No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
Precisely. I couldn't put my finger on it earlier, but someone finally nailed it.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
It's function is to fulfil the standards of modesty interpreted from the scriptures. Some people have a stricter standard for what constitutes "modest" than others.
Given that even western society sets down similar rules and conventions (laws against public nudity, for example), at what point does a standard of modesty become oppressive?
This is incorrect. You have to look at the history of the burqa and its reason for coming into being, which neoscientist explained perfectly. The burqa was invented because men could not control their sexual urges when they saw women's bodies, so they blamed it on the women and demanded that they cover up so as to not tempt men to perform sinful acts (such as extra-marital sex).
I really don't see what's so hard to understand about the concept that, in Belgium, no woman is legally required to wear the burqa. They can choose not to at any point.
Yes, they may face backlash, even brutal backlash, but that is a matter for the police. Banning the burqa won't achieve anything except causing immense personal anguish.
And for the people saying it's inherently oppressive, well, I might agree with you. But it's an oppression they are choosing to adopt, and that they may well find peace in. Listen, I went to Leicester University. Leicester has a heavily multicultural society, especially middle-eastern and asian. The University had a prayer room, and I'd say a good 30-40% of attendees were from various minorities, maybe more than that (I can't find figures, unfortunately). I've spoken to women there; intelligent, feminist women, who choose to cover themselves. My friend Zara decided to stop wearing one, my other friend Yasmin kept hers. Why? Because it brought her peace of mind.
Now, you and I can argue all we like about the validity of that, but at the end of the day she was happier with it. To me, receiving Holy Communion is incredibly oppressive; vows of celibacy I consider oppressive and harmful, but for goodness' sake, it's not up to us to enforce our views of what is acceptable.
To reiterate for the final time, if a woman doesn't wish to wear the burqa in Belgium, she is free not to. Banning it will achieve nothing good.
edit: And if the woman is being forced to wear it by a husband or other external force, she should be given the support she needs, not marginalised.
This is incorrect. You have to look at the history of the burqa and its reason for coming into being, which neoscientist explained perfectly. The burqa was invented because men could not control their sexual urges when they saw women's bodies, so they blamed it on the women and demanded that they cover up so as to not tempt men to perform sinful acts (such as extra-marital sex).
Link or cite?
I can't find anything remotely resembling this via wiki or google, save for a passing reference to the fact that a garment resembling the burqa may have been worn among desert tribes subject to raiding by rivals, such that a woman of child-bearing age could not be quickly distinguished and taken hostage.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
o_O
I don't even know how to respond to this. Unless you're implying that social pressure with regards to appearance is oppression, which I could kind of get behind, but somehow I don't think that's what you mean.
No social pressure required; the Burqa is a symbol of the submission of women to men (or, perhaps, of the utter inability of men keep their shit together when they see some ankle, but that's just as sexist in the other direction). It is oppressive due to its function, even if we ignore the circumstances that might influence the decision to wear it.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
It's function is to fulfil the standards of modesty interpreted from the scriptures. Some people have a stricter standard for what constitutes "modest" than others.
Given that even western society sets down similar rules and conventions (laws against public nudity, for example), at what point does a standard of modesty become oppressive?
At the point where it is grossly unequally applied across the sexes. You could make an argument about breasts, and I might even agree, but there is really no comparison to be made between the slightly unequal standards of dress between western men and women and covering women head to fucking toe.
Someone earlier mentioned makeup, which I also agree is an instrument of oppression inasmuch as it represents an expectation of women that is not applied to men. I'm not advocating for the outlaw of makeup, but if you've been paying attention I'm also not advocating for the outlaw of burqas. I just think they're oppressive, and I have yet to be satisfactorily convinced otherwise.
nescientist: I actually think we probably agree on a lot of points, with the exception that I think you take the wearing of a burqa/niqab to be a much more extreme gesture than I do. I've kind of fallen into the trap of lumping anyone arguing against the wearing of the burqa/niqab with those advocating outlawing it.
I don't really think the burqa is more extreme than, say, a nun's habit. Quite a bit less so, even, given that the habit is a sort of symbol of office while the burqa is just daily wear for a certain subset of muslims. The burqa, to me, doesn't even really carry a strong religious significance, since I'm well aware that such garments were prevalent hundreds and hundreds of years before Mohammed came around.
I do think, though, that the fact that the burqa is expected of all women makes it a bit more culturally damaging than, for instance, the idea that women ought to be nuns while men ought to be priests. This does not mean that I would defend, under any circumstances, the practice of refusing women into the priesthood (or men into the nunnery :P ).
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
You mean like gay people calling themselves gay, or black people appropriating the n-word (that we can't say here)?
Just playing devil's advocate; I agree with what you say. But as I also said, our opinion of its validity becomes kind of irrelevent.
There is nothing about the word "gay" or even the n-word that is inherently in contradiction with equal rights for gays or blacks, as they are, after all, only words. Putting sheets on women to prevent them from tempting men is inherently in contradiction with equal rights for women.
Again, D.A: Not if you appropriate the sheet on your own terms (privacy, identity, etc). Though the question of whether that's possible is, of course, difficult to answer.
On what are you basing this interpretation of it's function?
Its function is to cover the female body, lest that dangerous item lead men into sin. Do you have an alternative interpretation that isn't insanely sexist? I'd love to hear it, and perhaps revise my views here.
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
Hell, if the government banned Islamic dress in the US, I'd be rushing to buy out the hijab/niqab stores, because to hell with them telling me what I can and cannot wear.
sidhaethe on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
I don't really think the burqa is more extreme than, say, a nun's habit. Quite a bit less so, even, given that the habit is a sort of symbol of office while the burqa is just daily wear for a certain subset of muslims. The burqa, to me, doesn't even really carry a strong religious significance, since I'm well aware that such garments were prevalent hundreds and hundreds of years before Mohammed came around.
I do think, though, that the fact that the burqa is expected of all women makes it a bit more culturally damaging than, for instance, the idea that women ought to be nuns while men ought to be priests. This does not mean that I would defend, under any circumstances, the practice of refusing women into the priesthood (or men into the nunnery :P ).
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
The whole "cover every single shred of evidence that you are in fact a human being" thing doesn't make a burqa more extreme to you?
Oh, and a question about Belgian law: do we know for a fact that other methods of covering one's entire body (in the case of the burqa) or entire head (niqab) in public aren't illegal? There's been a lot of discussion about how this is so anti-muslim but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe they're just bringing a relatively new trend in line with older legislation? Not trolling, I'm actually curious.
I saw a woman wearing a burqa on a tram here once (I might add that her male child was misbehaving something fierce, good thing the male specimen is so superior, right) and I can definitely see how it could be construed as a potential risk. You can hide a lot in one of those, and there isn't much incentive to trust anyone wearing something that obscures the figure and shrouds every way of recognizing a person. I'd say the same about someone wearing a full-body sports mascot suit.
Come to think of it, those are probably banned in Belgium already. Pretty sure the cops would stop you here if you were walking around in one. For reference, I live in Sweden.
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
So you don't think it's "feminist" for a woman to consciously and freely choose to engage in any activity or behavior that you personally think is demeaning to women?
sidhaethe, what's the name for that? Starts with a "p", I'm fairly sure.
Are you thinking of purdah? I can't think of another term for the practice of modesty and I'm not for purdah, at all, since IIRC that generally refers to locking yourself up in your house. If there's another term I'm blanking on, I apologize.
sidhaethe, what's the name for that? Starts with a "p", I'm fairly sure.
Are you thinking of purdah? I can't think of another term for the practice of modesty and I'm not for purdah, at all, since IIRC that generally refers to locking yourself up in your house. If there's another term I'm blanking on, I apologize.
That's the one. Someone at work was talking about it but the way they explained it doesn't seem to square with what wiki has to say about it. Hmm.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Here is my problem with your position, nescientist.
I agree that the ideology of Islam is oppressive. Women who, for whatever reason, obey traditional Islam are indeed being oppressed.
However: they are not being oppressed by an en entity who's behavior government has the right to regulate. Islam is oppressive, but it is not a person.
If it can be shown that a woman actually is being oppressed—ideally physically—by a living, breathing person under the jurisdiction of Belgian law, then that person should be punished.
A government that can regulate ideologies on the basis of them being deemed "oppressive" is worse than the problem it purports to solve.
By perpetuating this oppressive tradition, they are contributing to the oppression of others even as they are oppressed by it themselves.
Anyone who publicly flaunts traditional religiosity or any sort of modern cult is guilty of the exact same thing.
And government should not regulate people's ability to belong to and spread ideologies, even oppressive ideologies.
What should be done is a sustained and reasoned criticism of Islam by citizens, so that it is socially asphixiated.
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
It's funny how men always seem to choose to choose to "reveal" their bodies in the standard, non-veiled way.
Why do you think that is? I think it's because Islamic thought is entirely patriarchal and never even remotely considers that women too might be subjects to which a person can reveal themselves, as opposed to simply objects. I think such explanations as yours tend to come off as ad hoc rationalizations.
However, I also think women ought to be free to believe whatever they want about the roots and merits of wearing a burqa, even if I think they're wrong.
Well, I'm just glad we banned skirts and bras to help all those poor women who were being forced to wear them by The Shadow. I just count myself lucky to be living in a country where we banned all prom dresses showing less than 90% of the back, 50% of the navel, and 30% of the cleavage to protect young girls from parents who claim to not want their children looking like "sluts."
I don't really think the burqa is more extreme than, say, a nun's habit. Quite a bit less so, even, given that the habit is a sort of symbol of office while the burqa is just daily wear for a certain subset of muslims. The burqa, to me, doesn't even really carry a strong religious significance, since I'm well aware that such garments were prevalent hundreds and hundreds of years before Mohammed came around.
I do think, though, that the fact that the burqa is expected of all women makes it a bit more culturally damaging than, for instance, the idea that women ought to be nuns while men ought to be priests. This does not mean that I would defend, under any circumstances, the practice of refusing women into the priesthood (or men into the nunnery :P ).
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
Oh, and a question about Belgian law: do we know for a fact that other methods of covering one's entire body (in the case of the burqa) or entire head (niqab) in public aren't illegal? There's been a lot of discussion about how this is so anti-muslim but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe they're just bringing a relatively new trend in line with older legislation? Not trolling, I'm actually curious.
I don't speak Dutch, so I can't understand the first-hand articles I've come across, but from what I've seen of ones in English, it is banning everything preventing facial recognition in public. However, the people that designed the bill have blatantly stated it was written with burqas in mind. I'm guessing making the bill itself religion/culture-neutral is just so it doesn't get shot down by courts.
“Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society” stated Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal sponsor of the bill.
Every woman who's ever worn a burqa ever is a victim of horrible oppression
This is obviously true, and I'd love to hear your argument for why it is not.
Here is my problem with your position, nescientist.
I agree that the ideology of Islam is oppressive. Women who, for whatever reason, obey traditional Islam are indeed being oppressed.
However: they are not being oppressed by an en entity who's behavior government has the right to regulate. Islam is oppressive, but it is not a person.
If it can be shown that a woman actually is being oppressed—ideally physically—by a living, breathing person under the jurisdiction of Belgian law, then that person should be punished.
A government that can regulate ideologies on the basis of them being deemed "oppressive" is worse than the problem it purports to solve.
By perpetuating this oppressive tradition, they are contributing to the oppression of others even as they are oppressed by it themselves.
Anyone who publicly flaunts traditional religiosity or any sort of modern cult is guilty of the exact same thing.
And government should not regulate people's ability to belong to and spread ideologies, even oppressive ideologies.
What should be done is a sustained and reasoned criticism of Islam by citizens, so that it is socially asphixiated.
Wait what part of this do I disagree with again? Perhaps you missed the multiple instances where I restated my opposition to the prospective Belgian law. I was just trying to point out a rationale that isn't based on xenophobia, when that seemed to be the go-to assumption about Belgian legislators. And even then, I'm not at all sure that they weren't driven by xenophobia primarily in this decision; I just think it isn't certain that's where this comes from, because there are good reasons to disapprove of the institution of the burqa besides its association with brown people.
I don't really think the burqa is more extreme than, say, a nun's habit. Quite a bit less so, even, given that the habit is a sort of symbol of office while the burqa is just daily wear for a certain subset of muslims. The burqa, to me, doesn't even really carry a strong religious significance, since I'm well aware that such garments were prevalent hundreds and hundreds of years before Mohammed came around.
I do think, though, that the fact that the burqa is expected of all women makes it a bit more culturally damaging than, for instance, the idea that women ought to be nuns while men ought to be priests. This does not mean that I would defend, under any circumstances, the practice of refusing women into the priesthood (or men into the nunnery :P ).
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
Oh, and a question about Belgian law: do we know for a fact that other methods of covering one's entire body (in the case of the burqa) or entire head (niqab) in public aren't illegal? There's been a lot of discussion about how this is so anti-muslim but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe they're just bringing a relatively new trend in line with older legislation? Not trolling, I'm actually curious.
I don't speak Dutch, so I can't understand the first-hand articles I've come across, but from what I've seen of ones in English, it is banning everything preventing facial recognition in public. However, the people that designed the bill have blatantly stated it was written with burqas in mind. I'm guessing making the bill itself religion/culture-neutral is just so it doesn't get shot down by courts.
“Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society” stated Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal sponsor of the bill.
It's kind of like how employers can use open hiring practices by tailoring their lists of required credentials to the specific people they've preselected.
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
It's funny how men always seem to choose to choose to "reveal" their bodies in the standard, non-veiled way.
Why do you think that is? I think it's because Islamic thought is entirely patriarchal and never even remotely considers that women too might be subjects to which a person can reveal themselves, as opposed to simply objects. I think such explanations as yours tend to come off as ad hoc rationalizations.
However, I also think women ought to be free to believe whatever they want about the roots and merits of wearing a burqa, even if I think they're wrong.
Um, okay? I was asked if there was another reason why a woman might choose to wear a niqab and provided one. I'm.... sorry you don't think it has merit?
I mean, of course it's a rationalization after the fact. Given the choice between not wearing a niqab and wearing one, with my background, I obviously opt not to, being an atheist and all. But given a situation where it's illegal for me to wear something because some muckety-muck doesn't like it, I'm damn well considering slapping it on, because I can and for no other reason.
I think the makeup comparison from awhile back is pretty apt.
I imagine the burqa to be a more onerous burden than makeup, but it's really not my place to judge; I'm not a woman. Certainly though, these are both traditions that are widely embraced by their female practitioners even though they clearly serve a patriarchal purpose.
nescientist on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I think the makeup comparison from awhile back is pretty apt.
I imagine the burqa to be a more onerous burden than makeup, but it's really not my place to judge; I'm not a woman. Certainly though, these are both traditions that are widely embraced by their female practitioners even though they clearly serve a patriarchal purpose.
I think the makeup comparison from awhile back is pretty apt.
I imagine the burqa to be a more onerous burden than makeup, but it's really not my place to judge; I'm not a woman. Certainly though, these are both traditions that are widely embraced by their female practitioners even though they clearly serve a patriarchal purpose.
I prefer the high heel analogy, myself. They are demonstrably harmful (not just physically on the legs and ankles, but they also restrict mobility), and explicitly worn because of the way it makes women look, and move in them.
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
It's funny how men always seem to choose to choose to "reveal" their bodies in the standard, non-veiled way.
Why do you think that is? I think it's because Islamic thought is entirely patriarchal and never even remotely considers that women too might be subjects to which a person can reveal themselves, as opposed to simply objects. I think such explanations as yours tend to come off as ad hoc rationalizations.
However, I also think women ought to be free to believe whatever they want about the roots and merits of wearing a burqa, even if I think they're wrong.
Um, okay? I was asked if there was another reason why a woman might choose to wear a niqab and provided one. I'm.... sorry you don't think it has merit?
I mean, of course it's a rationalization after the fact. Given the choice between not wearing a niqab and wearing one, with my background, I obviously opt not to, being an atheist and all. But given a situation where it's illegal for me to wear something because some muckety-muck doesn't like it, I'm damn well considering slapping it on, because I can and for no other reason.
Hrmph, sorry if I came off as confrontational. I just don't like cutting relics slack, you know?
Man, on the one hand it's nice to have a conversation like this where I clarify my own views even as I gain the perspective of many others', but dang it sucks when such clarification forces me to confront the fact that most of society thinks I'm completely insane.
I've long felt that there was something wrong about makeup and high heels, but couldn't really put my finger on it. Now I can clearly articulate it as "oh yeah, instruments of the patriarchy up in here" but if I ever say that out loud everyone in the room is going to stare at me like I just screamed "heil hitler."
nescientist on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Man, on the one hand it's nice to have a conversation like this where I clarify my own views even as I gain the perspective of many others', but dang it sucks when such clarification forces me to confront the fact that most of society thinks I'm completely insane.
I've long felt that there was something wrong about makeup and high heels, but couldn't really put my finger on it. Now I can clearly articulate it as "oh yeah, instruments of the patriarchy up in here" but if I ever say that out loud everyone in the room is going to stare at me like I just screamed "heil hitler."
To be fair, I just think "Total waste of time" and "Holy shit, those look painful"
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
It's funny how men always seem to choose to choose to "reveal" their bodies in the standard, non-veiled way.
Why do you think that is? I think it's because Islamic thought is entirely patriarchal and never even remotely considers that women too might be subjects to which a person can reveal themselves, as opposed to simply objects. I think such explanations as yours tend to come off as ad hoc rationalizations.
However, I also think women ought to be free to believe whatever they want about the roots and merits of wearing a burqa, even if I think they're wrong.
Um, okay? I was asked if there was another reason why a woman might choose to wear a niqab and provided one. I'm.... sorry you don't think it has merit?
I mean, of course it's a rationalization after the fact. Given the choice between not wearing a niqab and wearing one, with my background, I obviously opt not to, being an atheist and all. But given a situation where it's illegal for me to wear something because some muckety-muck doesn't like it, I'm damn well considering slapping it on, because I can and for no other reason.
Hrmph, sorry if I came off as confrontational. I just don't like cutting relics slack, you know?
No problem, I was kind of like "dude, why are you hating on me, I'm an atheist!" :P
Man, on the one hand it's nice to have a conversation like this where I clarify my own views even as I gain the perspective of many others', but dang it sucks when such clarification forces me to confront the fact that most of society thinks I'm completely insane.
I've long felt that there was something wrong about makeup and high heels, but couldn't really put my finger on it. Now I can clearly articulate it as "oh yeah, instruments of the patriarchy up in here" but if I ever say that out loud everyone in the room is going to stare at me like I just screamed "heil hitler."
I totally agree with you. On extremely rare occasions when my fiancée wears makeup I feel weirdly guilty.
She says I shouldn't because it's like playing "dress up" for her, which I can buy, and which I suppose could apply to women who want to dress up like Mohatman ninjas but of course I doubt women actually think of burqas that way.
Qingu on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
edited April 2010
Not being a woman I have a hard time understanding the implications of high heels, makeup, perfume.
What I can say is that it certainly makes them more attractive (if used properly) because it accentuates femininity.
dunno if I'd call that an instrument of the patriarchy any more than I would call deodorant or shaving an instrument of the matriarchy, though.
When I see women in high heels I worry they are vulnerable to falling over.
Don't know if that counts as "attraction." Actually I really don't understand the attraction of high heels at all. Makeup, maybe, but I don't personally like it.
I'm a woman and here's my take on makeup and heels:
I like wearing makeup largely because it evens out my skin tone (and covers the after affects of teen-aged acne) when I don't have a tan and a little eyeliner tends to prevent people from saying, "you seem tired today" while highlighting one of my favorite features. Given the choice between wearing flats and heels, I almost always choose heels (unless flats look best with the outfit I'm wearing) because they look nice, they support my high arches nicely, they make my calves look good (another feature I enjoy about myself) and I enjoy the way wearing them makes me feel. I don't own any heels that hurt my feet. It is quite possible to find and wear lovely heels that are not painful.
Now, certainly makeup and heels tend to render women more attractive to men and several here are trying to use them to make analogies to the inherent oppressiveness of the burqa and niqab. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see choosing to put on some makeup and wear some heels in order to appear at my best analogous to covering every inch of my body (even eyes) in order to appear modest/avoid attracting male attention because women are the sole property of her father/husband. Furthermore, if wearing makeup and heels is considered a part of misogynist oppression because it makes me more attractive to men, what does it become if I'm a lesbian? Do those things still serve a patriarchal purpose?
I think the attempted analogy is a little far afield of the topic. Of course, all you men can still try to decide that my wearing makeup and heels is somehow oppressing me with to standards of media-driven society (:-P), but given that men have worn makeup and heels in the past for the similar reason of looking good, and given that men do things like bathe, choose matching clothes and groom themselves today for the same reasons, I think using cultural aesthetic norms (which are universally present, if different in specifics) as an analogy for a specific garment of a specific subculture of a specific religion. It would be a far better to make an analogy using specific garments (or dress standards) of specific subcultures of other specific religions, I would think. Even at that, from what I have seen, fundamentalist Islam often creates a far bigger difference between what is acceptable for men to wear and what is acceptable for women.
At any rate, I think it will cause far more harm than good to ban the wearing of the burqa and niqab, and I also think accomplish nothing that it would hope to accomplish. As has been stated, the mere fact that a thing is extreme and the mere fact we do not like a thing (even if the reasons for not liking it are reasonable and correct) is not sufficient reason to ban it. And in this case, it is not the burqa or the niqab that are the problem, but the motivation that is often behind them. Not to rehash what has been well stated previously, this type of legislation does nothing to truly address the real problem. It's a bad idea.
Yis, I will agree there is a significant difference between
• dressing to look attractive
• dressing to avoid looking attractive
that kind of breaks the analogy.
I think the similarity is that in both cases, the woman's role is understood to be an "object," much moreso (or arguably morseso in the case of makeup/heels) than the man's at least. But I can definitely see how "I want to look my best (as an object)" has a different moral valence than "I want to stay completely hidden from view (as an object)."
N1tSt4lker wears heels because she likes the way they make her calves look, and her time spent looking at her own calves is important enough to her to hobble around all day in subpar footwear? Or, and forgive me for considering such an extreme possibility, here, maybe the reason she does it is to attract male attention to her calves?
And there's nothing at all wrong with that. I'm sure if I were a woman, I would be all made-up and dressed-up and what-have-you, and I would probably believe it to be entirely the result of my own aesthetic sensibilities. But nobody really has their own aesthetic sensibilities; aesthetics, particularly in fashion, are usually more for the benefit of the other than the self. Certainly the same is true of men's fashion. If the hot hipster chicks around here didn't dig them, I wouldn't be caught dead in these fucking tight pants.
EDIT: I say that, but as I think about it I know the way I came to put on these ridiculous fucking pants in the first place was not "chicks will dig them," it was, "I think I look good in them."
nescientist on
0
Options
SenshiBALLING OUT OF CONTROLWavefrontRegistered Userregular
N1tSt4lker wears heels because she likes the way they make her calves look, and her time spent looking at her own calves is important enough to her to hobble around all day in subpar footwear? Or, and forgive me for considering such an extreme possibility, here, maybe the reason she does it is to attract male attention to her calves?
And there's nothing at all wrong with that. I'm sure if I were a woman, I would be all made-up and dressed-up and what-have-you, and I would probably believe it to be entirely the result of my own aesthetic sensibilities. But nobody really has their own aesthetic sensibilities; aesthetics, particularly in fashion, are usually more for the benefit of the other than the self. Certainly the same is true of men's fashion. If the hot hipster chicks around here didn't dig them, I wouldn't be caught dead in these fucking tight pants.
EDIT: I say that, but as I think about it I know the way I came to put on these ridiculous fucking pants in the first place was not "chicks will dig them," it was, "I think I look good in them."
I'm so glad you can see into my mind and extract my motivations. That's so good of you.
My desire to look my best is not solely for the benefit of men. That such a ridiculous thing to assume. Particularly since the vast majority of my time is spent largely in the company of my female co-workers and my elementary-aged students. Knowing that I look my best is always a nice addition to my self-confidence.
And for the record, good heels don't cause you to hobble. Flats have far more tendency to cause me foot pain than heels. And lastly, although there is a cultural element to everyone's aesthetics, I don't ever wear something simply because it's "in." If I don't like the way it looks, I'm not wearing it.
Re: Quingu's closing statement. Being an "object" is no more inherently negative than a thing being "extreme." When we apply for a job, we are essentially objectifying ourselves. When we go on a first date, there is an element of objectification as we determine whether that person fits what we're looking for. A burqa isn't oppressive because it objectifies. A burqa is oppressive because it signifies and addresses its object (the woman) as being of less/weaker value than a man (or even of a more 'evil' value than a man when you take it to the point of causing men to "go astray.")
Posts
Precisely. I couldn't put my finger on it earlier, but someone finally nailed it.
This is incorrect. You have to look at the history of the burqa and its reason for coming into being, which neoscientist explained perfectly. The burqa was invented because men could not control their sexual urges when they saw women's bodies, so they blamed it on the women and demanded that they cover up so as to not tempt men to perform sinful acts (such as extra-marital sex).
Yes, they may face backlash, even brutal backlash, but that is a matter for the police. Banning the burqa won't achieve anything except causing immense personal anguish.
And for the people saying it's inherently oppressive, well, I might agree with you. But it's an oppression they are choosing to adopt, and that they may well find peace in. Listen, I went to Leicester University. Leicester has a heavily multicultural society, especially middle-eastern and asian. The University had a prayer room, and I'd say a good 30-40% of attendees were from various minorities, maybe more than that (I can't find figures, unfortunately). I've spoken to women there; intelligent, feminist women, who choose to cover themselves. My friend Zara decided to stop wearing one, my other friend Yasmin kept hers. Why? Because it brought her peace of mind.
Now, you and I can argue all we like about the validity of that, but at the end of the day she was happier with it. To me, receiving Holy Communion is incredibly oppressive; vows of celibacy I consider oppressive and harmful, but for goodness' sake, it's not up to us to enforce our views of what is acceptable.
To reiterate for the final time, if a woman doesn't wish to wear the burqa in Belgium, she is free not to. Banning it will achieve nothing good.
edit: And if the woman is being forced to wear it by a husband or other external force, she should be given the support she needs, not marginalised.
Link or cite?
I can't find anything remotely resembling this via wiki or google, save for a passing reference to the fact that a garment resembling the burqa may have been worn among desert tribes subject to raiding by rivals, such that a woman of child-bearing age could not be quickly distinguished and taken hostage.
At the point where it is grossly unequally applied across the sexes. You could make an argument about breasts, and I might even agree, but there is really no comparison to be made between the slightly unequal standards of dress between western men and women and covering women head to fucking toe.
Someone earlier mentioned makeup, which I also agree is an instrument of oppression inasmuch as it represents an expectation of women that is not applied to men. I'm not advocating for the outlaw of makeup, but if you've been paying attention I'm also not advocating for the outlaw of burqas. I just think they're oppressive, and I have yet to be satisfactorily convinced otherwise.
I do think, though, that the fact that the burqa is expected of all women makes it a bit more culturally damaging than, for instance, the idea that women ought to be nuns while men ought to be priests. This does not mean that I would defend, under any circumstances, the practice of refusing women into the priesthood (or men into the nunnery :P ).
I'm a bit put off by the idea that there is such a thing as a liberated muslim feminist who finds strength in the connection to her culture that her full-length burqa/abaya combo gives her. I mean, that might well be her interpretation of it all, which is fine and good, but the fact of the matter is that by wearing such a garment she is contributing to the normalization of a practice that demeans women. This is about as far from feminism as you can get.
Just playing devil's advocate; I agree with what you say. But as I also said, our opinion of its validity becomes kind of irrelevent.
There is nothing about the word "gay" or even the n-word that is inherently in contradiction with equal rights for gays or blacks, as they are, after all, only words. Putting sheets on women to prevent them from tempting men is inherently in contradiction with equal rights for women.
As a woman, as a feminist, and as a former Muslim, the reason to cover the female body is to remove it from the male gaze; not because men are raping rapists who want to rape them, but because their bodies are their own business. It is taking ownership of their bodies and the choice to reveal them only to those they choose.
Hell, if the government banned Islamic dress in the US, I'd be rushing to buy out the hijab/niqab stores, because to hell with them telling me what I can and cannot wear.
whoa, whoa, whoa
You don't find this more extreme than this?
The whole "cover every single shred of evidence that you are in fact a human being" thing doesn't make a burqa more extreme to you?
Oh, and a question about Belgian law: do we know for a fact that other methods of covering one's entire body (in the case of the burqa) or entire head (niqab) in public aren't illegal? There's been a lot of discussion about how this is so anti-muslim but has anyone considered the possibility that maybe they're just bringing a relatively new trend in line with older legislation? Not trolling, I'm actually curious.
I saw a woman wearing a burqa on a tram here once (I might add that her male child was misbehaving something fierce, good thing the male specimen is so superior, right) and I can definitely see how it could be construed as a potential risk. You can hide a lot in one of those, and there isn't much incentive to trust anyone wearing something that obscures the figure and shrouds every way of recognizing a person. I'd say the same about someone wearing a full-body sports mascot suit.
Come to think of it, those are probably banned in Belgium already. Pretty sure the cops would stop you here if you were walking around in one. For reference, I live in Sweden.
So you don't think it's "feminist" for a woman to consciously and freely choose to engage in any activity or behavior that you personally think is demeaning to women?
Are you thinking of purdah? I can't think of another term for the practice of modesty and I'm not for purdah, at all, since IIRC that generally refers to locking yourself up in your house. If there's another term I'm blanking on, I apologize.
That's the one. Someone at work was talking about it but the way they explained it doesn't seem to square with what wiki has to say about it. Hmm.
I agree that the ideology of Islam is oppressive. Women who, for whatever reason, obey traditional Islam are indeed being oppressed.
However: they are not being oppressed by an en entity who's behavior government has the right to regulate. Islam is oppressive, but it is not a person.
If it can be shown that a woman actually is being oppressed—ideally physically—by a living, breathing person under the jurisdiction of Belgian law, then that person should be punished.
A government that can regulate ideologies on the basis of them being deemed "oppressive" is worse than the problem it purports to solve.
Anyone who publicly flaunts traditional religiosity or any sort of modern cult is guilty of the exact same thing.
And government should not regulate people's ability to belong to and spread ideologies, even oppressive ideologies.
What should be done is a sustained and reasoned criticism of Islam by citizens, so that it is socially asphixiated.
Why do you think that is? I think it's because Islamic thought is entirely patriarchal and never even remotely considers that women too might be subjects to which a person can reveal themselves, as opposed to simply objects. I think such explanations as yours tend to come off as ad hoc rationalizations.
However, I also think women ought to be free to believe whatever they want about the roots and merits of wearing a burqa, even if I think they're wrong.
I don't speak Dutch, so I can't understand the first-hand articles I've come across, but from what I've seen of ones in English, it is banning everything preventing facial recognition in public. However, the people that designed the bill have blatantly stated it was written with burqas in mind. I'm guessing making the bill itself religion/culture-neutral is just so it doesn't get shot down by courts.
“Wearing the burqa in public is not compatible with an open, liberal, tolerant society” stated Daniel Bacquelaine, the liberal sponsor of the bill.
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/04/01/belgium-to-ban-burqa/
Wait what part of this do I disagree with again? Perhaps you missed the multiple instances where I restated my opposition to the prospective Belgian law. I was just trying to point out a rationale that isn't based on xenophobia, when that seemed to be the go-to assumption about Belgian legislators. And even then, I'm not at all sure that they weren't driven by xenophobia primarily in this decision; I just think it isn't certain that's where this comes from, because there are good reasons to disapprove of the institution of the burqa besides its association with brown people.
It's kind of like how employers can use open hiring practices by tailoring their lists of required credentials to the specific people they've preselected.
Um, okay? I was asked if there was another reason why a woman might choose to wear a niqab and provided one. I'm.... sorry you don't think it has merit?
I mean, of course it's a rationalization after the fact. Given the choice between not wearing a niqab and wearing one, with my background, I obviously opt not to, being an atheist and all. But given a situation where it's illegal for me to wear something because some muckety-muck doesn't like it, I'm damn well considering slapping it on, because I can and for no other reason.
I imagine the burqa to be a more onerous burden than makeup, but it's really not my place to judge; I'm not a woman. Certainly though, these are both traditions that are widely embraced by their female practitioners even though they clearly serve a patriarchal purpose.
Also, high heels.
I prefer the high heel analogy, myself. They are demonstrably harmful (not just physically on the legs and ankles, but they also restrict mobility), and explicitly worn because of the way it makes women look, and move in them.
I've long felt that there was something wrong about makeup and high heels, but couldn't really put my finger on it. Now I can clearly articulate it as "oh yeah, instruments of the patriarchy up in here" but if I ever say that out loud everyone in the room is going to stare at me like I just screamed "heil hitler."
To be fair, I just think "Total waste of time" and "Holy shit, those look painful"
No problem, I was kind of like "dude, why are you hating on me, I'm an atheist!" :P
She says I shouldn't because it's like playing "dress up" for her, which I can buy, and which I suppose could apply to women who want to dress up like Mohatman ninjas but of course I doubt women actually think of burqas that way.
What I can say is that it certainly makes them more attractive (if used properly) because it accentuates femininity.
dunno if I'd call that an instrument of the patriarchy any more than I would call deodorant or shaving an instrument of the matriarchy, though.
It's how we advertise.
Some ways are worse than others.
Don't know if that counts as "attraction." Actually I really don't understand the attraction of high heels at all. Makeup, maybe, but I don't personally like it.
I like wearing makeup largely because it evens out my skin tone (and covers the after affects of teen-aged acne) when I don't have a tan and a little eyeliner tends to prevent people from saying, "you seem tired today" while highlighting one of my favorite features. Given the choice between wearing flats and heels, I almost always choose heels (unless flats look best with the outfit I'm wearing) because they look nice, they support my high arches nicely, they make my calves look good (another feature I enjoy about myself) and I enjoy the way wearing them makes me feel. I don't own any heels that hurt my feet. It is quite possible to find and wear lovely heels that are not painful.
Now, certainly makeup and heels tend to render women more attractive to men and several here are trying to use them to make analogies to the inherent oppressiveness of the burqa and niqab. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see choosing to put on some makeup and wear some heels in order to appear at my best analogous to covering every inch of my body (even eyes) in order to appear modest/avoid attracting male attention because women are the sole property of her father/husband. Furthermore, if wearing makeup and heels is considered a part of misogynist oppression because it makes me more attractive to men, what does it become if I'm a lesbian? Do those things still serve a patriarchal purpose?
I think the attempted analogy is a little far afield of the topic. Of course, all you men can still try to decide that my wearing makeup and heels is somehow oppressing me with to standards of media-driven society (:-P), but given that men have worn makeup and heels in the past for the similar reason of looking good, and given that men do things like bathe, choose matching clothes and groom themselves today for the same reasons, I think using cultural aesthetic norms (which are universally present, if different in specifics) as an analogy for a specific garment of a specific subculture of a specific religion. It would be a far better to make an analogy using specific garments (or dress standards) of specific subcultures of other specific religions, I would think. Even at that, from what I have seen, fundamentalist Islam often creates a far bigger difference between what is acceptable for men to wear and what is acceptable for women.
At any rate, I think it will cause far more harm than good to ban the wearing of the burqa and niqab, and I also think accomplish nothing that it would hope to accomplish. As has been stated, the mere fact that a thing is extreme and the mere fact we do not like a thing (even if the reasons for not liking it are reasonable and correct) is not sufficient reason to ban it. And in this case, it is not the burqa or the niqab that are the problem, but the motivation that is often behind them. Not to rehash what has been well stated previously, this type of legislation does nothing to truly address the real problem. It's a bad idea.
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist
• dressing to look attractive
• dressing to avoid looking attractive
that kind of breaks the analogy.
I think the similarity is that in both cases, the woman's role is understood to be an "object," much moreso (or arguably morseso in the case of makeup/heels) than the man's at least. But I can definitely see how "I want to look my best (as an object)" has a different moral valence than "I want to stay completely hidden from view (as an object)."
And there's nothing at all wrong with that. I'm sure if I were a woman, I would be all made-up and dressed-up and what-have-you, and I would probably believe it to be entirely the result of my own aesthetic sensibilities. But nobody really has their own aesthetic sensibilities; aesthetics, particularly in fashion, are usually more for the benefit of the other than the self. Certainly the same is true of men's fashion. If the hot hipster chicks around here didn't dig them, I wouldn't be caught dead in these fucking tight pants.
EDIT: I say that, but as I think about it I know the way I came to put on these ridiculous fucking pants in the first place was not "chicks will dig them," it was, "I think I look good in them."
I'm so glad you can see into my mind and extract my motivations. That's so good of you.
My desire to look my best is not solely for the benefit of men. That such a ridiculous thing to assume. Particularly since the vast majority of my time is spent largely in the company of my female co-workers and my elementary-aged students. Knowing that I look my best is always a nice addition to my self-confidence.
And for the record, good heels don't cause you to hobble. Flats have far more tendency to cause me foot pain than heels. And lastly, although there is a cultural element to everyone's aesthetics, I don't ever wear something simply because it's "in." If I don't like the way it looks, I'm not wearing it.
Re: Quingu's closing statement. Being an "object" is no more inherently negative than a thing being "extreme." When we apply for a job, we are essentially objectifying ourselves. When we go on a first date, there is an element of objectification as we determine whether that person fits what we're looking for. A burqa isn't oppressive because it objectifies. A burqa is oppressive because it signifies and addresses its object (the woman) as being of less/weaker value than a man (or even of a more 'evil' value than a man when you take it to the point of causing men to "go astray.")
wish list
Steam wishlist
Etsy wishlist