Because of what it represents.

Sorry, I really don't mean for this to be any sort of flame-bait either. I'm aware that the topic can get inflamed in the wrong company but you are all good folks so I don't think that will happen here.

Maybe actually, it's the way the topic is handled that bugs me. I recall reading a piece from some Danish journalist about the regular scarf, and how he praised it because (paraphrasing) 'it framed their naked faces to show them as beautiful individuals without the slave to fashion hair and deep cut shirts', and that bothered me so much because in the end, the women who were "free" behind veils as he argued were nothing but objects of beauty to be admired for beauty alone, to him anyway. I dunno, it was in Danish so I might have misinterpreted the tone but it came off as if he had a scarf-fetish.

bunnyfire, then I must think it represents opression of women (I lived in Saudi, sans Chador most times), because other religious symbols don't bother me by far that much. (Though I admit, I don't like anyones religion shoved down my throat, so dorr-lnocking Jehovas witnesses stay far away from my house).

preview actually makes me spell worse.

We may hear from some people who have personal experience with this.

I've always had trouble with the coverings too, even though I grew up in a community and went to a college in which there were a fair number of Muslims, who practiced varying degrees of modesty. Many women who do this do claim that they're freer from sexual attention, free to be seen as an individual, empowered by it, etc.

But I can't get beyond the idea that the very use of the cover places responsibility for male actions and responses on the female. I think unless a society starts with the assumption that we're all responsible for our own actions, regardless of what the other gender is doing, it's oppressive. We can't be responsible for how others see us or what they choose to do about it, and the basic idea of covering is either 'Men can't control their sexual response to me, therefore I must always put up a barrier between myself and them,' or "I am the property of a man (or will be of some future man), and only he has the right to see my body."

I just can't get beyond that, supportive as I want to be of women's choices. I would certainly never support the idea of telling women they couldn't do it if they want to -- ID photos excepted, of course. They have every right to wear a body covering, a steel cone, whatever. But I can't be actively supportive of it as if I think it's an empowering or freeing thing. I think it's just a real stretch to construct covering your body in a restrictive garment in a pro-female way.

and the basic idea of covering is either 'Men can't control their sexual response to me, therefore I must always put up a barrier between myself and them,' or "I am the property of a man (or will be of some future man), and only he has the right to see my body."

I used to be heavily involved in teenage-Christian "Jesus Freak" stuff, back when I was in junior high. Sexuality and modesty were pretty prevalent themes, as you can imagine. Basically, we women should dress modestly, lest we inflame male desires and cause them to sin. There was also an element of "saving yourself" for a future husband. I just wanted to note that wearing a headscarf, veil, or whatever is just another way a culture can say, "This is taboo, cover it up!"

I knew a Muslim woman in college who was very liberal in almost every way (pot-smoker, protester, etc); she chose to wear a headscarf and modest clothing. I never really asked her why - it seems like, in a Western society, it's a personal choice that should be respected. AFAIK, she wore the scarf in her drivers license photo. Of course, there are human rights issues when you begin to address totalitarian countries.

I'm against people being required to wear any particular thing, whether by law or enforced custom. So maybe your opposition is on grounds of general libertarianism and freedom of expression etc. But by the same token, if someone wants to wear one, it's really nothing to me.

reg. ID - even this fashion forward girl would have to remove her chic hijab for a photo since we are required to show our right ear in ID photos around these parts (even if we don't have a right ear). But I was mainly thinking that the face-covering ones would render the whole idea of a photo useless. Then lets just have biometrics like fingerprints. Oooh, and that's kinda scary.

I think Miko nailed it for me though, why it bugs me I mean. I'm a Miko fan.

What miko said. I see it as an emblem of women's oppression and it bugs the hell out of me. Sure, everyone should have the freedom to wear whatever on earth they feel like wearing, from a Klingon uniform to a robot suit made out of a cardboard box to jeans and a Joe Camel T-shirt - whatever. But. I don't see it as a free choice. I see it as a dictate by males over how females must look and women wearing it willingly is, to me, sort of the same as the seriously wacky Christian fringes who vow to obey their men at all costs: sure, it's "free choice" but I see implied coercion and it makes me very, very sad. It implies second class citizenship. It says "People can wear whatever they want but women have to cover themselves up, because they're not people."

I think it's just a real stretch to construct covering your body in a restrictive garment in a pro-female way.

If it comes down to that or "Be a Pussycat Doll, it's about girl power!", I'll take the hijab.

i'm reading this book right now (o and it's phenomenal, i cannot recommend it enough).

excerpt from it where Greg Mortenson (the authour, an American) asks this very question to one of his teachers:

"You know, in my country women would ask, "'If the Taliban is gone, why do women in Afghanistan still wear the burkha?

"I'm a conservative lady," (she replied), "and it suits me. Also I feel safer in it. In fact, I insist that all my lady teachers wear the burkha in the bazaar. We don't want to give anyone an excuse to interfere with the girls' studies."

"Still, the emancipated women from the U.S. would want to know whether you feel oppressed having to look out through that little slit..."

[she replied] "We women of Afghanistan see the light through education. Not through this or that hole in a piece of cloth."

which isn't really an answer I guess, more of a perspective...

pinky: luckily, it dosen't come down to that. there's a whole huge spectrum inbetween those two extremes.

Lucky indeed, because those pussycat dolls give me the creeps.

oh and maybe frame the question in a different context:

would any of you liberated, American ladies walk around downtown without anything covering your breasts?

yet there are cultures in africa and south america where the women do just that...

Since I'm nursing, I've actually been downtown without anything covering my breasts. I was sitting down though, and had a baby attached to one of them.

lfr - exactly. Thankfully, we American women don't live in a country where we could be beaten or killed for doing so. That's where the true injustice lies.

(I didn't intend to be so exclusive with that comment.)

would any of you liberated, American ladies walk around downtown without anything covering your breasts?

Sure. I used to go to topless beaches, nude beaches, etc. I don't have a lot of body modesty and walking around naked doesn't bother me much.

I have another point, though, about the burqa etc. We don't walk around with our chests bare because it would bring attention to us: we would stand out. We would be different. OK. So, in the middle east a woman without a head scarf stands out and I can fully understand how that would be uncomfortable. But. In Paris or Stockholm or New York or Aiken, SC, a woman in a burqa stands out like a sore thumb and it would seem to me that she should have the freedom, then, to choose to dress to blend in. My feeling is that she does not have that freedom, that it's not as simple as oh, today I'll wear a burqa and tomorrow black Levis. That's the problem I have with it - it doesn't seem to me to be a free choice issue.

And frankly the whole idea of wearing what is essentially a uniform to signify ones' religious affiliation gets my hackles up too. There's an overtone of militarism there - we're in the army now, we all look alike - that I think is antithetical to religion or spirituality.

There's a local cult here - might be Zendik, I'm not sure - where the women dress in strange, strange long homespun attire - several layers of long dresses and petticoats and aprons. The men get to wear jeans or overalls and it bothers me, particularly because the girl children have to wear these long confining dresses while their brothers get to run around in jeans, getting freedom of motion and looking like other kids, while the girls stand out like sore thumbs. It angers me every time I see it and there's quite a few of them around downtown Asheville. So don't forget the freedom of motion thing - of course, I get all angry about little girls in high heeled sneakers too, because I think kids should be able to run, jump, climb and it infuriates me when they get pushed into these weird sex specific stereotyped garb too young.

Thankfully, we American women don't live in a country where we could be beaten or killed for doing so.

Plenty of women in America wear the hijab, and it's not for fear of being beaten or killed. Women are not what they wear, and I mean ALL women, not just western women who dress like I do. Clothes are fun, but they're just clothes, whether they're jeans or burkas or space suits. There is more to women then what they choose to cover their bodies with.

Random thoughts with bullet-points:

• I'm totally in favor of regulating (i.e., requiring some bare-minimum standard for) what people wear in public places--at least for hygeine or safety reasons, and probably for other reasons I'm not thinking of.
• There are also religions which have laws about male appearances (Sikhism and Rastafarianism being my two favorites). Does this complicate the analysis? Probably.
• Feminism, according to some folks, is all about individual choice. But not everyone agrees about that, and my right to swing my arm yada yada.
• I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I don't think that I can do that while simultaneously assuming some kind of coercion.
• Sometimes, covered women (for want of a better term) talk about how they think it's really sexy that only their husband sees their hair or kneecaps or whatever.

I hate these kinds of threads because it always makes me feel like I have to defend my religion, not that it was being attacked, or that I’m very religious. I don’t know why women who have the right to wear anything in the west choose to wear the hijab. I do respect them for their choices though, especially after I interacted with some of them online and got to know their reason for doing so. Most of them were from NY, LA, and places all over the US. And from what I could gleam from them, was a betrayal of the West to accept them for who they were. These girls are first generation Americans, and their parents were the orthodox Muslim Immigrants who settled down in the States after leaving their Islamically Totalitarian countries. They were faced with a choice to either assimilate as fully as they could with the American public, or to hold onto their faith as strongly as they could. What I’ve noticed from these girls though is not that it’s their parents that have made them wear the hijab, which is the most popular form of covering for Muslim Ladies in the West, as far as I know, but that they themselves have consciously made that choice. And it’s been made over a period of years and a lot of thinking. It’s almost as if the empty promise of a better life in the west have led them to make these decisions. They feel alienated I guess, and this is their way of sticking together.

Also, here's an old Naomi Wolf article that touches on some of the Pussycat-Doll-vs-veil thing.

Isn't Naomi Wolf a born-again now? That article seemed a little reactionary to me, even puritanical.

Because of what it represents.

ie, blind submission to ancient storytelling based on Bronze Age Middle Eastern goat herders myths. I completely agree with bunnyfire here.

***

me, I don't know -- one can wear what the hell one wants. it's cool that the Saudis -- or, say, the Afghans -- get to make their own rules in their countries. it's equally true that the stricter Muslims who live outside of, say, Saudi Arabia, must be willing to accept a measure of compromise (ie, maybe there won't be a woman doctor available when your wife/sister/daughter arrives at the ER. and, frankly, you cannot expect to take your driving license photo wearing a burqa. small things, really. anything else, one is free to believe what one wants -- unless then one decides to firebomb an abortion clinic or invade another country or hijack a plane because of it -- there religious freedom ends, obviously. it's Enlightenment 101, really)

Isn't Naomi Wolf a born-again now?

Well, she had some kind of religious vision, anyway--I must admit that I haven't really kept up with her post-Beauty Myth career. And she has a tween daughter, which reminds me of that old joke about a liberal who has been mugged.

There are also religions which have laws about male appearances (Sikhism and Rastafarianism being my two favorites). Does this complicate the analysis?

Those are good examples since I've been mulling on the law versus religion, and Sikh's carry a knife (here's a pic of a swiss knife version!), except of course where it's illegal to carry knives (Sweden for example) where they instead carry a symbol of a knife. This makes sense to me.

There's also a law that says you can't cover your face (wear masks, balaklavas and so on) in public demonstrations, banks, public goverment buildings (like higher courts and the actual seat of the goverment) for similar safety reasons (hello robbers/bad guys!) and the head-scarf debate often gets inflamed as muslim women aren't expected to remove their face coverings when everyone else has to. (keep in mind I'm from up north where a balaklava is actually pretty common to wear in the winter because -30 C is not unusual. You remove it before you enter the bank to pay your bills.)

It's not totally illegal to carry a knife in Sweden, some jobs require them. Hunters have knives obviously. Fishermen too. And they can carry them home from work but they shouldn't be stopping at the pub first.

come now, what's a night of drinking without a knife fight?

Heh, I used to have one of those "it's ok for me to carry a knife" jobs back when the law was passed and I always took the long way home from work with my big-ass knife clearly visible just to freak people out.

What hadjiboy says is interesting though. (I assume the women you spoke with covered their hair, and not their faces).

If it comes down to that or "Be a Pussycat Doll, it's about girl power!", I'll take the hijab

And a forced choice like that is a product of a sexist society.

This great article [PDF] on the feminist debate over the hijab is interesting. AS hajidboy points out, a lot of times women seem to adopt it to demonstrate opposition to Western values.

For whatever reason, people can of coure wear it if they want, but I don't have to support it. One of the problems of feminism is that it takes as its basis the right of women to choose their own paths. But it also seeks to make fully clear what our choices are -- all of them -- and make sure they're informed choices, which we're making with awareness of their history and how they came to be offered us. I can't say what I'd do if I were a Muslim. But I can't say that I think the usual reasons people give for wearing hijab are things I can support.

Of course anyone's free to do it - in our society, that's not in question.

Oops, here's the article.

I assume the women you spoke with covered their hair, and not their faces

Yup, and they were some of the most clear-thinking women I’ve ever met (over the net), just like you gals, only with hijabs.

There should be a hijab girl on this forum. *snickers*

That's "hidjabgirl".

I agree with TPS, even when you take the hyperbole back a bit.

There are always debates going on among Western feminists, American feminists in particular, about why women should or shouldn't wear miniskirts, should or shouldn't wear lipstick, should or shouldn't wear high heels. They idiotic, many of those debates, but the overall points, that the Western fashion industry is run by men and that Western women do dress, in many ways, as a reaction to the male gaze (we may be trying to court it with the miniskirt and heels, rather than avoid it with a scarf, but it's still a factor). I think it's a little disingenuous to claim we're liberated because we can choose from a range of clothing designed to attract male attention while other cultures are oppressed because they can choose from a range of clothing designed to deflect male attention. (I'm sticking to Muslim women living in Western countries, many of whom, as has been pointed out, choose to wear some sort of covering; places like Saudi Arabia where the clothing is mandatory or else you face stoning are a different story.)

People in mainstream venues still make arguments about whether an American woman should have been raped based on what clothing she was wearing. There's still a *strong* connection in this country, in the west, between what women wear and how men (and other women) judge them. We may have more choices, and certainly jeans give one a bit more practical choices than a full burqa, but from what I understand the headscarf is more common than the full burqa. And I would rather assume less of a burden to movement than a pencil skirt and heels.

Coffee first, then typing. Sorry for the typos -- I think that's mostly comprehensible.

I think it's a little disingenuous to claim we're liberated because we can choose from a range of clothing designed to attract male attention while other cultures are oppressed because they can choose from a range of clothing designed to deflect male attention.

Don't we all (to varying degrees) dress to attract someones attention or send some kind of message about ourselves? I mean what's the alternative, little Mao hats and uniforms? The ultimate enemy is conformity, I think, for both genders.

(not disagreeing with occhi, just sort of extrapolating or whatever)

Don't we all (to varying degrees) dress to attract someones attention or send some kind of message about ourselves?

Yeah. I think the fashion industry is particularly skewed in terms of who's producing the message though, and what that message is. That is, most fashion designers are men, most fashion consumers are women. When we're talking about most mainstream fashion images, we're talking about images that men have created for women. (And I swear to god, if nothing else, "Project Runway" taught me a fair amount about the misogyny running through most of those messages...)

Not really jon, I usually, as far back as this past week is concerned, wear stuff that's comfortable for me, while still appropriate for the office.
I may have dressed the way you're describing when I was a teenager, with all the gushing hormones running through me, but as a twenty something year old, it's not the same, ya know.

I think the fashion industry is particularly skewed in terms of who's producing the message though, and what that message is.

Oh, yeah agreed. and as some wise men once said "we don't follow fashion/who needs it when you got style."

Like I said, I was just sort of spitballing. I agree that the overemphasis on an extremely narrow view of attractiveness is unhealthy for women, and to a lesser but not insignificat degree, men as well. But at the same time, using your appearance to express your individuality, beliefs, tastes, etc is fun and healthy, so I wouldn't want to live in a Mao caps/prison coveralls world either.

hadji: I dress for comfort and functionality as well, but it'd be untruthful to say that I don't dress to show cultural allegiances and/or look good as well, and I think we all do that even if it's to some degree unconscious, and that's not a bad thing.

It's also possible that having the disposable income and consumer choice necessary to make cultural allegiance or looking good a major priority might mark those concerns as an American indulgence.

(Which is not to say that I don't engage in them.)

"Project Runway" taught me a fair amount about the misogyny running through most of those messages...)

You should see the piece of shit that ...what's her name... the other African American Super Model that's not Naomi Campbel, is responsible for. Utter tripe, even though I watched it, just to see what other assholish things they'd get up to. And don't forget to include Tommy Hilfiger's name somewhere in there too.

There's no absolute meaning for a symbol. No universal principle without a power analysis.

My experience with hijabi women in the US and here in the UK is that they, particularly the young women, are likely to be kick-ass, engaged and committed to social change - motivated by their faith. In Tehran, hijab started out as a progressive symbol of the Revolution and has become a reactionary symbol of oppression. As Salma Yaqoob says, I defend the right of women to wear the hijab here in Europe, and I defend the right of women not to wear the hijab in Muslim countries.

Hijab says: I mean business, in my faith, in my family and in my life. Don't ogle me and fuck with me. (This is just one way to convey this message, by the way. One can convey this message wearing anything else - or nothing at all.)

Hijab also says: I am a proud, visible member of a community. This is a BEAUTIFUL thing. Many people think in terms of family, clan and community. This is fine, and liberals, progressives and radicals need to realise this.

hadjiboy is right by the way - people of conscience and supporters of free expression from all (and no) faiths should stand in solidarity with hijabi women and their right to honour their faith in the way that is meaningful for them.

On a fashion note: Muslim ladies in Scotland have adopted the pashmina craze with everybody else, and the streets of Glasgow abound with electric blue, indigo, rich nut brown, Art Nouveau flowers, gold embroidery, white lace, and every other kind of hijab. Hijab is paired with everything from tightly fitting hipster shirts, jackets and jeans to loose chadors. The streets of Glasgow would be a drabber place without them.

I should note that my Muslim classmate mentioned before liked to wear a big fake afro wig to parties, instead of a head scarf.

Ha! I love "America's Next Top Model." I feel like in that one, they're at least relatively straightforward about how ridiculous the fashion industry is. And trust me, at least it's not "The Search for the Next Pussycat Doll," which I keep getting sucked into.

It's also possible that having the disposable income and consumer choice necessary to make cultural allegiance or looking good a major priority might mark those concerns as an American indulgence.

I don't know about that. Even in non-Western cultures people alter their appearances to reflect their personalities and allegiances. Is there really that much of a distance between Maori Tribal tattoos and a t-shirt of your favorite band. And like I said, obviously the first purpose of clothing is protection from the elements etc, but half the time unconsciously the way we dress sends out messages about ourselves and when it's done conciously it's pretty much harmless fun and makes the world a more interesting place.

and to tie it back to the original topic: a hijab or whatever is kind of like a yarmulke to these eyes, a marker of cultural allegiance. again as long as it's worn by choice.

The other thing, by the way? All the practical concerns about niqab or hijab in re. school uniforms or in sporting competitions may be perfectly legitimate, but until the climate of deadly Islamophobia around here abates, I'm rejecting them all out of hand.

By the Grace of God--that was beautiful:)

occhi, The Search for the Next Pussy Cat Doll hasn't started here yet, thankfully;)

lfr - exactly. Thankfully, we American women don't live in a country where we could be beaten or killed for doing so.

yes and in the majority of the Muslim world women are not beaten, stoned or killed for this, merely ridiculed or looked upon as of questionable moral fibre. sound familiar?

we westerners make a whole boatload of assumptions about a culture we really know very little about. likening the laws of the Taliban (a splinter group of fanatics) to 'all Muslims' is like... i don't know, thinking all Americans are as dumb, ill-informed and reactionary as our own president.

and yes, any woman would very most likely be arrested and fined for public indecency if she were to walk down the middle of the street topless in most American urban environments.

here's my point: clothing, and what we cover or reveal by it, is largely a social construct driven by the morality of the controlling culture.

i apologise, i feel like in these discussions i'm at a serious disadvantage cos, well i just don't have an education or the deep background of psychology / women's studies / sociology / whatever. so maybe im just talking out my ass. BUT

an anecdote, for those of you who may not understand the concept i'm trying to put forth:

back when i was twelve, i used to work summers helping put up hay. its a hot, miserable job, and because i was the weakest and smallest, i was always the one up on top of the truck in the blazing sun helping stack.

i vividly remember being EXTREMELY pissed off that the boys were allowed to take off their shirts but i was not.

where's the fair in that, o enlightened western american women? would any of you mothers with teenaged daughters let them take their shirts off for comfort in front of a bunch of older teenage boys??

think about your first gut response to that before you respond.

i don't want to come off as condoning OR condemning this particular custom, i just want to point it out for what it is: a piece of cloth, worn for modesty's sake.

in many desert cultures ALL the people go around shrouded in flowing clothes, and have done so for millenia. it's practical because of blowing sand/dust and for protection from the sun. if any of you have ever read Joseph Campbell and/or watched James Burke's Connections series, you'd likely understand how practicalities such as these become part of the culture of myth and religion and become accepted as 'that's just the way it is'.

anyone remember how 'daring' we thought Tina Turner and Cher were for wearing provocative clothing as mature women over 40? i mean i myself in this o-so-enlightened american culture have read and been told numerous times that 'women over 35 should never wear miniskirts'. well, why the fuck not if we like them and have the legs to pull it off?

I hate these kinds of threads because it always makes me feel like I have to defend my religion, not that it was being attacked, or that I’m very religious.

exactly. i wonder how this particular site would react if hadjiboy came in and said that he finds it offensive that we celebrate christmas? i mean it's not the same thing obviously, but there's a cultural variance for you.

i think human beings are simply programmed to dislike that which we do not understand.

When I lived in Saudi Arabia, we did not celebrate christmas, nor did my parent drink alcohol. Take from that what you will lonefrontranger.

Ha! I love "America's Next Top Model." I feel like in that one, they're at least relatively straightforward about how ridiculous the fashion industry is.

I can't get ENOUGH America's Next Top Model! Tyra is crazy and she knows it. Love love love it.

all ye who love to ANTM will probably loove fourfour, also nominated in that bloggers choice thing

Another point that I just came across: If the choice for these women is participate fully in the world and wear a headscarf, or don't wear a headscarf but have to stay inside away from everyone, then the best option for society is to encourage people to make whatever accommodation they need in order to feel comfortable participating as fully as they can in society.

Also, Orthodox Jewish women have to cover their hair as well. I was in a dorm freshman year that was one of the few on campus that had non-electronic entry, so we had a fair number of Orthodox Jews living there. Granted, mostly they wore hats or wigs rather than scarves, but it didn't really seem to be a major impediment to their interacting with anyone else. I have a hard time believing that the impediment we Westerners see (and I experience it too, I'm not trying to exempt myself) is just lack of familiarity rather than some objective "Scarves preclude conversation" truth.

if i go to another country where the law says i should not spit on the street, i don't spit on the street, or if i do, i know i'll face the penalties. if they have prohibition against alcohol, i don't drink alcohol. in a perfect world, yes we'd all be accepting of each other's faiths and we wouldn't do the knee-jerk point-and-stare thing at those who are different, but i think that's a little disingenuous (?).

every society has to build a framework of social constructs / morals within which they agree to operate. i may agree or disagree with another culture's take on this, but i try to understand where they're coming from. and yea, what occhiblu said.

taken to the ultimate end of hyperbole: without moral and social constructs and limitations, you get anarchy, aka virginia tech.

so... whatever. i'm not trying to compare mass killings to wearing a headscarf. i'm only saying that human beings as a society must exist and accept a world of rules and guidelines.

and what occhiblu said.

You've all given me some more additional things to consider when looking at this; thanks.

As long as a person is wearing what s/he is wearing by choice, I have no problem with it. I guess part of the problem is that we can't ask every woman if she's wearing a hijab because she wants to.

On a personal note - the mister has had several offers in the last few years to work in Middle Eastern countries. There's currently one recruiter who is really pushing him to take a contract in Saudi Arabia. If it happens, I won't have a problem wearing a veil but that's my choice. My other choice would be to stay in Canada but that ain't gonna happen.

I guess part of the problem is that we can't ask every woman if she's wearing a hijab because she wants to.

But we also can't ask every woman if she's cooking because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do." We can't ask every woman if she's wearing heels because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do." We can't ask every women if she's having kids because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do."

So we just have to trust that women are rational, reasonable people who are doing the best they can given the limitations that apply to their lives. We can make sure we're also working to give everyone access to as much information as possible, but beyond that, I think that automatically assuming that anyone who acts differently than we do is unenlightened or oppressed -- basically, assuming that they're ignorant or too weak to protest -- is really problematic.

I think it's vital to give people the tools they need -- education, legal support, economic freedom -- and then to leave the individual choices up to them.

Hijab says: I mean business, in my faith, in my family and in my life. Don't ogle me and fuck with me. (This is just one way to convey this message, by the way. One can convey this message wearing anything else - or nothing at all.)

Hijab also says: I am a proud, visible member of a community. This is a BEAUTIFUL thing. Many people think in terms of family, clan and community. This is fine, and liberals, progressives and radicals need to realise this.

BtGoG, thanks for this perspective.

My knee-jerk reaction against the hijab is what Miko said up top -- that its purpose is either to hide women from men or to indicate possession of women by men. There's enough of that already in my society and culture, where women don't wear headscarves. (I'm tempted to work Hooters girls in here as an example of something, but I can't make it fit, so I'll just mention them and run away.)

But it's important for me to remind myself that it probably means something completely different to the person wearing it than it does to me. And that's okay. Does my opinion matter then? Dunno.

That's one of the big questions in one of those academic pursuits -- sociology or women's studies or whatever: Is the person receiving the information an agent of equal importance as the person sending it?

This is rambling. Anyway, I've found this discussion interesting.

i'm with Grace and a little bewildered at the hostility. i don't have a clue how this is in the rest of Europe but i've never had negative view of burqas of the burqa wearer or any stigma with hijabs at all. There seems to be this big gap in first hand familiarity and i don't like what it's filled with.
i maintain i'd still like a burqa in my wardrobe except for the whole having enough problems with rednecks as it is thing, but even then.

Hmm, I didn't sense any hostility in this thread -- not towards people, anyway. Probing questions at some of the factors behind the issue, yes, but no hostility.

I could just be reading the comments in a silly voice, though.

I could just be reading the comments in a silly voice, though.

Out loud, or just in your head?

Cuz if it's out loud, I think we'll need to put together a podcast.

Okay, strike hostility, substitute visceral reaction, but it's because i see this as more of a freedom of religion thing than a female oppression issue. i've got a problem with any blind obeyance in the name of anything and i hope that choices are thought out but that's not always the case. Any decision whose only rational is "God said so" is an avenue of debate that ends in a thick wall of ignorance and denial and i don't venture down that road any more. Still, i don't instantly see it as a symbol of oppression, so that's the difference there.

Normally threads like this give me quantifiable brain damage. This one did the reverse. Particular thanks to Occhi, Grace and LFR for these:

the Western fashion industry is run by men and that Western women do dress, in many ways, as a reaction to the male gaze (we may be trying to court it with the miniskirt and heels, rather than avoid it with a scarf, but it's still a factor). I think it's a little disingenuous to claim we're liberated because we can choose from a range of clothing designed to attract male attention while other cultures are oppressed because they can choose from a range of clothing designed to deflect male attention.
***
But we also can't ask every woman if she's cooking because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do." We can't ask every woman if she's wearing heels because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do." We can't ask every women if she's having kids because she wants to, or because "that's what women should do."
***
Hijab says: I mean business, in my faith, in my family and in my life. Don't ogle me and fuck with me. (This is just one way to convey this message, by the way. One can convey this message wearing anything else - or nothing at all.)
Hijab also says: I am a proud, visible member of a community. This is a BEAUTIFUL thing. Many people think in terms of family, clan and community. This is fine, and liberals, progressives and radicals need to realise this.

The idea that the burqua/miniskirt is a false dichotomy, and may really reflect different aspects or expressions of the same phenomen is a really significant idea.

We're all dancing with the patriarchy. ;-)

I'm wearing different shoes next time. The patriarchy keeps stepping on my toes.

I think it's been an interesting conversation, too. I'm chuckling at what mudpuppie said - it's amazing how often I'm engaged in a conversation here or in certain other blue web sites, and someone down the thread will suddenly say "Why all the hostility?" or "Let's all just calm down!!" In my head, it usually all sounds pretty calm. Maybe I'm just used to more of this type of discussion in real life, but I tend to assume if I'm not all excited then no one is. I guess that's just not always a safe assumption. I certainly don't mean to offend or be bombastic here.

But I don't view my perspective as hostile or knee-jerk at all. As I said, I grew up and went to college with a lot of Muslims, some of whom wore headscarves and some of whom didn't. I've talked to a lot of people about it, read about it, and I've thought for myself about it. Obviously I'm still thinking more about it and learning about it, because this thread has made some excellent points about freedom of choice.

I guess I feel that where true freedom of choice exists, then certainly anyone should wear what they like for whatever reason they like. In societies where true freedom of choice does not exist, arguments that justify the veil are harder to accept at face value because of the serious nature of making an alternative choice. Some of my attitude may be informed by the experience of a family friend who lived in Iran while her husband was stationed there. She was required by law to wear the veil, and women who refused were punished by beating. Single women who talked to men could be lashed in punishment. ADultery is punishable by death for women, but not for men. Though occhiblu has a good point about women being able to protest, the deck is very seriously stacked in a fundamentalist situation like that, and when someone says 'but they choose to wear the veil!' there is room for wondering what that statement means when the choices carry such harsh consequences.

Nevertheless, people do protest the oppressive laws (and admittedly, Iran is a very extreme situation). And I can't argue with the idea that the most important thing is to get information and awareness as widely spread as possible, so people can make their own choices from the widest possible range of options for their lives. That's really the more important conversation than picking apart why people wear the clothes they do.

The deck is very seriously stacked in a fundamentalist situation like that, and when someone says 'but they choose to wear the veil!' there is room for wondering what that statement means when the choices carry such harsh consequences.

I completely agree with that, and I think, for me, the best course of action seems to be to condemn the system, not the women who wear the scarves -- or even the scarves themselves, because at this point, they're pretty symbolic of the women.

I'm not sure that made any sense. I just think it's important to remember that in a shitty system, sometimes people are forced to make shitty (non-)choices, but the fault for those shitty choices lies with the system, not the individual woman who's trying to do what she can to live as best she can.

It's like an activism for socialists or something, I guess. Fix the system, provide the resources, then we can talk about individual choice and what power it holds. But until that point, we're holding individuals accountable for centuries-old institutions and traditions, and that doesn't seem fair.

You're absolutely right. Points taken.

I appreciate the perspectives everyone brought to the thread.

I certainly don't mean to offend or be bombastic here.

seconded. apologies to anyone who thinks there's hostility there cos it's not my intent.

keep in mind i'm dashing off large blocks of text without much time to review, in between answering phones and getting up to do things and working on various projects. multitasking isn't conducive to coherent debate.

that and i have *zero* academic background. i'm not skilled at debate or diplomacy and in threads like these, it frustrates. its tough for me to frame an articulate response sometimes, even when i feel strongly that i have something valid to contribute. especially if there's a not-so-obvious strawman i'm flailing at or if i believe someone is being deliberately obtuse when instead they might be trying to point something else out. sometimes the subtlety gets lost on me.

anyway occhiblu was a hell of a lot more articulate than i was and actually TPS said it all well and succinctly before i even got there. i think the point has been well made so i wont flagellate anymore obsolete equines.

i have *zero* academic background.

lfr, I'm willing to bet that I have less than you (two drunken years of college, and I barely graduated high school) and I never let that stop me. You're one of the most coherent people here, trust me.

jonmc, you have two drunken more years of college than i do. my 'actual' hs gpa was something like 1.5 or so. i got the academic equivalent of a pity fuck from my counsellors who let me slide and graduate.

shit, lfr, wanna go get stoned in the woods behind school?

(seriously, you're so articulate I figured you for one of our more educated members)

Honestly, my opinion on it changed entirely once I actually knew people who wore it, as opposed to just passing people on the street.
Two in particular, one of the computer gurus at work and, of all things, my GYN. Both are about my age (mid to late 20s), American-born, and absolutely not gals anyone would be able to oppress if they tried.

Now, I mentally lump it in with a Christian gal wearing a gold cross necklace, a Jewish guy in a kippa, or the like. Just something people do as a sign of their faith. If it registers at all (I live in a city with a huge Somali and middle Eastern immigrant population, most centered in or near my neighborhood, so it's something I see almost as often as uncovered hair on my commute), it's because I'm a fabric junkie and will all but publicly ooh and aaah over beautiful embroidery and the like.

The woman who wrote Nine Parts of Desire described an incident where a Saudi businesswoman went to a male colleague's office--to discuss a professional matter-- completely veiled and was sexually harassed, and there are plenty of stories on the Blank Noise website (India's version of Hollaback) about women being harassed no matter how they are dressed. What makes me furious is that I consider myself a fairly modest dresser for my culture but that has not stopped my right to be left alone from being disrespected (and no, I am not only referring to Arab and South Asian men). My face is not my vagina and my scalp hair is not my pubic hair!!!! I do not have a problem with Muslim women covering if that is their own choice, but I should not be considered a whore because I do not and am by myself.

Thanks everyone, the non-face covering scarf should only be the getting the same reaction from me as the gold cross or a kippah, or the orange-clad shaven krishna guy like Kellydamnit says. I'll have to work a little harder on not getting wigged out by the face-covering versions. (And I totally agree with you on that last comment brujita.)

The first hour of America at a Crossroads touched on this a bit last night. Great series.

I watched that last night, dano. It was really good.