Maryam points out, in agreement with Adele Wilde-Blavatsky, that the hoodie and the hijab are not the same. Wilde-Blavatsky published an article arguing that on the website The Feminist Wire on April 13.
What I take issue with here is the equating of the hoodie and the hijab as sources of ethnic identity and pride. The hijab, which is discriminatory and rooted in men’s desire to control women’s appearance and sexuality, is not a choice for the majority of women who wear it. The hoodie, on the other hand, is a choice for everyone who wears it. The history and origin of these two items of clothing and what they represent could not be more different; like comparing the crippling footbindings of Chinese women with a `Made in China’ Nike trainer.
…
This is not neo-colonialism either. Muslim feminists have spoken out against the burqa and hijab, and even supported the French ban in schools. Fadela Amara explained her support for France’s ban:
The veil is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women, and therefore has no place in the mixed, secular spaces of France’s public school system.
When some feminists began defending the headscarf on the grounds of “tradition”, Amara vehemently disagreed:
They define liberty and equality according to what colour your skin is. They won’t denounce forced marriages or female genital mutilation, because, they say, it’s tradition. It’s nothing more than neocolonialism. It’s not tradition, it’s archaic. French feminists are totally contradictory. When Algerian women fought against wearing the headscarf in Algeria, French feminists supported them. But when it’s some young girl in a French suburb school, they don’t.
Shock-horror – she actually said the hijab is rooted in men’s desire to control women’s appearance and sexuality. She actually quoted Fadela Amara saying it is the visible symbol of the subjugation of women. This must not be! So a group of women signed a Collective Response (uh oh – the very name makes me turn pale with nausea) to explain how terribly wrong it is to say that the hijab is a symbol of the subjugation of women. It’s badly-written, and jargony, and stupid, and wrong.
An article recently published on The Feminist Wire’s website and circulated via its facebook page has prompted this note. In her article, “To Be Anti-Racist Is To Be Feminist: The Hoodie and the Hijab Are Not Equals,” Adele Wilde-Blavatsky attempts to address the important question of what it means to be an anti-racist feminist in the 21st century. Her article, however, serves to assert white feminist privilege and power by producing a reductive understanding of racial and gendered violence and by denying Muslim women their agency.
In her article, Wilde-Blavatsky takes “issue with … the equating of the hoodie and the hijab as sources of ethnic identity.” Oblivious to the important cross-racial and cross-ethnic connections and solidarities made in light of the tragic murders of Trayvon Martin and Shaima Alawadi, the author contends that the hoodie and the hijab cannot be compared because “the history and origin of these two items of clothing and what they represent could not be more different.” For her, Trayvon Martin’s hoodie signifies a history of racism, whereas Shaima Alawadi’s hijab signifies only male domination and female oppression. Revealing her own biases, Wilde-Blavatsky writes, “The hijab, which is discriminatory and rooted in men’s desire to control women’s appearance and sexuality, is not a choice for the majority of women who wear it. The hoodie, on the other hand, is a choice for everyone who wears it” (emphasis in original).
And that’s all they say about that. They don’t say why Wilde-Blavatsky is wrong to say that the hoodie signifies a history of racism while the hijab signifies male domination and female oppression. It would have been helpful if they had said why, because frankly I have no idea why they think that. How would the hijab not be such a signifier when women get whipped, beaten, fined, imprisoned, and sometimes killed for failing or refusing to wear it? Does anybody anywhere get whipped or killed for refusing to wear a hoodie? Does The Man force anyone to wear a hoodie?
And then what’s the crap about the important cross-racial and cross-ethnic connections and solidarities made in light of the tragic murders of Trayvon Martin and Shaima Alawadi? What is it that Wilde-Blavatsky is “oblivious” to? What does it have to do with her point? She’s certainly not arguing that women should be murdered for wearing a hijab, so what is it that she’s oblivious to? People can agree across racial and ethnic differences that no one should be killed for wearing the wrong kind of headgear, and Wilde-Blavatsky wrote nothing to interfere with that view. That claim looks to me like a meaningless piety rather than an argument.
To us, it is deeply troubling to be patronized by a person who insists the hijab is never a choice made of free will. But what is even more saddening is that such opinions are being propagated on a feminist site with a commitment to highlighting the consequences of the “ill-fated pursuit of wars abroad and the abandonment of a vision of social justice at home.” The consequences of such wars have included the demonization, incarceration, and oppression of Muslim men, women, and children at home and abroad.
Non sequitur follows non sequitur. It’s not patronizing to point out that the hijab is not always “a choice made of free will” – and W-B in fact didn’t say it’s never a free choice, so they’re being simply dishonest in saying she “insists the hijab is never a choice made of free will.”
As feminists deeply committed to challenging racism and Islamophobia and how it differentially impacts black and Muslim (and black Muslim) communities, we wish to open up a dialogue about how to build solidarities across complex histories of subjugation and survival. This space is precisely what is shut down in this article. In writing this letter, we emphasize that our concern is not solely with Adele Wilde-Blavatsky’s article but with the broader systemic issues revealed in the publication of a work that prevents us from challenging hierarchies of privilege and building solidarity.
Bullying nonsense. Nothing was “shut down” in the article; nothing prevents them from “challenging hierarchies of privilege and building solidarity.”
Maryam offers a much better statement.
We extend our full solidarity to Adele Wilde-Blavatsky for such a clear and rare analysis from feminists in Europe and North America, in which women’s resistance to the Muslim Right -including by resisting all forms of fundamentalist veiling – is made visible and honoured, rather than sacrificed on the altar of anti racism and anti imperialism’.
* Marieme Helie Lucas, sociologist, Algeria, founder and former international coordinator of the international solidarity network Women Living Under Muslim Laws ( wluml), coordinator Secularism Is A Women’s Issue
* Fatou Sow, Researcher, Senegal, international coordinator, Women Living Under Muslim Laws
* Maryam Namazie, Spokesperson, One Law for All and Equal Rights Now – Organisation against Women’s Discrimination in Iran, Iran/UK
* Karima Bennoune, Professor of Law, Rutgers University, U S A
* Khawar Mumtaz, Shirkat Gah, Pakistan
This analogy drove the point home to me deftly. It is really frustrating to see Wilde-Blavatsky’s point ignored by the so called “Collective Response”, and doubly so to see it misrepresented.
How dishonest. How does Wilde-Blavatsky’s claim that the hijab is rooted in the subjugation of women somehow put the kibosh on challenging hierarchies of privilege and building solidarity? Sounds to me that is exactly what she is doing by speaking out against this symbol of oppression.
Of course women choose to wear the hijab, the niqab and the burqa, and when the alternative is gaol, beatings and rape, it’s a perfectly rational choice.
It’s that kind of “Islamophobia” again. How quaint and silly.
I haven’t been able to figure out the “open letter” either, except that the acccomodationists of this sphere are upset about some cultural/religious bits (bad ones at that) are being put down. Someone call the waaambulance fleet.
I can’t figure out how the letter managed to get so many names on it from so many “learning institutions”. I have to wonder how many of them actually read and considered it. I know I’m biased since I didn’t read either the article or the letter until it was pointed out to me via FtB what was happening, but W-B’s article still seems to make her point well. I don’t understand how those women can be so vehemently opposed to it.
Is this sort of thing typical of Feminist Wire? I don’t recall having read much there, but ISTM that if they ran for cover on this it’s likely they’ve done it before.
Oh, and that line about “This space is precisely what is shut down” line is just too precious – it’s so sophisticated and techy-sounding.
^ This! Exactly. Very well said, Ophelia Benson.
My favorite part was the line about her denying Muslim women their agency.
I must have missed that one (even after multiple readings). Which line is that?
Is speaking out against Christian doctrines that hold that women should submit to their husbands a denial of Christian women’s agency?
Congratulations! You figured it out!
Grrr… oh this makes me mad. Particularly the bit about ‘shutting down’. Oh if I had a quid for every time an atheist woman has supposedly ‘shut down’ a feminist discussion… :S
I think women can choose to veil. However I always raise an eyebrow when women happen to ‘choose’ something that men / culture / tradition / religion wants them to do anyway. Such a happy coincidence, isn’t it?
But of course that’s just in countries where there are no physical sanctions for choosing the opposite, just social ones. In countries where unveiling is a crime, there is no grey area here.
I feel sorry for Muslim women who don’t want to be veiled, who are pressured from one side by their own culture and religion, and from the other by certain feminists who assume that they wear it out of ‘choice’ and ‘agency’ and therefore ask no further questions. It seems to me that if they ditch the veil they’re not only seen as bad Muslims but also very inconvenient for some feminists.
Those type of feminists are hurting the very people they profess to want to help, which in my experience is very often the case where religion is involved…
If the authors of the “collective response” have evidence that allows them to state conclusively that Trayvon Martin’s death was “murder” they should rush to send it to the prosecutors who’ve yet to convince the jurors in Zimmerman’s trial that it was so. Come to that, if either they or Ms Wilde-Blavatsky have evidence that Shaima Alawadi’s death was motivated by racism they should offer it to the police who aren’t nearly so sure..
The hijab and the hoodie are not the same, that’s true, and they symbolise very different social conditions, but the trouble with dismissing out of hand the views of hijab-wearing women who do not experience it as oppressive (in those countries where the law does not take a view) is that you end up with a theory of ‘false consciousness’ and in this case it will be a false consciousness that only seems to affect women and of those only women of a certain skin colour or ethnicity. If a woman wears a hijab and thinks she is free and uncoerced, who is to tell her different? There must be some stats on this. How many women in western countries wear hijabs because they feel threatened or coerced into it?
@Amy,
I feel the same about heels. If it’s expected that you wear heels in certain (or all, depending on your social group) situations, to what extent do you actually choose to wear them? And if they really were a choice, wouldn’t they be more gender neutral? Wouldn’t we see men wearing them? Same with the hijab.
the trouble with dismissing out of hand the views of hijab-wearing women who do not experience it as oppressive (in those countries where the law does not take a view) is that you end up with a theory of ‘false consciousness’
Exactly! Then you have a non-falsifiable argument. Non-falsifiable hypotheses aren’t necessarily wrong, they’re just useless. Since they can’t be proven or disproven, they don’t further knowledge or social change any further.
Many, probably most, women who wear a burqa are doing so out of fear. Either overt fear of violence from men or a vaguer fear of violating social customs. It seems to me to be an incredibly awkward piece of clothing. But suppose the next post comes from a woman who says, “A burqa is simply ‘lazy clothing’: Put it on and you don’t have to care how you look. It takes me about 10 seconds to put it on* as opposed to ‘liberated’ women who take hours getting their hair and makeup just right to please men or dominate other women. Who’s the more feminist now?” Should I conclude that it must be false consciousness that she doesn’t want to bother with pantyhose and getting the right piercing but prefers to go about wearing a tent?
Ultimately, I find any argument that demands that women MUST behave a certain way to be anti-feminist. Fighting to end the requirement that women wear certain clothes-any particular type of clothes but especially those that limit their ability to interact in society-is great. Fighting to end the inequalities that make men (and women) pressure women to wear certain clothes even when it’s technically optional, also great. Making laws banning women from wearing certain types of clothing…it’ll have to be an awfully good case for that clothing being inherently bad for me to be supportive.
Well, I’m absolutely opposed to bans for several reasons:
First of all, it isn’t any more enlightened to tell women what they must not wear than to tell them what they must wear.
Secondly, banning the burqa in western countries doesn’t really help those in muslim countries at all. (How about instead granting asylum to women who seek it because they refuse to wear it? Don’t see that happening much).
Thirdly, it puts the whole onus on the women again who are now between a rock and a hard place between the pressure of their family/group and the state.
Fourthly, the right to choose includes the right to make stupid, anti-feminist and patriarchal choices. It’s a bit like high-heels: They are a symbol of a society that enforces pressure on women to confirm to certain standards and it hurts them. Yet women choose them freely and it’s not my place to tell them they mustn’t.
Having said that, the letter is stupid. A hijab and a hoodie are nowhere the same. I wear hoodies from October to March, they are the most practical garments ever. And they are not even associated with a black ethnicity in Germany. But the meaning of a hijab is the same everywhere.
But the meaning of a hijab is the same everywhere.
Is it? A “hijab” per se is, I suppose, but I’ve been known to throw a scarf over my head and shoulders on occasion, usually when I want to go out into the sun for a moderate amount of time and want a covering I can throw in my pocket when I’m done. I’ve occasionally been asked if I were Islamic when I do so, so I presume I’m effectively wearing a hijab. Also married orthodox Jewish women are required to cover their hair in public. Most do this by wearing a wig, most of the time, but some wear a scarf over their heads some of the time. I don’t think they call it a hijab, but I find it hard to see what else it could be.
Dianne
That’s why I wrote hijab.
There are many Russian German old ladies here who think that leaving the house without a headscarf (small one, with flowers, knotted under the chin, just like in cinema) is INDECENT and I don’t even know if they’re religious in any way.
And I’ve rocked some kind of headscarf one time or another.
But I’d say that a hijab, to my knowledge, is unique to muslims.
But to me it’s also where the meaning ends.
Muslim woman.
Full Stop.
(and no, not all muslim women do wear one, before anybody starts nitpicking)
My favorite part was the line about her denying Muslim women their agency.
Since when has this article mentioned the Taliban, the Mullahs or the Muslim Brotherhood, or indeed any other group, organisation or islamist individuals who’d destroy the agency you so valiantly champion?
Gilell: But is there anything different about a hijab as opposed to any other scarf apart from who is wearing it and with what motivation? Is a hijab simply a scarf worn by an Islamic woman or is there some other subtly that I’m missing? If the former, then is there any reason to argue that an Islamic woman wearing a hijab because she feels it is indecent to go out without one is any more oppressed than a Russian German woman who feels it’s indecent to go out without one? (If the latter, then my argument is probably FOS.)
I think that ‘hijab’ is really just a shorthand that gets used for the headscarf, it actually means something like ‘modest dress’ so we would be better off saying ‘headscarf’ when that is what we mean (as in this discussion) which might clarify the argument a bit too. My mother used to wear a head scarf quite often too, as did many women of her generation although that seems to have disappeared now.
Dianne, as per above, you are right that there is nothing special about ‘muslim’ headscarves except that particular styles tend to be favoured in particular places and some styles are more demanding in terms of coverage than others.
Dianna,
I also disagree with a ban, or denying the existence of those women who choose to veil (not that I see either Ophelia or Adele of doing so). But yes, you are missing a “subtlety”; you overlook the entire point of Adele’s article.
And Ophelia’s point as well,
Woo, it seems to me that this supports all the more the claim that the problem is not the clothes themselves, but the coercion and force used to ensure that women will dress a certain way? A fair number of people, including people here, seem to be arguing that the hijab is in and of itself evil and should be banned. In other words, are arguing for a further restriction of women’s rights.
If “hijab” simply means “modest dress” then the idea of a ban gets even more ridiculous. Shall we have morality police who stop women on the street and tell them to go home and change into something less modest or face a fine/prison sentence/whipping?
Finally, why does the discussion always seem to end up on how women dress. Not how men dress (and that is also restricted by Islam-men are forbidden from showing their legs, unlike the male hussies of the west who run around in shorts), not what women aren’t allowed to learn or do, but about how women dress. Clothing can be an important symbol of rebellion (i.e. bloomers, etc) and certainly some clothing is more convenient and allows one to move more freely than others, but is it really so important that France has to ban head scarves in schools in preference to, say, going through the banlieue trying to identify girls and women who might be being kept from leaving home against their will?
Why on earth did this discussion suddenly start talking about bans? The post has nothing to do with bans.
Stay on topic please. A big part of what’s wrong with the open letter is that it misrepresents what AW-B wrote and veers into subjects she wasn’t discussing. I don’t want this discussion to do the same thing.
Oh, I see where that happened. Dianne introduced it @ 15. Seriously off-topic, Dianne, because AW-B wasn’t advocating a ban (and neither was I).
It’s gnu atheism all over again – we say theism is a crap idea and here’s why; critics say “omg they want to ban religion!!1!”
Dianne
Only short for matter of clarity:
Hijab, IMO, has the additional meaning of muslim.
To me, nothing more, nothing less.
Why the individual muslim woman wear one is very different in many and ranges from “law” over “pressure” to “choice”.
But it adds a religious meaning to a piece of clothing.
@ 21 – no we wouldn’t be “better off” saying headscarf instead of hijab, which is why I don’t. Calling it a headscarf is to euphemize it: it makes it sound both trivial/easy and optional when it’s neither. It’s not just an item of clothing, it’s what the news media call “a religious obligation.” (Note that Dianne says above that “married orthodox Jewish women are required to cover their hair in public.” Required.) It’s not just a lightweight scarf, it’s a bandage wrapping the neck up to the jaw and the head down to the eyebrows. It covers the ears. It’s muffling and cumbersome and in hot weather it’s obviously very uncomfortable.
Yes, of course there is. In a number of places in the world it has been imposed, often by outright force as opposed to just social pressure. In a number of places in the world women are severely punished for not wearing it or for wearing it “incorrectly” – for allowing a bit of hair to show, for instance. Women and girls have been killed for not wearing it. Just look up the Shafia case, for example.
That makes it more like a yellow star or leg irons than like high heels or a simple scarf. The Russian German woman who feels it’s indecent to go out without a scarf doesn’t think she’ll be whipped or imprisoned or killed if she doesn’t wear a scarf, does she? She doesn’t know of women like her in other countries who get whipped or imprisoned or killed for not wearing a scarf, does she?
For her, Trayvon Martin’s hoodie signifies a history of racism, whereas Shaima Alawadi’s hijab signifies only male domination and female oppression.
Er, no. Not at all. One can only interpret such a profound misreading of Adele’s article as deliberate.
It’s so much easier to attack that strawman than address the actual difference: the hoodie was previously a symbol of absolutely nothing (though it was morphed into a bizarre victim-blaming scapesweatshirt after the fact) and the hijab is a symbol of the many, many acts of violence committed against women (of MANY colors) who reject it.
Because control women’s clothing choices is a major means of controlling women.
If the other side stopped bringing it up and making it a thing, we’d stop talking about it.
Yes. The discussion ends up on how women dress for the same reasons it ends up on FGM, forced marriage, “honor” killing, education…It ends up there because of the way religions treat women as subordinate and less than fully human.
@8, Woo_Monster: The line in question comes from the first paragraph of the Collective Response:
“Her article, however, serves to assert white feminist privilege and power by producing a reductive understanding of racial and gendered violence and by denying Muslim women their agency.”
You have probably found it by now, but I thought I’d clarify.
“It’s badly-written, and jargony, and stupid, and wrong.”
But apart from that, it has its moments.
😉
Julia F,
Sorry, but I am unclear about what you are saying. In your first post, I thought you were agreeing with the general claim of the Collective Response, which is that AW-B is denying Muslim women agency in stating that the hijab has its roots in subjugation and discrimination. So, this quote from the Collective Response,
Do you agree with this quote?
I was being snarky with you because I assumed you were arguing that AW-B, in accurately pointing out the history of the hijab, was being dismissive. I disagree with that sentiment. Speaking plainly about the history and symbolism of the hijab =/ a denial of agency.
If you do think AW-B is denying agency, read the following (jump to next section if not):
– So, you say your “favorite part was the line about her denying Muslim women their agency”. To which I again respond, white part of Adele’s article denies women their agency? Which line of ADELE’S article implies this. You quoting the Collective Responses bare assertion that Adele is drying agency is not a response to my request that you substantiate your claim.
If I misread you and you don’t think AW-B is denying agency:
– Sorry for the snark.
FIFM
Woo monster, you misread – Julia was being sarcastic. That’s obvious to me, but maybe that’s because she’s been commenting here (including the other, first B&W) for a long time. (On the other hand I think more likely it’s just because “I especially love the part where” is a familiar trope. If Julia had really liked it she would have had to say more to signal that, given the hostile tone of my post.)
Thanks Ophelia, and apologies again Julia. It is my fault that I commented without being familiar with your history here. I should have asked for clarification before responding.
Well no one can be familiar with everyone’s history! :- )
No probs.
I should have read this one first, but I already my main problem with Collective Response in the later post Delusions of Choice. I suppose I can add here the irritation I have at the another blatant diversion in Collective Response, such as the insistence that solidarities and cross-cultural relations are being blocked because A WB pointed out that hoodies and the hijab are not remotely related or comparable. That’s straight up BS; if they were really concerned with legitimate dialogue and solidarity between western and eastern feminists, they’d be pointing out things that actually block those connections. Of which there are fewer and fewer now than ever before, so I think it’s a radically moot point anyhow.
Again, UGH.