Slog
News & ArtsFriday, November 4, 2011
Sex / The Ladies Muslim Writer Slaps Down NPR Host
Posted by Dan Savage on Fri, Nov 4, 2011 at 4:39 PM
Joumana Haddad is a Lebanese writer and poet and the founding editor of Jasad (“Body”), an erotic magazine for Arab women, which is a ballsy (ovariesy?) thing to found & edit. Haddad was interviewed today on the public radio program The World by co-host Lisa Mullins. Early in the interview Haddad pointed out that, despite what many in the West believe, not all Arab women are "veiled, subdued, and oppressed." Some Arab women are like her: unveiled, liberated, and free. Haddad added that women who aren't like her—all those veiled, subdued, and oppressed women—represent the majority of Arab women, "and that's one of our biggest problems." Mullins, in a hilariously patronizing display of PC handwringing, jumps in to correct Haddad on this point. Haddad promptly hands Mullins her ass:
MULLINS: When you make the distinction between yourself and the other women who, for instance, wear the veil, just to put it very basically, inherent in that argument is the idea that [women who wear the veil] are trapped, that they cannot think for themselves, that they don't think for themselves, that they don't choose to wear the veil, when you know that there are women who do.
HADDAD: I'm quite convinced, and I can say it in a very extreme way, that I know they don't. Because either it's the result of a brainwashing that makes them think it is their choice, or they have so much dignity that they don't want to admit that it has been forced on them. But you can only talk about choice and freedom of choice when you have alternatives. You can not talk about freedom of choice when, if you don't wear the veil, you're going to be either harassed or beaten up or killed or whatever.
MULLINS: But you know there are young people who have grown up who have not had the veil imposed on them [who] have chosen now to wear it, for whatever reason. I mean, you know these people, I've met some of them myself. They've had the freedom to not do it and they choose to.
HADDAD: I know. And many of these cases are in a way a reaction to what they perceive as an invasion of the West, of Western values, on their lives, and they do it as a self-punishment, I think, without realizing it. And when I talk about patriarchal societies, I'm talking also about women, because many women have patriarchal values.
The whole interview is here.
1
ballsy (ovariesy?)If you don't like using "ballsy" as gender-neutral, or replacing it with something gender-neutral, how about "eggsy"?
2
PC handwringing, or asking a follow-up question by way of making a counter-point? She's not correcting her, she's doing her job. She's a journalist, you know.
3
Haddad's position is too extreme and Mullins' point is not "a hilariously patronizing display of PC handwringing." Haddad claims that there is no such thing as a Muslim woman who voluntarily chooses to wear the veil, because women who do are either forced or brainwashed into wearing it. Mullins isn't denying that there are lots and lots of women who wear the veil for these reasons, she is just pointing out that the issue is more complex than that. There are plenty of women who choose to wear the veil because they see it as part of their Muslim identity. Lots of Muslim women want to wear veil, just like lots of Catholics want to wear crucifixes, lots of Jews choose to wear skull caps, lots of Mormons want to wear special undergarments, and lots of gays want to wear rainbow-colored accessories. It's unfortunate that some women are forced or brainwashed into veiling themselves. But it's ridiculous and condescending to claim that *all* veiled women are forced or brainwashed.
4
That doesn't sound like handing someone their ass. That excerpt -- I haven't read the whole thing -- sounds like a civil exchange between people with differing viewpoints and levels of understanding. Haddad certainly knows Muslim culture better, but Mullins's questions you quoted don't sound offensive. They sounded like inquisitive and reasonable questions about the availability of choice for Muslim women around the world, not clueless "PC handwringing."
5
If you've ever spent time in the Gulf States you'll understand why the women are veiled: most are fucking hideous. I wish the mingers in Seattle would throw a sheet over their heads too.
6
I just listened to this very interesting interview, and it was absolutely not a "slap-down" moment. There was no sense that Mullins jumped in to correct Haddad, or that she was being overly PC. Mullins' question was exactly what I wanted to ask as I was listening, because you do often hear that sentiment, of a muslim woman who chooses to wear the veil, and I really wanted to hear Haddad's response. If Mullins hadn't done what you describe as "a hilariously patronizing display of PC handwringing" then we wouldn't have gotten to hear that response. I'm glad you linked to this great interview, but your criticism of the interview is totally baffling.
8
What a weird interpretation of this exchange. It's not a competition where someone gets "handed their ass", it's a conversation, and both make excellent points. I'm not seeing any disrespect or ass-handing here.
Also, considering this is a conversation between two women, you could leave the balls out of it and just say "gutsy", "fearless", "daring", or "courageous".
I'm thinking you had balls and asses on your mind, for some reason?
Also, considering this is a conversation between two women, you could leave the balls out of it and just say "gutsy", "fearless", "daring", or "courageous".
I'm thinking you had balls and asses on your mind, for some reason?
9
Gonadsy?
Anyway, I'm not seeing that exchange the way you are, and I've listened to and known too many strong, intelligent, educated, liberated Muslim women who live in places where the hijab isn't required describe their very feminist reasons for making that choice to treat Haddad as speaking authoritatively for all Muslim women. Even she begins to make caveats like "many of these cases" later in the exchange, because I'm sure she knows women like that as well.
She still sounds awesome, though.
Anyway, I'm not seeing that exchange the way you are, and I've listened to and known too many strong, intelligent, educated, liberated Muslim women who live in places where the hijab isn't required describe their very feminist reasons for making that choice to treat Haddad as speaking authoritatively for all Muslim women. Even she begins to make caveats like "many of these cases" later in the exchange, because I'm sure she knows women like that as well.
She still sounds awesome, though.
10
I'm with the others - there is no ass-handing, Mullen does her job as an interviewer (and does it well), pointing to something that many women wearing a hijab would say.
I think part of Haddad's reply is very good - how do we speak about freedom in a repressive context - but the part about muslim women in the West punishing themselves is rather weak. It's also the only part of the exchange where any patronizing is going on.
(I think that part of the argument is pretty much on par with claiming that women who wear high heels, like porn, like anal sex etc. don't _really_ like it, but are victims of patriarchy. Within a certain brand of feminism that's a coherent argument - they'll claim that for both veil and high-heels. But coming from Dan that doesn't make any sense.)
I think part of Haddad's reply is very good - how do we speak about freedom in a repressive context - but the part about muslim women in the West punishing themselves is rather weak. It's also the only part of the exchange where any patronizing is going on.
(I think that part of the argument is pretty much on par with claiming that women who wear high heels, like porn, like anal sex etc. don't _really_ like it, but are victims of patriarchy. Within a certain brand of feminism that's a coherent argument - they'll claim that for both veil and high-heels. But coming from Dan that doesn't make any sense.)
11
The condescending one here is Haddad, who grants that other women can disagree with her but only if they are
a) brainwashed, or
b) too dignified to admit they really agree?
a) brainwashed, or
b) too dignified to admit they really agree?
12
Today at work someone said they thought our meeting was at 4:15, but I said, "I don't think so, but maybe you're right." Boy, did I really hand them their ass!!! What a slap-down, no?
13
Sorry Dan, I agree with the majority of comments already posted- and implying that Mullins was some how out of line for "jumping in to correct her" (which is not, in my opinion, an accurate characterization of what Mullins did) is similar to saying that you would be out of line for "correcting" a generalization that a woman you were interviewing made about other women just because you're a man. Haddad's Muslim and/or Arab credentials doesn't make her opinions about all things Arab and/or Muslim above challenge by non-Arabs or non-Muslims. Particularly when she's making the claim that she knows the motivations of other women better than even they themselves do.
15
it is impossibile to choose or not choose the veil outside of the cultural construct surrounding it. haddad is right - even if muslim women choose it in reaction to western society trying to free women from it, they're still siding with patriarchy and oppression. god does not give a fuck if he sees your hair.
16
@10, excellent point. There are good arguments for both sides of the examples you mention, and I can't see them ever being resolved. Some want to claim autonomy within the system, and others say we must destroy the system. I'm kind of on the side of respecting women who choose to watch porn (even if it's demeaning to women) or choose to wear the veil. I don't think anyone should have to wait for a revolution to claim their sexual or religious autonomy. I'm more pragmatic than idealistic, I suppose.
17
@15 I don't think making Moslem women wear the veil has anything to do with what God wants. Religion is used to justify the practice but it's not the reason for it. Making women wear veils and keeping them away from men allows their fathers to control who they mary. A young girl walks around with her head uncovered and guys see her pretty hair and come over and mack on her. Eventually she meets a guy she likes and he becomes her husband/boyfriend/fuck buddy. Maybe she makes a wise decision, maybe she doesn't but the choice is hers. The veil prevents the natural process of flirtation and courtship and allows a girl's father to choose who she marries for reasons of his own. It is a method of patriarchal control.
18
I grew up hearing this argument in my former church about women who wore long skirts for modesty even though the current style was short skirts. Bleh.
I just spent two years in Algeria. Teenage girls there veil to piss off their mothers, many of whom fought politically and physically against conservative Islam and everything the veil stands for. It's kind of funny - no brainwashing involved there. Just your typical adolescent rebelliousness.
I just spent two years in Algeria. Teenage girls there veil to piss off their mothers, many of whom fought politically and physically against conservative Islam and everything the veil stands for. It's kind of funny - no brainwashing involved there. Just your typical adolescent rebelliousness.
19
Ask any hijabi about how "the veil prevents the natural process of courtship and flirtation" Ken, but don't be surprised if she laughs in your face, k? Plenty of girls still get hit on even when their hair is covered. Also, what about already-married women who choose to wear the veil? There are plenty of women who don't take the veil until later in life (and plenty of those do it -gasp- over the objections of their husbands! I had a professor in jut such a situation.) while controlling what a woman wears can be a method of patriarchal control (in any religion/culture) it does not reduce the article of clothing itself to only this.
20
Dan, read, and re-read, @ 10 again.
You do some things very well - LGBT issues, sex and relationship advice - but women's issues in the Muslim world? I kinda think you're out of your element there.
You do some things very well - LGBT issues, sex and relationship advice - but women's issues in the Muslim world? I kinda think you're out of your element there.
21
Re: 10 Exactly.
Also, defining the reasons why some women may wear the veil as 'self-punishment' and because of 'patriarchal values' is certainly condescending, but pathologizing entire cultures this way is beyond absurd.
Especially from someone who runs a website with a flash intro.
Also, defining the reasons why some women may wear the veil as 'self-punishment' and because of 'patriarchal values' is certainly condescending, but pathologizing entire cultures this way is beyond absurd.
Especially from someone who runs a website with a flash intro.
24
@19 I would never be so discourteous as to suggest to an observant Moslem women that her veil/head scarf was a form of patriarchal oppression. That doesn't mean that it isn't. Obviously, a wide spread and long-standing cultural/religious tradition will mean different things to different people. Some women might choose to wear it because it gives them a feeling common identity with other Moslem women, or simply because their mothers don't want them to wear it. However, I don't see how such a tradition could have begun as anything other than a form of patriarchal control and for the most part I think it still serves that purpose.
@20 For a sensitive new age homo, Dan has quite a macho competitive streak.
@20 For a sensitive new age homo, Dan has quite a macho competitive streak.
25
This could be a teaching moment.
When you are filled with hate, it's hard to see past the hate. So when you're scratching your head wondering what makes homophobes say such absurd things, remember: they can't see past the hate. Hate defines their world, and reality can't get through.
Same thing with Dan Savage. He hates Islam so much he can't see past his hate. It distorts everything for him.
When you are filled with hate, it's hard to see past the hate. So when you're scratching your head wondering what makes homophobes say such absurd things, remember: they can't see past the hate. Hate defines their world, and reality can't get through.
Same thing with Dan Savage. He hates Islam so much he can't see past his hate. It distorts everything for him.
27
It's bullshit to claim that all women who wear the veil are being consciously or subconsciously coerced into doing so. Maybe some women just feel good about dressing modestly?
@9: Gonadsy.
@9: Gonadsy.
29
Don't expect Dan to back down or even accept that he could have misinterpreted. That would be admitting he's not right 100 percent of the time, which he will never do.
(Nevermind that this show is from PRI, not NPR. But we won't see a correction for that, either.)
(Nevermind that this show is from PRI, not NPR. But we won't see a correction for that, either.)
30
That was quite interesting. And yeah, it didn't seem like a smackdown to me.
Being Lebanese myself, the point about her writing in French first instead of Arabic makes sense.. Taboos are strong, and language is powerful - writing in French was the easy thing, so it's nice that she switched to Arabic.
Her points about veiled women were a bit too far I think - there are a lot of (often intertwined) reasons for being veiled, from fear to societal pressure to customs to culture to identity to belief. I'm sure if it were just down to the last couple of reasons, there would be much less women veiled, but it would still be a non-zero number. But the veil - mostly - is a form of societal control of women. That is true.
FYI, based on her last name, I'm pretty sure that the author is Christian - ethnically at least, as religion is pretty much an ethnic identifier in Lebanon. So she is an Arab woman but probably not a Muslim one. She certainly has guts though, starting an erotic magazine in Lebanon. I hope things go well for her. I'll have to check out that magazine next time I'm there.
Being Lebanese myself, the point about her writing in French first instead of Arabic makes sense.. Taboos are strong, and language is powerful - writing in French was the easy thing, so it's nice that she switched to Arabic.
Her points about veiled women were a bit too far I think - there are a lot of (often intertwined) reasons for being veiled, from fear to societal pressure to customs to culture to identity to belief. I'm sure if it were just down to the last couple of reasons, there would be much less women veiled, but it would still be a non-zero number. But the veil - mostly - is a form of societal control of women. That is true.
FYI, based on her last name, I'm pretty sure that the author is Christian - ethnically at least, as religion is pretty much an ethnic identifier in Lebanon. So she is an Arab woman but probably not a Muslim one. She certainly has guts though, starting an erotic magazine in Lebanon. I hope things go well for her. I'll have to check out that magazine next time I'm there.
33
Dan, although I also don't agree with your assessment of the interview, I also think the majority of commenter here are highly ignorant to suggest that a completely independent, free-thinking woman would make a voluntary decision to completely obscure her face in public. Saying that a woman might do it as a way of showing "Muslim Identity" is just another way of saying that they're wearing it because if they don't, their god will punish them. That's not an independent decision.
Unfortunately, there's a significant portion of the left that automatically associates all things about Muslims as being "good," "innocent," and "oppressed," while all things associated with Christianity or Judaism as "bad," "guilty," and, most importantly, "aggressor." Most of the comm enters here are following that logic to the letter.
Unfortunately, there's a significant portion of the left that automatically associates all things about Muslims as being "good," "innocent," and "oppressed," while all things associated with Christianity or Judaism as "bad," "guilty," and, most importantly, "aggressor." Most of the comm enters here are following that logic to the letter.
34
@33, not to get in to the finer points of the Koran, but one may surely express identity (even religious identity) without doing it mainly, solely, simply, or actually out of fear of one's deity of choice. More importantly, it isn't clear what religiously related decisions might be understood as "independent" given your position.
As to Dan's original post, I'm not sure I've ever seen a more bizarre reading of, well, anything, really.
As to Dan's original post, I'm not sure I've ever seen a more bizarre reading of, well, anything, really.
35
@34 So if not for fear of punishment (from her god, her husband, government, or whoever), what then could a possible reason be why a woman could truly desire to cover her entire face from the world entirely of her own free will? I have honestly never heard a possible explanation.
In fact, although I initially thought Dan misinterpreted the tone of the interview, after listening to the whole thing I now believe he has it dead-on. By stating unequivocally that the idea that Muslim women willingly wear the veil is a myth, Haddad directly interfered with the current meme that most on the left are trying to percolate regarding this issue. Mullins very obviously tried to get her to backtrack that statement, which Haddad (who is a greater authority on the topic than Mullins or any of us) refused to do. Both Haddad and Dan are correct.
In fact, although I initially thought Dan misinterpreted the tone of the interview, after listening to the whole thing I now believe he has it dead-on. By stating unequivocally that the idea that Muslim women willingly wear the veil is a myth, Haddad directly interfered with the current meme that most on the left are trying to percolate regarding this issue. Mullins very obviously tried to get her to backtrack that statement, which Haddad (who is a greater authority on the topic than Mullins or any of us) refused to do. Both Haddad and Dan are correct.
36
Dan,
Thanks for having the courage to stick your neck out and be proven wrong and - most importantly - for signing your real name to your views. While you are openly a provocateur, your critics can only be equally provocative while veiling their real names under a kind of Burka of anonymity. The courageous of the world accept that fact that they have to take their licks when they sign their name to their work. Do not be discouraged by the anonymous caterwauling emanating from the nickel seats. You are doing fine; the occasional knee jerk reaction notwithstanding. It's not as if we expected you to never misjudge, misunderstand or grandly overstate.
You're welcome
Thanks for having the courage to stick your neck out and be proven wrong and - most importantly - for signing your real name to your views. While you are openly a provocateur, your critics can only be equally provocative while veiling their real names under a kind of Burka of anonymity. The courageous of the world accept that fact that they have to take their licks when they sign their name to their work. Do not be discouraged by the anonymous caterwauling emanating from the nickel seats. You are doing fine; the occasional knee jerk reaction notwithstanding. It's not as if we expected you to never misjudge, misunderstand or grandly overstate.
You're welcome
37
Many of the arguments used by Haddad against the existence of liberated women choosing the veil are the same ones used by overeager feminists against the existence of empowered women in sex work: you have been brainwashed, it's subconscious self-punishment, you have sided with the patriarchy.
Similar arguments were levied against women who, after the women's rights progress of the 20's-70's, chose to stay home with the kids.
Unfortunately, most veiled women are not in communities where they can live safely and be treated with the same respect regardless of whether or not they go veiled. That is not free. Haddad, I think, is emphasizing that while some women claim to choose the veil, the overwhelming majority either cannot make that choice (society is overtly oppressive) or they are somewhat less free than they claim in the making of it (more subtle, but still pervasive pressures).
Similar arguments were levied against women who, after the women's rights progress of the 20's-70's, chose to stay home with the kids.
Unfortunately, most veiled women are not in communities where they can live safely and be treated with the same respect regardless of whether or not they go veiled. That is not free. Haddad, I think, is emphasizing that while some women claim to choose the veil, the overwhelming majority either cannot make that choice (society is overtly oppressive) or they are somewhat less free than they claim in the making of it (more subtle, but still pervasive pressures).
38
@33: i see all 3 monotheisms as related, flawed, patriarchal and oppressive. that is not to say that there aren't good things in these 3 religions (or is it 1?), but none of these are unique insights unavailable to hindus, buddhists, or ethical atheists.
if christianity has any virtue over judaism or islam, it is practical incorporation of a female diety, the virgin mary. and her veneration is fraught with problems, too. like the virgin part.
if christianity has any virtue over judaism or islam, it is practical incorporation of a female diety, the virgin mary. and her veneration is fraught with problems, too. like the virgin part.
39
I suspect that many who are condemning Haddad's statements are basing their statements upon their experiences and observations of women in this country who choose to veil themselves. Let's keep in mind that for women of vairous faiths with the cultural customs of veiling and modesty, in the US it is truly their choice to observe this custom (in many instances a choice that carries over from the traditions instilled upon them from childhood, behavioral conditioning at its finest)--they will not endure harrassment on the street or from the government if they choose not to be veiled, although they may well endure this from their family and community. I would wager that Haddad has a bit more experience with women in countries in which the cultural pressures are much different. Not having been to those countires, and not having had the relationships with these women, not having had the conversations with these woman that it is reasonable to expect that Haddad has had, I am more inclined to accept her assessment than someone who has little more exposure than I.
I couldn't find the rest of the transcripts of the interview, so I can't speak to the accuracy of Dan's assessment. However, I have never perceived Mr. Savage of being overly concerned with women's isues of equality on any country, never considered Dan to be a feminist, so I fail to see any reason to see his assessment of this interview as flawed or biased. The man is a journalist, and he called another journalist out on some bullshit. And Mullin's opening in this exerpt was some straight bullshit.
I couldn't find the rest of the transcripts of the interview, so I can't speak to the accuracy of Dan's assessment. However, I have never perceived Mr. Savage of being overly concerned with women's isues of equality on any country, never considered Dan to be a feminist, so I fail to see any reason to see his assessment of this interview as flawed or biased. The man is a journalist, and he called another journalist out on some bullshit. And Mullin's opening in this exerpt was some straight bullshit.
40
@39 I think Dan's life experience makes him inclined to agree with anyone who is critical of religion.
41
While Haddad does have a point--that if women are going to get beaten up or ostracized for not wearing the veil, then the veil is forced on them--I find her take more patronizing than Mullins'. All Mullins is saying is that SOME women in the Arab world might prefer the veil, and it makes sense that there would be at least a few. After all, there are Muslim women in the U.S. who are free to refuse the veil but prefer to wear it.
Once the world sees plenty of free, liberated women who wear the veil by choice, then we will all stop seeing the veil as a sign of oppression.
Once the world sees plenty of free, liberated women who wear the veil by choice, then we will all stop seeing the veil as a sign of oppression.
42
@35
There was a very good one given just a few comments up, @18. It's pretty apparent that your politics are blinding you to perspectives different from your own. You've already made up your mind, and so you see a valid question -- "But what about those women we've met who have the freedom to not do it and still choose to?" -- as political ideology (a "meme" the left is "trying to percolate"). Your comment @33 similarly misreads the discussion with its insistence that a significant portion of the left, including most commenters here, see Muslims as innocent and Christians as aggressors. It's ironic that your attack on religious dogmatism is grounded in political dogmatism.
So if not for fear of punishment (from her god, her husband, government, or whoever), what then could a possible reason be why a woman could truly desire to cover her entire face from the world entirely of her own free will? I have honestly never heard a possible explanation.
There was a very good one given just a few comments up, @18. It's pretty apparent that your politics are blinding you to perspectives different from your own. You've already made up your mind, and so you see a valid question -- "But what about those women we've met who have the freedom to not do it and still choose to?" -- as political ideology (a "meme" the left is "trying to percolate"). Your comment @33 similarly misreads the discussion with its insistence that a significant portion of the left, including most commenters here, see Muslims as innocent and Christians as aggressors. It's ironic that your attack on religious dogmatism is grounded in political dogmatism.
43
@33 - my challenge remains: How can you argue that the hijab _can't_ be worn out of free will, but a woman wearing high heels (which, as opposed to the hijab, are actually bad for you), does it voluntarily? As mentioned above, there are some, mostly older, feminists who would argue that neither are free - I disagree, but I accept that they have a coherent argument. But anyone reading Dan knows he'd ridicule the idea that a woman can't voluntarily wear high heels.
@39 - a) she's from Lebanon, which is a pretty liberal country. b) she's making the argument that _no_ woman wearing the headscarf does it voluntarily - i.e. her argument needs to apply to muslimas in the US, too. (the weak form of the argument - that some women don't wear it voluntarily is obviously true - see Saudi Arabia and Iran for a start - but not contested by anyone, either). c) It's not that hard to find writings by muslimas from predominantly muslim countries - especially those with more secular governments like Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia - that defend the wearing of a headscarf.
@39 - a) she's from Lebanon, which is a pretty liberal country. b) she's making the argument that _no_ woman wearing the headscarf does it voluntarily - i.e. her argument needs to apply to muslimas in the US, too. (the weak form of the argument - that some women don't wear it voluntarily is obviously true - see Saudi Arabia and Iran for a start - but not contested by anyone, either). c) It's not that hard to find writings by muslimas from predominantly muslim countries - especially those with more secular governments like Lebanon, Egypt, Tunisia, Indonesia - that defend the wearing of a headscarf.
44
Time out folks. There are plenty of women in the arab world who skip the headscarf. Just as there are plenty of women in the rural USA who wear curlers and sweatpants to the grocery store. It is as much a question of time and effort (and money) as it is of patriarchy. The veil can be a convenient equalizer in a relatively poor society where many do not have the money to purchase hair dye, or the time to make themselves up when they are busy cooking, shopping, cleaning, etc. Most women in the arab world do not have time-saving household appliances that we consider standard. They also do not have Safeway and all its processed, preservative filled foods. There is only so much time in a day to keep a house and feed a family. Think back to the 1950s when your grandmother had her hair done every week, then take away the money for the hairdresser. The veil could have easily caught on here in slightly different circumstances. Religion is just a tool. Think about the money
45
Joumana Haddad is a Christian, not a Muslim. This is significant, especially in a sectarian country like Lebanon, because it has a lot to do with her perception of Islam.
46
@45 Do you have a source where Haddad identifies as a Christian? She didn't say so in the interview, and I cannot find any other info elsewhere.
47
@43 I would assume almost all women who choose to wear high heels do so because they believe it makes them appear more attractive in one way or another. I really don't see that as an equal comparison.
48
@42 Well I'm so relieved. I had no idea you knew so much about "my politics" and how they've blinded me so. Please tell me more about myself. In fact, why don't you lecture Ms. Haddad about her politics as well, since she shares my view that there is no such thing as women who truly wish to veil themselves voluntarily.
49
@flang: http://tmagazine.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/… This article is also good because it quotes an Arab radical feminist critique of Haddad. She's not really taken seriously in the Arab world.
Also, her name is plainly Christian, both first and last.
Also, her name is plainly Christian, both first and last.
50
Sorry, don't know how to post links on Slog (this is my first time commenting). It's an article from the NYTimes's T magazine called "Sex and the Souk" by Nina Burleigh.
51
flang -
a) Why do you think a muslim woman could not consider herself more attractive with a hijab. (And "attractive" often includes notions of "proper" - think of shaving legs&armpits, of people wanting to look "classy" etc.).
b) By what standard is "I want to please my god" an inferior standard to "I want to be attractive"?
a) Why do you think a muslim woman could not consider herself more attractive with a hijab. (And "attractive" often includes notions of "proper" - think of shaving legs&armpits, of people wanting to look "classy" etc.).
b) By what standard is "I want to please my god" an inferior standard to "I want to be attractive"?
53
@49 The last part of your link got cut off but I'm assuming it points to the bio piece from March 21st. That article indicates that she had a "strict Christian upbringing," but considering how long ago that was and considering her current worldview, I would guess she's left it far behind (unless I've got the wrong article). Thanks for looking into that.
55
@51 To your first question - I have no issues with the headscarf, as long as it is not being worn by force of law, church, or family. I agree that any woman, whether Muslim or of any other faith, would want to wear it to appear more dignified or attractive. My problem is with the burqa and anything resembling it. I would never believe any woman would honestly think wearing it improves their appearance in any way, since it obscures every single physical feature they have (which is the point of its existence in the first place) and makes them indistinguishable from every other woman wearing it.
Which leads to your second point. There's nothing inferior about "I wear it to please my god." Other actions that please God would include praying, tithing, abstaining, and so on. Nothing wrong with any of it, obviously. But you can't really wear it as a way to please God if choosing not to wear it makes him angry. That's the problem I and others have with it.
Which leads to your second point. There's nothing inferior about "I wear it to please my god." Other actions that please God would include praying, tithing, abstaining, and so on. Nothing wrong with any of it, obviously. But you can't really wear it as a way to please God if choosing not to wear it makes him angry. That's the problem I and others have with it.
56
VEILS. There are many mornings when I wake up not rested from my over-worked schedule. At such times, I can handle taking a shower, brushing my teeth, combing my hair, and about not much else. I get my kid ready for school, and then I pick out an outfit to wear. It is at such times that I wonder if I could get away with wearing one of those head-to-toe veil things so that nobody can see my red eyes, my exhausted pale face, and maybe my old sweat pants, if that's what I end up wearing. I can't tell you the number of times that I've thought that. I've wondered how it would be to take my appearance, my sexuality, my physical realm out of consideration.
I'm a professional violinist. When I auditioned for orchestras, I got the luxury of a curtain to make sure that the hiring committee heard my playing only with their ears. A woman in the United States doesn't often get that. Women live under the scrutiny, The Eye. Sometimes it's unavoidable. For example, if I were a conductor, a curtain would be impossible because a conductor's craft exists so clearly in the physical realm. (Incidentally, do you know how few high-level female conductors there are?)
So I've imagined wearing the curtain. Forget for the moment what the public's reaction would be (OMG, look at that fanatic!)... I've thought that it would be somewhat freeing. I could be anything I want under that curtain. I could be like the world's most bad-ass poker face.
On the other hand, I would also be somewhat invisible. Yes, that would be freeing. I wonder if my behavior would change, like when you post something online under an alias... you tend to use a different tone than you might in person.
Or would the problem be that I would come to rely on the curtain? Couldn't it happen that I would feel way too exposed to be without it? Not to mention that it really does look cumbersome to move around in. And I would want to go swimming without it, obviously. (Remember the first time you ever went skinny dipping, how cool that sensation was? That must be like what veiled women feel like if they ever go swimming without all the clothing.)
So as I reflect, I imagine that there might be reasons for wanting a veil (including some reasons that I've considered myself). But for me, the main motivation would be so that I could feel as relaxed as men have it. I wish that I could slouch around in the crap that men wear and still be taken seriously and be considered hot, but not have to deal with being hot all the freaking time.
But I wonder... If the veil were a choice, like wearing a ponytail, then I'd expect women to wear it one day and not the next, depending on their choice that day. Or maybe not. I mean, some women never wear clothing that goes anywhere near their cleavage and others are more balanced about it (and then, like when Hilary Clinton's, oh I don't know, COLLARBONE was showing, the media had a fucking heart attack).
So if the thought process for veil-wearing women is anything like mine, if it's more to get the fuck away from the crunching tectonic plates hovering over women in this country, then it's not much of a CHOICE. If the veil choice is more of an exit strategy, then it's not so free.
More...
I'm a professional violinist. When I auditioned for orchestras, I got the luxury of a curtain to make sure that the hiring committee heard my playing only with their ears. A woman in the United States doesn't often get that. Women live under the scrutiny, The Eye. Sometimes it's unavoidable. For example, if I were a conductor, a curtain would be impossible because a conductor's craft exists so clearly in the physical realm. (Incidentally, do you know how few high-level female conductors there are?)
So I've imagined wearing the curtain. Forget for the moment what the public's reaction would be (OMG, look at that fanatic!)... I've thought that it would be somewhat freeing. I could be anything I want under that curtain. I could be like the world's most bad-ass poker face.
On the other hand, I would also be somewhat invisible. Yes, that would be freeing. I wonder if my behavior would change, like when you post something online under an alias... you tend to use a different tone than you might in person.
Or would the problem be that I would come to rely on the curtain? Couldn't it happen that I would feel way too exposed to be without it? Not to mention that it really does look cumbersome to move around in. And I would want to go swimming without it, obviously. (Remember the first time you ever went skinny dipping, how cool that sensation was? That must be like what veiled women feel like if they ever go swimming without all the clothing.)
So as I reflect, I imagine that there might be reasons for wanting a veil (including some reasons that I've considered myself). But for me, the main motivation would be so that I could feel as relaxed as men have it. I wish that I could slouch around in the crap that men wear and still be taken seriously and be considered hot, but not have to deal with being hot all the freaking time.
But I wonder... If the veil were a choice, like wearing a ponytail, then I'd expect women to wear it one day and not the next, depending on their choice that day. Or maybe not. I mean, some women never wear clothing that goes anywhere near their cleavage and others are more balanced about it (and then, like when Hilary Clinton's, oh I don't know, COLLARBONE was showing, the media had a fucking heart attack).
So if the thought process for veil-wearing women is anything like mine, if it's more to get the fuck away from the crunching tectonic plates hovering over women in this country, then it's not much of a CHOICE. If the veil choice is more of an exit strategy, then it's not so free.
57
33/flang: I also think the majority of commenter here are highly ignorant to suggest that a completely independent, free-thinking woman would make a voluntary decision to completely obscure her face in public.
Quite the contrary. I think the the majority of commenters here are mature enough to understand that just because a woman does something they might find odd, or wouldn't choose to do themselves, it doesn't mean that she's not independent and free-thinking.
Quite the contrary. I think the the majority of commenters here are mature enough to understand that just because a woman does something they might find odd, or wouldn't choose to do themselves, it doesn't mean that she's not independent and free-thinking.
58
I'll jump in and say I'm with those who believe a woman can freely choose to wear whatever she wants, even if it covers her full face. (Of course in many places it's not the case that she has a choice in the matter, and that is wrong. But it's the forcing that is wrong, not the object. As in that other discussion about offensive words and whether they're bad in themselves, there's nothing in itself wrong with hijabs, headscarves, burqas, high heels, topless bikinis or any other kind of clothes; what is wrong is forcing people to wear any of them.)
Haddad's claim that those women who choose to wear the veil as a statement against the West also seems to me to ignore the point. What is she saying -- that this would not be a legitimate reason to choose to wear the veil? But people seem to accept that if a women dresses provocatively to take part in a SlutWalk demonstration, she is doing that freely, even though again she's doing this to protest against something she doesn't like. Why should it be OK for her to choose her clothes so as to protest against slut-shaming, but not OK to choose her clothes so as to protest against Western cultural influence -- as long as it's a free choice of hers?
Also, all the discussion about 'brainwashing'... Even though it is true that people can be deliberately influenced (a word I prefer to 'brainwashed') into doing things, either by other individuals or by the culture where they grew up, I have to say those who use this argument tend to lose sight of the fact that it's a two-edged sword. One can just as legitimately claim that those who protest against something (say, those who are against the veil) are doing so also because they were 'brainwashed' by their culture and immediate environments (the West, feminism, liberalism, Christianity, you name it).
Either you believe that people are capable of free will choices, or then you don't -- because telling us they've been brainwashed by their culture solves nothing: everybody, including radical feminists, is influenced ('brainwashed') by their culture, their neighbors, their party comrades, their brothers-in-arms, etc.
So again: either you believe in the possibility of free choice despite the influence of the surrounding environment, or then you're fighting a losing battle.
Which is not to say that environments can't be bad, or that one shouldn't revolt against them sometimes. But to pretend that this is only a problem with 'their' environment (say, the Muslims'), never with 'our' environment, is not going to help.
It is indeed condescending for Ms Haddad to claim there are no women who can legitimately choose the veil. It would be just as bad as generalizing the opposite -- i.e., claiming that every woman who wears the veil has legitimately chosen to do it.
More...
Haddad's claim that those women who choose to wear the veil as a statement against the West also seems to me to ignore the point. What is she saying -- that this would not be a legitimate reason to choose to wear the veil? But people seem to accept that if a women dresses provocatively to take part in a SlutWalk demonstration, she is doing that freely, even though again she's doing this to protest against something she doesn't like. Why should it be OK for her to choose her clothes so as to protest against slut-shaming, but not OK to choose her clothes so as to protest against Western cultural influence -- as long as it's a free choice of hers?
Also, all the discussion about 'brainwashing'... Even though it is true that people can be deliberately influenced (a word I prefer to 'brainwashed') into doing things, either by other individuals or by the culture where they grew up, I have to say those who use this argument tend to lose sight of the fact that it's a two-edged sword. One can just as legitimately claim that those who protest against something (say, those who are against the veil) are doing so also because they were 'brainwashed' by their culture and immediate environments (the West, feminism, liberalism, Christianity, you name it).
Either you believe that people are capable of free will choices, or then you don't -- because telling us they've been brainwashed by their culture solves nothing: everybody, including radical feminists, is influenced ('brainwashed') by their culture, their neighbors, their party comrades, their brothers-in-arms, etc.
So again: either you believe in the possibility of free choice despite the influence of the surrounding environment, or then you're fighting a losing battle.
Which is not to say that environments can't be bad, or that one shouldn't revolt against them sometimes. But to pretend that this is only a problem with 'their' environment (say, the Muslims'), never with 'our' environment, is not going to help.
It is indeed condescending for Ms Haddad to claim there are no women who can legitimately choose the veil. It would be just as bad as generalizing the opposite -- i.e., claiming that every woman who wears the veil has legitimately chosen to do it.
59
@55 - OK, but those are much more moderate positions.
1. I struggle more with accepting chadors, let alone burqas, than hijabs (i.e. the typical headscarf). But burqas aren't worn by a large majority of Arab women - most certainly not in Lebanon - so Haddad is pretty clearly referring to all types of headscarfs - and I think that's a rather extreme claim, that's only sustainable when you employ very strong notions of false conciousness.
(That said - if I'm going to accept that people want to play dog and be led around on a leash by their 'masters' - who am I to judge burqas...)
2. We agree that a religion that threatens the wrath of god if you do xyz is rather unpleasant. But
a) As long as you're voluntarily choosing that religion, you're still acting out of free will. Take e.g. a strong Catholic student at a mainstream US campus (and lets assume family pressure is weak or absent) who choses to not to have sex before marriage.
To be clear - that's not the case for many muslim women, especially in the Arab world. But it is for some.
b) Many moderate Muslims believe express precisely that wearing the hijab is not a religious duty, but just a sign of special devotion (there is a specific term for that in Islamic theology, I forgot). Again, that's not all Muslims. I'm arguing against the notion that _no_ Muslima wearing veil is doing it out of free will. I don't contest the idea that many don't wear it freely.
1. I struggle more with accepting chadors, let alone burqas, than hijabs (i.e. the typical headscarf). But burqas aren't worn by a large majority of Arab women - most certainly not in Lebanon - so Haddad is pretty clearly referring to all types of headscarfs - and I think that's a rather extreme claim, that's only sustainable when you employ very strong notions of false conciousness.
(That said - if I'm going to accept that people want to play dog and be led around on a leash by their 'masters' - who am I to judge burqas...)
2. We agree that a religion that threatens the wrath of god if you do xyz is rather unpleasant. But
a) As long as you're voluntarily choosing that religion, you're still acting out of free will. Take e.g. a strong Catholic student at a mainstream US campus (and lets assume family pressure is weak or absent) who choses to not to have sex before marriage.
To be clear - that's not the case for many muslim women, especially in the Arab world. But it is for some.
b) Many moderate Muslims believe express precisely that wearing the hijab is not a religious duty, but just a sign of special devotion (there is a specific term for that in Islamic theology, I forgot). Again, that's not all Muslims. I'm arguing against the notion that _no_ Muslima wearing veil is doing it out of free will. I don't contest the idea that many don't wear it freely.
60
@Lex Tremendae (nice pick of alias, by the way), who wrote:
This is an almost perfect example of what I think is a current misinterpretation of the meaning of 'chosing' in life. I frequently see it in feminists, but I don't think it's feminism per se, or liberalism, or activism; I sometimes think it's more the American perspective on the world, the idea that the free individual is that lonesome cowboy who rides into the sunset, and who can pick at a whim the place to stop, make his fire, play his harmonica, or then to settle down and start a farm.
As if a choice could only be legitimate or worthwhile if it were a totally unconditioned choice, meaning by this that there would be no consequences whatsoever (other than mild, aesthetic consequences) of your choices. So that when you make a choice -- be it to wear a veil so as to acquire soothing invisibility, or NOT to wear a veil so as to face the physique-judgmental world (and perhaps fight it back in its own terms? or perhaps to simply succumb to it, and go with the flow, and hope that there's sufficiently much consolation in the beauty of one's music and the pleasure of playing one's instrument, with which one becomes at times a unit quite separate from the world and its petty reality...).
I don't think, Lex, that there are ANY choices worth making -- perhaps even any choices whatsoever (though I hesitate to go that far) -- that don't have consequences, which would mean, by the interpretation you suggest, that, if one doesn't like said consequences, then one really doesn't have ANY choice. It's not simply that wearing the veil is not a choice to you; it's that, by your definition, NOTHING (not even playing the violin) is really a choice for you.
And that can't be true. If the fact that we dislike the consequences (given that the world is what it is, and even if we can change it it's not going to happen right now) means that you don't have a choice, then there ARE no choices, there is no freedom, there is not a damn thing worth doing for anyone, man, woman, or undecided. Because every choice has bad consequences that we don't like and that we either put up with or fight against.
(The reason why choices always have consequences, why the world always makes choosing so unpleasant we often think we don't really have a choice, is another fascinating topic -- but I don't want to digress.)
If the bad consequences delegitimize the choice, then there is no such thing as a choice, there is no such thing as freedom. If the fact that choosing the veil may bring you soothing invisibility which you would otherwise not be able to have means that choosing the veil is not -- cannot be -- as legitimate a choice as choosing not to wear it, then there are no legitimate choices ever, because there will always be, for every choice, some similar circumstance that will make one choice preferable (it's the only way to get the darn invisibility, to not be judged by my appearance, etc.) and therefore in your view not really a choice.
I cannot subscribe to that philosophically -- in fact, this goes against some of my deepest beliefs about the world, our role in it, and what we can expect from it.
Which is why I disagree with you, Lex -- even though the emotion and the depth of thinking, both instrospective and analytical, that you show in your comment makes me feel more than a little admiration for you.
More...
So if the thought process for veil-wearing women is anything like mine, if it's more to get the fuck away from the crunching tectonic plates hovering over women in this country, then it's not much of a CHOICE. If the veil choice is more of an exit strategy, then it's not so free.
This is an almost perfect example of what I think is a current misinterpretation of the meaning of 'chosing' in life. I frequently see it in feminists, but I don't think it's feminism per se, or liberalism, or activism; I sometimes think it's more the American perspective on the world, the idea that the free individual is that lonesome cowboy who rides into the sunset, and who can pick at a whim the place to stop, make his fire, play his harmonica, or then to settle down and start a farm.
As if a choice could only be legitimate or worthwhile if it were a totally unconditioned choice, meaning by this that there would be no consequences whatsoever (other than mild, aesthetic consequences) of your choices. So that when you make a choice -- be it to wear a veil so as to acquire soothing invisibility, or NOT to wear a veil so as to face the physique-judgmental world (and perhaps fight it back in its own terms? or perhaps to simply succumb to it, and go with the flow, and hope that there's sufficiently much consolation in the beauty of one's music and the pleasure of playing one's instrument, with which one becomes at times a unit quite separate from the world and its petty reality...).
I don't think, Lex, that there are ANY choices worth making -- perhaps even any choices whatsoever (though I hesitate to go that far) -- that don't have consequences, which would mean, by the interpretation you suggest, that, if one doesn't like said consequences, then one really doesn't have ANY choice. It's not simply that wearing the veil is not a choice to you; it's that, by your definition, NOTHING (not even playing the violin) is really a choice for you.
And that can't be true. If the fact that we dislike the consequences (given that the world is what it is, and even if we can change it it's not going to happen right now) means that you don't have a choice, then there ARE no choices, there is no freedom, there is not a damn thing worth doing for anyone, man, woman, or undecided. Because every choice has bad consequences that we don't like and that we either put up with or fight against.
(The reason why choices always have consequences, why the world always makes choosing so unpleasant we often think we don't really have a choice, is another fascinating topic -- but I don't want to digress.)
If the bad consequences delegitimize the choice, then there is no such thing as a choice, there is no such thing as freedom. If the fact that choosing the veil may bring you soothing invisibility which you would otherwise not be able to have means that choosing the veil is not -- cannot be -- as legitimate a choice as choosing not to wear it, then there are no legitimate choices ever, because there will always be, for every choice, some similar circumstance that will make one choice preferable (it's the only way to get the darn invisibility, to not be judged by my appearance, etc.) and therefore in your view not really a choice.
I cannot subscribe to that philosophically -- in fact, this goes against some of my deepest beliefs about the world, our role in it, and what we can expect from it.
Which is why I disagree with you, Lex -- even though the emotion and the depth of thinking, both instrospective and analytical, that you show in your comment makes me feel more than a little admiration for you.
61
@adam_smith, who wrote:
Pre-CISE-ly.
See, everybody talks about 'brainwashing', 'illegimitate choices', 'false consciousness' (that fateful Marxist-Existentialist term; ah! Sartre, ah! Beauvoir...), but usually these are code words for 'opinions I dislike' + 'I cannot understand how someone could ever truly, freely believe that'. If traditional Muslims suddenly can also say the same about the opinions of feminists (as I've seen some actually do), then the same term can be applied to one opinion and to its logical opposite. Not a very useful analytical tool then.
The BDSM analogue is quite good. See, nobody should be forced to be led around on a leash by a master; but if it is possible to assume that choosing to do so is possible, that a person can (like EricaP) willingly and legitimately choose to submit, then there is nothing per se wrong with burqas or hijabs or chadors, just as there is nothing wrong with complete nudity. What is wrong is being forced.
Now, it's not difficult to get people to agree with that. But then the idea that 'wrong choices are not legitimate' creeps back with those fateful words ('false consciousness', etc.). One always thinks about people being 'brainwashed' into 'false consciousness' about opinions that one doesn't agree with; one never thinks of those poor people who were 'brainwashed' into 'false consciousness' about opinions that one does agree with. Now why should that be?...
Like you, adam_smith, I also do not want to deny that many women are forced to wear clothes in many ways; sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly (socially, culturally, etc.). But I am so worried when I see people promptly giving this explanation for opinions they don't like!
I would feel better if I saw a discussion of the conditions under which choice can be legitimate. Just as the BDSM community has come to their own conclusions about when it is legitimate for someone to choose to be a submissive, and when it's (self-)abusive or 'illegitimate', I would like to see people talking about what makes decisions and choices legitimate or illegitimate.
So that we could finally figure out which women are really being oppressed into wearing a hijab, or a burqa, and which women are not. Just as we can decide which people are really being humilitated (disrespected, harmed, damaged) by being forced to do humiliating or painful things (we all agree Abu Ghraib is an example, right?) and which people are not. Clearly it's not a settled issue -- and just assuming it is and then deducing from one's opinion who is or isn't a bigot or sexist or against the empowerment of women clealry just doesn't work.
More...
(That said - if I'm going to accept that people want to play dog and be led around on a leash by their 'masters' - who am I to judge burqas...).
Pre-CISE-ly.
See, everybody talks about 'brainwashing', 'illegimitate choices', 'false consciousness' (that fateful Marxist-Existentialist term; ah! Sartre, ah! Beauvoir...), but usually these are code words for 'opinions I dislike' + 'I cannot understand how someone could ever truly, freely believe that'. If traditional Muslims suddenly can also say the same about the opinions of feminists (as I've seen some actually do), then the same term can be applied to one opinion and to its logical opposite. Not a very useful analytical tool then.
The BDSM analogue is quite good. See, nobody should be forced to be led around on a leash by a master; but if it is possible to assume that choosing to do so is possible, that a person can (like EricaP) willingly and legitimately choose to submit, then there is nothing per se wrong with burqas or hijabs or chadors, just as there is nothing wrong with complete nudity. What is wrong is being forced.
Now, it's not difficult to get people to agree with that. But then the idea that 'wrong choices are not legitimate' creeps back with those fateful words ('false consciousness', etc.). One always thinks about people being 'brainwashed' into 'false consciousness' about opinions that one doesn't agree with; one never thinks of those poor people who were 'brainwashed' into 'false consciousness' about opinions that one does agree with. Now why should that be?...
Like you, adam_smith, I also do not want to deny that many women are forced to wear clothes in many ways; sometimes explicitly, sometimes implicitly (socially, culturally, etc.). But I am so worried when I see people promptly giving this explanation for opinions they don't like!
I would feel better if I saw a discussion of the conditions under which choice can be legitimate. Just as the BDSM community has come to their own conclusions about when it is legitimate for someone to choose to be a submissive, and when it's (self-)abusive or 'illegitimate', I would like to see people talking about what makes decisions and choices legitimate or illegitimate.
So that we could finally figure out which women are really being oppressed into wearing a hijab, or a burqa, and which women are not. Just as we can decide which people are really being humilitated (disrespected, harmed, damaged) by being forced to do humiliating or painful things (we all agree Abu Ghraib is an example, right?) and which people are not. Clearly it's not a settled issue -- and just assuming it is and then deducing from one's opinion who is or isn't a bigot or sexist or against the empowerment of women clealry just doesn't work.
62
@33 (flang), who wrote:
I've worked with more traditional indigenous societies in the Amazon where people would think those people highly ignorant who suggest that a completely independent, free-thinking woman would make a voluntary decision to completely obscure her breasts in public. They just wouldn't see the point.
Or, in case you think that it's also oppression that Western (especially American) women don't show their breasts in public, and that this should be changed (actually I'd agree with this cultural change): I'd repeat what I said to Lex Tremendae in my post above (#60), plus what I said to adam_smith (#61), namely:
If a woman (or a man, for that matter) can legitimately choose to be spanked, tied up, or led around on a leash for her sexual pleasure and gratification, then she can also legitimately choose to wear a burqa, a hijab, or nothing at all.
Which is not to say that there aren't women (or men) who are forced (a word that needs to be defined, but still), both directly (via threats) or indirectly (cultural and social pressure) to wear burqas, hijabs, or nothing at all, or to do humiliating things against their will. This does happen, and it is wrong, and it should be fought against.
It's just that we shouldn't confuse these two situations.
And also that we should get to some sort of consensus about when people are 'being forced' or not. There is such a thing as a legitimate choice, even when said choice is to do something we don't agree with. Under what circumstances is a choice (regardless of whether or not we agree with or like it) legitimate? -- that is a question I wished people would try to answer more often.
More...
I also think the majority of commenter here are highly ignorant to suggest that a completely independent, free-thinking woman would make a voluntary decision to completely obscure her face in public.
I've worked with more traditional indigenous societies in the Amazon where people would think those people highly ignorant who suggest that a completely independent, free-thinking woman would make a voluntary decision to completely obscure her breasts in public. They just wouldn't see the point.
Or, in case you think that it's also oppression that Western (especially American) women don't show their breasts in public, and that this should be changed (actually I'd agree with this cultural change): I'd repeat what I said to Lex Tremendae in my post above (#60), plus what I said to adam_smith (#61), namely:
If a woman (or a man, for that matter) can legitimately choose to be spanked, tied up, or led around on a leash for her sexual pleasure and gratification, then she can also legitimately choose to wear a burqa, a hijab, or nothing at all.
Which is not to say that there aren't women (or men) who are forced (a word that needs to be defined, but still), both directly (via threats) or indirectly (cultural and social pressure) to wear burqas, hijabs, or nothing at all, or to do humiliating things against their will. This does happen, and it is wrong, and it should be fought against.
It's just that we shouldn't confuse these two situations.
And also that we should get to some sort of consensus about when people are 'being forced' or not. There is such a thing as a legitimate choice, even when said choice is to do something we don't agree with. Under what circumstances is a choice (regardless of whether or not we agree with or like it) legitimate? -- that is a question I wished people would try to answer more often.
63
@59 In the interview Haddad very explicitly mentions "veils" only; neither she nor Mullins ever brought up other forms of head coverings, and since I've never heard of any object referred to as a "veil" that doesn't cover the face, I think we have to accept that she is aware of the distinction. Haddad is from Lebanon, yes, but her work involves interacting with the Arab world as a whole.
We could get into a whole other discussion about whether people actually "choose" their religion (where "religion" refers not simply to "God(s)" but to the human organization that surrounds him (or her or them). On that point I would only say that here in Jesus-loving Texas I've never met anyone who says they met their savior Jesus Christ out of the blue one day, without having previously been told by someone else just what this Jesus guy was all about.
I concede after reading your points and those of some others here that, yes, there possibly are small minority of women who want to wear the veil of their own will and not out of fear of retribution from authority, but I don't think that should stop society as a whole from at the very least discouraging its use as a general rule. And for those countries like France who want to outlaw it completely, I believe their intentions are driven by the desire to ensure women's autonomy and not by Islamaphobia as seems to be the common mantra.
We could get into a whole other discussion about whether people actually "choose" their religion (where "religion" refers not simply to "God(s)" but to the human organization that surrounds him (or her or them). On that point I would only say that here in Jesus-loving Texas I've never met anyone who says they met their savior Jesus Christ out of the blue one day, without having previously been told by someone else just what this Jesus guy was all about.
I concede after reading your points and those of some others here that, yes, there possibly are small minority of women who want to wear the veil of their own will and not out of fear of retribution from authority, but I don't think that should stop society as a whole from at the very least discouraging its use as a general rule. And for those countries like France who want to outlaw it completely, I believe their intentions are driven by the desire to ensure women's autonomy and not by Islamaphobia as seems to be the common mantra.
64
@62, 57, et al, See above. I would retract that particular comment if we could edit our posts here as it now feels more harsh than I would like. I originally submitted it because I could see the other commenters forming the pile-on over Dan's opinion of the interview and, in case he came back to read the comments, I wanted it to be clear it wasn't a settled issue that he and Hassad were wrong and Mullins was right. What I value most about Dan's commentary is the decidedly blunt nature of it and I don't want him letting up due to the beating he's been taking from all sides lately (see here for more drama: http://tinyurl.com/3ky3y9q).
65
@63 (flang), out of curiosity, how would your ideal society work? How would people actually be able to be raised and become adults without there being conditioning influences from the environment -- be like this, not like that; do this, not that?
What we call 'education' is a type of conditioning. When children grow up they absorb what is around them, to varying degrees. There is no way every child could, in their growing-up period, ever repeat the painful and long process of social evolution that led to the culture and society that exist where said child was born.
How could it ever be different?
I think what you mean is that you think that children who were raised to accept Jesus as their personal savior are 'wrong', whereas those who were raised to believe that he isn't (say, that there is no god, or that it's a different god, or whatever) are 'right'.
But both kids were raised (or 'brainwashed', if you prefer).
How could it ever be different, given the way humans develop from babies into adults?
What is your definition of 'freedom'? When in your opinion is a choice 'freely made', and when was it the result of social influence? Did someone who was raised by a feminist mother 'freely choose' to be a feminist?
Hell, even someone who was raised by parents to always think by him/herself -- did s/he 'freely choose' to always think by him/herself?
There's a problem with definitions here.
What we call 'education' is a type of conditioning. When children grow up they absorb what is around them, to varying degrees. There is no way every child could, in their growing-up period, ever repeat the painful and long process of social evolution that led to the culture and society that exist where said child was born.
How could it ever be different?
I think what you mean is that you think that children who were raised to accept Jesus as their personal savior are 'wrong', whereas those who were raised to believe that he isn't (say, that there is no god, or that it's a different god, or whatever) are 'right'.
But both kids were raised (or 'brainwashed', if you prefer).
How could it ever be different, given the way humans develop from babies into adults?
What is your definition of 'freedom'? When in your opinion is a choice 'freely made', and when was it the result of social influence? Did someone who was raised by a feminist mother 'freely choose' to be a feminist?
Hell, even someone who was raised by parents to always think by him/herself -- did s/he 'freely choose' to always think by him/herself?
There's a problem with definitions here.
66
I'm inclined, these days, to think that fanaticism to our being correct is what makes us intolerant of the idea that others can choose something for themselves that we disprove of. We wed ourselves so tightly to the idea that we're correct that we loose the ability to consider different view points, and we become desperate to defend our opinions against contravening facts often at great emotional and intellectual expense, we also quickly forget that we are not immune from self-delusion. Maybe because the vast majority of us tend to believe what our parents believe that questions that can't be answered empirically then depend on our prior metaphysical assumptions. Maybe it is too hard to see through the lens of another, it easier to consider things from our own point of view. But what do I know, my $0.02 are often well suited for the dustbin. :-)
67
ankylosaur - I'm 100% with you, that's a helpful clarification. My issue with burqa and chador is this: They are almost exclusively worn within a highly repressive religious, political, and/or family context. The currents of Islam that prescribe Burqa and Chador also have 12th century notions of female subservience and, crucially, punishment for disobedience. So the problem is that there are virtually no cases of women wearing the Burqa under what you helpfully call "conditions under which choice can be legitimate." (While the exact line for these conditions is tricky, I don't think it's controversial that the threat of physical punishment and/or complete ostracism from family/community makes free choice impossible).
On the other hand, there are many examples of women wearing hijab who make that decision under conditions that can reasonably considered free. (plug your discussion of "free" choice here - I think "reasonable" should mean comparable to other decisions we consider "free," - hence my "high heels" example.)
On the other hand, there are many examples of women wearing hijab who make that decision under conditions that can reasonably considered free. (plug your discussion of "free" choice here - I think "reasonable" should mean comparable to other decisions we consider "free," - hence my "high heels" example.)
68
@64 (flang), I understand you desire to keep Dan's comments as keen and sharp as possible -- it's indeed part of the reason why it's a pleasure to read him.
But then, does that mean that people who happen to disagree with him on some issue don't get to be just as sharp in their disagreement? :-)
I think Dan is all in all a well-balanced guy, with a good, working bullshit detector. He'll also see through the adjectives what is a true criticism or not. I'm sure that, if he ever changes his opinion, or his language about something, it's not just because he wants to 'please' those who disagree with him -- it's because he actually gave the topic some thought. Right, Dan? You don't cave just because some guys bark at you -- do you?
But then, does that mean that people who happen to disagree with him on some issue don't get to be just as sharp in their disagreement? :-)
I think Dan is all in all a well-balanced guy, with a good, working bullshit detector. He'll also see through the adjectives what is a true criticism or not. I'm sure that, if he ever changes his opinion, or his language about something, it's not just because he wants to 'please' those who disagree with him -- it's because he actually gave the topic some thought. Right, Dan? You don't cave just because some guys bark at you -- do you?
69
@flang (63) - your understanding of the word "veil" is not in line with how it's commonly used.
See the wikipedia article, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam
"A variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women in accordance with hijab (the principle of dressing modestly) are sometimes referred to as veils. Many of these garments cover the hair, ears and throat, but do not cover the face. "
Specifically, "veil" is the usual translation of the arabic "hijab". So I think we can assume that when an Arab speaking woman whose third language is English says "veil" she means "hijab."
See the wikipedia article, for example:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil#Islam
"A variety of headdresses worn by Muslim women in accordance with hijab (the principle of dressing modestly) are sometimes referred to as veils. Many of these garments cover the hair, ears and throat, but do not cover the face. "
Specifically, "veil" is the usual translation of the arabic "hijab". So I think we can assume that when an Arab speaking woman whose third language is English says "veil" she means "hijab."
70
@66(kim in portland), I agree entirely with what you say. (Every time you throw in your $0.02, I feel like I've become richer by at least a couple of thousand dollars :-)). I think that people's love for their own correctness is the main motor behind a lot of attempts to 'teach the natives how to behave' (or conversely to 'teach the oppressive colonialists a lesson'), i.e. various forms of activism.
If there is one thing in Christ's message that wished people would heed, it's that loving each other (or, in modern parlance: empathy for each other's otherness and individuality) is way more important than being wed to one's correctness.
And if there's one thing from Buddhism that I'd add to Christ's message, it's that one's most important duty to oneself is to avoid being misled by self-delusion (Maya).
@67(adam_smith), I certainly agree with you that there are all kinds of red flags in most places where women wear burqas that suggest theirs are indeed not 'conditions under which a choice is legitimate.' Yet I would advocate the need to define said conditions; if we indeed had a good definition and then applied it to burqa areas in the world, we might be surprised. (I grant I would indeed be surprised; I expect the majority of burqa-wearing women are not under conditions for a legitimate choice; but hey, I've been surprised before in my life.)
And of course the concomittant question: what should we do? How does one go about changing the situation of burqa-wearing women (so that their choice could be legitimate), given that, in so many places in the Arabic world, exposure to such things as feminism or liberalism is seen as an example of "Western influence" -- the kind of thing that, as Ms Haddad pointed out, some Moslim women even choose to wear hijab (or maybe even burqas?) to protest against? What is a legitimate course of action here?
More...
If there is one thing in Christ's message that wished people would heed, it's that loving each other (or, in modern parlance: empathy for each other's otherness and individuality) is way more important than being wed to one's correctness.
And if there's one thing from Buddhism that I'd add to Christ's message, it's that one's most important duty to oneself is to avoid being misled by self-delusion (Maya).
@67(adam_smith), I certainly agree with you that there are all kinds of red flags in most places where women wear burqas that suggest theirs are indeed not 'conditions under which a choice is legitimate.' Yet I would advocate the need to define said conditions; if we indeed had a good definition and then applied it to burqa areas in the world, we might be surprised. (I grant I would indeed be surprised; I expect the majority of burqa-wearing women are not under conditions for a legitimate choice; but hey, I've been surprised before in my life.)
And of course the concomittant question: what should we do? How does one go about changing the situation of burqa-wearing women (so that their choice could be legitimate), given that, in so many places in the Arabic world, exposure to such things as feminism or liberalism is seen as an example of "Western influence" -- the kind of thing that, as Ms Haddad pointed out, some Moslim women even choose to wear hijab (or maybe even burqas?) to protest against? What is a legitimate course of action here?
71
@63: Okay, I promise not to lecture you if you promise not to throw out any more straw men as egregious as the one @53. Since you seem reasonable enough to concede points well-argued (by adam.smith), I will offer you something for consideration regarding France and the burqa ban, because, as I've already stated, this controversy is much more about politics than women's autonomy.
The article is a bit long to post, so here is a somewhat shortened version:
International human rights organisations such as the Council of Europe and Amnesty International have condemned the ban as an impingement on the fundamental rights of certain women.
Only an estimated 2,000 of France’s some 2 million Muslim women wear the full facial covering. In other words, about 0.03% of the entire French population.
Significantly, Sarkozy claimed that his gripe with the veil was not a religious one, but rather touched on a question of human rights.
The distinction here is crucial, for in positioning the debate in a human rights context, Sarkozy managed to reconcile an attack on the Islamic veil with the values of liberty and equality that are the cornerstones of the French republican model. Moreover, setting the parameters of the debate in this way had the twin effect of pre-empting criticism on the grounds of religious discrimination and making the law that was proposed shortly afterwards politically difficult to oppose.
But make no mistake; the question of human rights is not the primary motivating factor behind the ban on the veil. A study conducted by the At Home in Europe Project of the Open Society Foundation, released today, presents the findings of in-depth interviews with 32 women who wear the full veil in France. Of those interviewed the majority had themselves chosen to wear the veil, often against the wishes of their family. For many of these women, the decision to cover their faces forms part of a spiritual journey and, similar to the Catholic nuns who wear a headdress, the Islamic veil is a sign of their commitment to their faith. Of course there are isolated cases where women are coerced into wearing the veil, but coercion is a marginal element in this equation.
The real issues here are religion and, of course, politics. With regard to religion, the hostility towards the veil is representative of a more generalised opposition to Islam in France, an opposition that is grounded largely in fear. It is telling that much of the initial media commentary on the ‘burka law’ was accompanied by a description of the different types of Islamic head dress, complete with illustrations. The fact is, many people are ignorant of the complexities of the Islamic religion and hold perceptions that are coloured by a post 9/11 security climate that has brought about a blanket equation between Islam and fundamentalism.
Fear is easily translated into political currency and in France, the politics of fear has traditionally been the preserve of the far-right. No longer. More recently, the political rhetoric of the far-right has been matched by the mainstream right in a thinly-veiled attempt to poach voters from the Front National. Government sponsored debates on identity and secularism have inevitably come to focus on the question of Islam and the threat posed by an ‘inassimilable’ population. Only last week, the Interior Minister, Claude Guéant declared that the growth of Islam in France ‘posed a problem’.
The current drift of French society is dangerous for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that the new law on the veil has legitimised the discourse of the far-right. Ironically, in attempting to poach the Front National’s votes, Sarkozy’s government has given momentum to their cause. The Front National has been campaigning for years of an anti-Islamic platform. Now their cause has been taken up by those in power.
Ultimately, the new law, which the government claims will facilitate greater social cohesion, will simply serve to marginalise Muslim women, and indeed the Muslim community more generally, by stigmatising aspects of their religion. The ban on the Islamic veil has undermined the fundamental values on which the Republic is built. Laïcité, the French form of secularism, appears to have taken on its own religiosity and become hostile to the beliefs of others rather than tolerating them.
http://frenchpolitics.blogs.france24.com…
More...
The article is a bit long to post, so here is a somewhat shortened version:
International human rights organisations such as the Council of Europe and Amnesty International have condemned the ban as an impingement on the fundamental rights of certain women.
Only an estimated 2,000 of France’s some 2 million Muslim women wear the full facial covering. In other words, about 0.03% of the entire French population.
Significantly, Sarkozy claimed that his gripe with the veil was not a religious one, but rather touched on a question of human rights.
The distinction here is crucial, for in positioning the debate in a human rights context, Sarkozy managed to reconcile an attack on the Islamic veil with the values of liberty and equality that are the cornerstones of the French republican model. Moreover, setting the parameters of the debate in this way had the twin effect of pre-empting criticism on the grounds of religious discrimination and making the law that was proposed shortly afterwards politically difficult to oppose.
But make no mistake; the question of human rights is not the primary motivating factor behind the ban on the veil. A study conducted by the At Home in Europe Project of the Open Society Foundation, released today, presents the findings of in-depth interviews with 32 women who wear the full veil in France. Of those interviewed the majority had themselves chosen to wear the veil, often against the wishes of their family. For many of these women, the decision to cover their faces forms part of a spiritual journey and, similar to the Catholic nuns who wear a headdress, the Islamic veil is a sign of their commitment to their faith. Of course there are isolated cases where women are coerced into wearing the veil, but coercion is a marginal element in this equation.
The real issues here are religion and, of course, politics. With regard to religion, the hostility towards the veil is representative of a more generalised opposition to Islam in France, an opposition that is grounded largely in fear. It is telling that much of the initial media commentary on the ‘burka law’ was accompanied by a description of the different types of Islamic head dress, complete with illustrations. The fact is, many people are ignorant of the complexities of the Islamic religion and hold perceptions that are coloured by a post 9/11 security climate that has brought about a blanket equation between Islam and fundamentalism.
Fear is easily translated into political currency and in France, the politics of fear has traditionally been the preserve of the far-right. No longer. More recently, the political rhetoric of the far-right has been matched by the mainstream right in a thinly-veiled attempt to poach voters from the Front National. Government sponsored debates on identity and secularism have inevitably come to focus on the question of Islam and the threat posed by an ‘inassimilable’ population. Only last week, the Interior Minister, Claude Guéant declared that the growth of Islam in France ‘posed a problem’.
The current drift of French society is dangerous for many reasons, not least of which is the fact that the new law on the veil has legitimised the discourse of the far-right. Ironically, in attempting to poach the Front National’s votes, Sarkozy’s government has given momentum to their cause. The Front National has been campaigning for years of an anti-Islamic platform. Now their cause has been taken up by those in power.
Ultimately, the new law, which the government claims will facilitate greater social cohesion, will simply serve to marginalise Muslim women, and indeed the Muslim community more generally, by stigmatising aspects of their religion. The ban on the Islamic veil has undermined the fundamental values on which the Republic is built. Laïcité, the French form of secularism, appears to have taken on its own religiosity and become hostile to the beliefs of others rather than tolerating them.
http://frenchpolitics.blogs.france24.com…
72
Also, flang, I've got to thank you for throwing your arguments down, because it has stimulated a really good discussion here. So many interesting points being made!
73
@ankylosaur:
Yes, I absolutely see what you mean about choice. I didn't want to go down that sliding scale in my first post... tend to ramble on enough as it is... All I meant was that the choice FOR the burqa (even by me, the atheist American feminist) wouldn't be much of a free choice, fueled as it would be by a wish to alleviate high ambient pressure. I know... it's a matter of degree: All choice needs some fuel, and that's going to come from a certain degree of ambient pressure. It's surprising to me how the choice from within is so influenced from pressures without, and, frankly, certain choices feel surprisingly unfree.
I use the word "surprisingly" because, although I'm not surprised that my choice of where I can live is dictated by outside pressures about how much money I have to spend and where I can get a job, I AM surprised about the huge deal that's made of a woman's choice of clothing (especially in relation to the tiny deal made of a man's choice of clothing), and so if my most vivid fantasy for escaping that scrutiny (of something that is supposed to not be important) is wearing a curtain, then that doesn't feel free, especially in the context of United States culture.
Yes, I absolutely see what you mean about choice. I didn't want to go down that sliding scale in my first post... tend to ramble on enough as it is... All I meant was that the choice FOR the burqa (even by me, the atheist American feminist) wouldn't be much of a free choice, fueled as it would be by a wish to alleviate high ambient pressure. I know... it's a matter of degree: All choice needs some fuel, and that's going to come from a certain degree of ambient pressure. It's surprising to me how the choice from within is so influenced from pressures without, and, frankly, certain choices feel surprisingly unfree.
I use the word "surprisingly" because, although I'm not surprised that my choice of where I can live is dictated by outside pressures about how much money I have to spend and where I can get a job, I AM surprised about the huge deal that's made of a woman's choice of clothing (especially in relation to the tiny deal made of a man's choice of clothing), and so if my most vivid fantasy for escaping that scrutiny (of something that is supposed to not be important) is wearing a curtain, then that doesn't feel free, especially in the context of United States culture.
74
In case anyone is interested, here are some additional words from the Economist that support the argument that the burqa (actually niqab) ban in France is about politics, and a willingness to take advantage of Islamophobia for political ends:
Since the law was passed, however, Mr Sarkozy’s popularity has sunk to record lows and he has come under pressure from a revived far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen. Mr Sarkozy faces a tough presidential election next year, and several polls suggest that Ms Le Pen might even beat him into the second-round run-off.
Partly as a result, he has been talking tough, again, about immigration and Islam. Last week his UMP party staged a controversial debate on laïcité, or secularism, which turned out to be all about Islam. Even French Muslims who have no time for the niqab-wearing fringe sense that Islam is being exploited for political ends.
Such is the tense atmosphere that even moderate voices in favour of the ban seem to have gone quiet, perhaps for fear of further stirring anti-Islam sentiment. Fadela Amara, a Muslim ex-minister in Nicolas Sarkozy's first government, once called the burqa a “prison”; now she seems to be silent. Rama Yade, another of the president's ex-ministers and of Senegalese origin, once said she considered the niqab an infringement of women’s rights; last week she quit the UMP, blaming its divisive attitude on identity matters.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/…
Since the law was passed, however, Mr Sarkozy’s popularity has sunk to record lows and he has come under pressure from a revived far-right National Front, led by Marine Le Pen. Mr Sarkozy faces a tough presidential election next year, and several polls suggest that Ms Le Pen might even beat him into the second-round run-off.
Partly as a result, he has been talking tough, again, about immigration and Islam. Last week his UMP party staged a controversial debate on laïcité, or secularism, which turned out to be all about Islam. Even French Muslims who have no time for the niqab-wearing fringe sense that Islam is being exploited for political ends.
Such is the tense atmosphere that even moderate voices in favour of the ban seem to have gone quiet, perhaps for fear of further stirring anti-Islam sentiment. Fadela Amara, a Muslim ex-minister in Nicolas Sarkozy's first government, once called the burqa a “prison”; now she seems to be silent. Rama Yade, another of the president's ex-ministers and of Senegalese origin, once said she considered the niqab an infringement of women’s rights; last week she quit the UMP, blaming its divisive attitude on identity matters.
http://www.economist.com/blogs/newsbook/…
75
"Christian woman who lost her virginity to her virgin husband hands Savage his ass on his idea of sexual compatibility."
76
@73 (Lex Tremendae), I hope I didn't give the impression of antagonizing you personally in my (likewise rather rambling and perhaps a tad too emotional) reaction to your comment. My main point is also simply what you agreed with, that all choices are fueled by forces from the environment. (I'll even go further and say that it's precisely because our choices have good/bad consequences from our environment that they are meaningful choices. If your choice of clothes had absolutely no impact whatsoever on anyone else or on yourself, if you could just as well choose your clothes randomly; that is when I'd say your choice was meaningless, or that you didn't really have a choice.)
I agree, though, that certain choices feel rather unfree; and your example of women's clothing is quite pertinent. Here are my thoughts, though.
First, I don't think that people will ever stop caring about what they -- and, alas! also others -- look like. I don't think it's ever going to be the case that one's choice of clothing is not going to be 'read', 'interpreted', 'scrutinized' by others. (As a man, I'd claim that, even though men's clothes are less scrutinized than women, this by no means implies that they're free to dress as they choose, or that their choices of clothing don't often have dramatic consequences for their success or lack thereof. I could tell you a couple of horror stories connected to my decision never to wear ties, for instance.) Why this is so -- human psychology, the desire to 'read' others (so as to find allies/enemies, who's 'in our group' and who's an 'outsider') -- is of course interesting, but doesn't really affect the fact that it's not really going to change.
But I sense that what is really unfair to you is that the scrutiny is much more on women's clothes than on men's. That is indeed an unpleasant consequence of the fact that women's appearance is more highly valued than men's appearance, which means that it has more to do with a woman's success in her endeavors than in the case of men (for men, having more money tends to have a similar effect). This is probably because women's appearance has a stronger (sexual) effect on men than men's appearance has on women, so manipulating a woman's appearance is indeed more effective (on a psychosexual level -- not forgetting also the added cultural layers) than manipulating a man's appearance.
I sincerely hope that this is going to change. (It seems to be changing, doesn't it? Don't you have the feeling the situation was worse decades ago?) All I can do is affect myself; so I consciously try to judge people much more by who they are and what they do than by how they dress, men and women alike. I hope I am successful.
More...
I agree, though, that certain choices feel rather unfree; and your example of women's clothing is quite pertinent. Here are my thoughts, though.
First, I don't think that people will ever stop caring about what they -- and, alas! also others -- look like. I don't think it's ever going to be the case that one's choice of clothing is not going to be 'read', 'interpreted', 'scrutinized' by others. (As a man, I'd claim that, even though men's clothes are less scrutinized than women, this by no means implies that they're free to dress as they choose, or that their choices of clothing don't often have dramatic consequences for their success or lack thereof. I could tell you a couple of horror stories connected to my decision never to wear ties, for instance.) Why this is so -- human psychology, the desire to 'read' others (so as to find allies/enemies, who's 'in our group' and who's an 'outsider') -- is of course interesting, but doesn't really affect the fact that it's not really going to change.
But I sense that what is really unfair to you is that the scrutiny is much more on women's clothes than on men's. That is indeed an unpleasant consequence of the fact that women's appearance is more highly valued than men's appearance, which means that it has more to do with a woman's success in her endeavors than in the case of men (for men, having more money tends to have a similar effect). This is probably because women's appearance has a stronger (sexual) effect on men than men's appearance has on women, so manipulating a woman's appearance is indeed more effective (on a psychosexual level -- not forgetting also the added cultural layers) than manipulating a man's appearance.
I sincerely hope that this is going to change. (It seems to be changing, doesn't it? Don't you have the feeling the situation was worse decades ago?) All I can do is affect myself; so I consciously try to judge people much more by who they are and what they do than by how they dress, men and women alike. I hope I am successful.
77
@75: "Savage thanks woman and tells her to keep the ass to herself, since he already had one, with the help of non-Christian woman who mops the floor with Christian woman".
Hey, that's sort of fun. Must...not..let...evil...side...emerge...
Hey, that's sort of fun. Must...not..let...evil...side...emerge...
78
@Irena - That editorial you posted is exactly the sort that drives me crazy. That author, like so many others, is stating unequivocally that those of us who are opposed to the veil are driven solely by religious discrimination and really don't care about women's rights at all, and the only data he presents to support that charge is a study of 32 women who say they wear it by their own choice. For reasons that have been gone over pretty thoroughly here, that's not a convincing argument. I understand that groups like Amnesty International may honestly believe that the bans truly are harmful, or maybe they're just as spiteful as he is. Regardless, it's pretty obvious that guy's made up his mind that we're all just racists and xenophobes and no amount of arguing would alter his views.
79
@Irena, I've always been impressed by how emotional the French can get about their laïcité and égalité (though my direct problem is rather with la langue française est la seule langue de l'État français than with Islam). I live in the Netherlands, where the French ban has been heavily criticized -- despite the fact that we have our own home-grown anti-Islam politicians (Geert Wilders and his Party of Freedom, following the footsteps of the late Pim Fortuyn).
Some Dutch intellectuals try to argue that it is possible to be legitimately concerned with the consequences of a certain minority increasing within a society -- they'll hasten to add that the way the French did the ban is not the right way to deal with that, but that there is a problem there (assimilation vs. tolerance, melting pot vs. mosaic). What do you think -- is all talk of 'the problem of Islamic minorities' just fear of the Other masquerading as a true concern, or is there something to worry about there?
Some Dutch intellectuals try to argue that it is possible to be legitimately concerned with the consequences of a certain minority increasing within a society -- they'll hasten to add that the way the French did the ban is not the right way to deal with that, but that there is a problem there (assimilation vs. tolerance, melting pot vs. mosaic). What do you think -- is all talk of 'the problem of Islamic minorities' just fear of the Other masquerading as a true concern, or is there something to worry about there?
80
"...it's the result of a brainwashing that makes them think it is their choice, or they have so much dignity that they don't want to admit that it has been forced on them."
The same has been said of sex workers.
Some Muslim women (in Western countries, where they are free to choose to wear it, not threatened to--in fact, many are threatened for wearing it) do freely choose to wear the veil as a point of pride, faith, modesty, etc.
The same has been said of sex workers.
Some Muslim women (in Western countries, where they are free to choose to wear it, not threatened to--in fact, many are threatened for wearing it) do freely choose to wear the veil as a point of pride, faith, modesty, etc.
81
@flang -- it's an interesting question you raise there. Yes, I think it's possible to be concerned from a purely human-rights point of view, but you have to agree that all the racist xenophobes (there are some out there) will be on the side of the ban as well, so that those concerned with human rights will have to accept them as strange bedfellows at least in this issue. And this fact does concern me. When I see reasonable people concerned with human rights and racist xenophobes on the same side, I wonder if a rethinking of the terms of the problem and better definitions of the points of contention isn't in order.
82
@adam.smith You're right that my understanding of a "veil" would be a garment that includes a face-obscuring feature of some sort; I think most Americans and Europeans would see it similarly, and that probably includes Mullins. You've pointed out that In the Arab world that may not be the case (the term "hijab" is an even more tangled web, by the looks of it). Since Hassad's work involves a heavy emphasis on the admiration of women's bodies (god bless her), it's logical that she might see all head coverings as oppressive and not just veils. But even if that is the case, I don't think there's any question that her motivation is grounded firmly in the desire for women's liberation and not from any sense of malice, so it really shouldn't matter much.
84
I'm with Haddad, and Dan, in having a problem with the various permutations of the veil:
1. Those women who sincerely 'choose' the veil, are publicly allying themselves with the assholes who would, and in some nations do, require the veil. Imagine if Nazi Germany had won the war, controlled all of Europe, and required Aryans to wear the Swastika. Individuals in non-conquered nations like the US or Canada who voluntarily chose to wear the Swastika, as a sign of friendly Aryan solidarity, would be making a 'choice'--a choice to stand in solidarity with Nazi Germany. Muslim women who choose the veil are publicly choosing to associate themselves with evil men and evil practices.
2. The vast majority of Muslim women never had a legitimate opportunity to choose their religion. Rather, they are victims of childhood religious indoctrination. How free is their choice? They were brainwashed from the cradle.
3. Regarding the analogy to high heels: false. The western patriarchy does not have the force of law, and it does not require high heels always be worn in public. In many nations, the veil is the law, and where it is, there's no exception for running a quick errand.
4. I'm not--and Dan is not, and Haddad is not--suggesting that the various permutations of the veil should be banned. We simply don't like the veil--and our dislike has a logical and ethical basis, and is not mere bigotry or aesthetic preference.
1. Those women who sincerely 'choose' the veil, are publicly allying themselves with the assholes who would, and in some nations do, require the veil. Imagine if Nazi Germany had won the war, controlled all of Europe, and required Aryans to wear the Swastika. Individuals in non-conquered nations like the US or Canada who voluntarily chose to wear the Swastika, as a sign of friendly Aryan solidarity, would be making a 'choice'--a choice to stand in solidarity with Nazi Germany. Muslim women who choose the veil are publicly choosing to associate themselves with evil men and evil practices.
2. The vast majority of Muslim women never had a legitimate opportunity to choose their religion. Rather, they are victims of childhood religious indoctrination. How free is their choice? They were brainwashed from the cradle.
3. Regarding the analogy to high heels: false. The western patriarchy does not have the force of law, and it does not require high heels always be worn in public. In many nations, the veil is the law, and where it is, there's no exception for running a quick errand.
4. I'm not--and Dan is not, and Haddad is not--suggesting that the various permutations of the veil should be banned. We simply don't like the veil--and our dislike has a logical and ethical basis, and is not mere bigotry or aesthetic preference.
85
@ankylosaur Well, no one can control anyone's motivation but their own. Yes, I am aware the fact that my desire to see the veil banished puts me in the same company of those who hate Islam because Jesus hates Islam, and with those who just plain don't like "dem damned a-rabs." But of course, that goes the other way just as easily, since people who oppose the ban purely on the grounds of individual liberty (such as yourself, I assume), share company with abusive husbands, tyrannical religious authorities, and anyone else who thinks that a woman's body is an shameful, dirty instrument of evil that must be hid from the world at all costs. That concerns me a little as well.
87
@80
Bingo on the comparison with sex workers.
There's a History professor at UW (I think his name is Jonathan Brown and he might have gone on to Georgetown) who gave a public lecture the day after California passed Prop. 8. When some questioner said that Muslim countries are oppressive, Brown shot back remarking that Prop. 8 had just passed, so stop crowing about the U.S. being better. But with regard to veiling, Brown showed photos of Egyptian families in which some of the women wore head coverings and some did not. He said that in many places, it's a personal choice, even within the same family, much like some women in the U.S. might wear short sleeves while others might not. The point here, I think, is that some people--presumably those invested in the notion that Muslim societies must absolutely be misogynist--might be oversimplifying the matter.
People might also find G. Willow Wilson's decision to wear a scarf interesting. Wilson, who's a white American convert to Islam and whose book The Butterfly Mosque was highlighted on some Slog post, certainly did not come across as oppressed in her writing or at her reading.
Finally, with respect to Dan's late mother, bless her soul, who's always sounded like someone who kicked ass pretty well, would one be able to say with any accuracy that because she was a devout worshiper of a religion that is as patriarchal as Catholicism--primarily because it was Catholicism, she was an oppressed woman self-punishing herself in a patriarchal society without realizing it?
Bingo on the comparison with sex workers.
There's a History professor at UW (I think his name is Jonathan Brown and he might have gone on to Georgetown) who gave a public lecture the day after California passed Prop. 8. When some questioner said that Muslim countries are oppressive, Brown shot back remarking that Prop. 8 had just passed, so stop crowing about the U.S. being better. But with regard to veiling, Brown showed photos of Egyptian families in which some of the women wore head coverings and some did not. He said that in many places, it's a personal choice, even within the same family, much like some women in the U.S. might wear short sleeves while others might not. The point here, I think, is that some people--presumably those invested in the notion that Muslim societies must absolutely be misogynist--might be oversimplifying the matter.
People might also find G. Willow Wilson's decision to wear a scarf interesting. Wilson, who's a white American convert to Islam and whose book The Butterfly Mosque was highlighted on some Slog post, certainly did not come across as oppressed in her writing or at her reading.
Finally, with respect to Dan's late mother, bless her soul, who's always sounded like someone who kicked ass pretty well, would one be able to say with any accuracy that because she was a devout worshiper of a religion that is as patriarchal as Catholicism--primarily because it was Catholicism, she was an oppressed woman self-punishing herself in a patriarchal society without realizing it?
88
@84
Benazir Bhutto. Make of that what you will.
And yes, you are probably correct that your position is not, as you put it, "mere bigotry." (Italics are mine, of course.)
Benazir Bhutto. Make of that what you will.
And yes, you are probably correct that your position is not, as you put it, "mere bigotry." (Italics are mine, of course.)
89
@flang, point well taken. But at least I will maintain that anyone who defends a viewpoint espoused also by radicals, bigots, and racists (which is true for both of us) should make all efforts to distance themselves from them and differentiate one's viewpoint from theirs. (Which you did try to do; which I appreciate.)
So let me state succinctly my viewpoint (and thereby differentiate myself from anyone who simply thinks that 'women should be modest', etc.): I think that objects are not right or wrong in themselves (like words, as I said in another thread), but the intentions and attitudes of those who use them. In the case of Muslim headgear, the hijab (or the burqa) are not per se wrong in any way; what makes them wrong is being forced to choose them, be it directly or indirectly (pending a good definition of 'indirectly' here). So I don't fight the burqa or the hijab, I fight the obligatoriness of the burqa or the hijab. Since a ban is also a way of forcing people to do what one wants (in this case, not to wear veils -- in certain situations, etc. etc. etc.), then it is ultimately the same thing as forcing them to wear it -- again, because what is wrong to me is the forcing, not what is forced.
So, to me a ban on the hijab is as bad as a hijab made obligatory (by law, or by custom). I see both as expressions of the same evil: depriving people of choice. Wherever there is true choice, I feel better, even if some of the available options are not to my liking.
And I say this as someone who is very much in favor of female bodies, and who is actually sad at the way the whole 'objectification' dialogue in feminism is often co-opted as a way to make it impossible to expose or appreciate female bodies and female beauty without at the same time being disrespectful ('objectifying') women, or to make said objectification an inherent feature of the 'male gaze', etc.
More...
So let me state succinctly my viewpoint (and thereby differentiate myself from anyone who simply thinks that 'women should be modest', etc.): I think that objects are not right or wrong in themselves (like words, as I said in another thread), but the intentions and attitudes of those who use them. In the case of Muslim headgear, the hijab (or the burqa) are not per se wrong in any way; what makes them wrong is being forced to choose them, be it directly or indirectly (pending a good definition of 'indirectly' here). So I don't fight the burqa or the hijab, I fight the obligatoriness of the burqa or the hijab. Since a ban is also a way of forcing people to do what one wants (in this case, not to wear veils -- in certain situations, etc. etc. etc.), then it is ultimately the same thing as forcing them to wear it -- again, because what is wrong to me is the forcing, not what is forced.
So, to me a ban on the hijab is as bad as a hijab made obligatory (by law, or by custom). I see both as expressions of the same evil: depriving people of choice. Wherever there is true choice, I feel better, even if some of the available options are not to my liking.
And I say this as someone who is very much in favor of female bodies, and who is actually sad at the way the whole 'objectification' dialogue in feminism is often co-opted as a way to make it impossible to expose or appreciate female bodies and female beauty without at the same time being disrespectful ('objectifying') women, or to make said objectification an inherent feature of the 'male gaze', etc.
90
@84 - Functional Atheist -
unfortunately you're brushing over many subtleties of the arguments involved.
E.g.
2.) "Vast majority" - whatever that means - isn't relevant here. The point is that Haddad says that _no one_ wears it voluntarily. Many women raised in relatively secular households chose to wear it. So while what you say is likely true, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
3.) If your sole argument against the high heel analogy is that the veil is the law in some countries, that would mean the analogy applies to all other countries, e.g. Lebanon, Egypt, the Maghreb, and Iraq - i.e. large chunks of the Arab world?
As for
1.) By the same style of argumentation: Neo-nazis and islamophobes don't like the headscarf. You don't like the headscarf --> You align yourself with neonazis and islamophobes. That's not an argument. it's a silly rhetorical trick.
4.) I think denying someone free will and agency is pretty insulting. While it's better than denying someone's right, it's still worth arguing against such insults (e.g. we don't want our politicians to engage in stereotyping of gays, even if they don't want to make homosexuality illegal.).
unfortunately you're brushing over many subtleties of the arguments involved.
E.g.
2.) "Vast majority" - whatever that means - isn't relevant here. The point is that Haddad says that _no one_ wears it voluntarily. Many women raised in relatively secular households chose to wear it. So while what you say is likely true, it's irrelevant to the discussion.
3.) If your sole argument against the high heel analogy is that the veil is the law in some countries, that would mean the analogy applies to all other countries, e.g. Lebanon, Egypt, the Maghreb, and Iraq - i.e. large chunks of the Arab world?
As for
1.) By the same style of argumentation: Neo-nazis and islamophobes don't like the headscarf. You don't like the headscarf --> You align yourself with neonazis and islamophobes. That's not an argument. it's a silly rhetorical trick.
4.) I think denying someone free will and agency is pretty insulting. While it's better than denying someone's right, it's still worth arguing against such insults (e.g. we don't want our politicians to engage in stereotyping of gays, even if they don't want to make homosexuality illegal.).
91
@82 - I don't think good intentions are all that matters. I think you can be well intentioned and wrong. I think you can even be well intentioned and harmful.
I think in the context of the Arab world, Haddad is mainly wrong, but without much practical consequences. As she carries her message into muslim-minority countries, with strong islamophobe undercurrents, I think her message has the potential to be harmful by giving legitimacy to and strengthening anti-muslim stereotypes.
I think in the context of the Arab world, Haddad is mainly wrong, but without much practical consequences. As she carries her message into muslim-minority countries, with strong islamophobe undercurrents, I think her message has the potential to be harmful by giving legitimacy to and strengthening anti-muslim stereotypes.
92
@ functional atheist, here is a reaction to the points you raise.
They often deny that, and openly criticize said assholes for their assholery (the one Muslim friend I have who does wear the veil is quite open in her criticism of many aspects of Muslim traditional society). Would you also claim that anyone who likes the American flag is publicly allying him/herself with anything bad that the American government may have done, at home or abroad?
If they say so. But they may see it as a symbol of something else (it's a Hindu religious symbol too, you know; the word "swastika" is not German, it's Sanskrit, in which it means something like 'being lucky', 'being fortunate'). Of course they would be stupid not to realize that most people would interpret it differently, so they would also have to publicly distance themselves from the Nazis.
Besides, it is thinkable that one is in favor of Aryan solidarity without being in favor of the Nazi form of it -- just as one can be in favor of democracy without necessarily being in favor of the current Russian or Chinese versions of it.
Not if they distance themselves from said men and said practices. You're confusing the object and its symbolic meaning -- worse yet, you're assuming that said object can have only one symbolic meaning, namely, support for evil men and evil practices. That is incorrect.
Possibly true. But as I said above, those who oppose them were also 'brainwashed' by their environment into accepting the liberal values that they now propagate (everybody is influenced by their environment, etc.). So, the real question is: when is one ever free of indoctrination of any kind, when is one's choice ever really 'free'? You need a working definition of 'legitimate choice' before you can accuse others of failing it.
And I say this as someone who does think you're probably right in thinking that many, perhaps most Muslim women in at least certain Muslim countries did not choose their clothes in a legitimately free way.
Neither is this true in many Muslim nations -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, etc. come to mind. (Outside of the Arabic peninsula, Iran, and perhaps Afghanistan, where exactly is this law, in the sense that not wearing the hijab would be a felony? If anyone happens to have details handy, please let me know.)
If you don't like the veil, then your dislike is not logical and ethical, but merely personal. The veil is a symbol of many things to many people (it's actually very erotic to some). Your dislike would be logical and ethical only if it were directed at the reasons for making it obligatory in some places -- that, indeed, is wrong. But the veil itself is innocent, as could not be otherwise, since it is merely an object.
Please dislike not the veil, but the forcing! Remember: the Nazis didn't invent the swastika, which was -- and still is -- a Buddhist religious symbol with much deeper significance than stupid beliefs in Aryan superiority.
More...
Those women who sincerely 'choose' the veil, are publicly allying themselves with the assholes who would, and in some nations do, require the veil.
They often deny that, and openly criticize said assholes for their assholery (the one Muslim friend I have who does wear the veil is quite open in her criticism of many aspects of Muslim traditional society). Would you also claim that anyone who likes the American flag is publicly allying him/herself with anything bad that the American government may have done, at home or abroad?
Individuals in non-conquered nations like the US or Canada who voluntarily chose to wear the Swastika, as a sign of friendly Aryan solidarity, would be making a 'choice'--a choice to stand in solidarity with Nazi Germany.
If they say so. But they may see it as a symbol of something else (it's a Hindu religious symbol too, you know; the word "swastika" is not German, it's Sanskrit, in which it means something like 'being lucky', 'being fortunate'). Of course they would be stupid not to realize that most people would interpret it differently, so they would also have to publicly distance themselves from the Nazis.
Besides, it is thinkable that one is in favor of Aryan solidarity without being in favor of the Nazi form of it -- just as one can be in favor of democracy without necessarily being in favor of the current Russian or Chinese versions of it.
Muslim women who choose the veil are publicly choosing to associate themselves with evil men and evil practices.
Not if they distance themselves from said men and said practices. You're confusing the object and its symbolic meaning -- worse yet, you're assuming that said object can have only one symbolic meaning, namely, support for evil men and evil practices. That is incorrect.
The vast majority of Muslim women never had a legitimate opportunity to choose their religion. Rather, they are victims of childhood religious indoctrination. How free is their choice? They were brainwashed from the cradle.
Possibly true. But as I said above, those who oppose them were also 'brainwashed' by their environment into accepting the liberal values that they now propagate (everybody is influenced by their environment, etc.). So, the real question is: when is one ever free of indoctrination of any kind, when is one's choice ever really 'free'? You need a working definition of 'legitimate choice' before you can accuse others of failing it.
And I say this as someone who does think you're probably right in thinking that many, perhaps most Muslim women in at least certain Muslim countries did not choose their clothes in a legitimately free way.
Regarding the analogy to high heels: false. The western patriarchy does not have the force of law, and it does not require high heels always be worn in public.
Neither is this true in many Muslim nations -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Pakistan, etc. come to mind. (Outside of the Arabic peninsula, Iran, and perhaps Afghanistan, where exactly is this law, in the sense that not wearing the hijab would be a felony? If anyone happens to have details handy, please let me know.)
We simply don't like the veil--and our dislike has a logical and ethical basis, and is not mere bigotry or aesthetic preference.
If you don't like the veil, then your dislike is not logical and ethical, but merely personal. The veil is a symbol of many things to many people (it's actually very erotic to some). Your dislike would be logical and ethical only if it were directed at the reasons for making it obligatory in some places -- that, indeed, is wrong. But the veil itself is innocent, as could not be otherwise, since it is merely an object.
Please dislike not the veil, but the forcing! Remember: the Nazis didn't invent the swastika, which was -- and still is -- a Buddhist religious symbol with much deeper significance than stupid beliefs in Aryan superiority.
93
Now that we've firmly established that Haddad was raised as a Christian and is speaking as an outsider on how Muslim women feel about wearing the veil, is anyone going to call out Dan for his racist and profoundly ignorant assumption that all women living in the Arab world are Muslim?
94
Just a quick note before I run out -- flang, I am not implying that anyone who opposes the veil is a bigot, and I don't think that writer was, either. I am not thrilled with it myself. In fact, I agree with Haddad's general message to Arab women. But I think recent events have shown that outlawing it, even Westerners discouraging it, generally backfires. I really think this question needs to be resolved by the women most affected by it, and despite my quibbles with the details of Haddad's argument, I'm glad she's taken up the challenge to convince women to decide for themselves not to choose the veil.
95
@93, no, one may simply politely disagree with Dan's support for Haddad's unconditional claims without necessarily making an ass of oneself while doing it. Of course you're free to go ahead and make an ass of yourself if that pleases you.
96
@95: I didn't espouse a position on the veil issue, if you'll take time to read my post carefully. But it does make me roll my eyes to see typical American ignorance about any place other than America exemplified once AGAIN (ie; assuming that an Arab woman is ipso facto Muslim), and slightly nauseous to see Americans do so while making value judgments on other cultures.
97
I wish Dan would hurry up and realize that at heart he embraces values that for historical/political reasons he's forced to reject as "conservative": in this case the idea that, given the choice, people don't make choices that impair their freedom, and in general that people want more freedom.
98
@97, yes, and wouldn't it be wonderful if these people wanted freedom not only for themselves, but also for others, instead of being dismayed at the choices others make and deciding to limit their freedom?
Better yet, wouldn't it be just awesome if those guys also agreed on a definition of freedom, rather than trying to imposing it on each other?
Better yet, wouldn't it be just awesome if those guys also agreed on a definition of freedom, rather than trying to imposing it on each other?
99
I don't think @97 knows what "conservative" means...
What he states as supposedly conservative beliefs may be held (when it is opportune) by some libertarians associated with the GOP, but they have nothing to do with conservatism.
And I don't think actual conservatives would disagree with me here. Smart conservatives like, Douthat and Brooks (mainly Brooks a couple of years ago), would highlight the needs of communities/societies for moral boundaries. Burke, the godfather of conservativism, criticized the French revolution because (simplifying a little) it prioritized liberty over governance and stability.
On the other hand, both liberals and libertarians would broadly agree with your two claims, but would, as @98 helpfully points out, disagree about what they mean precisely and to what policies they should lead. Since Dan is, as far as he has a coherent philosophy, a libertarian leaning liberal I don't think he's got a problem here.
What he states as supposedly conservative beliefs may be held (when it is opportune) by some libertarians associated with the GOP, but they have nothing to do with conservatism.
And I don't think actual conservatives would disagree with me here. Smart conservatives like, Douthat and Brooks (mainly Brooks a couple of years ago), would highlight the needs of communities/societies for moral boundaries. Burke, the godfather of conservativism, criticized the French revolution because (simplifying a little) it prioritized liberty over governance and stability.
On the other hand, both liberals and libertarians would broadly agree with your two claims, but would, as @98 helpfully points out, disagree about what they mean precisely and to what policies they should lead. Since Dan is, as far as he has a coherent philosophy, a libertarian leaning liberal I don't think he's got a problem here.
100
haddad is absolutely wrong, and mullins was performing as an honest, informed, and responsible journalist, albeit not as persistent a one as some of us would prefer.
i am an anthropologist with half a dozen years research experience in the world's largest muslim country, and the fact is that many, probably most, of the women there who use veils are extremely savvy about why they do, and not only did nobody force them to veil, most of them did so against the wishes of their parents (whose generation mostly did not veil).
there is plenty of good, thoughtful, rigorous writing on the subject of veiling, including quite a lot of it written by muslim women, and the notion that anyone who makes a different choice about their life than haddad did must be engaging in some sort of unconscious self-punishment is simply insulting.
frankly, you stranger editors would attack that kind of thinking out of hand were it applied to any given sexual kink, and you're applying a double standard to suit your own preconceptions in this case.
i am an anthropologist with half a dozen years research experience in the world's largest muslim country, and the fact is that many, probably most, of the women there who use veils are extremely savvy about why they do, and not only did nobody force them to veil, most of them did so against the wishes of their parents (whose generation mostly did not veil).
there is plenty of good, thoughtful, rigorous writing on the subject of veiling, including quite a lot of it written by muslim women, and the notion that anyone who makes a different choice about their life than haddad did must be engaging in some sort of unconscious self-punishment is simply insulting.
frankly, you stranger editors would attack that kind of thinking out of hand were it applied to any given sexual kink, and you're applying a double standard to suit your own preconceptions in this case.
102
@ankylosaur Well, then we're both supporting the same conclusion, just differing on the process. You and others see a ban primarily designed to of prevent women from exercising their free will, I and others see a ban primarily designed to prevent patriarchal and oppressive cultures from keeping women "in their place."
103
@adam.smith Again, though, I can make the same argument about the position you're taking just as easily, as your message also gives strength to the very significant portion of the population that seeks to keep women from having any individual rights at all, least of which is the option not to wear the veil. There's nothing in Haddad's argument that could be interpreted by anyone who actually listens to it as Islamaphobic; she very specifically is only arguing for women's rights. If a single part of her argument is taken by bigots and twisted to support their own ends, well, I'm sorry but that's absolutely not her problem, or mine or anyone else's. Neither she nor you or anyone else should have to moderate an honest, straightforward argument because of the ignorance or malice of others. If we all had to live by those rules, no problem that involves sensitive issues in any way could even be debated at all, let alone actually fixed.
104
After reading the comments, there are no lengths the PC left in the US will not go to to defend their ideology. Reverse the polarities even a little bit (Christian women saying it's better to wait until marriage to have sex) and the vitriol starts spewing.
105
@flang - no, you're missing my point. I don't think concern about how an argument can be abused is a valid reason against it - I say as much @90.
There are two steps involved:
1. I think Haddad is wrong, both empirically and morally, in her claims about women wearing headscarf.
2. I think it's worth pushing against her wrong argument, because it plays into the hand of xenophobes. And it precisely plays into the hands of racists _because_ it is wrong, i.e. because it perpetuates stereotypes.
Step 2 requires step 1. You swat away step 1 @82 by saying "she may be wrong, but her heart is in the right place" and I'm saying that good intentions alone are not enough.
Also, I think that Haddad may very well be islamophobe. In the context of repressive Islam in much of the Arab world that's quite understandable and doesn't do much harm. I don't blame someone who grew up, say, an LGBT kid in the bible belt for being vehemently anti-Christian either. But that doesn't meant that kid would be right so say that all Christians hate gays, either.
And @104, although I suspect you're a troll: The problem is smugness and forcing your beliefs on other people:
Wearing a headscarf/marrying as a virgin - A-OK.
Teaching kids in school that you have to wear a headscarf or marry as a virgin (aka "abstinence only") - not OK.
Feeling like you're pleasing god by wearing a headscarf/marrying as a virgin - A-OK.
Writing smug letters about how you're so much better because you do - inviting derision from liberals.
There are two steps involved:
1. I think Haddad is wrong, both empirically and morally, in her claims about women wearing headscarf.
2. I think it's worth pushing against her wrong argument, because it plays into the hand of xenophobes. And it precisely plays into the hands of racists _because_ it is wrong, i.e. because it perpetuates stereotypes.
Step 2 requires step 1. You swat away step 1 @82 by saying "she may be wrong, but her heart is in the right place" and I'm saying that good intentions alone are not enough.
Also, I think that Haddad may very well be islamophobe. In the context of repressive Islam in much of the Arab world that's quite understandable and doesn't do much harm. I don't blame someone who grew up, say, an LGBT kid in the bible belt for being vehemently anti-Christian either. But that doesn't meant that kid would be right so say that all Christians hate gays, either.
And @104, although I suspect you're a troll: The problem is smugness and forcing your beliefs on other people:
Wearing a headscarf/marrying as a virgin - A-OK.
Teaching kids in school that you have to wear a headscarf or marry as a virgin (aka "abstinence only") - not OK.
Feeling like you're pleasing god by wearing a headscarf/marrying as a virgin - A-OK.
Writing smug letters about how you're so much better because you do - inviting derision from liberals.
106
I think there have been some great points made in this thread (along with some crappy ones, but trolls are gonna troll).
In the end, I think Haddad makes what is in general a fair point. I think if you added up all of the women actively forced to wear the veil, all of the women de facto forced to wear it, and all of the women who choose to wear it but do so as a response to cultural and religious pressure for or against, that number would make up the vast majority of veil-wearing women in the Muslim population. That's a fair point to make (and I do think that at the heart of her argument, that's the point she's making), and it makes sense for her to respond to a challenge about choice by discussing the restricted freedoms of that choice and what choice frequently, realistically means in this context.
But she is still in the wrong when she over-generalizes about how ALL veil-wearing Muslim women come to that conclusion, and I believe from her later wording that she knows that. I can't fault a journalist for challenging her on that point.
In the end, I think Haddad makes what is in general a fair point. I think if you added up all of the women actively forced to wear the veil, all of the women de facto forced to wear it, and all of the women who choose to wear it but do so as a response to cultural and religious pressure for or against, that number would make up the vast majority of veil-wearing women in the Muslim population. That's a fair point to make (and I do think that at the heart of her argument, that's the point she's making), and it makes sense for her to respond to a challenge about choice by discussing the restricted freedoms of that choice and what choice frequently, realistically means in this context.
But she is still in the wrong when she over-generalizes about how ALL veil-wearing Muslim women come to that conclusion, and I believe from her later wording that she knows that. I can't fault a journalist for challenging her on that point.
107
@adam.smith First and most importantly: On what basis are you claiming that "Haddad may very well be an Islamaphobe"? What exactly has she said that leads you to make that charge? Of course she may be an Islamaphobe, also you may be a woman-hating serial abuser. Really I don't think any of us should listen to anything you have to say, because even though nothing you've stated would lead anyone to think that you have serious issues with women, your arguments are playing right into the hands of the legions of mysoginists who want to keep women oppressed.
See what I'm getting at here? Do you not believe that we should at least presume Haddad is making a good faith effort to support women, unless you have even a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise? Not to mention that it's pretty difficult to be an Islamaphobe if most of the people you're trying to help are Muslims.
Secondly, what exactly are the stereotypes that Haddad's arguments are perpetuating? She is saying that women who wear the veil are overwhelmingly doing so because they are either forced to by authority figures in their community, or because they have been brainwashed into believing that it's their duty to do so. I am genuinely unaware of any stereotypes that fit here, unless it's the idea that the major monotheistic religions tend to be focused on the leadership of males and the submission of females, which isn't so much a stereotype as a widely-acknowledged fact. Is that what you're referring to?
See what I'm getting at here? Do you not believe that we should at least presume Haddad is making a good faith effort to support women, unless you have even a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise? Not to mention that it's pretty difficult to be an Islamaphobe if most of the people you're trying to help are Muslims.
Secondly, what exactly are the stereotypes that Haddad's arguments are perpetuating? She is saying that women who wear the veil are overwhelmingly doing so because they are either forced to by authority figures in their community, or because they have been brainwashed into believing that it's their duty to do so. I am genuinely unaware of any stereotypes that fit here, unless it's the idea that the major monotheistic religions tend to be focused on the leadership of males and the submission of females, which isn't so much a stereotype as a widely-acknowledged fact. Is that what you're referring to?
108
ankylosaur @79, I didn't get a chance to answer your question. I think militant Islamism is something to be concerned about, but the extent of the problem has been so obscured by a rhetoric of fear that it's difficult to get an accurate measure of it. I also agree with those who say the question of veiling has become something of a red herring that distracts from the real issue of radicalism, of both the Islamic and anti-Islamic kind. The women who choose to wear the veil, whether we believe they make a free choice or not, are not the problem. The problem is a climate of growing intolerance on both sides, one that somehow makes it permissible for authorities, whether religious or political, to determine what women do with their bodies. Insofar as this is an issue of personal and religious freedom, we've got to let women exercise that freedom without tut-tutting, even if we disagree with the way they are doing it.
109
we're talking past each other at this point.
Again, I'm not denying her good intentions. I think she's wrong and I think she's wrong in a way that can have bad consequences. Since this apparently not obvious another example: Many of the advocates for the Iraq invasion were well intentioned (cough *Dan Savage * cough). Their good intentions didn't prevent them from facilitating a disastrous policy.
I probably shouldn't have thrown the islamophobia remark in there - I think some of what she says certainly sounds rather hostile towards Islam, but my argument doesn't hinge on it, so I'm not terribly interested in arguing it.
As for stereotypes - for muslim women in the West, the idea of veiled*=unfree is a big problem. Veiled women are treated as less autonomous, less intelligent, less part of society (there are plenty of essays & studies on this out there if you actually doubt that). That's harmful, obviously, for the women, but its also harmful for the societies that have a vested interest in integrating and not alienating muslim (or any other large) minorities. It's also harmful, btw., to those women who are, in fact, non-free, because they are less likely to be exposed to the types of ideas that could help liberate them (which is also why you shouldn't ban burqas in school.)
*veiled as referring to hijab in general. "headscarfed" isn't a verb.
Again, I'm not denying her good intentions. I think she's wrong and I think she's wrong in a way that can have bad consequences. Since this apparently not obvious another example: Many of the advocates for the Iraq invasion were well intentioned (cough *Dan Savage * cough). Their good intentions didn't prevent them from facilitating a disastrous policy.
I probably shouldn't have thrown the islamophobia remark in there - I think some of what she says certainly sounds rather hostile towards Islam, but my argument doesn't hinge on it, so I'm not terribly interested in arguing it.
As for stereotypes - for muslim women in the West, the idea of veiled*=unfree is a big problem. Veiled women are treated as less autonomous, less intelligent, less part of society (there are plenty of essays & studies on this out there if you actually doubt that). That's harmful, obviously, for the women, but its also harmful for the societies that have a vested interest in integrating and not alienating muslim (or any other large) minorities. It's also harmful, btw., to those women who are, in fact, non-free, because they are less likely to be exposed to the types of ideas that could help liberate them (which is also why you shouldn't ban burqas in school.)
*veiled as referring to hijab in general. "headscarfed" isn't a verb.
110
@96, considering that people of all cultures also make value judgments about American culture (I don't see too many Arabs refraining from doing that) even when their level of understanding of it is depressingly low, to see judging other cultures as a specifically American problem is quite disingenuous. Accusing Americans of doing to Arabic and Moslim culture what Arabs and Moslims also do to American culture is, indeed, having two weights and two measures.
Dan's assumption about Arabic women being all Muslim is not worse than assumptions by foreigners about all Americans being Christians, or baseball lovers, or big hildren. Given the number of Muslim women in Arabic countries, it's not difficult to see why the assumption would be made.
So again -- you can disagree with Dan and point out that he is wrong without making an ass of yourself (and without making generalizations about Americans as wrong as Dan's about Arabic women). But of course you're free to make an ass of yourself if you so wish.
Dan's assumption about Arabic women being all Muslim is not worse than assumptions by foreigners about all Americans being Christians, or baseball lovers, or big hildren. Given the number of Muslim women in Arabic countries, it's not difficult to see why the assumption would be made.
So again -- you can disagree with Dan and point out that he is wrong without making an ass of yourself (and without making generalizations about Americans as wrong as Dan's about Arabic women). But of course you're free to make an ass of yourself if you so wish.
111
@flang, who wrote:
But since we're talking about the same ban, then surely one of us must be wrong, right? I mean, one can argue that the ban is both a limitaiton on the freedom of women to choose and a means of fighting against cultural stereotypes ('women's place'), but nothing in this world is so clearly balanced at 50-50. This ban either is mostly a limitation to women's freedom, or then mostly a protection from negative social pressure. I happen to agree with #100 above: it's mostly a limitation of freedom.
Also, in the French case, the obvious political use of the issue (as Irene above has pointed out) shows that most of those who propose the ban aren't really worried about the situation of women, but simply want to score political points on growing Islamophobia in French society.
Well, then we're both supporting the same conclusion, just differing on the process. You and others see a ban primarily designed to of prevent women from exercising their free will, I and others see a ban primarily designed to prevent patriarchal and oppressive cultures from keeping women "in their place."
But since we're talking about the same ban, then surely one of us must be wrong, right? I mean, one can argue that the ban is both a limitaiton on the freedom of women to choose and a means of fighting against cultural stereotypes ('women's place'), but nothing in this world is so clearly balanced at 50-50. This ban either is mostly a limitation to women's freedom, or then mostly a protection from negative social pressure. I happen to agree with #100 above: it's mostly a limitation of freedom.
Also, in the French case, the obvious political use of the issue (as Irene above has pointed out) shows that most of those who propose the ban aren't really worried about the situation of women, but simply want to score political points on growing Islamophobia in French society.
112
@104, you're missing most of the point: the cultural difference. Discussing Christian women's opinion about premarital sex occurs within one culture. Discussing Arabs and Muslims occurs between two cultures. It's a different situation, in which lack of familiarity leads to stereotyping and facile assumptions that may turn out to be false.
For the record, I have nothing against people who want to wait till marriage to have sex. Just as in the case of the Muslim veil, what I am against is being forced to wait (or wear the veil) even if I happen to disagree with the opinion of those trying to force me.
For the record, I have nothing against people who want to wait till marriage to have sex. Just as in the case of the Muslim veil, what I am against is being forced to wait (or wear the veil) even if I happen to disagree with the opinion of those trying to force me.
113
@amazonvera, who wrote: In the end, I think Haddad makes what is in general a fair point. I think if you added up all of the women actively forced to wear the veil, all of the women de facto forced to wear it, and all of the women who choose to wear it but do so as a response to cultural and religious pressure for or against, that number would make up the vast majority of veil-wearing women in the Muslim population.
See, here's the problem with this argument: it's an assumption being made without the necessary definitions ('when is a decision legitimate', 'what are the circumstances (rather than our stereotypical vision of what they are) in the countries in question', etc.)
Xtoph (@100 above) claims to have many years of first-hand experience with Muslims in the biggest Muslim country (I'm guessing Turkey), yet s/he makes the opposite claim to yours.
Who is right, then, you, or Xtoph? That's an important question.
See, here's the problem with this argument: it's an assumption being made without the necessary definitions ('when is a decision legitimate', 'what are the circumstances (rather than our stereotypical vision of what they are) in the countries in question', etc.)
Xtoph (@100 above) claims to have many years of first-hand experience with Muslims in the biggest Muslim country (I'm guessing Turkey), yet s/he makes the opposite claim to yours.
Who is right, then, you, or Xtoph? That's an important question.
114
@flang, who wrote:
First, see adam_smith's reply to your post (@109) above, on the topic of how Haddad's good intentions may not prevent that the idea she espouses in that interview from being harmful ('the road to hell is paved with good intentions'). The main point of contention to me is this:
(a) what is wrong is not the hijab, or the burqa, or even full nudity; what is wrong is being forced to wear the hijab, the burqa, or to be fully nude;
(b) by taking steps like a ban one sends the opposite message: that what is important is to forbid certain things rather than to increase the freedom of choice of individuals. Especially when one is dealing with cultural practices that will be intertwined in a myriad of ways with all kinds of other things in the culture, with all kinds of associations that foreigners often fail to detect, focusing on the object to the detriment of the freedom of choice very much sends the wrong message.
Again, adam_smith above already mentions one, the stereotype that veiled = unfree (as for frequency correlations, cf. also the stereotype that Black = bandit/criminal).
As for what you mention with respect to organized religions perpetuating gender stereotypes: that is true, but the kind of assertion you make is often taken to imply some sort of conspiracy theory (say, that in Islamic countries "men" want to oppress "women" by forcing them to wear the veil; maybe because they (= men) are bad, or enjoy oppressing, etc.) when in fact religious discourse on gender relations is usually created post facto to make sense of a pre-existing situation with causes very much independent from religion. In reality, things are much more complicated and ambiguous, given the complexity of the interconnections between all aspects of culture, not only those with gender ramifications. Oversimplifying this is an invitation to choosing a simplistic solution that will probably not solve the problem (e.g., banning specific headgear) but only make it worse (make otherwise intelligent Islamic women actually turn against feminism because it's too Western and doesn't understand their culture).
More...
See what I'm getting at here? Do you not believe that we should at least presume Haddad is making a good faith effort to support women, unless you have even a single piece of evidence that shows otherwise? Not to mention that it's pretty difficult to be an Islamaphobe if most of the people you're trying to help are Muslims.
First, see adam_smith's reply to your post (@109) above, on the topic of how Haddad's good intentions may not prevent that the idea she espouses in that interview from being harmful ('the road to hell is paved with good intentions'). The main point of contention to me is this:
(a) what is wrong is not the hijab, or the burqa, or even full nudity; what is wrong is being forced to wear the hijab, the burqa, or to be fully nude;
(b) by taking steps like a ban one sends the opposite message: that what is important is to forbid certain things rather than to increase the freedom of choice of individuals. Especially when one is dealing with cultural practices that will be intertwined in a myriad of ways with all kinds of other things in the culture, with all kinds of associations that foreigners often fail to detect, focusing on the object to the detriment of the freedom of choice very much sends the wrong message.
Secondly, what exactly are the stereotypes that Haddad's arguments are perpetuating? She is saying that women who wear the veil are overwhelmingly doing so because they are either forced to by authority figures in their community, or because they have been brainwashed into believing that it's their duty to do so. I am genuinely unaware of any stereotypes that fit here, unless it's the idea that the major monotheistic religions tend to be focused on the leadership of males and the submission of females, which isn't so much a stereotype as a widely-acknowledged fact. Is that what you're referring to?
Again, adam_smith above already mentions one, the stereotype that veiled = unfree (as for frequency correlations, cf. also the stereotype that Black = bandit/criminal).
As for what you mention with respect to organized religions perpetuating gender stereotypes: that is true, but the kind of assertion you make is often taken to imply some sort of conspiracy theory (say, that in Islamic countries "men" want to oppress "women" by forcing them to wear the veil; maybe because they (= men) are bad, or enjoy oppressing, etc.) when in fact religious discourse on gender relations is usually created post facto to make sense of a pre-existing situation with causes very much independent from religion. In reality, things are much more complicated and ambiguous, given the complexity of the interconnections between all aspects of culture, not only those with gender ramifications. Oversimplifying this is an invitation to choosing a simplistic solution that will probably not solve the problem (e.g., banning specific headgear) but only make it worse (make otherwise intelligent Islamic women actually turn against feminism because it's too Western and doesn't understand their culture).
115
@ 113, I don't think Xtoph's firsthand experience in one country is indicative of a whole lot in that country, let alone the Muslim world, and I don't even know what's meant by "biggest," so I couldn't speak to anything Xtoph has said in anything but very general terms. That being said, I don't see any reason after reading what he (I'm assuming?) has to see that makes it mutually exclusive from what I'm saying. I think it's totally possible to visit the "largest" Muslim country (again, whatever that means, be it largest geographical size of a majority Muslim nation, largest Muslim population, Muslim community most demographically dominant?) and encounter an unanticipated concept of choice and an awful lot of veiled women, even the majority that you meet or the majority within that community, who discuss their mode of covering as a matter of choice and still have them not be representative of the majority of veiled Muslim women. We're talking about 1.5 billion women, many (not unlikely most, though again, that's only what I think) of whom live in a place where not wearing a veil can be anywhere from lethal to illegal to seriously culturally frowned upon, up to and including subversively or overtly reducing marital, job, and educational prospects.
But I do think that, if we're comparing viewpoints based on personal experience, you're omitting Haddad's point of view as an actual woman from the Arab world, even from a relatively diverse Arab country where the Muslim population takes a relatively liberal stance on the veil.
But I do think that, if we're comparing viewpoints based on personal experience, you're omitting Haddad's point of view as an actual woman from the Arab world, even from a relatively diverse Arab country where the Muslim population takes a relatively liberal stance on the veil.
116
@113 - unbeknownst to many, the biggest Muslim country - by a large margin - is Indonesia (followed by Pakistan and Bangladesh). That also makes sense with the rest of what @100 is saying.
Indonesia is probably the best example of women veiling voluntarily in a majority muslim country - the Islam practiced there is for the most part pretty moderate, it's not politically radical and societal norms are, generally speaking, not oppressive.
Indonesia is probably the best example of women veiling voluntarily in a majority muslim country - the Islam practiced there is for the most part pretty moderate, it's not politically radical and societal norms are, generally speaking, not oppressive.
117
@116, Indonesia has the largest single Muslim population, if that's what you mean. And when many districts have standing Sharia courts, sometimes supported by military regimes, and some (many?) schools don't allow female students to attend without head covering, it's hard to say that the women there all have free choice to wear or not wear a veil despite the fact that the government at a national level technically allows diverse religious belief to a restricted set of faiths.
118
@ 115, 101, 116
as adam.smith says, the country with the world's largest population of muslims (also the largest muslim majority country geographically if it matters) is indonesia. and i haven't simply lived there; i am an anthropologist, i am fluent in the local languages where i work (and the national language), and i've conducted a whole lot of research there, including into religious issues and women's rights. (and for that matter, gay rights--one of my best friends in indonesia is that country's most prominent gay activist, who also happens to be an anthropologist.)
indonesia certainly isn't the same, culturally, as the middle east, but neither is it quite as moderate in its religious temperance as stereotype might suggest. there have been more terrorist attacks by islamist extremists in indonesia than in any other peacetime/non-occupied nation i know of offhand, for instance. in some parts of the country, women who do not veil do risk serious consequences; in most, it is much more varied. in both sorts of regions, more women's rights activists--intelligent, informed people--are concerned with protecting women's right to choose the veil than are worried about regulations or social pressure requiring them to.
according to both arab women's rights activists and anthropologists who work in the middle east, the situation is not too different there. that is, while many such people support the right to choose not to veil, and none of them condones violence against women who don't, the notion that no one actually makes a genuine choice to veil is laughable. (in fact one of the reasons many activists want to repeal laws requiring veiling is in order not to trivialize women's choice to veil.) at the risk of overgeneralizing in regard to a very big subject, this is true in large part because the action of veiling is not technically *about* men; it is about the woman, and *her* control over her own self-presentation. it is fundamentally an assertion of dignity and of honor. of course it can be far more complicated and fraught than that, and many of us may not like the thought of dress being one of the things a woman uses to define herself, but really, is it ever not, anywhere?
about why would someone choose to veil, there are too many reasons to go into here. there are good books and papers and even a few news reports about it. i know lots of women who veil at work or when they are with certain people they don't want to talk with, and take off the veil when they feel like going to nightclubs. wearing a veil also frees many women to be extremely sexually aggressive, while giving them a safety net to slam on the brakes whenever they choose to, and know that if the man then continues to hassle them, he can get into serious trouble.
to return to the original post: this isn't an issue of whether *some* women are coerced into veiling, or whether it is often repressive--of course it can be. what haddad asserted was that veiling is *necessarily* and simply repressive of women, and that *no* woman would ever choose to veil, or if she did, she was unconsciously engaging in self-flagellation. the reporter was absolutely correct to challenge that--and no doubt, perplexed at haddad's response, since he has been educated and taken to task by so many other serious muslim women regarding the stereotypical misrepresentation of veiling so common in the west, where it is literally used as an excuse to invade other countries 'for the good of their oppressed women'. (this was a prevalent argument not only for bush's invasion of afghanistan, but for many wars before that--it was a favorite refrain of colonial powers a century ago, verbatim.)
More...
as adam.smith says, the country with the world's largest population of muslims (also the largest muslim majority country geographically if it matters) is indonesia. and i haven't simply lived there; i am an anthropologist, i am fluent in the local languages where i work (and the national language), and i've conducted a whole lot of research there, including into religious issues and women's rights. (and for that matter, gay rights--one of my best friends in indonesia is that country's most prominent gay activist, who also happens to be an anthropologist.)
indonesia certainly isn't the same, culturally, as the middle east, but neither is it quite as moderate in its religious temperance as stereotype might suggest. there have been more terrorist attacks by islamist extremists in indonesia than in any other peacetime/non-occupied nation i know of offhand, for instance. in some parts of the country, women who do not veil do risk serious consequences; in most, it is much more varied. in both sorts of regions, more women's rights activists--intelligent, informed people--are concerned with protecting women's right to choose the veil than are worried about regulations or social pressure requiring them to.
according to both arab women's rights activists and anthropologists who work in the middle east, the situation is not too different there. that is, while many such people support the right to choose not to veil, and none of them condones violence against women who don't, the notion that no one actually makes a genuine choice to veil is laughable. (in fact one of the reasons many activists want to repeal laws requiring veiling is in order not to trivialize women's choice to veil.) at the risk of overgeneralizing in regard to a very big subject, this is true in large part because the action of veiling is not technically *about* men; it is about the woman, and *her* control over her own self-presentation. it is fundamentally an assertion of dignity and of honor. of course it can be far more complicated and fraught than that, and many of us may not like the thought of dress being one of the things a woman uses to define herself, but really, is it ever not, anywhere?
about why would someone choose to veil, there are too many reasons to go into here. there are good books and papers and even a few news reports about it. i know lots of women who veil at work or when they are with certain people they don't want to talk with, and take off the veil when they feel like going to nightclubs. wearing a veil also frees many women to be extremely sexually aggressive, while giving them a safety net to slam on the brakes whenever they choose to, and know that if the man then continues to hassle them, he can get into serious trouble.
to return to the original post: this isn't an issue of whether *some* women are coerced into veiling, or whether it is often repressive--of course it can be. what haddad asserted was that veiling is *necessarily* and simply repressive of women, and that *no* woman would ever choose to veil, or if she did, she was unconsciously engaging in self-flagellation. the reporter was absolutely correct to challenge that--and no doubt, perplexed at haddad's response, since he has been educated and taken to task by so many other serious muslim women regarding the stereotypical misrepresentation of veiling so common in the west, where it is literally used as an excuse to invade other countries 'for the good of their oppressed women'. (this was a prevalent argument not only for bush's invasion of afghanistan, but for many wars before that--it was a favorite refrain of colonial powers a century ago, verbatim.)
119
Indonesia is both the country with the largest muslim population and the largest country with a predominantly muslim population. When people speak of "largest muslim country" they generally mean one of the two.
Note how I qualified each of my statements with terms like "generally" and "mostly". Indonesia is huge and extremely diverse. And yes, there are corners where religious extremists have more power and I'm sure there are places and context in which women are pressure or even force to wear a headscarf.
And yes, the situation in Aceh - the only place with a military regime - is deplorable, but again - Aceh makes up 2% of the population and a tiny, tiny bit of the landmass of the country.
So clearly I'd be wrong to say that all women wearing headscarf in Indonesia are completely free and unopressed. But that's not what I was saying. My point was that Indonesia is a good place to go to find many, many counter-examples to Haddad's claim.
Note how I qualified each of my statements with terms like "generally" and "mostly". Indonesia is huge and extremely diverse. And yes, there are corners where religious extremists have more power and I'm sure there are places and context in which women are pressure or even force to wear a headscarf.
And yes, the situation in Aceh - the only place with a military regime - is deplorable, but again - Aceh makes up 2% of the population and a tiny, tiny bit of the landmass of the country.
So clearly I'd be wrong to say that all women wearing headscarf in Indonesia are completely free and unopressed. But that's not what I was saying. My point was that Indonesia is a good place to go to find many, many counter-examples to Haddad's claim.
120
A woman wears a veil because her religion/culture considers her public face immodest. But of course, there is no equal proscription against a man presenting his face publicly.
The global oppression of women in Muslim cultures - from forced burkas to lack of voting rights, not being allowed to drive, etc - is arguably the biggest human rights violation in the world today. Those who come to a free country and continue to wear the veil give cover to the extremists to allow the men to claim that women in Muslim countries voluntarily accept their role as second class citizens.
Haddad and Savage - keep calling out bigotry when you see it, especially when it is so obvious.
The global oppression of women in Muslim cultures - from forced burkas to lack of voting rights, not being allowed to drive, etc - is arguably the biggest human rights violation in the world today. Those who come to a free country and continue to wear the veil give cover to the extremists to allow the men to claim that women in Muslim countries voluntarily accept their role as second class citizens.
Haddad and Savage - keep calling out bigotry when you see it, especially when it is so obvious.
121
I'm with the zillion other people above who think that Dan has a really weird interpretation of this exchange.
And yes, Dan, you're terrific, but god, you do blunder about so when you get into women's studies land. I know your heart is in the right place. But...
And yes, Dan, you're terrific, but god, you do blunder about so when you get into women's studies land. I know your heart is in the right place. But...
122
Religious women who 'choose' to wear a hijab or burqa or niqab are doing so because of the commandment of Islam that women and men should dress modestly. But what exactly is immodest about a woman's or a girl's hair and neck that is not immodest about a man's or boy's? .
If 'the veil' is such a good and pious thing for Muslim women, why don't Muslim men veil themselves as well?
If 'the veil' is such a good and pious thing for Muslim women, why don't Muslim men veil themselves as well?
123
"I'm talking also about women, because many women have patriarchal values."
Probably the truest comment. Nobody keeps a woman down like other women.
I don't think it matters if a group of women wear the veil out of fashion or duty, if Haddad is 100% correct. Instead of all the concession to the fringes, I'd rather have the strong opinion of someone like Joumana Haddad because it inspires real thought and discussion.
Probably the truest comment. Nobody keeps a woman down like other women.
I don't think it matters if a group of women wear the veil out of fashion or duty, if Haddad is 100% correct. Instead of all the concession to the fringes, I'd rather have the strong opinion of someone like Joumana Haddad because it inspires real thought and discussion.
124
@119, but it's not the only district with Sharia courts, remotely the only district with schools the require covering for female students, or even marginally the only district with local communities where orthodox or conservative Islam is the norm and choosing not to cover is socially unacceptable and/or severely limiting in terms of life prospects.
The government of Indonesia at a national level does not directly enforce Sharia law, though it's been a close, close call many times. That does make it on a federal, political level more moderate than many other Muslim dominated nations. It does not make the communities or religious adherents within the country moderate. They are by and large very conservative when it comes to theology and happy to locally and/or socially enforce Sharia law on Muslim people, particularly women.
The government of Indonesia at a national level does not directly enforce Sharia law, though it's been a close, close call many times. That does make it on a federal, political level more moderate than many other Muslim dominated nations. It does not make the communities or religious adherents within the country moderate. They are by and large very conservative when it comes to theology and happy to locally and/or socially enforce Sharia law on Muslim people, particularly women.
125
@amazonvera, who wrote:
It appears this would have to be a classical example of a non-sequitur, amazonvera.
I think what you are really trying to get at here is what I called the concept of 'legitimate choice'. In short, you deny that (most) women in Indonesia and (most) women in other Islamic countries can legitimately choose to wear the veil, even if they think that that's what they're doing. Is that the jist of your argument, or am I missing something?
I'd say that this kind of thinking is fraught with danger -- the danger of missing reality because the aspects of it that we don't like can be ascribed to some delegitimizing circumstance ('oppressive social norms', etc.).
I'm not saying that social norms don't (or can't) oppress women, men, and undecideds. Of course it can. But in the absence of clear criteria for deciding what one is dealing with, the claim that a certain situation is 'clearly' the result of social oppression and that the putative victims 'clearly' cannot make legitimate choices is only an opinion, and a dangerous one, especially if one doesn't have long, first-hand experience with the people in question (and sometimes even then, if one isn't one of those people).
Here's one criterion, to begin with: let these women talk. If they say they'd rather not wear the veil; if they say they feel oppressed by it; then give them your full support. If they don't say this, or if they say the opposite, it may be that they are expressing a legitimate choice, and it may be that they aren't. If you have good criteria to decide which is which, then apply them. If you don't -- if your criteria are just gut feelings -- then better not make assumptions.
Instead, go to the places where these women live, talk to them, get to know them, and try to spread your own feminist ideas among them. If they are indeed 'oppressed' by cultural norms and stereotypes, that seems to me the best way to actually counter that -- by going there, talking to them, and trying to make them see the existence of other possibilities.
I'm sure Haddad would support that (I imagine this is part of what she does?); and I'm sure it's better to actually interact with them, because then one gets to see first-hand how intertwined all kinds of impressions and stereotypes are (many people, including women, in Islamic countries would probably find it awfully hard to separate feminism and women's-rights-as-humans-rights from the religious antagonism between Christianity and Islam, or the cultural and political antagonism between the West and Islam; to many people there, feminism -- like McDonald's burgers -- is just 'yet another American/Western thing they're jamming down our throats').
I'm deeply against oversimplifications. Those who oversimplify situations are almost invariably guaranteeing that whatever solutions they propose simply won't work.
More...
I think it's totally possible to visit the "largest" Muslim country (again, whatever that means, be it largest geographical size of a majority Muslim nation, largest Muslim population, Muslim community most demographically dominant?) and encounter an unanticipated concept of choice and an awful lot of veiled women, even the majority that you meet or the majority within that community, who discuss their mode of covering as a matter of choice and still have them not be representative of the majority of veiled Muslim women.
It appears this would have to be a classical example of a non-sequitur, amazonvera.
I think what you are really trying to get at here is what I called the concept of 'legitimate choice'. In short, you deny that (most) women in Indonesia and (most) women in other Islamic countries can legitimately choose to wear the veil, even if they think that that's what they're doing. Is that the jist of your argument, or am I missing something?
I'd say that this kind of thinking is fraught with danger -- the danger of missing reality because the aspects of it that we don't like can be ascribed to some delegitimizing circumstance ('oppressive social norms', etc.).
I'm not saying that social norms don't (or can't) oppress women, men, and undecideds. Of course it can. But in the absence of clear criteria for deciding what one is dealing with, the claim that a certain situation is 'clearly' the result of social oppression and that the putative victims 'clearly' cannot make legitimate choices is only an opinion, and a dangerous one, especially if one doesn't have long, first-hand experience with the people in question (and sometimes even then, if one isn't one of those people).
Here's one criterion, to begin with: let these women talk. If they say they'd rather not wear the veil; if they say they feel oppressed by it; then give them your full support. If they don't say this, or if they say the opposite, it may be that they are expressing a legitimate choice, and it may be that they aren't. If you have good criteria to decide which is which, then apply them. If you don't -- if your criteria are just gut feelings -- then better not make assumptions.
Instead, go to the places where these women live, talk to them, get to know them, and try to spread your own feminist ideas among them. If they are indeed 'oppressed' by cultural norms and stereotypes, that seems to me the best way to actually counter that -- by going there, talking to them, and trying to make them see the existence of other possibilities.
I'm sure Haddad would support that (I imagine this is part of what she does?); and I'm sure it's better to actually interact with them, because then one gets to see first-hand how intertwined all kinds of impressions and stereotypes are (many people, including women, in Islamic countries would probably find it awfully hard to separate feminism and women's-rights-as-humans-rights from the religious antagonism between Christianity and Islam, or the cultural and political antagonism between the West and Islam; to many people there, feminism -- like McDonald's burgers -- is just 'yet another American/Western thing they're jamming down our throats').
I'm deeply against oversimplifications. Those who oversimplify situations are almost invariably guaranteeing that whatever solutions they propose simply won't work.
126
@ Mr Horton, who wrote:
I suppose you also think that the American flag is only a symbol of napalm killings in Vietnam, or of increased global warming; and that anyone who likes this flag is thereby supporting these things?
I'm sorry -- oversimplification is not the way to fight against prejudice. Oversimplification is not the way to improve the situation of women in Islamic countries. Oversimplification is not the way to change society. Oversimplification does not lead to anything new -- oversimplification ('men are X', 'women are Y') is the very basis of currently powerful ideologies and social stereotypes.
Please don't oversimplify. Please, Mr Horton, don't tell these women that you know their 'obvious' situation better than they themselves do. Listen to them first. All of them.
@ Mr Horton, who wrote:
Those who come to a free country and continue to wear the veil give cover to the extremists to allow the men to claim that women in Muslim countries voluntarily accept their role as second class citizens.
I suppose you also think that the American flag is only a symbol of napalm killings in Vietnam, or of increased global warming; and that anyone who likes this flag is thereby supporting these things?
I'm sorry -- oversimplification is not the way to fight against prejudice. Oversimplification is not the way to improve the situation of women in Islamic countries. Oversimplification is not the way to change society. Oversimplification does not lead to anything new -- oversimplification ('men are X', 'women are Y') is the very basis of currently powerful ideologies and social stereotypes.
Please don't oversimplify. Please, Mr Horton, don't tell these women that you know their 'obvious' situation better than they themselves do. Listen to them first. All of them.
127
How is it a non-sequitur to point out that all of the Muslim individuals that one person encounters in their time in one country, even one containing the largest Muslim community in the world, are not necessarily representative of the majority of global Muslim people? That's pure mathematical and anthropological unlikelihood, no more and no less.
I have no desire to spread feminism as I understand it as a woman from the west to cultures vastly different from mine. I don't see how that would be terribly useful or meaningful to them. Why do you?
I absolutely believe that women can choose to wear the veil. Not in countries or communities, however, where it's not legally permissible to go uncovered, whether that's enforced at the national or local level, nor in communities where a woman's ability to obtain an education or have a family or become gainfully employed or not be openly shunned in her community depends on her wearing the veil. Withholding basic rights, freedom, happiness, etc. from a person in order to extract a certain response from them is quite literally coercion. Some Muslim women don't face either legal enforcement or forcible coercion and still make that choice. No doubt. I know several. A great many do face those issues, though, and it's impossible to behave as though that doesn't restrict their freedom of choice. Would I guess (hence "I think," not "I'm sure" or "I know") that most Muslim women face one of the two, considering how prevalent both practices are within Muslim dominated countries and communities? I would guess that. Do I know that? No. Given the number of women in the global Muslim community and the subtlety of the problem in many places, it's going to be nearly impossible to generate a meaningful metric.
I don't, however, extrapolate that to situations where a woman's choice to veil is a response to patriarchy (which is what you seem to be asking if I'm interpreting that correctly) because Muslim-dominated countries are far from the only patriarchal countries in the world and, as women, none of us live in a vacuum. I just don't see how that's a workable definition of choice versus force. I do think it's still meaningful to point out how choice is impacted, but not to behave as though it doesn't exist where patriarchy is present.
More...
I have no desire to spread feminism as I understand it as a woman from the west to cultures vastly different from mine. I don't see how that would be terribly useful or meaningful to them. Why do you?
I absolutely believe that women can choose to wear the veil. Not in countries or communities, however, where it's not legally permissible to go uncovered, whether that's enforced at the national or local level, nor in communities where a woman's ability to obtain an education or have a family or become gainfully employed or not be openly shunned in her community depends on her wearing the veil. Withholding basic rights, freedom, happiness, etc. from a person in order to extract a certain response from them is quite literally coercion. Some Muslim women don't face either legal enforcement or forcible coercion and still make that choice. No doubt. I know several. A great many do face those issues, though, and it's impossible to behave as though that doesn't restrict their freedom of choice. Would I guess (hence "I think," not "I'm sure" or "I know") that most Muslim women face one of the two, considering how prevalent both practices are within Muslim dominated countries and communities? I would guess that. Do I know that? No. Given the number of women in the global Muslim community and the subtlety of the problem in many places, it's going to be nearly impossible to generate a meaningful metric.
I don't, however, extrapolate that to situations where a woman's choice to veil is a response to patriarchy (which is what you seem to be asking if I'm interpreting that correctly) because Muslim-dominated countries are far from the only patriarchal countries in the world and, as women, none of us live in a vacuum. I just don't see how that's a workable definition of choice versus force. I do think it's still meaningful to point out how choice is impacted, but not to behave as though it doesn't exist where patriarchy is present.
128
@debug, who wrote:
Actually, I agree entirely with that. I disagree with Ms Haddad's overgeneralization, but I also think her claim is true for many, many individual Muslim women. That both things can be true simultaneously is an interesting idea, and here I am thinking about it and discussing it with others only because of her. Indeed, thanks to Ms Haddad -- and also to Ms Mullins, the interviewer, for exactly the same reason. :-)
Well, that's a two-edged sword. It's not clearly the case that 'patriarchal' women contribute more to the current situation of gender relations than 'patriarchal' men--at first sight, it would seem to me that it is simply expressed in different contexts and different environments. It's just that the role of 'patriarchal' men is much more often discussed (and stereotyped) than the role of 'patriarchal' women, so when the latter are discussed, their impact seems stronger -- but this may mostly be the effect of surprise or unexpectedness. It may very well be that, if such effects are factored out, then the impact of 'patriarchal' women may appear as important as, or even less important than, the impact of 'patriarchal' men.
Assuming, of course, that one can indeed disentangle the roles of these two groups of 'patriarchal' people. :-)
Instead of all the concession to the fringes, I'd rather have the strong opinion of someone like Joumana Haddad because it inspires real thought and discussion.
Actually, I agree entirely with that. I disagree with Ms Haddad's overgeneralization, but I also think her claim is true for many, many individual Muslim women. That both things can be true simultaneously is an interesting idea, and here I am thinking about it and discussing it with others only because of her. Indeed, thanks to Ms Haddad -- and also to Ms Mullins, the interviewer, for exactly the same reason. :-)
Probably the truest comment. Nobody keeps a woman down like other women.
Well, that's a two-edged sword. It's not clearly the case that 'patriarchal' women contribute more to the current situation of gender relations than 'patriarchal' men--at first sight, it would seem to me that it is simply expressed in different contexts and different environments. It's just that the role of 'patriarchal' men is much more often discussed (and stereotyped) than the role of 'patriarchal' women, so when the latter are discussed, their impact seems stronger -- but this may mostly be the effect of surprise or unexpectedness. It may very well be that, if such effects are factored out, then the impact of 'patriarchal' women may appear as important as, or even less important than, the impact of 'patriarchal' men.
Assuming, of course, that one can indeed disentangle the roles of these two groups of 'patriarchal' people. :-)
129
@127
"I absolutely believe that women can choose to wear the veil. Not in countries or communities, however, where it's not legally permissible to go uncovered, whether that's enforced at the national or local level, nor in communities where a woman's ability to obtain an education or have a family or become gainfully employed or not be openly shunned in her community depends on her wearing the veil. "
I have no idea what we're arguing about then. That's the exact same thing I've been saying from the beginning. If our only difference is whether we think those conditions apply to ~30% or to ~60% of Indonesian women, I don't think that's worth arguing in the absence of specific definitions and data. In either case that means tens of millions with free choice.
If you think those conditions apply to >90% of Indonesian women I don't think you know what you're talking about.
"I absolutely believe that women can choose to wear the veil. Not in countries or communities, however, where it's not legally permissible to go uncovered, whether that's enforced at the national or local level, nor in communities where a woman's ability to obtain an education or have a family or become gainfully employed or not be openly shunned in her community depends on her wearing the veil. "
I have no idea what we're arguing about then. That's the exact same thing I've been saying from the beginning. If our only difference is whether we think those conditions apply to ~30% or to ~60% of Indonesian women, I don't think that's worth arguing in the absence of specific definitions and data. In either case that means tens of millions with free choice.
If you think those conditions apply to >90% of Indonesian women I don't think you know what you're talking about.
130
@amazonvera, who wrote:
Well, because there is an unexpressed assumption in the original wording (that you circumvent with 'necessarily' here): namely, that said choice meetings could not be representative. They very well could. Assuming Xtoph is a good anthropologist (one of those who know how to select representative members of the society s/he's studying), s/he should have paid attention to that. Assuming s/he didn't is what I called a 'non-sequitur' -- but maybe 'contains a hidden assumption' would be a better description.
I don't see how that would be terribly useful or meaningful to them. Why do you?
Because my experience with people tells me that the best way to let them understand a different culture is by allowing them to see this culture through the eyes of a person they've met and built a relationship with. Rather than reading texts or talking to experts that can always be nonchalantly dismissed as "sold to Western imperalist interests", personal relations tend to have more impact at the individual level. (A friend of mine, a professional linguist and anthropologist, first came to Brazil -- my native country -- from her native Italy to do exactly that: raise consciousness among poor Brazilian women by entering into contact with them. She later on became interested in indigenous peoples and the politics around their current situation, but she still has many interesting stories about her experience as a 'feminist consciousness-raiser in the favellas' -- e.g., stories about how the consciousness-raising went both ways.)
I'm not suggesting, by the way, that this is what you, personally, should do. We are all free to do with our lives what we want. But I do think this would be a better method for really influencing hearts and minds in a different culture than simply pontificating from across the ocean about practices and beliefs outside of their contexts. (Not because I think it's impossible to judge other cultures -- I'm not at all a cultural relativist -- but because I think those who do pontificate about practices and beliefs outside of context will make many obvious mistakes and misinterpretations -- obvious to the people who live in these cultures --, so that the natives will simply laugh at them and see them as mere cultural imperialists, no matter how pure the intentions of the armchair commenters or how good some of their arguments may actually be.)
Agreed.
Again, agreed. (Well, if you want to nit-pick, it's imaginable that some women in these areas might freely agree with the local laws, but it would be an anthropologist's nightmare to actually find compelling evidence that this is the case, i.e., that their agreement is truly free.)
Anyway, I think we'd both agree that, regardless of whether or not there are some almost-impossible-to-detect women who freely agree with these laws, the laws themselves are unfair (since they, like the ban, destroy the possibility of choice).
Again, I agree. Though here we have to deal with the problem of degree (different areas have different degrees of intensity on how much they want women to adhere to specific dress codes -- just as they may have different degrees of intensity on how much they want the locals to adhere to any traditional Muslim practice), so that not all areas which would fall within the scope of your comment are equally bad, or can be solved in the same way (given how in some places wearing the veil may be more strongly associated with modesty and propriety, in another area it may be dependent on the need to show oneself a 'real' Muslim, and in another area it may express desire to not yield to Western cultural influence -- the underlying causes will call for different solutions).
Withholding basic rights, freedom, happiness, etc. from a person in order to extract a certain response from them is quite literally coercion.
There, even though I agree, I see we have problems, because I agree with what I mean by 'basic rights', 'freedom', 'happiness', etc. whereas it may well be that you have different definitions for them. And even if our definitions are the same, what a veiled Muslim woman might think about 'basic rights', 'freedom', 'happiness' etc. is again something else.
So your claim here, even though it sounds good and is quite easy (even for me) to agree with, is actually so dependent on what exactly your terms mean that it can be used to justify being against pretty much anything. I can imagine religious extremists using it -- the exact same words -- to justify being against feminism, for instance.
I agree. So do I. So do many of us.
Again, I agree -- I'll even go as far as saying that there is nobody in this comment thread that disagrees with that.
The problem, to me, is that it's the forcing that people should fight against (given a good criterion for deciding when people are not being forced, i.e., when choices can legitimately be made), whereas many people want just to fight the objects that are forced -- hijabs and veils and burqas. That, I think, is simply missing the point, fighting the wrong enemy, attacking the wrong thing. Hence my stance against the ban.
I would guess that, too -- though I would be ready to take this guess back if more evidence showed that it's not the case (which is imaginable).
But this doesn't change the nature of the problem to me. The point is not how many women are being forced to wear the veil, but that they are being forced to wear the veil. So what I would be against -- no matter how many or how few women are affected by it, or in what places -- is the forcing, the obligatoriness, the absence of choice. Even if only one Muslim woman was being forced to wear the veil, that would be sufficient for me to be against it. Against the forcing, that is -- not against the veil.
Given the number of women in the global Muslim community and the subtlety of the problem in many places, it's going to be nearly impossible to generate a meaningful metric.
That depends on the question you're trying to answer, or the problem you're trying to solve. To me, the question is whether or not people should be forced to wear (or not to wear) the veil. As long as this is not the case, then I am happy in allowing as many women in a given place -- even all of them -- to choose the veil.
An easy case is when the law prohibits unveiled women. One then makes the case against that law (since the local population may very well support it) by seeing how it actually affects women, and what they think about it, and getting the process of changing the law going.
A more difficult case is when it's about "social restrictions": people avoiding unveiled women, or thinking ill of them. Then you have something similar to 'judging people by the clothes they wear' in Western society, which is darn complicated to change. But there are things you can do about it (say, the SlutWalks) -- again if you find a sufficiently strong base of local women (and men -- why not?) who agree with your viewpoint.
Maybe we misunderstand each other, amazonvera -- I don't think I tried to make the opposed point. What I am interested in, at this point, is that people -- especially those who work on the theory of sociology (specifically, for gender relations, but other cases are also interesting) -- start talking about how to define conditions for reasonable and sufficient freedom.
True, we're never really free, and if Americans are in average much more 'feminist' than Arabs or Muslims in average, it's also because of their (the Americans') different culture and social conditioning.
But if political and personal freedom, even if imperfect, is to have any meaning at all -- so that we can meaningfully talk about "more" or "less" free countries, cultures, or places -- then it is necessary to define this "imperfect, but acceptable" level of freedom, the conditions under which choices -- though always influenced by the environment -- are sufficiently free to deserve to be called 'legitimate'.
Then we know what it is that we're fighting for. Then the fight is not simply 'we Americans know better than you Muslims', but something deeper than that.
More...
How is it a non-sequitur to point out that all of the Muslim individuals that one person encounters in their time in one country, even one containing the largest Muslim community in the world, are not necessarily representative of the majority of global Muslim people?
Well, because there is an unexpressed assumption in the original wording (that you circumvent with 'necessarily' here): namely, that said choice meetings could not be representative. They very well could. Assuming Xtoph is a good anthropologist (one of those who know how to select representative members of the society s/he's studying), s/he should have paid attention to that. Assuming s/he didn't is what I called a 'non-sequitur' -- but maybe 'contains a hidden assumption' would be a better description.
I don't see how that would be terribly useful or meaningful to them. Why do you?
Because my experience with people tells me that the best way to let them understand a different culture is by allowing them to see this culture through the eyes of a person they've met and built a relationship with. Rather than reading texts or talking to experts that can always be nonchalantly dismissed as "sold to Western imperalist interests", personal relations tend to have more impact at the individual level. (A friend of mine, a professional linguist and anthropologist, first came to Brazil -- my native country -- from her native Italy to do exactly that: raise consciousness among poor Brazilian women by entering into contact with them. She later on became interested in indigenous peoples and the politics around their current situation, but she still has many interesting stories about her experience as a 'feminist consciousness-raiser in the favellas' -- e.g., stories about how the consciousness-raising went both ways.)
I'm not suggesting, by the way, that this is what you, personally, should do. We are all free to do with our lives what we want. But I do think this would be a better method for really influencing hearts and minds in a different culture than simply pontificating from across the ocean about practices and beliefs outside of their contexts. (Not because I think it's impossible to judge other cultures -- I'm not at all a cultural relativist -- but because I think those who do pontificate about practices and beliefs outside of context will make many obvious mistakes and misinterpretations -- obvious to the people who live in these cultures --, so that the natives will simply laugh at them and see them as mere cultural imperialists, no matter how pure the intentions of the armchair commenters or how good some of their arguments may actually be.)
I absolutely believe that women can choose to wear the veil.
Agreed.
Not in countries or communities, however, where it's not legally permissible to go uncovered, whether that's enforced at the national or local level,
Again, agreed. (Well, if you want to nit-pick, it's imaginable that some women in these areas might freely agree with the local laws, but it would be an anthropologist's nightmare to actually find compelling evidence that this is the case, i.e., that their agreement is truly free.)
Anyway, I think we'd both agree that, regardless of whether or not there are some almost-impossible-to-detect women who freely agree with these laws, the laws themselves are unfair (since they, like the ban, destroy the possibility of choice).
nor in communities where a woman's ability to obtain an education or have a family or become gainfully employed or not be openly shunned in her community depends on her wearing the veil.
Again, I agree. Though here we have to deal with the problem of degree (different areas have different degrees of intensity on how much they want women to adhere to specific dress codes -- just as they may have different degrees of intensity on how much they want the locals to adhere to any traditional Muslim practice), so that not all areas which would fall within the scope of your comment are equally bad, or can be solved in the same way (given how in some places wearing the veil may be more strongly associated with modesty and propriety, in another area it may be dependent on the need to show oneself a 'real' Muslim, and in another area it may express desire to not yield to Western cultural influence -- the underlying causes will call for different solutions).
Withholding basic rights, freedom, happiness, etc. from a person in order to extract a certain response from them is quite literally coercion.
There, even though I agree, I see we have problems, because I agree with what I mean by 'basic rights', 'freedom', 'happiness', etc. whereas it may well be that you have different definitions for them. And even if our definitions are the same, what a veiled Muslim woman might think about 'basic rights', 'freedom', 'happiness' etc. is again something else.
So your claim here, even though it sounds good and is quite easy (even for me) to agree with, is actually so dependent on what exactly your terms mean that it can be used to justify being against pretty much anything. I can imagine religious extremists using it -- the exact same words -- to justify being against feminism, for instance.
Some Muslim women don't face either legal enforcement or forcible coercion and still make that choice. No doubt. I know several.
I agree. So do I. So do many of us.
A great many do face those issues, though, and it's impossible to behave as though that doesn't restrict their freedom of choice.
Again, I agree -- I'll even go as far as saying that there is nobody in this comment thread that disagrees with that.
The problem, to me, is that it's the forcing that people should fight against (given a good criterion for deciding when people are not being forced, i.e., when choices can legitimately be made), whereas many people want just to fight the objects that are forced -- hijabs and veils and burqas. That, I think, is simply missing the point, fighting the wrong enemy, attacking the wrong thing. Hence my stance against the ban.
Would I guess (hence "I think," not "I'm sure" or "I know") that most Muslim women face one of the two, considering how prevalent both practices are within Muslim dominated countries and communities? I would guess that.
I would guess that, too -- though I would be ready to take this guess back if more evidence showed that it's not the case (which is imaginable).
But this doesn't change the nature of the problem to me. The point is not how many women are being forced to wear the veil, but that they are being forced to wear the veil. So what I would be against -- no matter how many or how few women are affected by it, or in what places -- is the forcing, the obligatoriness, the absence of choice. Even if only one Muslim woman was being forced to wear the veil, that would be sufficient for me to be against it. Against the forcing, that is -- not against the veil.
Given the number of women in the global Muslim community and the subtlety of the problem in many places, it's going to be nearly impossible to generate a meaningful metric.
That depends on the question you're trying to answer, or the problem you're trying to solve. To me, the question is whether or not people should be forced to wear (or not to wear) the veil. As long as this is not the case, then I am happy in allowing as many women in a given place -- even all of them -- to choose the veil.
An easy case is when the law prohibits unveiled women. One then makes the case against that law (since the local population may very well support it) by seeing how it actually affects women, and what they think about it, and getting the process of changing the law going.
A more difficult case is when it's about "social restrictions": people avoiding unveiled women, or thinking ill of them. Then you have something similar to 'judging people by the clothes they wear' in Western society, which is darn complicated to change. But there are things you can do about it (say, the SlutWalks) -- again if you find a sufficiently strong base of local women (and men -- why not?) who agree with your viewpoint.
. I just don't see how that's a workable definition of choice versus force. I do think it's still meaningful to point out how choice is impacted, but not to behave as though it doesn't exist where patriarchy is present.
Maybe we misunderstand each other, amazonvera -- I don't think I tried to make the opposed point. What I am interested in, at this point, is that people -- especially those who work on the theory of sociology (specifically, for gender relations, but other cases are also interesting) -- start talking about how to define conditions for reasonable and sufficient freedom.
True, we're never really free, and if Americans are in average much more 'feminist' than Arabs or Muslims in average, it's also because of their (the Americans') different culture and social conditioning.
But if political and personal freedom, even if imperfect, is to have any meaning at all -- so that we can meaningfully talk about "more" or "less" free countries, cultures, or places -- then it is necessary to define this "imperfect, but acceptable" level of freedom, the conditions under which choices -- though always influenced by the environment -- are sufficiently free to deserve to be called 'legitimate'.
Then we know what it is that we're fighting for. Then the fight is not simply 'we Americans know better than you Muslims', but something deeper than that.
131
@Xtoph, who wrote:
A very, very interesting claim, Xtoph -- I actually would love if you could give us links to supporting evidence for it, because it is precisely the stereotype-breaking kind of situation that I think is necessary for American activists to realize that they really, really need to know the local culture before making broad, facile generalizations about it. I would love to cite this in other discussions.
(in fact one of the reasons many [Muslim women's rights] activists want to repeal laws requiring veiling is in order not to trivialize women's choice to veil.)
A very, very interesting claim, Xtoph -- I actually would love if you could give us links to supporting evidence for it, because it is precisely the stereotype-breaking kind of situation that I think is necessary for American activists to realize that they really, really need to know the local culture before making broad, facile generalizations about it. I would love to cite this in other discussions.
132
@Xtoph, who wrote:
Another interesting claim from your post full of interesting claims, Xtoph -- I almost feel like reprinting it here verbatim. But this particular point made me feel curious. I assume you say "technically" because in actual practice what 'men' want 'women' to do can often enough have quite a lot of influence on veil choice (I'm thinking of the Iranian mores police who fines or even arrests women who don't show proper modesty). Is this enough to invalidate choices, at least in many circumstances? Feminist literature is full of claims about situations in which something that is supposedly 'about the woman' is actually more about some ideal of womanhood that is actually detrimentary to most real-life women ('princess' stereotypes, for instance). Can't the self-presentation, 'dignity and honor' thing fall within the range of this kind of, say, 'social self-delusion'?
(I notice that what you said about the use of the veil in female sexual aggressiveness tends to show that this is a nuanced thing. But I'd be interested in your opinion.)
Also, in general: from you own professional/personal experience, what do you think Muslim women's rights activists should do in their respective countries? And what is a legitimate role for women's rights activists in Western countries who want to support their comrades in Muslim countries? Again, just curious about your opinion.
at the risk of overgeneralizing in regard to a very big subject, this is true in large part because the action of veiling is not technically *about* men; it is about the woman, and *her* control over her own self-presentation. it is fundamentally an assertion of dignity and of honor.
Another interesting claim from your post full of interesting claims, Xtoph -- I almost feel like reprinting it here verbatim. But this particular point made me feel curious. I assume you say "technically" because in actual practice what 'men' want 'women' to do can often enough have quite a lot of influence on veil choice (I'm thinking of the Iranian mores police who fines or even arrests women who don't show proper modesty). Is this enough to invalidate choices, at least in many circumstances? Feminist literature is full of claims about situations in which something that is supposedly 'about the woman' is actually more about some ideal of womanhood that is actually detrimentary to most real-life women ('princess' stereotypes, for instance). Can't the self-presentation, 'dignity and honor' thing fall within the range of this kind of, say, 'social self-delusion'?
(I notice that what you said about the use of the veil in female sexual aggressiveness tends to show that this is a nuanced thing. But I'd be interested in your opinion.)
Also, in general: from you own professional/personal experience, what do you think Muslim women's rights activists should do in their respective countries? And what is a legitimate role for women's rights activists in Western countries who want to support their comrades in Muslim countries? Again, just curious about your opinion.
133
@Xtoph, who wrote:
Again a thought-provoking paragraph. I would again thank you if you could provide a link to a text by, say, some 19th-century colonial power using this argument to justify the invasion of a Muslim country or area -- against, just for my own personal files, for use in future instances of this discussion in other fora.
this isn't an issue of whether *some* women are coerced into veiling, or whether it is often repressive--of course it can be. what haddad asserted was that veiling is *necessarily* and simply repressive of women, and that *no* woman would ever choose to veil, or if she did, she was unconsciously engaging in self-flagellation. the reporter was absolutely correct to challenge that--and no doubt, perplexed at haddad's response, since he has been educated and taken to task by so many other serious muslim women regarding the stereotypical misrepresentation of veiling so common in the west, where it is literally used as an excuse to invade other countries 'for the good of their oppressed women'. (this was a prevalent argument not only for bush's invasion of afghanistan, but for many wars before that--it was a favorite refrain of colonial powers a century ago, verbatim.)
Again a thought-provoking paragraph. I would again thank you if you could provide a link to a text by, say, some 19th-century colonial power using this argument to justify the invasion of a Muslim country or area -- against, just for my own personal files, for use in future instances of this discussion in other fora.
134
Ankylosaur @126 - Merely waving an American flag does not automatically invoke Napalm bombing any more than someone identifying as Muslim invokes terrorist sympathies. But we are not talking about a person identifying as Muslim in general. We are talking about a specific act of females veiling their faces.
So what does the veil mean? I do not ask that rhetorically.
The veil isn't a fashion accessory, like a Yankees hat. It is a religious/political statement, is it not? Doesn't the veil, at a minimum, represent the view that the female public face is immodest? But her husband/brother's naked face is just fine? Does the veil have some other use that I am missing? Don't we, as those who espouse secular-liberal values, have a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent mysogyny in the act of veiling?
So what does the veil mean? I do not ask that rhetorically.
The veil isn't a fashion accessory, like a Yankees hat. It is a religious/political statement, is it not? Doesn't the veil, at a minimum, represent the view that the female public face is immodest? But her husband/brother's naked face is just fine? Does the veil have some other use that I am missing? Don't we, as those who espouse secular-liberal values, have a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent mysogyny in the act of veiling?
135
Tim - as Xtoph says above, there's a ton of writing on the veil if you actually care. Veils have a multitude of different meanings for different women wearing them, they include (among others):
- teenage rebellion
- a statement against an authoritarian government
- a symbol of religious pride or a statement in favor of religious freedom
- a symbol of ethnic allegiance to a minority that perceives itself as under attack.
- a shield against being stared at in a way that makes you uncomfortable
- as well as a number of reasons involving more twisted/problematic views on the role of women.
Jewish women don't wear yarmulkes and people don't go all crazy about that, even though its origins are in the special role attributed to men and their bond with god.
What matters is the current practice - and women are considered equal in conservative and reform Judaism - and I don't think anyone would accuse a Jewish man wearing a Yarmulke of contributing to the oppression of women - even some strains of orthodox judaism certainly have rather medieval views on the role of women.
- teenage rebellion
- a statement against an authoritarian government
- a symbol of religious pride or a statement in favor of religious freedom
- a symbol of ethnic allegiance to a minority that perceives itself as under attack.
- a shield against being stared at in a way that makes you uncomfortable
- as well as a number of reasons involving more twisted/problematic views on the role of women.
Jewish women don't wear yarmulkes and people don't go all crazy about that, even though its origins are in the special role attributed to men and their bond with god.
What matters is the current practice - and women are considered equal in conservative and reform Judaism - and I don't think anyone would accuse a Jewish man wearing a Yarmulke of contributing to the oppression of women - even some strains of orthodox judaism certainly have rather medieval views on the role of women.
136
Tim Horton @134, consider women who wear bikini tops on the beach in summer. Following your logic, could you not say the following?
It should be clear by now that it is not the act of veiling that's misogynistic, but, as ankylosaur has pointed out several times, the act of forcing to veil. Women have won the right to go topless in Ontario, New York, and D.C., for example, and yet they can still choose to wear tops, even on the hottest of days, without being thought of as brainwashed or unable to make a free choice. Sure, it's unfair that most women don't feel comfortable sunbathing topless, that they have to be concerned about leers or disapproving looks if they do. But not too many people who espouse secular-liberal values feel they should have "a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent misogyny" in the act of wearing a bikini top. Most of those people think it's up to a woman to decide what she chooses to wear.
Again, it's not the women choosing to wear veils who are contributing to misogyny. It's the religious and political leaders who insist women should not choose -- that they are not capable of choosing and should have their choices made for them -- who should be your target.
Doesn't the bikini top, at a minimum, represent the view that the female chest is immodest? But her husband/brother's naked chest is just fine? Does the bikini top have some other use that I am missing? Don't we, as those who espouse secular-liberal values, have a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent mysogyny in the act of wearing bikini tops?
It should be clear by now that it is not the act of veiling that's misogynistic, but, as ankylosaur has pointed out several times, the act of forcing to veil. Women have won the right to go topless in Ontario, New York, and D.C., for example, and yet they can still choose to wear tops, even on the hottest of days, without being thought of as brainwashed or unable to make a free choice. Sure, it's unfair that most women don't feel comfortable sunbathing topless, that they have to be concerned about leers or disapproving looks if they do. But not too many people who espouse secular-liberal values feel they should have "a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent misogyny" in the act of wearing a bikini top. Most of those people think it's up to a woman to decide what she chooses to wear.
Again, it's not the women choosing to wear veils who are contributing to misogyny. It's the religious and political leaders who insist women should not choose -- that they are not capable of choosing and should have their choices made for them -- who should be your target.
137
Jesus christ on a cracker, ankylosaur, I don't know why you're asking me "why we're arguing" about this when I have never at any point contradicted, retracted, or changed any of my statements and you're the one who has initiated the "argument," if you want to call it that, made grossly inaccurate assumptions about my opinions from incomprehensible misinterpretations of what I've said, and felt the need to condescendingly explain to me things that you have no reason to believe that I don't understand. I think that your guess about why "we" are "arguing" is going to be, by definition, better than mine.
On the only points where I do see that we have disagreement, one being essentially about how science works, interacting with a tiny minority of a population that is in and of itself a minority (and a culturally specific one at that) of a larger global population is not representative of the experiences, feelings, opinions, or beliefs of said global population, even when said interactions are conducted by a professional (though one who is still inherently viewing these interactions through the lens of their own foreign normative context) and when care has been exercised to find a data sample that is relatively representative of the individual sub-community being studied. It's not impossible that their experiences, beliefs, opinions, etc. could turn out to be in line with the global community at large, but that tiny, tiny data sample can not possibly be construed to indicate that. At all. Further more, I don't get the impression that Xtoph is trying to imply that his experiences are representative of the Global Muslim Woman at large but rather that he's been exposed to the fact that some veiled Muslim women approach this issue in ways that many Westerners don't anticipate.
As for why I have no desire to go to Muslim women in vastly different cultures from my own and explain to them my particular, culturally specific brand of feminism, I have no reason to believe that it's useful to them and every reason to believe that it's more valuable for me to listen to their far less represented ideas at face value. Something you seem to be failing to do to the original subject of this thread in favor of other western commenters who speak from outside that experience.
More...
On the only points where I do see that we have disagreement, one being essentially about how science works, interacting with a tiny minority of a population that is in and of itself a minority (and a culturally specific one at that) of a larger global population is not representative of the experiences, feelings, opinions, or beliefs of said global population, even when said interactions are conducted by a professional (though one who is still inherently viewing these interactions through the lens of their own foreign normative context) and when care has been exercised to find a data sample that is relatively representative of the individual sub-community being studied. It's not impossible that their experiences, beliefs, opinions, etc. could turn out to be in line with the global community at large, but that tiny, tiny data sample can not possibly be construed to indicate that. At all. Further more, I don't get the impression that Xtoph is trying to imply that his experiences are representative of the Global Muslim Woman at large but rather that he's been exposed to the fact that some veiled Muslim women approach this issue in ways that many Westerners don't anticipate.
As for why I have no desire to go to Muslim women in vastly different cultures from my own and explain to them my particular, culturally specific brand of feminism, I have no reason to believe that it's useful to them and every reason to believe that it's more valuable for me to listen to their far less represented ideas at face value. Something you seem to be failing to do to the original subject of this thread in favor of other western commenters who speak from outside that experience.
138
@Mr Horton, who wrote:
I won't repeat adam_smith's quite apt comment on this topic, Mr Horton. I'll simply add: the veil can mean what they're saying (just like Western clothes can mean a phobia of nudity), if that's what the person wearing the veil (or those around her, or the society, or) mean by it. But no -- of course this is not the only thing that the veil can mean.
This is the fallacy of assuming that the meaning is in the thing, not in the use that is made of the thing. That the word "pet" has to mean 'domestic animal that I like', instead of 'fart' (as it does in French) or 'cap' (as it does in Dutch).
To speak frankly, I wished human beings were as simple as they'd have to be for your assumption to be correct. Alas, they're not.
Which is why my analogy stands. Thinking that the veil necessarily stands for "considering women's face immodest, but not men's faces" and never anything else, is EXACTLY THE SAME as thinking the American flag necessarily stands for napalm killings and global warming, and nothing else.
If someone from a different culture told you s/he knows what the American flag 'truly means' better than you Americans, how would you react? Wouldn't you at least want this person to make a compelling case, with lots of arguments? Otherwise, what's the difference between this and cultural arrogance?
More...
The veil isn't a fashion accessory, like a Yankees hat. It is a religious/political statement, is it not? Doesn't the veil, at a minimum, represent the view that the female public face is immodest? But her husband/brother's naked face is just fine? Does the veil have some other use that I am missing? Don't we, as those who espouse secular-liberal values, have a conscience and a role in pointing out the inherent mysogyny in the act of veiling?
I won't repeat adam_smith's quite apt comment on this topic, Mr Horton. I'll simply add: the veil can mean what they're saying (just like Western clothes can mean a phobia of nudity), if that's what the person wearing the veil (or those around her, or the society, or) mean by it. But no -- of course this is not the only thing that the veil can mean.
This is the fallacy of assuming that the meaning is in the thing, not in the use that is made of the thing. That the word "pet" has to mean 'domestic animal that I like', instead of 'fart' (as it does in French) or 'cap' (as it does in Dutch).
To speak frankly, I wished human beings were as simple as they'd have to be for your assumption to be correct. Alas, they're not.
Which is why my analogy stands. Thinking that the veil necessarily stands for "considering women's face immodest, but not men's faces" and never anything else, is EXACTLY THE SAME as thinking the American flag necessarily stands for napalm killings and global warming, and nothing else.
If someone from a different culture told you s/he knows what the American flag 'truly means' better than you Americans, how would you react? Wouldn't you at least want this person to make a compelling case, with lots of arguments? Otherwise, what's the difference between this and cultural arrogance?
139
@137 - it looks like you're conflating me with ankylosaur (and we're neither the same nor do we necessarily agree - e.g. I'm with you on the fact that anthropologist don't necessarily work or even strive to work with representative samples).
I'm the one wondering why we're arguing, I didn't make any assumptions about you, and our argument (and our first/only direct exchange) began with your reply in 117 to my 116 - which is clearly phrased as disagreement - so it's an argument you started and I still don't quite understand what it's about.
I'm the one wondering why we're arguing, I didn't make any assumptions about you, and our argument (and our first/only direct exchange) began with your reply in 117 to my 116 - which is clearly phrased as disagreement - so it's an argument you started and I still don't quite understand what it's about.
140
Amazonvera, since I'm not into crackers, I guess I'll put my Jesus on a toast (where, I've been told, he's repeatedly been sighted) and send him right back at ya.
The argument I think we're having is that you claim Ms Haddad was right, whereas I think she's wrong. All the other 'arguments' from you and from me are merely expansions on why it is that she is basically right (you) or basically wrong (me). True, you started the argument by talking to other people, and I jumped in midway -- but I suppose this is the normal dynamics of a comments thread.
I'm not in this to make you change your statements, amazonvera. I'm simply elaborating on the first idea I put in this thread -- namely, that Ms Haddad is not right in her overgeneralization; further yet, that believing in that overgeneralization leads to people making the wrong decisions about how to help solve the problem of Muslim women who are forced to wear (or not to wear) the veil. If you disagree, despite all I and others have written, fine.
I don't think we disagree about science either. The basic contention, as I see it, is that you point out that Xtoph may be wrong in his conclusions due to a non-representative sample, whereas I point out that he may also be right, in case his sample selection was well done (that is something I would expect from a good anthropologist). Of course, Xtoph, like anyone, like any scientist, could be wrong. Or s/he could be right. Unless s/he goes into further details about his/her research methods, I don't see how either you or I could solve this.
I do get the impression that Xtoph is making (and quite strongly) the point that Westerners are often simplistic and wrong in their assumption that the veil is always (or even mostly) non-legitimately chosen (if chosen at all) by Muslim women. S/he has said so at least twice, mentioned colleagues who work in other Muslim countries, and strongly criticized oppinions to the contrary. S/he claimed Ms Haddad was "absolutely wrong" and praised the reporter who questioned her. You relativize this a little, but re-reading his/her two posts, I think they are markedly critical of Ms Haddad and similar positions. I agree s/he doesn't make claims about the Global Muslim Woman, but I'd argue that this is because no such thing actually exists, despite overgeneralizations like Ms Haddad's.
Well, a few sentences ago you were talking about the problem of considering minorities as representative of Great Global Women, right?
But all in all, it's of course good to listen to all voices. By all means do. And among them, please consider the voices that say that the symbolism of the veil is not simply oppressive, and that far more women may freely choose it than seems the case at first (Western) sight. As far as I can tell, such views are not that well represented in Western discourse about Muslim countries; I more often hear the kind of overgeneralization that Ms Haddad makes, which, as Xtoph pointed out, is not even new: it was already used in previous centuries, even before feminism started influencing Western culture.
In a nutshell: overgeneralizing about the situation of Muslim women with respect to the veil tends to alienate those Muslim women whose situation with respect to the veil is not as described in the overgeneralization, and helps convince these women that the West is simply being culturally arrogant rather than truly concerned with their human rights.
More...
The argument I think we're having is that you claim Ms Haddad was right, whereas I think she's wrong. All the other 'arguments' from you and from me are merely expansions on why it is that she is basically right (you) or basically wrong (me). True, you started the argument by talking to other people, and I jumped in midway -- but I suppose this is the normal dynamics of a comments thread.
I'm not in this to make you change your statements, amazonvera. I'm simply elaborating on the first idea I put in this thread -- namely, that Ms Haddad is not right in her overgeneralization; further yet, that believing in that overgeneralization leads to people making the wrong decisions about how to help solve the problem of Muslim women who are forced to wear (or not to wear) the veil. If you disagree, despite all I and others have written, fine.
I don't think we disagree about science either. The basic contention, as I see it, is that you point out that Xtoph may be wrong in his conclusions due to a non-representative sample, whereas I point out that he may also be right, in case his sample selection was well done (that is something I would expect from a good anthropologist). Of course, Xtoph, like anyone, like any scientist, could be wrong. Or s/he could be right. Unless s/he goes into further details about his/her research methods, I don't see how either you or I could solve this.
I do get the impression that Xtoph is making (and quite strongly) the point that Westerners are often simplistic and wrong in their assumption that the veil is always (or even mostly) non-legitimately chosen (if chosen at all) by Muslim women. S/he has said so at least twice, mentioned colleagues who work in other Muslim countries, and strongly criticized oppinions to the contrary. S/he claimed Ms Haddad was "absolutely wrong" and praised the reporter who questioned her. You relativize this a little, but re-reading his/her two posts, I think they are markedly critical of Ms Haddad and similar positions. I agree s/he doesn't make claims about the Global Muslim Woman, but I'd argue that this is because no such thing actually exists, despite overgeneralizations like Ms Haddad's.
I have no reason to believe that it's useful to them and every reason to believe that it's more valuable for me to listen to their far less represented ideas at face value.
Well, a few sentences ago you were talking about the problem of considering minorities as representative of Great Global Women, right?
But all in all, it's of course good to listen to all voices. By all means do. And among them, please consider the voices that say that the symbolism of the veil is not simply oppressive, and that far more women may freely choose it than seems the case at first (Western) sight. As far as I can tell, such views are not that well represented in Western discourse about Muslim countries; I more often hear the kind of overgeneralization that Ms Haddad makes, which, as Xtoph pointed out, is not even new: it was already used in previous centuries, even before feminism started influencing Western culture.
In a nutshell: overgeneralizing about the situation of Muslim women with respect to the veil tends to alienate those Muslim women whose situation with respect to the veil is not as described in the overgeneralization, and helps convince these women that the West is simply being culturally arrogant rather than truly concerned with their human rights.
141
@adam_smith, who wrote:
I'd claim that even those anthropologists who don't strive to work with representative samples know that they should (and can be criticized by those who do for precisely this reason). That's at least what I hear from the anthropologists I know.
But anyway, since amazonvera's criticism was directed at Xtoph's claim, shouldn't we ask Xtoph him/herself to comment on that? S/he is the one who knows whether or not s/he did strive for representativeness, after all, regardless of any of our assumptions.
I'm with you on the fact that anthropologist don't necessarily work or even strive to work with representative samples
I'd claim that even those anthropologists who don't strive to work with representative samples know that they should (and can be criticized by those who do for precisely this reason). That's at least what I hear from the anthropologists I know.
But anyway, since amazonvera's criticism was directed at Xtoph's claim, shouldn't we ask Xtoph him/herself to comment on that? S/he is the one who knows whether or not s/he did strive for representativeness, after all, regardless of any of our assumptions.
142
If you think my argument is that Ms. Haddad is right, you're significantly reading impaired since I've said the opposite multiple times, at least twice in plain terms and very short sentences.
I don't think Xtoph is wrong in what s/he's saying. I think you're wrong in extrapolating what s/he's saying to mean something it doesn't and then imagining that that's contradictory or mutually exclusive to something that I'm saying.
I don't believe that any individual woman I'd listen to would be representative of anyone but herself and the fact that such viewpoints as hers exist within her community. How does that make her point of view less valuable, and what does that have to do with anything?
Your continued insistence to "educate" people without beginning to understand what they're saying in simple terms or considering what they already seem to know is getting increasingly ludicrous.
I don't think Xtoph is wrong in what s/he's saying. I think you're wrong in extrapolating what s/he's saying to mean something it doesn't and then imagining that that's contradictory or mutually exclusive to something that I'm saying.
I don't believe that any individual woman I'd listen to would be representative of anyone but herself and the fact that such viewpoints as hers exist within her community. How does that make her point of view less valuable, and what does that have to do with anything?
Your continued insistence to "educate" people without beginning to understand what they're saying in simple terms or considering what they already seem to know is getting increasingly ludicrous.
143
@141
yeah - that's simply not true for the US, though may well be in other places (I'm a more science-y social scientist, so trust me, I often wish that were the case).
Anthropologists here often see themselves as working at the intersection between humanities and social sciences. Many would reject the concept of representativeness itself. Many would reject the notion of generalizing anything they say beyond the immediate group they're studying.
yeah - that's simply not true for the US, though may well be in other places (I'm a more science-y social scientist, so trust me, I often wish that were the case).
Anthropologists here often see themselves as working at the intersection between humanities and social sciences. Many would reject the concept of representativeness itself. Many would reject the notion of generalizing anything they say beyond the immediate group they're studying.
144
@143, so am I -- I am actively fighting for more rigor in my own field (linguistics), and in an environment were 'facts' are mentioned as important by anthropologists, even beyond the old physical anthropology paradigm. (I'm thinking of South Americanists like Bill Balée, Peter Rivière, or Mike Hekenberger).
The situation you mention reminds me of the influence of postmodernism and the whole deconstructionist movement in the humanities -- a movement with great points to make as well as overenthusiastic followers who would have raised the eyebrows of their favorite authors like Foucault or Derrida.
The situation you mention reminds me of the influence of postmodernism and the whole deconstructionist movement in the humanities -- a movement with great points to make as well as overenthusiastic followers who would have raised the eyebrows of their favorite authors like Foucault or Derrida.
145
@amazonvera, OK, let's see if I can defuse the mounting tension. You indeed said that Ms Haddad was making a "fair point", but that she was "wrong" if she wanted to overgeneralize. Then we started getting involved in the question of whether or not the majority of women were free or not to choose the veil, a question which we can't solve without the proper definitions and actual numbers (is it 30%, is it 60%, says adam_smith), so it's basically personal opinion.
Other than that, we disagreed on whether or not people should have first-hand experience with the cultures they're judging or trying to understand (with respect to the question of the human rights of women), and whether or not the best course of action to help would be to actually go there. You said no, and preferred to listen to opinions. I said people should do as they please, and hoped you'd listen to all opinions (not only Ms Haddad's), and further reported seeing much more of the veil=unfree stereotype than its opposite in Western debates.
Other than that, it seems our disagreement is (maybe?) about how to tell when outside influences ('patriarchal' or otherwise) do make it impossible to talk about legitimate choice, though we both agree that there can be legitimate choice even in the presence of said influences.
Would you say this is a fair assessment?
Re-reading what I wrote, it would seem some of my reactions were more suited to what other commenters had written than to what you had written. For this confusion, I do apologize.
Let's both agree with that.
More...
Other than that, we disagreed on whether or not people should have first-hand experience with the cultures they're judging or trying to understand (with respect to the question of the human rights of women), and whether or not the best course of action to help would be to actually go there. You said no, and preferred to listen to opinions. I said people should do as they please, and hoped you'd listen to all opinions (not only Ms Haddad's), and further reported seeing much more of the veil=unfree stereotype than its opposite in Western debates.
Other than that, it seems our disagreement is (maybe?) about how to tell when outside influences ('patriarchal' or otherwise) do make it impossible to talk about legitimate choice, though we both agree that there can be legitimate choice even in the presence of said influences.
Would you say this is a fair assessment?
Re-reading what I wrote, it would seem some of my reactions were more suited to what other commenters had written than to what you had written. For this confusion, I do apologize.
I don't believe that any individual woman I'd listen to would be representative of anyone but herself and the fact that such viewpoints as hers exist within her community.
Let's both agree with that.
146
I live in Metro Detroit (read = "near-ish to Dearborn") and went to school with a lot of Arab-American women who wore the hijab. Half the hijabis I know wore tight pants too.
It's not about modesty or sexuality (trust me, some really, really nice asses, and I'm not even really into that), it's about flagging in group or out group. It's a passive way of saying, "hey, if you're not Muslim, don't bother trying to ask me out, it's not gonna happen," amongst other messages.
It's not about modesty or sexuality (trust me, some really, really nice asses, and I'm not even really into that), it's about flagging in group or out group. It's a passive way of saying, "hey, if you're not Muslim, don't bother trying to ask me out, it's not gonna happen," amongst other messages.
147
It's not a particularly accurate assessment, ankylosaur (where in the world did I say we should go anywhere?), but it's probably the best we're going to do here.
148
OK -- such is life, amazonvera.
My intention was not to be belligerant. This is a discussion I've had in a number of other situations, both online and in the real world; and my reactions were more closely aimed at people other than you. Again, my apologies. B-ismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīmi.
My intention was not to be belligerant. This is a discussion I've had in a number of other situations, both online and in the real world; and my reactions were more closely aimed at people other than you. Again, my apologies. B-ismi-llāhi r-raḥmāni r-raḥīmi.
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Why They Break Windows by Unpaid Intern
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (148) RSS