Britain is facing some interesting religious expression issues — first the question of Islamic full-body and face coverings like the niqab, and second a high school girl’s right to wear her chastity ring to school.
I dislike both practices. I think the niqab (which covers the whole body and head, allowing only a slit for eyes) is a disturbing visual representation of women’s oppression, of the idea that women’s bodies are inherently sinful, and of the message that it’s a woman’s responsibility to prevent men from looking at her. I think the custom of “saving” your virginity for marriage is problematic in and of itself, and I think that a purity ring, given by your father and worn until it’s replaced with a wedding ring, is a troubling display of male ownership over women’s bodies.
But my dislike or discomfort with both practices, or even the discomfort of a majority of Britons, doesn’t mean that they should be banned.
Religious symbols or articles of clothing can be particularly meaningful in secular societies, particularly when one is in a minority or a targeted religious group. As one woman tells the Times:
Some who wear the niqab, particularly younger women who have taken it up recently, concede that it is a frontal expression of Islamic identity, which they have embraced since Sept. 11, 2001, as a form of rebellion against the policies of the Blair government in Iraq, and at home.
“For me it is not just a piece of clothing, it’s an act of faith, it’s solidarity,” said a 24-year-old program scheduler at a broadcasting company in London, who would allow only her last name, al-Shaikh, to be printed, saying she wanted to protect her privacy. “9/11 was a wake-up call for young Muslims,” she said.
Some women take up the niqab or the veil to give voice to the women behind it — women who are always presumed to be silent, oppressed and submissive. Some women take it up as an expression of their culture and religion in a place where there are few people like them. Some women take it up because it allows them more freedom — for girls especially, wearing the veil or the niqab or the hijab may influence parents to allow their daughters to spend time with a more diverse group of friends, go away to school, or otherwise exercise greater autonomy.
In other words, when religious coverings aren’t required, the act of covering can take on a wider variety of meanings, and “oppression” isn’t the whole story.
Then there’s the fact that some women, even in secular societies, do wear the veil or the hijab or the niqab because they believe it’s a requirement of their religion. Some women simply would not go outside, or into a mixed-gender group, without being covered. Some girls come from families that would not allow them to go to school uncovered. Banning the veil hurts these women and these girls. It puts them in an impossible and unfair position, simply because the symbolism of what they’re wearing makes you uncomfortable. In the name of women’s liberation, it keeps some women cloistered away, and harms the very people it purports to help.
But are there limits? Religious expression is a crucial right, but I do think it’s fair to draw lines. The French ban on headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools is, in my opinion, not an appropriate place to draw that line, for the reasons I listed above. I don’t think it’s asking too much to make reasonable accommodations for religious people.
Then there’s the question of what counts as religious. That’s the issue in the chastity ring case, wherein a girl is suing her school because they won’t allow her to wear her chastity ring to class. The school apparently bans all jewelry, unless it’s a religious requirement. Now, I happen to think that’s a dumb rule, and that the girl should be able to wear her chastity ring, since I can’t imagine what the problem with a simple ring would be (do they disallow teachers from wearing wedding rings too?). But that’s not the issue in this case — the issue is whether the ring is a required religious symbol. It seems pretty clear to me that it’s not, and that there’s no branch of Christianity that believes a chastity ring must be worn — unlike branches of Islam which do require veiling.
But naturally, the girl is claiming that she’s being persecuted for her “counter-cultural” act of wearing a ring that symbolizes the passing her hymen from her father to her husband:
“The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the S.R.T. purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is ‘counter cultural’ and contrary to societal and governmental policy,” Ms. Playfoot said in a written statement to the court.
Am I the only one that always laughs when I hear chastity referred to as “counter-cultural”? Sorry, but if you want to be counter-culture and out of the mainstream, you probably shouldn’t adhere to something that’s been an oppressive tradition for the past few hundred years.
“It is this message from the Judeo-Christian position that is suppressed: exemptions are allowed or permitted for other messages,” she said, arguing that her school “doesn’t offer equal rights to Christians.”
…which would make sense if the “silver ring thing” were actually a religious requirement for any Christian sect, as opposed to an advertisement of your intact hymen. But it is another chance to cry about Christian persecution, so I guess she’ll take it.
Again, I think it’s silly to disallow students from wearing rings to school. But the term “religious symbol” does have to mean something — and a chastity ring seems to be well outside of it.
{ 33 comments }
No, your school doesn’t offer this particular special priveledge to Christians.
Yeah, that and it blurs the line between what a woman does with her husband and what she does (or more importantly, doesn’t and shouldn’t) do with her father. Which freaks the hell out of me. I’m sure that’s been said many times here, but I’m short-time reader delurking. :o)
Is it just me, but in terms of advertized self-righteousness, is the purity ring a far more offensive item to wear than a niqab?
I’m not sure I agree about the chastity ring not counting; I think that route results both in lots of line-drawing about what is “really” a religious practice (which I’d rather governments avoid as much as possible) and ends up putting disproportionate burdens on less established and formalized religions. And if we go there, believe me, it won’t be the christians who get screwed.
From what I’ve read about chastity rings–basically all through your links!–they’re pretty much universally associated with fundamentalist christians, and quite frequently institutionally associated with church groups. The explanations given always flow from religious premises. By and large, I think we should be as tolerant as possible as far as giving the benefit of the doubt to somebody who says “I need to do X for a religious reason”; I suspect mere requirements of sincere and public affirmation would discourage fraudulent claims (just as you don’t see uninvolved people signing up for domestic partner benefits purely for the money).
The bottom line for me is that I’m sure the girl in question believes that the ring, even if not mandatory for christians, has the expressive value it does for religious reasons. Are we going to restrict hijabs to only those muslims who attend mosques whose religious leaders insist on its obligatory rather than superogatory character? Surely no; surely the proper response is to allow each individual to decide for herself what counts as the proper expression of faith.
I disagree, X Trapnel.
What if the issue was an anti-gay t-shirt at a school that otherwise required uniforms? That’s also an expression of religious belief that violates the school’s dress code, just like the chastity ring. Would you agree that a student should be allowed to wear that as well?
That’s just it: if this only affected these girls on an individual basis, then I’d be fine. However, it absolutely sends a clear-cut message of anti-female bigotry, affecting all women and girls w/o exception. This is all the more glaring that such bigotry is fueled by religious fundamentalism.
Side note: will Feministe post about that Jerry Seinfeld rape “joke?” The level of hostility for someone who dares to disagree w/ his point of view is….typical. I keep forgetting that rape is trivial, but disagreeing w/ that sentiment is a damn injustice.
I can’t promise I’ll write about it because I work full time and post here when I have a spare few minutes, so unfortunately I’m not able to cover every feminist issue as well as I’d like to. But if you give me the link I’ll try to put it up in the next couple of days. And you’re always welcome to email us links and stories — our contact info is listed in the “About Jill” section.
The French ban on headscarves and other religious symbols in public schools is, in my opinion, not an appropriate place to draw that line, for the reasons I listed above. I don’t think it’s asking too much to make reasonable accomodations for religious people.
And the French debate about le voile was dripping with creepy, racist overtones. Sure, there were people on the Left who supported the ban, but there were also many people who were mostly interested in clamping down on the Muslim minority, which is purportedly “islamizing” the country. The folks who mutter under their breath about “those people” when they happen to come across a woman with a headscarf aren’t exactly feminists. But seeing run-of-the-mill misogynists suddenly voicing their concern about the plight of Muslim women was quite interesting, to say the least.
Let’s not forget that Muslims are actively being othered, and “freeing” the Other’s women as a way of imposing one’s own domination has long been a self-involved masculine obsession. When France had a colonial empire, male colonists were also quite keen on “freeing” Muslim women. There’s quite an amount of litterature involving the stereotypical Arabic or Turkish princess imprisoned in her harem, waiting for the European man–for whom she lusts, naturally–to deliver her.
I don’t think the analogy is particularly apt: does this student believe that he ought to wear the shirt every day, as I suspect the chastity ring student does? I do think, for example, there ought to be sikh turban/knife, jewish yarmulke, etc., exemptions from general uniform requirements. A difference between these and a ‘god hates gays’ t-shirt or whatever is that the former are about expressing one’s conformity to particular understandings of religious virtue, rather than expressing judgment (in a particularly obnoxious way) about what one’s religious condemns. Also relevant are whether there are substitutes that don’t require the exception; it’s hard to see the GHG t-shirt person making a claim that his beliefs demand he express his condemnation in that particular way, especially if he does not, in fact, wear such a shirt everywhere he goes no matter what. The difference between adolescent posturing and genuine (if still adolescent) attempts at conformity to one’s code can generally be revealed through sincere engagement of this sort, I think.
Basically, I’m a pre-Oregon v Smith guy. I don’t think the heavens will crash down if we take personal understandings of religious practice seriously, even if it means having to make exceptions for many of the petty little regulations authorities everywhere seem to find irresistible. And if it makes them reconsider the overall worth of the rules, so much the better.
At my school we were always told that the jewellery tules were all about equality (sort of). Most non-private schools in the UK have children from a variety of backgrounds, financially and culturally. There’s always competition and an expectation to fit in, and kids tend to be picked on if they don’t match the ideal that the cool kids require. Being too poor to afford nice jewellery, or having parents who refuse to allow you such things, is a sucky reason to be picked on and the assumption was always that, since we’re always in identical or near-identical uniforms, it’s harder for kids to find superficial reasons to pick on each other. This was the same reason we were forbidden from wearing shoes, jackets or other items with visible brand logos. That and the incident where a less-than-popular girl flaunted the rules and wore a pair of hoop earrings in one day, which were ripped off by another kid in a fight, tearing her earlobe.
I know that, obviously, kids will ALWAYS find superficial reasons to pick on each other, and will go for physical ones if nothing else is available, but I’ve learned not to expect much intelligent planning regarding bullying from the school that told me “when some one makes fun of you, just scream NO at them, then run away. Try practicing it in front of a mirror”.
That and uniform rules are stupidly strict here, anyway. My school had a required number of visible stripes on your tie, a set skirt length (1 inch above or below the knee) and rules about the minimum length your hair could be.
A ring with an anti-gay message then. Althought I suspect if you look hard enough, you will find someone who believes their religion requires them to wear clothing spreading hateful messages every day
What Andrea said.
I heard an interesting discussion on German DW Radio or BBC Radio on podcast about a Danish leftist party that has listed as second on its parliamentary candidate list a Muslimah who wears at least a partial veil (radio was a little unclear.) This decision has brought fire from both other leftist parties (oppression of women) and from the right (accommodation of Islam contrary to Denmark’s Christian heritage or the like.) Sorry I don’t have the links.
I’m so sorry about this, but I read her name and all I could think of was that it sounded like a pseudonym for someone appearing in foot fetish porn.
Did I mention I’m sorry?
I am a little torn here. Initially, I didn’t like the idea of kids not being able to wear jewelry at all, but I think I get it- that way, no one can show off. I don’t think a chastity ring is something that has to be worn- but I don’t really like the idea of kids wearing religious stuff to school… but they should have the right to, if it’s important to them, even if it based in patriarchial religious bullshit.
I hate to allow it, but people can wear the chains of oppression voluntarily.
I heard an interesting discussion on German DW Radio or BBC Radio on podcast about a Danish leftist party that has listed as second on its parliamentary candidate list a Muslimah who wears at least a partial veil (radio was a little unclear.) This decision has brought fire from both other leftist parties (oppression of women)
I understand their sentiment, but that position reflects an idealism unmoored from any practical concern. It can only lead to the continued exclusion of Muslim women from civic participation, much to the pleasure of the Right, whose only intention is to keep “those people” disfranchised. In fact, it helps the patriarchy–if she wears a veil, she should stay at home/stays out of politics, as intended by those who promote veils/headscarves !
The crucifix is not really “required” by the Christian religion per se, yet most Orthodox people I know wear it, and I can only imagine the sort of tiff that would arise if they were told they couldn’t doo it. If it’s part of your church-lore, you view it as required. I have a whole lot less problems with crucifixes than I do with purity rings – but I wouldn’t ban either.
Same thing goes for niqab. There are good ways to protest something, and there are crappy ones. The niqab is crappy. Just as crappy as a purity ring, in my mind. Every time I say this, some well-meaning champion of human rights jumps down my throat and calls me an intolerant piece of trash, but whatever. If you want to visually obliterate yourself in a public space, be my guest, but don’t expect me to cheer you on either.
Jennifer:
You mean, “People can voluntarily force their children to wear the chains of oppression” because, unless these kids are at least in their mid-teens (and maybe even then), they’re expressing the views of their parents, not their own.
In the BBC article on the case, Ms. Playfoot is also reported as saying that many other students routinely violated the school dress code without being punished. Interesting, if accurate.
Maybe this is just a function of my being uncomfortable with super strict dress codes in general, but I’m not sure that I think being required to do something by your religion is the right test. What if you’re not required to do something, but it’s personally meaningful to you? Like Natalia said, nobody is required to wear a crucifix or a star of David, but a lot of people think of that as an expression of their religion. Or, for that matter, what if you want to wear your late mother’s wedding ring as a pendant? I can’t really understand why the drive for uniformity trumps all other considerations, such that you’d have to invoke the strictest legal tests to trump it. Is uniformity really that important?
And doesn’t the “required by your religion” standard kind of institutionalize religious authority and implicitly state that some outside expert, rather than the individual in question, is the arbiter of what’s “required” of a believer? What if I have different standards of what’s required than my pastor or imam or rabbi does? Who’s to say that they’re right and I’m wrong?
I heard a story last night relevant to this: a pagan friend of mine attended Catholic school (where paganism was apparently pretty popular…) and wore a small pentacle necklace under her shirt every day. I gather it was bothering the administration, but they couldn’t legally persecute her for it somehow.
(I did not understand the logic behind this, so don’t ask me. I didn’t go to Catholic school.)
Anyway, after she got some crap from the administration, her friends all hit Hot Topic and such and bought tons and tons of the ugliest, biggest, blingiest pentacles they could find and wore them to school the next day. The administration ended up making a rule that no more than six religious items could be worn at any given time. Heh.
Number 11 (Bruce/Crablaw) & 14 (Cizungu) re the muslim woman (Asmaa Abdol-Hamid) in the Danish leftist party (called Enhedslisten in Danish, lit. the unity list). A large part of the reason for the debate caused in Denmark was that she originally was unclear in her attitudes towards homosexuals, capital punishment, stoning, and sharia legislation. She also refused to shake hands with men. She has later clarified that she totally supports equal rights for homosexuals, and is against capital punishment, stoning and sharia legislation. She still refuses to shake hands with men but greets them by putting her hand on her heart. The veil was only a part of the debate surrounding her.
Most socialists (in Denmark, anyways) are atheists, so numerous members of Enhedslisten were against her becoming a member as they saw it as impossible to be both a socialist and a religious person at the same time. It has also caused some internal debate in the party that she likes the Danish royal family as Enhedslisten is a republican party, supporting abolition of the monarchy. She is still a matter of debate internally in the party and some members have left Enhedslisten because she is religious.
I tried to find some links in English, but I could only find the Danish ones from Danish newspapers etc.
““The real reason for the extreme hostility to the wearing of the S.R.T. purity ring is the dislike of the message of sexual restraint which is ‘counter cultural’ and contrary to societal and governmental policy,” Ms. Playfoot said in a written statement to the court.”
Well go you, you rebel.
*eyeroll*
Natalia brings up the parallel I was going to make — if the school bans necklaces with religious symbols – a crucifix, a star of David, etc – then banning the purity ring is right in line with their policies, and if exceptions are to be made, I’d look at the recognized religious symbols sooner than a fad that’s less than 50 years old. (I think? I’ve only heard about it in the last 10, even, but I imagine it might have been happening before wingnuts became so prominent.)
The interesting thing about this case is thaat if you dig a bit deeper you discover that her father is actually a pastor and he is pretty much forcing her to pursue the lawsuit even though she no longer even attends the school (she finished exams and left, she was not expelled.)
Does anyone else find that as disgusting as I do?
Or, for that matter, what if you want to wear your late mother’s wedding ring as a pendant?
That alludes to an important issue: why are religious symbols assumed under this dress code to be of so much greater importance than every other meaning attached to jewelry? If a teenager’s mother dies and bequeaths her wedding ring to her daughter, or a necklace that her own mother used to wear, why is that student’s desire to wear a tangible reminder of her mother’s love not as important as it would be if she believed God told her to wear the ring/necklace?
about the ring thing: i dont see this as that bad. in a country wherein pupils are required to wear uniform to school i can understand why the school feels a need to ban certain items.
pupils often try to accessorise to make a statement as a “fuck you” to the school and so there has to be some sort of ruling to decide what is allowed and that line has to be put somewhere. a girl at my school flaunted the rules by wearing a cross (allowed because religious) but her cross was about 5 inches high…. in instances where pupils are covered in accesories the school may be a tad annoyed because it makes the pupil look scruffy and when out of school everyone can attach this scruffy pupil to the school by seeing the uniform, as well as overaccessorising often being associated with more rebellious kids.
i think the schools would ideally not want religious symbols worn either if possible because the whole idea is to keep the pupils the same and feel equal (no showing off with high value clothes either) but that it a line the system knows there would be much trouble to cross… wherever the “line” is put it will annoy those just below it but i think it is a good system to keep pupils the same since it helps stop cliques and showing off or embarrassment due to lack of money for clothes.
i can’t say i support the banning of the niqab because i can understand just how important it is to those who wear it…. but in a classroom it is very difficult for teachers when so much communication between teacher and pupil is blocked. a solution (maybe sometimes tricky) could be sexual segregation but this would be the choice of the pupil-they may want to be at a mixed sex school. i went to an all girls school with female teachers and have many muslim friends. some wear headscarves if they want to but within school they dont have to worry about it so much because they only come across women.
I disagree with the ruling against the ring. It’s clearly a religious symbol, even if it’s a newish one. The state has no business deciding which religious practices are legitimate and which are not, because that power will only be used to oppress religious minorities. In this case, that seems to be exactly what’s happening—the girl’s admittedly wacky religious beliefs are being oppressed. The ring isn’t disruptive, so why the fuss? It’s not only unjust to oppress religious minorities, it’s unwise. Nothing makes someone feel more like a martyr than genuine oppression.
The girl’s parents own the franchise to sell the Abstinence Pack to British teenagers.
There’s a fairly clear commercial motivation why they’re trying to get the court to say that wearing the silver ring is a required religious symbol.
The school has a ban on visible jewellery, which the girl and her parents were well aware of. There was nothing to prevent the girl from wearing the ring as a pendant under her clothes inside school hours.
The ring, from my understanding, has multiple meanings. Yes, fundies do believe that the man is wholly responsible for the actions and wellbeing of the women and children of his family, and because of that he has certain “rights/responsibilities” in the practice of headship. But it also symbolizes to the future potential husbands that the father has taken care to protect the girl, setting a standard that they should observe. For them, it’s as much about respect as it is about loyalty.
I personally don’t see why there’s such a big deal about her wearing it. As far as its being “counter-culture”, I agree that it is. Considering modern society is not chaste till marriage, that chastity has become “counter” simply by minority status. “Liberal” is the new status quo. Though it does seem the “Christian Conservatives” are attempting a “comeback”.
I’m not saying it’s right, just sharing a tid-bit of knowledge since a part of my family is fundamentalist.
I fuckin’ lol’d.
I attended a Cath HS for two years, and I’m reminded of the staff’s general fear of the student body. The admin wasn’t nearly so afraid of our ability to think for ourselves as those from some of my previous schools (I actually have fairly fond memories of the place, as most of the teachers genuinely cared about our education) but there were just enough people who shit themselves whenever someone broke “the rules.” I still remember rather vividly the day our senior class came in out of uniform on a (gasp!) uniform day. (I still have my detention slip! Poor guy watching the room had to write one each for all 28 of us. I was terribly amused–still am–that on “reason for detention” he wrote out “other: being a senior”).
Whilst in theory, I believe that people should be allowed to practise any religion, Uniform and safety issues do make it difficult to render these possible in all cases.
Many schools have ID cards. Whilst the hijab (headscarf) is fine, a veil renders ID cards pointless, because nearly anyone can be under them.
British schools, even those with uniforms, are actually very lenient in practice when ti comes to religious symbols. Pupils are allowed a necklace with a religious symbol, and, where required or reccomended by their faith, they are allowed headscarves and bangles. The main point where I probably differ in my opionion here is that I dont’ see the ring as a true religious symbol, because it is not required by any branch of that faith. Perhaps it is more of a symbol in America, but here it really is not percieved as such, because its’ a relatively new fad. Being a young Brit, I know exactly what lengths teenagers go to to pass off jewelry as a religious object in the hope of wearing it, and it is really telling that the girl was only banned when she started a trend in her school, with 11 others wearing the rings. I think that makes the diggerence. Whilst I think Amanda Marcottes views are very mature, and banning them does make a bit of a martyr of a silly girl who won’t even be attending the school any more, or ever wearing uniform again, I still feel that uniforms should ahve some limit, because if tehy don’t anything with any belief or message must be allowed. I just think that if a reasonable effort is made to meet religious needs, that is enough. Tehre are pelnty of schools with no restrictions after all.
Rings aren’t allowed because most jewelry is not allowed. Apart from small ear studs and a small token of any faith. It’s partly to avoid getting sued, and partly because the amount of jewelry worn otherwise would probably be hilarious.
The Right here are very much crying persecution, which incenses me a bit, because even I have to admit as a liberal Christian that we usually aren’t. I feel as long as there’s an option to display your faith, if you wish (although I don’t think it’s a rule in Christianity), then you have your human rights. If we all got to choose what messages and beliefs to support, I’d like to see some ‘Gay rights’ rings. That and a Jesus tattoo. :)
Sorry to triple post…
I had a duscussion with an old school friend about uniform . She thought lack of jewelry serves the same purpose as a uniform, as a sort of leveller of cliques, as well as for practical reasons, and to ceep class crazes to a minimum. Small transgressions are usually tolerated, but when it becomes a craze, such as karma bracelets were a few years ago, they get banned to avoid thefts and peer pressure, as well as avoiding getting sued by parents for loss or injuries. It would be pointless to enforce uniform and ban make-up to reduce peer pressure but allow jewelry, so although I see nothing wrong with jewelry, I know why it is banned. I know that many teenagers try to get away with whatever they can for a laugh, but if they sign up to uniform, they have to live with it, if it is reasonable.
Children are not allowed to wear anything other than ear studs and a religious necklace from a young age in uniform-wearing schools, so it cannot have been a surprise to the girl or her parents, because this is the system that ahs been in place for a while.
I guess it’s cultural, because our society is more secular, and these rings are new, I just dont think they are required. There are schools without uniforms, and faith schools of different denominations, so if the girl and her parents objected very strongly to the uniform code they had agreed to, they were not being forced to follow.
I think you’ve missed the point of the case. She has a right to freedom of religious expression. Her school can’t stop her expressing her religious belief unless they’ve a good enough reason to.
The chapter-and-verse you give above – that this only applies to ‘required’ symbols of ‘recognised’ branches of religion – is the school’s opinion. Whether it’s the law is an open question. Her opinion, and the issue on which the case turns, is it’s that they don’t get to decide what’s protected and what’s not on that basis. She is claiming she has a right to religious expression – which included optional expressions thought up by newfangled cults – and a public authority can’t stop her from doing this without good reason.
The issue isn’t whether the ring is a required religions symbol. It’s whether only people whose religious expressions are deemed to be ‘required’ are protected.
But it’s not an absolute right – the right to religious expression can be trumped by other considerations (like preventing the intimidation of other students). You can ban even required religious symbols if you’ve a good enough reason – UK courts have ruled that schools can ban religious dress like the niqab should they go about it the right way. But you do have to have a good reason. If the ring is protected, they they can still ban it, if they show a good enough reason for overriding people’s right to religious expression. Though I doubt they’ll be able to demonstrate a good enough reason in the case of this ring though.
Comments on this entry are closed.