In an opinion piece in a Turkish newspaper, Melis Alphan considers the ongoing national debate on the appropriate clothing for women — the veil, for instance, was once imposed on women as a marker to distinguish them from prostitutes and slaves. What’s interesting, in particular, is that she has a view that the West is more liberal than we really are.
Because the West has allowed freedom of clothing, they do not live with the out-datedness we have now. Don’t they have men like we do here? Of course they do. For example, I came across a posting of a priest on a website named, “Christianpost.” One of the female students asked him, “Why are men naked on top, while we swim with t-shirts? Do you think there is no such problem as women looking at men?” The priest worked on this theme in his piece. In other words, in religious circles in the West, such debates are ongoing, but they are not on everyone’s agenda as they are here. They do not take up everybody’s time and create discomfort, because nobody regards the debate as a threat to their own lifestyles.
What happens here?
The religiously-oriented conservative perspective determines the rules of all society.
I hate to break the sad news to Ms Alphan, but there are assumptions in the US that are a threat to some people’s lifestyles. There is a sect in my town in which women are required to dresses and to not cut their hair, which they tie up in a bun on their heads. These women are instantly recognizable. Mission accomplished: we know what religion ‘owns’ them. There is no debate about this; it’s part of their culture, because they are members of this religion they simply accept that this is the way it will be, and no, there are no letters to the editor in the local paper complaining that they need to cut their hair or put on a pair of pants.
Or take a look at our politics: Huffpo has a whole section dedicated to Hillary Clinton’s fashion choices. Angela Merkel, chancellor of Germany, gets called out for ‘frumpy’ fashion. The Huffpo also has a Michelle Obama style section — she was once caught wearing two different dresses by the same designer in one week!
So I’m sorry to disillusion the Turks, but while the West isn’t trying to dictate that women must wear a veil (although some countries dictate that you may not), so we are definitely more liberal about what women wear, we’ve got the same obsessive scrutiny of what women are wearing going on here…and it can affect professional careers.
Although, to be fair, many Americans tend to have an even more skewed version of Islamic countries that makes them out to be more repressive than they actually are: that all the men wear turbans and the women are all decked out in burqas. They might be shocked to learn, as the article mentions, that Turkish women wear lipstick and sleeveless blouses sometimes.
I did like Alphan’s conclusion:
That is enough, gentlemen! Leave women alone.
What freedom of thought and freedom of expression mean for a democratic society, freedom of clothing mean, too.
Anyone can wear whatever he or she wants. And what is up to you is to shut up.
True everywhere.
Any culture that blames a woman for what a man does to her because of her skirt length might as well be ancient Sumeria, in terms of women. We regularly blame women for turning men into rapists or batterers. At least with ancient Sumeria, there was no pretense about it.
I think you let us off too easy. For example, do schools ever measure the tightness of boys blue jeans or muscle shirts with calipers of some sort? And yet there are rules about skirt length and décolletage and yoga pants. Similarly, as suggested by @#1ginmar, does our criminal justice system ever suggest that the man in an expensive suit was asking for his robbery, or that the man in the leather jacket was asking for his beating? We have our own sorts of veils.
I will admit that I think that long hair looks good on women…but I wouldn’t dream of criticizing any woman for how long or short her hair is, nor how she wears it. (Perhaps I should note that my six-year-old grandSON has hair that reaches to his waist, and, no, it’s not a religious thing).
Anyone can wear whatever he or she wants. And what is up to you is to shut up.
True everywhere.
Really? Just accept and shut up? Wow… there’s some free thinking there. I’d like to see the author wear numerous swastikas in a Jewish neighborhood and invite all those who say anything to shut up about it. Just clothing, right?
Sorry, but this argument doesn’t hold for the veil. Because it obscures the wearer’s identity and anonymizes them, it is in a different category than a run-of-the-mill piece of clothing. Because it is “accepted” in both Islamic and Western countries It has been used by both men and women to disguise themselves to commit crimes, whereas if it were illegal the person would run the risk of being stopped beforehand. It has been and continues to be used to hide evidence of spousal abuse, namely injuries to a woman’s face by her abusive husband. It the the hallmark of radical, fundamentalist, jihadist Islam.
And it is most often forced on women by men, marking them as faceless, anonymous pieces of property, unable to hold any sort of job that requires interaction with others, or have normal social interactions. Do you really think that a woman will risk anything by saying otherwise than that it is their choice? Perhaps she thinks it is after being indoctrinated, intimidated and threatened all of her life. Women have been and continue to be beaten and even murdered for not wearing them. (What’s the first directive ISIL delivers after taking over an area? Time to veil up, ladies.) I can understand why France banned the veil and support similar bans in other Western democracies.
I’ve been researching this for a while, so I am not talking out of my ass. I am dismayed that other progressives don’t recognize how contrary to feminism and women’s rights in general the veil is.
Kevin,
Explain to me how women wearing sleeveless shirts and yogas pants is like wearing Nazi propaganda. Please be very specific and plain in your explanation, because my ladybrain needs you to mansplain it to me slowly and in detail.
How exactly is me or my daughters expecting to not be raped for wearing too short a skirt like wearing swastikas?
@Jackie: It isn’t like it at all… I only mentioned the veil/niqab/burqa as one of those “clothing choices” that we should “shut up” over.
Actually, it is freethinking. Challenging dogma, the dogma of those who think they can chose other folks dress for them.
Your response doesn’t show free thinking, just adherence and justification for dogma.
kevindorner #4:
You realise, I hope, that the sentence “Anyone can wear whatever he or she wants,” is intended to apply to Muslim women too? That we’re quite happy to agree that Muslim women should not be forced to wear a veil by their husbands/fathers/brothers? By the same token I (I won’t claim to speak for others) refuse to force them not to wear one, if they so choose. I may deplore the idea behind it, but the choice is not mine to make on their behalf.
As to your “they’ve been used in crimes” waffle. How many other things which have been used in the committing of crimes would you make illegal? Cars? Home-computers? Cell-phones? Kitchen-knives? Bicycle chains? Coats with large pockets?
Nerd, not to mention a heaping helping of SanHarris® brand I Can’t Believe It’s Not Islamophobia.
#1 ginmar: “Any culture that blames a woman for what a man does to her because of her skirt length might as well be ancient Sumeria, in terms of women. We regularly blame women for turning men into rapists or batterers. At least with ancient Sumeria, there was no pretense about it.”
It’s even worse than that. Even if the man never lays hands on the woman, the very fact that he’s had any sexual thoughts at all is a sin. And it’s her fault for making him sin, by wearing clothes that give him impure thoughts, so she has sinned as well.
That’s why they justify beating/ killing women for showing too much ankle. Because her sin is dragging them both to hell. Because he can’t be held responsible for his own behavior. And because just his thoughts are a sin.
You realise, I hope, that the sentence “Anyone can wear whatever he or she wants,” is intended to apply to Muslim women too? That we’re quite happy to agree that Muslim women should not be forced to wear a veil by their husbands/fathers/brothers?
Of course… and this was my only point in my post, certainly not to imply that women shouldn’t be allowed to wear whatever they want that doesn’t hide their identity in public without fear of harassment, physical violence or worse. I think I may have been misinterpreted.
Some crime examples? At least one woman (and possibly one other) has been murdered… and we are talking Canada here, not Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, by male relatives for refusing to wear the veil. A wife who stopped wearing her burqa, left her husband and became educated was murdered by her husband who used her burqa to sneak into her apartment building. There have been numerous robberies by men disguised in niqabs or burquas; my point is that they can then wear them in public and it is “accepted” whereas a balaclava or mask would arouse suspicion. A British police officer was murdered by a man who used his sister’s burqa to then flee the country, knowing that he could use “religious rights” to prevent being identified. And there are plenty of others if one wants to look.
Well, obviously guns should be banned then kevindorner, and motorcycles, and all masks, and anything that anyone could possibly use to commit a crime anywhere. In fact, step away from the computer you are using, since you could possibly use it to hack something, which is I’m sure an offence, it should not be used by anyone at all.
And women being murdered for refusing to wear it is not actually an argument in your favour.
LOLZ!
B-but… if I can’t tell ladies their skirts are too short or their pants too tight, HOW WILL I POSSIBLY BE ABLE TO TELL NAZIS THAT NAZI REGALIA AIN’T COOL!! Slippery slope, slippery slope!!!!1!
I Can’t Believe It’s Not Islamophobia.
This is a ridiculous comment and an excellent example of what I mentioned on how so-called progressives get it completely wrong. The veil is not Islam! The Quran only mandates that a woman bosom be covered. Numerous clerics and scholars have indicated that it is neither required in Islam nor appropriate in progressive societies.
And women being murdered for refusing to wear it is not actually an argument in your favour.
I completely disagree… if it is illegal then it is no longer their “fault” that they can’t.
Kevin ain’t long for this blog, I can tell… call me psychic, I just feel it in my bones.
Kevin ain’t long for this blog, I can tell… call me psychic, I just feel it in my bones.
Please elaborate.
kevindorner #11:
Nope.
Banning veils is treating a visible symptom of abuse which isn’t even always a symptom of abuse. It does nothing to change the abuser’s attitude or to educate women on their rights and on where they can find help. It merely makes sure that all signs of abuse are hidden away from public view where we can ignore it.
See above.
Look, I’m all for the law requiring, and for it to be considered sensible to ask for, face-covering to be removed in certain circumstances. I’m expected to remove my (full-face) motorcycle helmet in places dealing with money. I couldn’t wear it in court, etc. However, and although it may look odd for me to do so, I can walk down the street in it without being asked to remove it. If I can do so, then so can a woman in a veil. Anything else is hypocrisy.
And I ask again in all seriousness, what other things would you ban on the grounds that they’ve been used in the commission of crimes?
Do you think anyone here would be against police being able to ask for veils to be lifted for identification purposes in such situations?
kevindorner:
When Muslim women refer to “the veil”, they frequently mean a headscarf which covers the hair, ears and throat, but not the face. This is particularly the case in Turkey, where that’s more common than a full-face covering.
Do you advocate arresting women for being veiled? Do you think this will help them?
Do you think anyone here would be against police being able to ask for veils to be lifted for identification purposes in such situations?
Not here of course… however in practice police officers have been found to be reluctant to do so because of fear of causing offense or violating religious rights. Again, once religion is involved, it seems to override secular law in many people’s minds.
As another example,again in Canada, a woman in an Ontario court refused to remove her niqab when testifying and the court had to rule on whether an accused had the right to face their accuser. As a further irony, the trial was for her being sexually assaulted, while wearing her niqab! (One of the arguments in favour of them is that women won’t be treated as sexual objects or sexually assaulted when wearing them of course.)
kevindorner @ #15
Please explain how banning niqabs/burqas (as France did) does anything to help these women. Do you think that a burqa/niqab ban will magically make people shed their sincerely held belief in the propriety of covering up women’s faces, turn around and say “huh, I guess you got a point there, never mind about the veils then”? Do you honestly think that being a law-abiding citizen will protect them against violence by their families and communities?
Here’s the rub: At its core, the banning of the veil is an expression of an “out of sight, out of mind” approach to policy. Banning niqabs/burqas effectively says “Please stop with the weird foreign stuff.” It doesn’t liberate anyone, it simply switches one normative prescription (“You MUST wear niqabs”) for another (“You MUST NOT wear niqabs”). Both statements assume the same amount of agency from women (i.e., zero) and are therefore profoundly antithetical to feminism.
And for the “BUT TEH MOOSLIM MASKS ARE USED FOR CRIMES ZOMG!” angle: base rates. Unless you can demonstrate that Muslim headgear is disproportionately used to hinder recognition when committing crimes, your claim falls flat. In other words, unless you can demonstrate that this is a real issue rather than merely isolated cases, the burden falls on you (as supporter of a legal ban) to demonstrate that the benefits of said ban would outweigh the infringement on individuals expression. As far as I can tell, people hiding behind burqas/niqabs to rob banks is a once-in-a-blue-moon type of event, much hyped because it agrees with the “scary brown invading horde” angle the media loves to push.
(And all that is ignoring the mountain of colonialist baggage on the assumption that Western garb is somehow better or more appropriate than non-Western garb)
[When Muslim women refer to “the veil”, they frequently mean a headscarf which covers the hair, ears and throat, but not the face. This is particularly the case in Turkey, where that’s more common than a full-face covering.
This is the hijab, not the niqab nor burqa. I only refer to the latter two.
Do you advocate arresting women for being veiled? Do you think this will help them?
I do not and it would not. However, it would provide a legal framework to stop their male relatives from forcing them to wear them. As well it would prevent their use in crime ie shoplifting (often by disguised men) as it would provide legal grounds for wearers to either be restricted from private property or required to identify themselves before entry. As an example, in France, women are not arrested for wearing them. However several police officers were assaulted by the husbands of women wearing them while speaking to them about it. How likely do you think it is, then, that the women were being forced to wear them against their will , possibly through threats or physical violence?
kevindorner #20:
And this is an example of the deference to religion which I am opposed to. The solution, though, is to remove that deference, not to ban people from wearing whatever the hell they want to wear.
And another example of same. Did you actually bother to read my motorcycle-helmet analogy?
And a-fucking-gain, for the third time, I ask you: what other things would you ban on the grounds that they’ve been used in the commission of crimes?
————————————————-
Point of etiquette. Could you please include the nym and/or (preferably “and”) comment-number of the person you’re replying to.
Also, when quoting someone:
<blockquote>Paste quoted words here</blockquote>
Produces:
kevindorner #22:
Contrast with:
Pick one, please.
Ze Madmax:
PZ
I grew up in one of these sects, and I think you are misunderstanding their rational for these fashion choices. It has nothing to do with ownership, and everything to do with holding plain simple things in high regard and avoiding things like materialism, false pride, and vanity. I’m not saying that they don’t also have some sexist overtones, but the rejection of makeup, fancy hair styles, and being overly concerned with appearance at the expense of substance applies equally to men and women. The women do cut their hair, but long is a practical style that anyone can trim themselves to keep the ends tidy. I have female relatives that I have never seen without their hair in a bun and others who give not one fig for religious ideas about hair or clothes. All of them would laugh if you told them that they were required to wear dresses or not cut their hair to be part of their church.
I suggest you do some research on actual progressive ideals, rather than singling out a piece of female coded clothing as a threat to feminism. A woman should have the right to wear or not wear a veil, depending on her own personal choices. It’s a little progressive notion I like to call freedom.
Kevindorner:
Oh my. :glances at many more posts by Kevindorner:
Have you heard of The First Law of Holes, Kevin? If not, I suggest you familiarize yourself. Women everywhere, religious or not, should be able to dress in whatever manner they see fit. Women should not be up for judgement for what they choose (or don’t choose) to wear. That’s quite simple, isn’t it?
Daz: Keeper of the Hairy-Eared Dwarf Lemur of Atheism
I tried to do a proper cite as you indicated but buggered it and included my text in the blockquote… heh.
I dunno… do they have other legitimate uses? Other than a tool to keep women as the anonymous chattel of men, to deprive them of their identity, their social life, normal human expression and interaction, what other use does the veil have other than to abet criminal behaviour?
This is a false dichotomy, as noted above: France banned the veil but does not arrest wearers.
Kevindorner @ 17:
SallyStrange:
Bigots don’t tend to last here. In case you haven’t noticed, people have been nice enough to use your nym when replying. Please return the courtesy.
@Tethys & Iyeska, flos mali: I would completely agree if the issue was so simple, but again, in so many cases, women are not choosing to wear veils. They are being forced to by their male relatives, and often being abused if they do not. I don’t understand how this is so often overlooked.
kevindorner
Explain how banning veils/niqab/burqa helps them.
Kevindorner @ 28:
I notice that you keep ignoring Moggie’s point (#19):
You’re also happily eliminating women from everything – do you care if wearing any style of veil is a woman’s choice? Or is it your contention that no woman ever chooses to do so? Because I can point you to plenty of women who have made that conscious choice.
I’d also like to know why you leapt immediately on women wearing a veil, rather than the larger point of the woman’s letter in the OP, that women everywhere should be able to wear what they like, without having the judgement of sexist attitudes and behaviour hanging like the sword of Damocles over their heads.
Again, the veil is not the problem, the forcing women into veils is the problem. The progressive issue is freedom, not clothing.
@Iyeska, flos mali
Well, then… I have nothing to worry about. I don’t hate anyone and support the rights of full equality under the law for all persons, and always have. My issue is with those who abuse the principles of a tolerant, inclusive, pluralistic society to oppress others.
kevindorner #28:
Kevindorner @ 30:
Many cases does not equal all.
It isn’t overlooked. Most people here aren’t so stupid as to think this is confined to any one religion, or even to those who are religious. There are many flavours of xianity which call for extremely modest dress, as well as extremely submissive behaviour; some flavours of Judaism call for a woman to keep her hair covered, and so on. If someone is busy looking, they can find plenty of examples of women being abused. Outside of religious belief, there are many men who hold deeply sexist views, and insist that their wife dresses and acts certain ways, and abuse is often a feature of those relationships.
That’s the thing – the deep roots of misogyny and the behaviour it engenders don’t vanish if you take religion away. And as we all grow up swimming in entrenched sexism and a patriarchal system, women buy into those same attitudes and behaviours as well. You have to take the red pill, so to speak, to wake up to all that. What people are trying to get across to you, is that you, from the outside, trying to ban a piece of clothing isn’t going to help. It won’t help women, it won’t change attitudes, it won’t change behaviour, and it would actually make things worse for some women. Work needs to be done, yes, but it’s much deeper and much harder to get to than forcing the removal of one piece of cloth.
Also, you have been shown how to quote people. Please use quotes:
<blockquote>Paste Text Here</blockquote>
Heh: and I go a fuck a blockquote up after giving blockquote advice. Ho-hum.
kevindorner @ 34:
:amused: Actually, you do.
kevindorner
Excellent! Please do not slag on women who wear veils because they choose to do so. Direct your ideals towards enlarging the rights of the oppressed. Clothing is not oppressing those women, men with guns and medieval religious beliefs are the actual things to be concerned about.
Kevindorner:
And you would force women to do without a veil. A keyword here is force. You might think you would be doing the right thing, but you would just be using women as a pawn, and force is force. Do you see how that’s not better, and how it’s not helpful?
Beatrice, an amateur cynic looking for a happy thought:
I did a few posts higher (perhaps while you were writing this.) I’ll copypasta:
It would provide a legal framework to stop their male relatives from forcing them to wear them. As an example, in France, women are not arrested for wearing them. However several police officers were assaulted by the husbands of women wearing them while speaking to them about it. How likely do you think it is, then, that the women were being forced to wear them against their will , possibly through threats or physical violence?
I’ll provide another example of a related issue, also from Ontario, which is analogous to how I view the veil issue:
In Ontario Islamic societies wanted to set up Sharia “courts” to resolve individual differences. They were blocked from doing so by the Ontario government by no less than the Premier. A superficial viewing of this would cause one to jump to the wrong conclusion, namely that they were restricting religious rights, being xenophobic, etc., etc. But this is completely wrong, Instead, it was done with the knowledge that these “courts” have been and would mislead vulnerable people, especially women who don’t speak English or French, into thinking that they had legal standing and needed to be obeyed.
This has taken far longer than I expected so I will reply to other posts later as am going out. I hope I have managed to explain my points with come clarity. (Also how come I can’t put blank lines between paragraphs? I tried the tag as well but it doesn’t work.)
kevindorner,
No, I read that. It wasn’t an explanation of how banning was helping these women.
The problem is the force, not the veil. Banning the veil just substitutes one forced choice for another, and doesn’t solve the problem.
If these women are required to use the veil to go out, and the veil is banned, they’re likely to just be locked inside the house. Freedom!
In which fictional universe did France ban the veil?
kevindorner #41:
A good job done, then; an actual cause of harm removed, and without banning items of clothing. I wish my own government would take the same stand. What does this have to do with telling citizens what they can and cannot wear?
laurentweppe
I believe that’s the same universe where they have freedom fries rather than french fries.
kevindorner:
Suppose, for a moment, there is a federal law banning women wearing a veil. A police officer walks down the street and sees a women wearing a veil. What do they do?
Iyeska has the nub of it. If a woman (person) wants to wear (x), anybody forcing her (him) not to wear (x) is an abuser. If any person (woman) doen’t want to wear (x), anyone forcing them to wear (x) is an abuser.
Crime? If I were a suicide bomber, the clothing I’d wear wouldn’t identify me as a threat. Quietly fashionable clothes, two big suitcases, into the underground at rush hour, accidentally leave one at the top of the escalator (with a failsafe trigger, radio linked to me), on to the middle of the platform, wait for a train to come in, bang. Two to five minutes later (depending on radio propagation) second bomb goes off, to greet survivors fleeing up the way out and security staff arriving.
@zmidponk #47:
Draw their weapon, probably.
Jacksprocket @48:
No need to go theoretical. You are describing exactly what the Tsaernev brothers did in the Boston Marathon bombing.
Been there, done that (as have many of us). Have a free grog/swill. It will help.
To be fair to Kevin, there are others who aren’t bigots or xenophobes who also advocate for banning the veil. Maryam Namazie is one:
One may disagree with that position, but it is a legitimate one for a progressive person to hold.
(Disclaimer: I’m not sure where I sit on the issue. I’m torn between the two—on the one hand, the ideal is to say everyone should be free to wear what they want, on the other, immediate harm is being done now—largely to women who *aren’t* free to choose. Namazie makes a good case to class the veil along with foot binding and chastity belts. I just don’t feel I’m in a position to ignore that voice and come down firm on the other side.)
Hum. I think footbinding is inherently different because a woman can, at any point, take off the veil; footbinding is a tad harder to reverse.
Not sure how I feel about chastity belts except that I associate them more with consensual kink, which may or may not be accurate.
More from Maryam (the full post here: http://freethoughtblogs.com/maryamnamazie/2007/03/21/whats-all-the-fuss-about-the-veil/ ):
I may not be entirely convinced, but her argument certainly gives me pause.
@43 vaiyt
Is there any known method that *does* solve the problem?
Personally, I think I would be in favour of blanket ban of clothing that obscures your identity – including balaclavas and motorcycle helmets (except when in traffic or on ski-slopes) coupled with requiring police/military to always have visible identifiers. Its unclear to me what would be better for this demographic though, in the long run. The current generation of slaves might simply be locked indoors, but the inconvenience of not being able to send them on errands might cause pragmatism to defeat tradition in some cases.
I disagree with Maryam about plenty of things, this is just one of them. I note that she denies the existence of racialized hatred of Islam, aka Islamophobia, in service of her argument. *shrug* When you have to pretend that bigotry doesn’t exist to make your case, you don’t have a very good case.
The end point is bodily autonomy. A little-understood and little-codified essential human right, in part because women are the ones who have to fight for it so much of the time. Husbands forcing women to wear veils: oppression. States forcing women not to wear veils: also oppression. Not actually super complicated when you drill down into it. Some things are better addressed by changing cultural attitudes rather than laws. This is one of them.
SallyStrange:
Agreed.
@53 NightShadeQueen, resident nutcase
They can’t get all the years back where they were prevented from normal human social interactions in the society around them, making it harder still to cast off the veil and escape when their social network is basically limited to their oppressors and other victims. Also, where in the flying fuck did you even get the idea that these women are “free to take off the veil”?
And, yes, I do think Kevin is a bigot with a bigoted hobby horse to ride because this thread was about women IN GENERAL being able to wear whatever the fuck they want, and he made it all about one particular type of woman who he wants us to believe it might be okay to pass laws making it so they canNOT wear whatever the fuck they want. That is some sexist racist bullshit.
NightShadeQueen (#53)
It’s not as easy as just taking off the garment. Assuming you’re a woman, would you feel comfortable going around with your tits out in an area where you were legally allowed to be undressed from the waist up but where most of your female peers stayed covered and many of your male peers would retaliate with harassment?
It was a reversible vs irreversible thing; I did not indeed argue that a woman was free to take off the veil, I was saying it was physically possible.
I was also directing my comment at #52 mostly:
@zmidponk, #47:
Exactly! Holy shit! I mean, what if, under the veil, that person is white?!?
SallyStrange:
It was supposed to be about women IN GENERAL, but thanks to Kevin (and a couple of others), it’s now about one particular type of woman in one type of religion. So, the larger topic about systemic sexism is once again disappeared. Thanks, guys!
I have to go with SallyStrange and Iyeska on this one. When the problem is ‘these people are forcing women to dress a certain way’, the correct answer is not ‘and therefore we should compel women to dress in a different way.’ There is no way in which this argument makes sense, because it doesn’t actually change the problem, which is that some segments of society feel they have the right to police what women wear.
Suppose, for a moment, there is a federal law banning women wearing a veil. A police officer walks down the street and sees a women wearing a veil. What do they do?
I gotta call foul on this one. Cops walk?
Although I agree that the many of the reasons proffered for veiling can be considered oppression, banning clothing is simply not an effective means of empowering the oppressed.
People have the right to wear clothing or jewelry that is also a religious symbol in public and at work. This does not give them the right to proselytyze, or ignore their job. This is a good argument for secular government, or opposing any form of religious influence within government, but it has not convinced me that banning the symbol of oppression is better than banning the oppression itself.
kevindorner @11:
So your answer to people might wear a burqa during the commission of a crime is to prevent people from wearing the burqa? The problem is not the clothing. The person wearing the clothing is the problem.
Also, you’re treading all over women’s rights here. Feminism is, in part, about empowering women to make their own choices, not telling them you can wear what you want as long as I approve. If you’re going to advocate for women’s rights, it’s not your place to tell a woman what she can or cannot wear. And it doesn’t matter if you personally like or don’t like her attire.
Daz @8:
Guns…
ekwhite:
And that shows that no one should ‘nt be allowed to wear nothing at all.
Tony! The Queer Shoop #68:
Stock-exchanges.
kevindorner @34:
That’s great n all, but we all have biases and prejudices. It’s a part of living in a society. I don’t know where you live, but I doubt you’ve grown up immune to sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia and other social ills that are embedded in societies across the globe.
You (general you) can support equality, but still have some unexamined biases that color your views of others. For example, someone can be an anti-racist, but still think that black people are prone to violence, or that they aren’t as smart as white people. You can support LGBT equality in broad strokes, but still be that person who says “two guys/women kissing is disgusting”. You can support equality for women, but still call grown women girls. These (and more) are social signals that are all around us. They’ve become so normalized that you don’t think about them, and how they impact others until you take a good hard look at your biases and prejudices with an eye to analyzing them and ridding yourself of them, one by one. This is an ongoing process with no end date…no point at which you can say “I’m triumphant! Go me!” Looking at yourself and realizing “Oh my goodness, I have some sexist/transphobic/homophobic/racist opinions” ain’t easy. I say this from personal experience. But it’s what we all should do. I’d be a horrible advocate for others to improve their own behavior if I’m not willing to check my own damn self.
SallyStrange @56:
Yeah, the fact that she denies Islamophobia hurts her case, IMO. I look at Sam Harris’ defense of profiling at airports and it’s plain to see the Islamophobia.
Your comments about bodily autonomy are spot on. How can one advocate for a woman’s right to bodily autonomy, but then turn around and say “in this one case, bodily autonomy is trumped”?
Islamophobia doesn’t even qualifies as hatred of Islam: it’s nothing more than the willingness, the desire even, to disenfranchise and forcefully keep immigrants at the bottom of the social ladder that hides behind anti-religion jargon: the Islamophobes’ discourse would be exactly the same even if the Quran had been filled with puppies and rainbows and contained the guidelines to build an actual perpetual motion machine.
@72 Tony! The Queer Shop || SallyStrange @56
I don’t understand exactly how this is an issue concerning bodily autonomy, please explain unless inconvenienced.
Secondly, it seems to me that it is not in evidence (given the quotation) that she denies the existence of racism that targets muslims. To the best of my limited understanding – she denies that criticising ideas and religious or cultural practices is in and of itself racist.
Who the fuck other than the woman says how she should dress…..
Easy peasy, of you think about it for all of five seconds.
erik333 @74:
What is bodily autonomy? The right of the individual to decide what to do with and have done to their body*. That includes what to wear. If someone is dictating what a woman can or cannot wear, they are attempting to restrict the right to bodily autonomy.
Perhaps you’re confused bc bodily autonomy is so often discussed hand in hand with abortion rights (as it should), but that’s not the be-all, end-all of bodily autonomy.
*other rights, such as the right to self-defense, the right to self-expression, and the right to freedom of movement are tied to (or spring from) the right to bodily autonomy as well. If it helps, think about how slaves are treated as lacking bodily autonomy.
In fact, if prescribing what people can and can’t wear is progressive now, then surely dress codes that keep trans folk safely hidden from sight must be too, right?
I mean, we’re oppressed because of how we look, so obviously this paternalistic feminism must say that we should be kept in our assigned at birth roles. For our own good, of course, because it will keep us from being attacked by transphobes, right?
So compassion!
Much progress!
Conforming very!
erik333:
Also this:
Is exactly what is said by people who deny Islamophobia. They say that since Islam is a religion or an ideology, that you cannot be racist against it. To say that though, is to deny that there is a huge racial component to Islamophobia. Just look at any of the rabid right wingers and which ethnic group they’re talking about when they rant about Islam. They don’t recognize that white people can be Muslims. They’re talking about people who belong to a specific ethnic group (or race, in their words), in a specific region of the world. Just like Sam Harris does when he says you can profile Muslims by looking at them (bc all Muslims look alike, dotchaknow).
And note-I’m not saying you cannot criticize Islam. You can. And should. I’m just saying you have to make sure you’re accurate in your criticisms.
CaitieCat @77:
It’s victim blaming all the way down…
@75 Nerd of Redhead, Dances OM Trolls
Society as a whole decides what behaviour is acceptable within same society. You can argue what sensible standards may be of course, like not being allowed to walk down the street with your dick hanging out or so.
@80,Erik: are you seriously arguing FOR the tyranny of the majority? Is this another of these ‘new’ progressive values, like that other buttface above was arguing for?
@76 Tony! The Queer Shoop
Thank you! Yes, I’ve only ever encountered it in the context of rape or abortion previously – and that seemed to be the only hits I was getting off google as well.
To me, “society as a whole decides what behaviour is acceptable” is the single most coherent way to describe the stock conservative outlook, isn’t it? That’s the standard which has been used to oppress every minority ever.
@81 CaitieCat, getaway driver
Only so long as it’s not tyrannical. Ultimately, society always decides what rights you have – it could be no other way.
@83 CaitieCat, getaway driver
It would be, if i was advocating not ever changing the rules.
“It’s not as easy as just taking off the garment. Assuming you’re a woman, would you feel comfortable going around with your tits out in an area where you were legally allowed to be undressed from the waist up but where most of your female peers stayed covered and many of your male peers would retaliate with harassment?”
i like this because it shows how hypocritical the whole ban-the-veils side of the argument is. since the majority of women in western countries indeed *would* find it humiliating and distressing, and often even emotionally traumatic, to have their breasts bared in public, then following these people’s own logic, to “free” them these unfair and unjust cultural restrictions imposed upon western women, we should ban western women from wearing shirts and legally oblige them all to go topless in public until they come to understand how superior it is to know that there is nothing shameful about a woman’s upper body and choose to do it of their own free will. nobody would ever even consider humiliating and embarrassing white women in such a way in the name of “feminism,” of course, but humiliating brown women for the sake of “progress”, that’s totally okay.
I find the headline quite misleading because this is clearly Melis Alphan’s perspective and definitely not the Turkish perspective. Anyhow, what’s a Turkish perspective supposed to be? The average of the total Turkish population?A government doctrine?
LOL, Ive just watched a bunch of Americans explain why an Iranian woman is wrong wrong wrong about her lived experience.
Is this a fox news comment thread?
danny butts
a finely nuanced observation there, not.
lol.
Is Danny talking about Maryam?
To the contrary, nobody has contested her lived experiences. I just disagree with her on policy regarding making wearing a veil illegal. IIRC, she is also strongly against legalizing sex work, another area where I find myself in disagreement with her.
Was there a point?
As to laurentweppe, #73: I agree, actually, what I should have said is “racialized hatred of those perceived to be Muslims,” not “racialized hatred of Islam,” since there are rarely nuanced critiques of Islamic thought/ideology coming from those quarters, whereas mistaking various non-Muslim people, such as Sikhs, for Muslims, and targeting them for harassment as a result.
PZ has a tendency towards essentialism when talking about other countries, particularly, it seems, countries full of brown, mostly Muslim people. I remember criticizing him hard for failing to make such distinctions with regards to the people of Pakistan.
Banning the veil will not fix the problem. Men in those societies will have to change. That will fix the problem. In fact, if you ban the veil in an environment where men believe they own women and abuse them with or without the veil, what makes you think they’ll stop because the government imposed a ban on the veil (just one form of abuse). They’ll just find other ways (probably worse ways) to oppress them.
Sallystrange @ 90
Sallystrange @56
I’m guessing here but I am going to assume that Maryam has more lived experience of hatred directed at her because of her origins than you.
and Its not just Maryam, I’ve read Hiba krisht blog here and her first post was probably the most moving single entry on this whole network.
Now what was that about “shutting up and listening”?
Is it NOT possible to make the law say, “veils can NOT be required to be worn. NO ONE may FORCE another to wear a veil. Veils MAY be worn iff {if and only if} chosen freely to be worn by the wearer, oneself.”
That is, do NOT ban the veil itself; simply abolish the requirements to wear the veil. So, for this “cop” hypothetical, in my proposal; the cop will see the woman’s veil, he’ll nod at her and ask her, “nice veil, did you choose to wear that veil yourself, or were you forced to wear it?” Even as I tried to make that cop sound polite, it still sounds very intrusive to me. I suppose, the cop should just walk by, silently, but very willing to help if the woman approaches and asks, “My husband made me wear this veil, everywhere, why oh why?”
To corroborate many previous commentors here, the law must address “the forces applied”, not the clothings themselves. EG we don’t ban carrying more than $20 (eg) to prevent muggings, we forbid the mugging itself, and keep it a crime even if the mugger absconds with $0.
.
Like, nude beaches _allow_ topless bathing, they don’t _require_ toplessness. They just forbid gawking at the ones who chose to go topless. [or so I imagine|sorry, not a nude beach frequenter]
No doubt, but I’m not denying that she has experienced anything. I’m simply noting the evidence of my own eyes and observations: there are plenty of Americans and other Western white people who think they hate “Muslims” but really hate brown people who fit a stereotype they have in their head about Muslims. Also that these same people often try to pretend that they’re merely being critical instead of being bigoted. I’m thinking of the type of people–Pamela Geller, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity–who threw shit fits about the “Mosque at Ground Zero,” which was technically a community center with a mosque contained within it, several blocks from ground zero. You think Maryam is correct to characterize those people as merely “criticizing ideas” rather than expressing xenophobic, racist bigotry? Go ahead, I’ll hear you out.
I agree, it was really good.
What about it, indeed. I haven’t seen Hiba speak specifically on the question of Islamophobia by name, but I do note that that post which you say affected you so much repeatedly referenced discrimination she faces as a brown woman who is coded as foreign/Muslim–which is exactly the sort of bigotry I was referring to.
I get the sense that you were told once to shut up and listen and have been angry about it ever since.
Listening is not the same as agreeing.
Also, I’m not American.
See: Sam “Let’s racially profile people who look like Muslims” Harris.
But vaiyt, it’s okay–Sam Harris thinks Sam Harris looks like a Muslim, and he’s okay with having his travel plans disrupted simply because of the color of his skin and his manner of dress.
I mean, I admit that I don’t really understand how that makes prejudice okay, or how that will magically transform racial profiling from a thing that mostly makes the lives of non-white people harder into a thing that actually prevents terrorist attacks. But it’s supposed to count for something. Just like the women on Fox News who feel sad when they don’t get catcalled. It makes street harassment okay, somehow.
SallyStarnge @95
Oh yes sorry my mistake, I forgot “the west” is America and everything that pertains to America also pertains to the west.
I haven’t seen Hiba speak specifically on the question of Islamophobia by name
really?
http://aveilandadarkplace.com/2014/04/16/the-racism-of-the-white-wolf-who-cried-islamophobia/
And I was wrong about “Hibi’s first post”, I discovered her through Kaveh’s blog (sad he’s leaving)
http://freethoughtblogs.com/marginoferr/2014/02/28/must-read-article-what-it-is-like-to-grow-up-in-hezbollah-culture/
Oh, and Kaveh has some great blog posts on why ex muslims find it unhelpful for westerners to yell “islamophobia” at critics of Islam if you can be bothered to read them.
not really, but I get the feeling you’ve been accused of Ad hom poisoning of the well.
Mmm… it doesn’t really. I am American, though, so, if I’m to be talking about my experiences and observations, then I’ll be talking about that. Mostly.
Yep, really. I hadn’t heard of her until a few months ago. Just before she moved to FTB.
Yup, he sure does. And yes, I have read some of them, though not all.
It’d be great if you’d let me know which parts of the many excellent pieces you link render the phenomenon I described above–prejudice against people perceived as Muslim on account of their skin color & sometimes their clothing choice–into “criticizing ideas” instead of xenophobic, racist bigotry, aka Islamophobia. Because I’m not seeing it. FYI, I’m not particularly married to the label–I’m receptive to the argument that we should find a better word for the phenomenon. But I am convinced it is a real phenomenon, and that if Maryam thinks it doesn’t exist, she’s wrong and it weakens her arguments when she uses its nonexistence as a premise for her arguments.
With high school starting up again for the year, I’ve been seeing so many articles talking about dress codes, (nearly always female) students getting into trouble for wearing clothing that is “too revealing”, and thousands of commenters supporting dress codes. Such students are probably not going to be assaulted by a vigilante militia intent on enforcing religious dress codes or disowned by their families in most cases, but policing how women dress indeed remains a popular obsession.
Sallystrange @100
Ah , I see the problem you’re having.
You are seeing racism and conflating it with the political term “islamophobia” which a load of ex muslims keep telling you not to do because it is not helpful for them or other liberal muslims.
You’re doing this because…
I don’t see that I’m having any sort of problems. You know, aside from the usual: being able to pay rent, wanting a longer weekend, etc. Thanks for your concern, though, Danny.
No, you haven’t. You’ve seen people disagreeing with an Iranian woman, and misrepresented it.
Just as you misrepresent Hiba Krisht. Heere’s a quote from the very article you link to:
Here’s a longer one, from this post
She prefers the term “anti-Muslim bigotry” to “Islamophobia”, but she’s absolutely clear that it is a real phenomenon. Why are you “denying her lived experience”?
Which is exactly why I already pointed out that I’m open to using a different word. Anti-Muslim bigotry is a term I’ve used in the past. I should probably get used to using it more and banish “Islamophobia” from my vocabulary, if only to avoid pointless little dances like the one we’re doing with Danny here.
See? Listening. Which required shutting up. (Metaphorically.) But doesn’t preclude speaking, after having shut up and listened, and taken into account the views of people with a different background from myself.
This conversation is demonstrating the value of shutting up and listening.
I might do the same, although I think there’s one part of the phenomenon which “Islamophobia” captures better: the common delusion/pretence that “Islam” is a unified entity in the same way as a state or corporation, which can pursue specific aims and policies. But it’s probably worth trying, if only for the amusement of seeing what dodge the anti-Muslim bigots come up with to deny the existence of the phenomenon!
SallyStrange @105:
You’re not the only one who found value in doing that in this conversation (points to self). I read the Wikipedia page on Islamophobia, which notes that the use of the word is controversial:
I don’t agree with all seven points (sever mental illness?), but I do agree the term is problematic. Islamophobia appears to be too imprecise a term.
I’ve been using anti-Muslim bigotry in place of Islamophobia here and there. I think it’s time to replace it completely.
It’s a difficult term because it gets used by the Muslims in countries like the U.S. as a way to silence legitimate criticism of Islam. And that’s very harmful, because ex-Muslims, particularly young ones, here don’t have it easy at all. It’s a weird nested punching down effect. Right-wing bigot politicians and media discriminate against Muslims in general and the Muslim societies oppress the ex-Muslims among them. To label someone like Peter King and someone like me with the same term is beyond unfair and hijacks a real conversation by trying to make it look like the punching down/punching up dynamic is the other way around. Because of it having such negative connotations, it also silences legitimate concerns and provides cover for things like arranged marriage and oppression of women (the least addressed of which is probably gender segregation in mosques). To me Islamophobia feel like being called a man-hater does to a female feminist. Or like the term war on Christianity to an atheist who used to be Christian.
Anti-Muslim bigotry is a much better (not to mention simply more accurate) term.
Saad @ 109:
Thank you very much for your perspective.
I will be sure to use that term from now on.
Yeah, me too–pardon my curiosity, Saad, but are you also an ex-Muslim? I’ve seen you around but I guess I missed any introductions you have made.
I am an ex-Muslim: openly in front of some people, in the closet otherwise*. I don’t think I made an actual introduction. I looked at the Introductions thread when I joined, but there was no option to make a post, so I thought it was an old inactive thread.
* Yes, I realize it is a form of cowardice. The consequences are too severe for someone who is very close to his parents, especially his mother and doesn’t want that to change. Luckily I’m independent and not a woman so the threat of being physically harmed or extorted back into the faith isn’t likely, but they will treat me like shit. I’ve seen it happen to another close relative.
Thanks for indulging my curiosity. And hi! I’ve been enjoying your posts.
Saad @109:
Thank you for your perspective.
I do not think this is cowardice in the slightest. You are the best judge of your circumstances and the costs/benefits of being out. The reasons you have for not being out are completely justified. Not everyone is willing to pay the costs associated with being out (and this applies to anything one could be “out” on).
This is something I’ve wondered about before. I think it can be courageous to come out of the closet, but I don’t think it’s necessarily cowardly not to.
Totally agree with everything Tony says at #114.
I agree with Tony @ 114 too. Saad, I don’t think you’re cowardly in any way.
Ditto for me, Saad. There’s nothing cowardly about assessing your situation and deciding that the rewards of doing X don’t outweigh the risks.
it couldn’t possibly be courageous if not doing it was cowardly. Doing the minimum possible to not be cowardly is not the same as being courageous. Giving credit for bravery/courage where it is due requires us to limit charges of cowardice to where *those* are due.
Does that help, Saad?
Nthing Tony! et al.
CD @118:
I’ve sent you an email (two actually).