and facial expressions, but on another level, I think this act of virtually erasing yourself while in public carries heavy symbolic baggage. And in a visual culture such as ours yes, it can be argued that the face-veil is, in fact, impolite.
Friends of mine with anarchist leanings absolutely adore the veil. But I just don’t have the same view on things.
Others simply tell me, “Natalia, you bigot. You ought to embrace others.” No. I do not wish to see the face-veil banned or removed. I just don’t like its symbolism. I don’t like the way it makes a person look, like faceless black pillar on a crowded street. Aesthetically, it brings up unpleasant connotations for me – disconnect, removal, even disdain. It brings up notions of feminity as a dangerous object that must be covered up and blurred and maybe even completely restricted. Finally, it makes me feel as though the person wearing it does not trust other people (with good reason, perhaps, but an unsettling thought nonetheless). This could all be very different from the actual intentions and desires of the individual covering her face, but that does not stop me from feelings this way.
On one level, it’s almost an animalistic kind of reaction: like a blind-spot that I, a person traveling through my urban jungle, become quietly unsettled by.
Finally, what about men who cover their faces in public? Brrrr. I had to serve coffee to a guy who thought he was terribly clever and “counter-culture” for wearing a scarf over his face. I kept thinking that he must be some sort of convicted criminal, hiding in case the police happen by. Was I also a raving bigot then? Is it then perfectly OK for women to cover their faces but not men?
I came to the West with a lot of my own cultural baggage. Some of it I’ve come to view as positive, even as something I could share with others. Other things from my background are much more problematic. I don’t expect my neighbours to see the entirety of my heritage as something that must be, here’s that word again, “‘embraced.” Tolerated, sure. And even then, not all of it.
For example: Homophobic Slavic immigrants are currently busy threatening the gay community in Sacramento, CA. Homphobia is perfectly acceptable in most communities in Eastern Europe. But not here, right? When these people are out there harrassing the gay community, you can’t look away and tell yourself that it is simple their “‘culture” and that we ought to be tolerant. Everyone has the right to free speech here (and the Phelps clan is a shining example of that), but then again, everyone also tries to define this country for themselves. And this process can be unpleasant and uncomfortable. It’s OK to admit that homophobia makes one uncomfortable, no? Why not the face-veil?
Now, I don’t think that wearing the face-veil is akin to homophobia at all. In fact, it is a relatively benign example of cultural difference. And it doesn’t hurt people. But it does set up a barrier, and I do not wish to pretend otherwise.
Anyway, long story short (too late?) I wrote something about it here.
Gosh, I really don’t see how anyone can stand working with people who cover their faces at work.
KS
It’s usually called a kipa.
[...] :35 pm Filed under: Kultur, The F-Word, Dirty Politics, God’s Fan-Club My response to Ilyka on Feministe, in regards to whether or not the f [...]
Well, it was awfully rude of you, zuzu. And don’t even get me started on those vulgar surgeons.
I may be non-Muslim, but I will not be a dhimmi.
That’s too bad, Darleen. When me and my liberal buddies retake Congress, we are going to legalize drugs, make abortion mandatory, and institute Sharia law. Better pick out a veil.
I think it’s fine to both not like it and accept that well, I don’t have to like it.
ultimately i can have my opinions, sure; but so and so isn’t responsible for “making me uncomfortable” by the way she dresses. Is she invading my space? No. Is she preventing me from doing anything i want to do? No. Is she interfering with me in any way? No. Therefore is it any of my business? Nope.
Yeah, it might make me uncomfortable to see certain things. Part of life is learning to live with discomfort. Frankly.
…i realize that’s a bit trite, though, because Natalia brings up some really important stuff: truth is, it’s uncomfortable-making because it’s a symbol of a deeper rift. A barrier, yes. And that barrier is problematic.
but i don’t think anything is solved by simply attacking the symbol, much less the people who sport it. if anything i would think it makes things worse. ripping aside the veil; you know, i could see experiencing that as -terribly- invasive.
cannot see how in the vast majority of workplaces a woman wearing a veil would cause an undue burden for her employer.
How about as either a prosecutor or defense attorney arguing before a jury?
A doctor? A nurse? A police officer? A firefighter? Paramedic? EMS?
How about a public school teacher? A funeral director? Retail clothing sales person? Chef? Waitress?
In any of those settings, a compromise that would envolve long sleeves, leggings and hair covering could be accomodated, but a burka?
Living in So. Cal we also have a vibrant Asian Indian community, and I don’t know of anyone that is bothered by saris.
Difference is, surgeons will remove their masks when they’re interacting with you – most of them do it without being asked, too. (Dentists tend to leave their masks on while talking to you, but I’ve never met one who refused to take it off while giving instructions.)
And this process can be unpleasant and uncomfortable. It’s OK to admit that homophobia makes one uncomfortable, no? Why not the face-veil?
Yes, I think it’s perfectly valid to say that it makes one uncomfortable. I also think it’s perfectly valid to say that discomfort — while it’s valid — is also often a good cue that we should examine our assumptions.
I’m uncomfortable about full-on veils, too. But I’m also very aware that my discomfort is colored by my cultural context.
But it does set up a barrier, and I do not wish to pretend otherwise.
I don’t disagree, but I also think there’s a lot of importance in developing and in expressing pride in one’s community and in the ways in which we’re different from each other — I display markers that I’m queer as hell, and I do so because I’m proud to be different from the mainstream American culture. Ethnic or religious pride can often run along similar lines, IMO — yes, it involves barriers, but it does not necessarily have to be hugely exclusionary, say. That sort of thing IMO is part of negotiating one’s identity in relation to a mainstream that tends to marginalize anyone who doesn’t fit within its criteria.
PS The huge influx of Slavic immigrants in Sacto who put anti-gay bumper stickers on their cars hasn’t escaped my attention either — it’s an interesting issue, and one I haven’t totally wrapped my head around yet — most of the previous Slavic immigrants I’ve known here were pretty queer-friendly. Certainly noteworthy, though, an interesting point of subcultural conflict.
belledame
Who is advocating violence against veiled women here?
There is a difference between choosing not to associate and “ripping off the veil”.
The idea that we must give our wholehearted approval to an anti-female practice stands “feminism” on its head.
How many people really buy Yvonne Ridley
And YES
Sorry, I’m not about to embrace fully-veiled females as Islamo-feminists.
Good one, zuzu. I don’t get the uncomfortable bit as well. I don’t like it when extroverted people hug me or speak loudly, but I work hard to modulate my startle reaction. I wonder if the people who act like a mere cloth cover over most of the face is so offensive maybe just haven’t been exposed to that many different clothing styles? It’s pretty easy to get used to something if you’ve been exposed to it a lot.
No one’s asking you to wear a veil.
I’d identify two qualifiers here that should determine the appropriateness of dress in the workplace: Does it interfere with my ability to do my job, and does it interfere with my co-workers?
For most jobs (excluding lingerie models and such), the veil does not interfere with the ability to do work. We can safely say that a lingerie modelling agency is justified in not hiring women who wear veils.
It’s the latter qualifier that a few people here seem to have problems with, and that’s what boggles my mind, because it speaks to a fundamental inability to distinguish oneself from others. You can still accomplish your work if your ingrained cultural notions make you uncomfortable with people who look different than you. You don’t have the right to enforce those notions on someone else, and she doesn’t have the right to enforce her cultural notions on you. A hijab or a niqab is not contagious, I promise. I’ve studied, worked, and socialized with Muslim women, and I’ve yet to don a veil.
But I guess what offends me the most about this whole argument is the assumption that “we” know better than Muslim women. Just like “Feminists” for Life claim that “women deserve better than abortion”—without giving us credit for our own decision-making capabilities, autonomy, and intelligence—to believe that Muslim women must be liberated from the veil is infantilizing and condescending.
Sabbotabby
Please tell me how a fully veiled female can work as a paramedic.
And that’s leaving aside their inability to render care to any male not of their family.
You have to get more specific than “fully veiled.” In a burqa? A niqab?
Physical mobility is covered by the first qualifier I mentioned: Does it interfere with my ability to do my job? (Hence the modelling example.) A woman wearing a burqa could probably not work as a gymnastics instructor either. And hey, when I worked in a hardware store, I had to wear pants. There’s a difference between physical barriers, like having to run in a long dress, and psychological barriers, like making the person in the next cubicle feel uncomforable.
And the latter barrier is the one that you, and Applebaum, seem to feel is so important that a veiled woman who is perfectly capable of carrying out a given job should be barred from doing that job. Because it makes you uncomfortable. I’m sorry, I don’t accept that, and neither should anyone else who believes in a free society.
Again, if they are not capable of fulfilling the job requirements, that’s a different story. As someone else brought up, Mormons shouldn’t work in distilleries. And fundamentalist Christians shouldn’t be pharmacists.
Like I told Ilyka back over on my little blogging outpost – Some of my family members think the veil to be quite glamorous and feminine… And they then tell me I “offend” them if I wear sweats when I come greet them on their visits.
So yeah… These debates never cease.
#24:
Yeah, like the Orthodox Jewish professor at my work. Man, she insists on always covering her hair. She even wears wigs. It bugs me! I’m just not comfortable interacting with a woman if I can’t see her hair. That’s not how my culture does things, and I ought to be able to see it! Or those Greek ladies down the street! Honestly, those scarves and long skirts they wear are indecent and outlandish. And those two colleagues of mine who sport dreadlocks. Honestly, in our American culture, we find that kind of thing offensive and disconcerting. Long hair on a man? Dreads? They offend me by coming to work that way. It makes me incapable of doing my job because I’m so distracted by their doing their jobs while looking that way that I–oh. Wait.
And funny, too, how I don’t hear these debates about people who aren’t Muslim women.
Well, I won’t until I wear my hair down at work, anyway. I mean, it’s rude of me to transition on the job.
#41:
I’m sorry, but when did allowing a small handful of niqabis to dress comfortably at work put you under the rule of a mediaeval caliphate? Or–wait–let me get this straight–if you let them do it, the workplace is going to make you do it, too. Or were they holding you down and putting one on you, those women? …is it just that you have to pay additional taxes for the privilege not to? You pay a financial or social penalty because these niqabis exist and you’re not one?
You wanna use words like dhimmi to be dramatic and inflammatory, compadre, do your homework first.
Quite–but the reasons women have for choosing to wear it, and more of them than you might think do choose it, seldom have anything to do with a love of “prohibition.” As Jill presented a fairly thorough round-up of reasons offered by Muslim women for choosing to wear the veil in her post, I’ll just point you there.
I am not arguing that the veil is mandated by the Qu’ran when it clearly is not. I am arguing that the final say-so regarding whether it may be worn at all should not rest with people who misread the intent of the wearer as deliberate rudeness when there are any number of other reasons for wearing it.
You can’t humiliate yourself if you don’t find what you’re doing humiliating. What this says is that you think wearing the full-face veil would be humiliating. For you. You’re certainly entitled to feel that way–I’m not sure how much I’d groove on it myself–but here it might be useful to recall that no one’s making you wear one.
Again: These are arguably typical Western attitudes, but you’re saying they erase the intent of the woman wearing the veil, and I’m saying they don’t. Moreover, I’m saying we could stand to adjust our interpretation once the intent has been clarified by the wearer, though to do that, we’d first have to try including the woman under the veil in discussions about the veil.
Funny, because normally you LOVE this argument:
Moving right along:
Straw for all and all for straw: First, show me the tyranny of asking that a woman be in charge of her attire on the job, provided that attire does not directly prevent her from performing her job to a reasonable standard. Really, I’m not kidding: Where’s the tyranny? Who’s being herded into camps here, Darleen? Don’t trivialize real tyranny just to paint Westerners as the Troo Victims here.
Second, there’s a clear and obvious difference between “supporting” full-veiling and knee-jerk condemning it as rude. Applebaum’s doing the latter; neither Jill nor I are doing the former. And again, from Jill:
Third, no one said, and certainly I did not say, that “Western Civ must never criticize or question non-Western cultures or rituals else be label bigot.” That’s all straw and ALL YOU, Darleen. Here, in fact, is what I said:
But let me try putting it a way you’d understand: Do you like it when lefty blogs stereotype all Republicans as wild-eyed blood-lusting fundamentalists who want to institute a theocracy in this country? I am quite sure you would prefer discussions about Republican women, particularly, to include some input from actual Republican women.
You actually brought something up here I’d been meaning to get to earlier:
I think this is why we “accept” the Amish and the Hasidim, but not so much Western Muslims–because we don’t really have to accept-accept the Amish and the Hasidim. They play mostly in their corner of the sandbox and we play in ours. That situation isn’t taxing to us, it doesn’t make us uncomfortable. But as I think piny did a thorough job of noting above, “it makes me uncomfortable” really isn’t a solid reason for banning women from wearing the veil.
I think others in this thread have tackled this part already but I’ll just say this: There is a difference between saying, “Discussions of veiling should include those who know it intimately,” and “We should never discuss veiling at all because we’re Westerners who don’t know the first thing about it.” I have seen some bloggers make the second argument, for the record, but I’m not among them and I don’t think Jill is, either. Please keep the distinction in mind.
I was lucky enough to attend a lecture by Azar Nafisi, author of “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” last night. She spoke of the veil, and her statement was one that I have to fundamentally agree with: it is not the wearing or not-wearing of the veil that is the problem, it is when women are forced to change their appearance because of what the law says. Her grandmother did not leave the house for three months when the veil was outlawed; conversely, she told Nafisi when the mullahs came into power and women’s modesty was enforced that “this is not Islam; I don’t want you thinking that this is Islam.”
On a more flippant point, when I see people wearing leggings or Uggs I want to tear off the offending items of clothing and set fire to them. And yet I manage to avoid assault, theft and destruction of property…
Back in the bad old days, I worked in a conveniance store in the crappy part of town (I got robbed 4 times in 3 years). We didn’t allow people in the store wearing masks around halloween…and I imagine we would have extended that to anyone wearing full-face covering if we had any muslim clientele. Would we have been wrong? And if so, why?
And from the perspective of a boss (which I am not), I would never hire someone who wears a full face covering for any position that requires regular interaction with customers. It would drive away customers. People who are uncomfortable talking with someone who hides their face(and that’s a lot of people) will take their business elsewhere.
A word I see tossed around here a lot is “othering”. It seems to be used in the context of white people ‘othering” people who are different. I would argue that in many cases people “other” themselves, be they Amish, face coverers, Hasidim, punkers with 18 inch mohawks, bikers with l-o-v-e/h-a-t-e tattooed on their knuckles or whoever. When you reject societal norms in the name of your religion, or culture, you have to know that you will be treated differently. Most groups who other themselves (like the Amish) accept that as the cost of doing business. If you are ostentatiously trying to be different, I am not really ready to hear complaints about being treated like you are different.
They’re being treated as though they are different in ways that they are not attempting to communicate, ways it is unfair to assume. Suspect is not the same as different; neither is frightening or dangerous.
Actually, the Amish cut themselves off in order to cut themselves off. That’s like saying that cloistered nuns accept isolation from men as the cost of holy orders. Other religions believe in and maintain different levels of separation; they shouldn’t be forced to accept total isolation as the only alternative to total assimilation.
My friend, the starving musician, has a dozen facial piercings. He is having difficulty finding a “real” job. Even though he is a good guy, I wouldn’t hire him for a job that requires interaction with customers, either. Many would be uncomfortable dealing with him.
Same goes for veiled women; while I certainly wouldn’t advocate banning veils, I also wouldn’t hire a woman who wears one (or the guy with the 18 inch mohawk, the guy with 666 tatooed on his forehead, or a goth).
I haven’t read the comments due to lack of time, so forgive me if I am repeating something or not being responsive, but here’s my two cents:
– I imagine that many if not most Muslim women who wear veils that cover their faces would feel profoundly uncomfortable and named if forced to remove the veil.
– Similarly, I would feel profoundly uncomfortable if I were made to wear a veil. Which is why most, if not all, Muslim countries, including Saudi Arabia, do NOT force western women to wear the veil. Yes, western women are expected often to ensure that arms and legs are covered but that isn’t a gross violation of western women’s level of comfort.
I don’t think many of the people commenting on here have actually bothered to find out anything about the case of the teaching assistant in Dewsbury who was suspended from her job for wearing the niqab, so I will pass on a few facts.
1. The teacher did NOT wear a veil to her interview – at which at least one man was present.
2. The reason that her employers considered the niqab innapropriate was PRECISELY that it interfered with her performance of her teaching duties. Some of the pupils found it very difficult to understand what she was saying.
3. The woman was offered the compromise of removing her veil in the classroom when interacting with children aged between 7 and 11 – hardly lustful males – and replacing it when in the company of adult colleagues. She has refused this compromise.
Also, has no one thought to consider what kind of role model a veil-wearing woman is setting for the girls in the classes that she is teaching?
“In my view covering the face takes veiling a step beyond dress. For me, a woman who covers her face as well as her body is choosing to separate herself from the people around her. She is withholding her identity, hiding her emotional reactions and her personality. She is choosing to remain a stranger. It is no surprise that she generates mistrust.” cite
“In schools the top priority has got to be the education of our children. I fully support the decision of the education authority. I believe the education authority has bent over backwards to be accommodating and has been extremely reasonable and sensible in its decision. There is no religious obligation whatsoever for Muslim women to cover themselves up in front of primary school children.” cite
I’m sorry, but when did allowing a small handful of niqabis to dress comfortably at work put you under the rule of a mediaeval caliphate?
It doesn’t. But the insistance that we of the West are not allowed to question, nor criticize, nor even say that such women should compromise to assimilate into a culture they have choosen to live in is to demand we tacitly acknowlege the superiority of their form of Islam.
That’s the first condition of dhimmitude. The demand that non-Muslims acknowledge their second class status.
Nope. Nada. Not going to do it.
What is it, we allow ourselves to question and criticize women who voluntarily enter beauty pageants, women voluntarily have extreme plastic surgery, women who voluntarily work in the porn industry, but we are not to criticize or question the wearing of a full veil??
I am not talking about covering the hair and/or wearing the long sleeves and pants. That is a reasonable compromise that allows those Muslim women who want to witness to their sect of Islam while integrating into Western culture.
The full burqa doesn’t make me “uncomfortable”. Mine is not an emotional reaction. My opinion is one fully based on the needs of Western culture to integrate disparate parts by expecting those parts to compromise toward a greater purpose of advancing Western culture and civilization.
This isn’t about icky feelings for me and most others that think tenting individual women into amorphous blobs is antithetical to core Western values.
Integrate or withdraw.
Ilyka
We are talking about people integrating into Western culture.
Certainly, a fully veiled woman’s individual intent in wearing it is important and yes, we can engage in discussion with them.
But does that negate our scrutiny of a ritual borne NOT of religion but of only a sect of Islam that rejects the values of the culture that it voluntarily joins? Does it negate our engaging that woman in discussion on her own refusal to make even a minimal compromise to integrate into the majority culture?
If I voluntarily moved to Iran or Saudi Arbia, should I expect that majority culture not only to accept my wearing of jeans and midriff tops, refusal to learn the language, and if they questioned my non-interest in integrating to their society which I chose to join I should complain about how mean they are and their uncomfortableness was their own problem?
Cool, I find people who consider Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny religion-neutral offensive.
If I moved to Iran or Saudi Arabia, I would expect to be treated like shit, because Iran and Saudi Arabia are theocracies based around religions to which I don’t belong. But I don’t really have any desire to live in the mirror image of Iran or Saudi Arabia. Western democracies claim to be built upon ideals of respect for diversity and religious freedom. Demanding your right to exercise your religion *is* integrating into Western culture.
(And no, I don’t care that only some sects of Islam require women to wear veils or headscarves. Only some sects of Judaism require men to wear kippot, and yet it’s still an affront to all of us when they’re outlawed. Not all Christians take communion, but if you forbade people to take communion, you’d still be anti-Christian.)
I’m mostly just amused by the idea that “rudeness” is some sort of neutral value, completely untied to power relations. Actually, it sort of echoes the old civility debate on the internets.
I’m also amused by how debates about the niqab seem to have replaced debates about the hijab, seeing as the latter is vastly more common than the former. I see women wearing hijabs all the time (including within the past hour), and I don’t think I’ve ever seen a woman in a niqab in person. I think it’s partly that the bigots are ceding ground: you can’t win on the hijab, so let’s find a less-common garment that it’s easier to argue is really problematic and use that to make the case that Islam is really scary and offensive.
The issue is not one of “How dare these women not assimilate into Western culture!” All kinds of clothing become part of Western culture.
The face-veil or face-mask isn’t “ordinary clothing” for a person who wears it or for a person who encounters it. The teacher who insisted she had to wear it because it was required by the Qu’ran was offering an interpretation of a specific verse in the Qu’ran as disputed among Muslims as the issue of whether or not certain verses from Paul’s epistles can be used to justify Christian bigotry against LGBT people is among Christians. More disputed, in fact: many Muslims argue that the face-veil/mask is purely cultural, not religious at all.
You cannot possibly be serious.
First, where has anyone insisted that we cannot question or criticize the veil? We’re simply asserting that there are multiple narratives that can be applied to the veil, and that these simplistic observations don’t really speak to the experiences of many women.
From a feminist perspective, we don’t.
We criticize beauty pageants. We criticize plastic surgery. We criticize the porn industry. But we rarely criticize the women themselves who engage in these things. Ditto with the veil — we can criticize it, and we can criticize the patriarchal ideas behind it, but we don’t go after the women themselves.
yup. dammit, at least let’s agree that -something- is universally offensive, here!!
for that matter: i find people who wear T-shirts with annoyingly fire and thunder One True Way Christian messages offensive. so, nu, i’m offended. fortunately i don’t have to -be- them, or even deal with them for very long.
The veil is a ritual prohibition, not one required by the Koran.
I’m not sure if you were responding to me or not, Darleen, but it seems likely you were. That is actually irrelevant from the perspective of whether or not an employer has to provide an accommodation. It doesn’t need to be biblically required. Ritual requirements are sufficient for protection.
If anyone cares what the EEOC has to say on this matter, go here.
Sally
Was my point that hard for you to grasp?
If I emigrate to a majority culture different from my own, it is my responsibility to find compromises to integrate into it, not the majority culture to change to accomodate ME.
Sure Western culture respects religious freedom (diversity is such a loaded buzz word) to a point. The idea that new immigrants have no responsibility to learn/engage/integrate into the majority culture is relatively new and it is troubling. And certain practices incompatable with Western culture are expected to be dropped (female genital mutilation, child marriage, polygamy, bride kidnapping, etc).
No one is saying “make wearing headscarves illegal” or even full veils illegal. But if a woman insists on tenting herself, she should expect there will be restrictions on what she can do in the majority culture.
I would neither hire a fully veiled woman as a customer rep nor a man with face piercings and face tatooes.
Remember, the First Amendment includes the right of association.
Lesley
Sure, reasonable accomodations should be made.
But asking for UNreasonable accomodations (burqa’d paramedics who will not touch males) is another thing.
One doesn’t walk into a vegetarian restuarant than start ranting because they don’t have a beef hamburger on the menu.
If I voluntarily moved to Iran or Saudi Arbia, should I expect that majority culture not only to accept my wearing of jeans and midriff tops, refusal to learn the language, and if they questioned my non-interest in integrating to their society which I chose to join I should complain about how mean they are and their uncomfortableness was their own problem?
If Saudi Arabia had the kind of Constitutional protections and acceptance of diversity we enjoy in the US, I suspect you’d be a lot more willing to emigrate there. Part of what has helped this country get where it is today is the willingness of people to immigrate here due to at least a semblance of a willingness to accept people from different cultures and make them part of the overall American thing.
Are you implying we should throw away one of the things most Americans are proudest about this country and one of the things many citizens of other countries admire about it? I really doubt that. You really don’t want to this country to be like Saudi Arabia, so skip the “what if” questions vis a vis Saudi Arabia. No one here is setting up Saudi Arabia as a model for us to emulate.
Darleen, we all agree that if a person cannot perform the basic functions of their job, they should not be employed in that job. If a Muslim woman refuses to touch men, then no, she should not be a paramedic. If a Muslim man refuses to touch women, he should not be a paramedic. No one is saying that people should be allowed to opt out of their job requirements because of their religion, so I’m not sure where you’re getting that idea.
By the way, how do you feel about religious Christian pharmacists refusing to fill prescriptions for EC or birth control? What about religious doctors who refuse to prescribe EC or birth control?
Darleen – Then what were you replying to? I only ever suggested reasonable accommodations should be made (see words “reasonable accommodation” in last sentence.) Yes, if a woman is unwilling to touch a man under emergency medical conditions, she shouldn’t be a paramedic.
Also, how does all this apply to our previous discussion of pharmacists and their rights to refuse to fill emergency prescriptions in towns where you can’t reasonably find another pharmacy? I consider that an unreasonable accommodation.
BTW, you might get sued if you refuse to hire a fully-veiled woman as a customer rep. You’re not supposed to make those determinations based on what you assume will be customer response. The EEOC is pretty clear about that. Your risk to take, but still…
ahh.
as per “right of association;” well, i’m fairly certain that no one thought we were arguing about whether anyone had to go up and be bestest friends with a veiled woman, assuming she even wanted such a thing. what exactly does this mean, really?
i mean, i suppose one could chalk up all of pre Brown v. Board segregation as people expressing their “right of association…”
and, more to the point, perhaps: the ruling did not make the awfulness go away. awfulness is awfulness.
what about landlords who don’t want to rent to gay folks on account of they -disapprove?- some people do get their knickers in a twist about the notion of legislation to -try- to ensure that that is not an acceptable reason to deny someone housing. (and as many people of my acquaintance can tell you, the law don’t mean squat in the realpolitik that is finding an apartment; and that goes for many other “undesirables” as well).
Jill
The EEOC and pharmacist guidelines cover the religious accomodation… as long as the customer is not unduly inconvenienced then yes, doctors and pharmacists can refuse certain drugs or procedures due to religious/moral concerns.
Thus a pharmacy has more than one pharmacist on duty or a doctor has more than one person in their practice.
Should a doctor be forced to participate in state executions by lethal injection? Should a doctor be forced to offer elective abortions?
A paramedic can be religiously accomodated (covering of hair, allowing breaks for prayer) to the point where they cause harm to the people they are serving. Same with pharmacists, nurses and doctors.
Gosh. I must have missed the “to a point” clause in the First Amendment. I find it really weird that a Jewish person would argue this. Where do you think that most Americans would put that point with regards to us, if the Supreme Court would let them?
I’m pretty sure that I know a lot more about this than you do, and I think that you’re, at best, oversimplifying. For one thing, before the late 19th century, most Americans weren’t that fussed about immigrants’ failure to adapt the English language or American customs. They worried about immigrants’ Catholicism and their supposed refusal to adopt republican (small r) values, but clothes and food and language weren’t that important to them. (And yes, I know you can find the odd bit of evidence to the contrary, but the overwhelming majority of Americans and of nativists weren’t concerned with immigrants’ customs.) Secondly, even during the golden age of assimilationist policies in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, most Americanizers recognized that immigrants should be able to retain some distinctive cultural practices. And many immigrants resisted assimilation very strongly. I bet your ancestors were among them. Mine certainly were: my greatgrandparents were among the very few Orthodox Jews in their city, and they stuck out like you wouldn’t believe. They wore distinctive clothes and ate weird food and sent their kids to Hebrew school five days a week and spoke to their children in a language other than English. Their neighbors thought they were terrible Americans who were going to Hell and a blight on the healthy Christian landscape of their lovely Christian town. And even though they stayed true to their traditions until they day they died, now one of their descendents is the mayor of that town. (Really: true story.)
Yes, and that means that you are perfectly free not to invite a woman in a hijab to your next dinner party. But the right of free association doesn’t give you the right to engage in, say, employment discrimination. That much is perfectly clear.
Jill: First, where has anyone insisted that we cannot question or criticize the veil?
You certainly appear to be asserting this in the post and some comments following “About the headscarf” – even putting “discomfort” into inverted commas, as if the discomfort someone might feel encountering a faceless person wasn’t real.
Lesley
I don’t think a pharmacy in a small town where no other pharmacy is available should refuse any legitimate prescription. Period. All guidelines on this are clear and should be enforced.
I know the EEOC says I’m not supposed to “consider my customers” but I’d like to see any legal cases on that issue.
Under what circumstances would my decision to hire Joe with a clean face vs Sam with facial tatooes find me in court for hiring discrimination?
belldamm
What if that “landlord” is a 75 yearold widow living alone who advertising renting a room in her house to a “handyman”?
Unreasonable?
How about all those roomate ads for “single female, non-smoker, no pets”
Unreasonable?
typo
sheesh
“belledame”
(sorry)
Uh-huh, this again. Look: Did you not see where I called you out for using that strawman argument here, or are you just openly trolling now? Because no one’s demanding this, Darleen, as I think you well know.
Either respond to things participants have actually said, or quit responding.
All of these women have faces, don’t they?
Ilyka
What straw? There has been a lot of discussion that people who object or feel “uncomfortable” with full face veiling are the problem, not the full face veiling.
I’ve been specific about not conflating veiling with mere headscarves, modest dress or any number of public religious witnessing. I’ve not ever called for making full face veils “illegal”.
I pointed specifically to Yvonne Ridley and her rant that she and other Muslim women are above criticism.
I’ve been polite and on-topic. Why you would accuse me of trolling is pretty surprising.
piny: All of these women have faces, don’t they?
Of course they do. So do all of these people. So does this actor.
Not at all, because there are exceptions for small, owner-occupied buildings that are essentially the landlord’s home rather than a business. So, if it’s someone renting out a room in their home or the mother-in-law apartment over the garage: discriminate away!
You’re also confusing some First Amendment concepts, but that’s pretty typical for these discussions.
Basically, employers in the US are not allowed to discriminate on grounds of religion, but that has to be considered in light of whether the accommodation to the religion gets in the way of actually doing the job. So, if a woman wants to work as a paramedic but won’t touch men, she won’t get the job. If she wants to wear a niqab to work as a typist, they can’t discriminate just because it makes her coworkers uncomfortable.
People can be quite Xenophobic. I would not be suprised if any Musilm attire made many Western people uncomfortable, simply because it is from a society we do not understand, rather than any “dishonesty” about it. On the other hand I would also be hard pressed to find many women who would wear the burka if she felt she lived in a society where she could be safe with out it.