@Mr.Gawn: Actually, if you read the linked article the woman is shown with Barbies in many different forms of dress, including traditional dress from tons of countries, and she also mentions having created a Barbie that was in a wheelchair. I think it's kind of cool to try and make Barbie cross all lines and be many different women.
@Mr.Gawn: Ah, I see. Well, that's true. More shapes and sizes would be better, but unless she cast new bodies for all of them, that won't happen, sadly.
"A non-Muslim dressing a non-Muslim doll in a burka trivializes it and reduces it to a costume as surely as Barbie's Mackies and bikinis and doctors' coats."
Hmm, now this is actually the justification that I've heard by Muslimahs and apologists, that it's just like any other garment(which I disagree with as it is uniquely restrictive and effacing)
A non-Muslim dressing a non-Muslim doll in a burka trivializes it and reduces it to a costume as surely as Barbie's Mackies and bikinis and doctors' coats.
Really? What makes the doll absolutely non-Muslim? Its coloring? Should we be launching a campaign against American Girl for selling Christmas and Hanukkah doll outfits independently of the dolls?
Sadie - Re: the burka being lime green and vermilion
you'd be surprised by the manner of burkas one see's women wearing in europe and the middle east. everything from Fendi logos to gold embroidery head to toe and diamong and crystal studded ones for special occasions - the bright colors are not uncommon, especially at weddings etc!
@rd2uk: Sky blue seems to be the color of choice in Afghanistan. I'd be interested to know if other countries have a majority of burkas or other Islamic coverings in one particular color.
Hmm. Would you, or any of us, have hesitated to comment if the style of dress was not Muslim, but ultra-conservative Christian. Or perhaps the FLDS women with their elaborate pompadours & prairie dresses?
@labeled: I think the religious tenant of "modesty," in whatever form, is an unhealthy way to look at morality. It's not a choice in the same way what I'm wearing today (just a tee shirt and jeans) is a choice. I'm wearing this because it's comfortable and I think it looks nice and cultural norms. A woman who wears modest religious clothing may also make those distinctions, but additionally she's wearing her outfit as part of a religious practice rooted in the idea that there is inherently something sexual (and therefore wrong) about the female body.
Which isn't to say that I think this Barbie was a bad idea, or that women shouldn't be allowed to wear the burqa. Women should be allowed to make their own choices, especially about something as personal as how they dress. But we shouldn't ignore that this style of dress is, in fact, rooted in a patriarchal mindset.
@eatsshootsleaves: I agree. I have, though, become increasingly interested in how we (we as in a largely liberal group) tend to give all things Muslim/Islam a pass, while at the same time, openly denigrate those who practice Christianity.
@eatsshootsleaves: What about a religion such as Amish where both the men and women have a very identifiable and "modest" form of dress?
Also, I think it would be very hard to find a form or style of dress that ISN'T rooted in some kind of patriarchal mindset. How much of the fashion in the US is rooted in that and "looking good" to attract men?
@Red-headed bookworm: I must say that I agree. I grew up in a small sect of Protestantism that did not allow women to wear pants or skirts above their ankles or cut their hair. Men were expected to dress plainly as well and some churches had similar restrictions such as no facial hair or short sleeves. The people in this sect felt very strongly about their dress and would get special permission to wear dresses at work or the pool (oh yeah, the pool). I even remember sermons that advocated for women to quit their jobs if they were not allowed to wear their traditional clothing.
Though I do not practice this dress code now (my family moved to another state when I was starting middle school and there were no such churches in that area), I don't feel that there was anything wrong with the code itself. I've always viewed this dress as what I was always told: that it wasn't as much an attempt to cover up my body as it was a symbol of my faith to people outside and inside of the church.
I think that by simply stigmatizing the burka we are, in fact, looking at it very one-dimensionally and making the women who wear them out to be weak and almost infantile in that they don't really understand what their clothes mean and that they need us, women from the West, to tell them how to dress. Their clothes mean something very different to them than they do us in the same way that I have very different feelings about my traditional clothes than women I describe them to. The issue isn't the burka. It's violence against women. If a woman is forced to do something on threat of violence or death, be is wearing a burka or sexy clothing, that's the problem. The abusive society behind the clothes are the problem, not the clothes themselves because how we dress our bodies mean wildly different things to different, thinking women.
Some of us like to dress in order to show our skin to make a point (that our bodies are natural and beautiful) and some of us like to dress in order to cover our skin to make an equally valid point (that our bodies are devoted to our God and thus clothed in a certain garb). Neither is better than the other.
@countrycomesup: I grew up with a friend who was Pentecostal and had similar rules regarding dress. I also grew up with Muslims who decided to wear a hijab when they got older. I never thought these things were out of the ordinary, just a different way to dress.
I agree that the society behind clothes is more of a problem than the clothing itself. If we stigmatize clothes based on the society they are prevalent in, we'd have nothing to wear. :) I think, for those in the US, it's harder to understand the reasons behind a culture that would wear something such as a burqa, just because it is so different than what you are accustomed to here. You said it well, neither is better than the other.
Women are forced to wear the burka or risk being murdered.
What a silly generalization. The burka is used as a tool to control and harm women by a psychotic few under the convenient guise of religion and modesty. It is one of many methods used by zealots who will inflict violence whether the burka is there or not. Stigmatizing the burka does not in any way help those who are forced to wear it and it actively harms those who choose to wear it. Making it a 'symbol of violence' is unfair and foolish.
I find it disturbing that the West is so concerned with the goings-on in the Muslim community.
And funny that most do not realize that the incessant spot-light on the lives of these women is doing more harm than good.
Most of the muslim women I know ( and I know quite a few) consider covering their bodies to be their religious duty. Even those who wear burqas, they wear it by choice. It's as though the West has taken one maybe two stories of abuse (in the attempt to go into Afghanistan and 'liberate' the people, no doubt) and turned it into a crisis.
Honestly, do you not understand that to argue against the wearing of the burqa is in the same vein as the assumption that these women are forced to wear it?
I have yet to see it entertained that these women do it by choice and in making that statement, they are also showing how much of a feminist they are.
Irony: that this article is on the same page as an article that ponders how women are dealing with aging and how often they think about it. I wonder how many times these women who chose to wear the burqa have to worry about aging, what it will do to their marriage prospects and if they will receive the same attention from men as they used to.
Which women are the most liberated in this situation? Those who spend endless amounts of time wondering how a NATURAL AND INEVITABLE process such as aging will negatively impact their lives? or the women who excel in their culture based upon the strength of their character as they cannot be judged based upon their appearance? Who are the real victims here?
@Habibiti: Indeed. It's shocking that the women who patronise this site do not understand that IF these women chose to wear the burqa (and the Hijab) then they are far more liberated than we who live in the West could ever hope to be.
In writing the article found on this page about aging, very few of the women in that thread entertain how liberating it would be if we didn't have to worry about such things. If the opinions of the world regarding our aging were of absolutely no consequence to us. How much our appearance actually dictates our success in life and how we are the slaves.
Nor do you ever see articles supporting the suggestion that women should go makeup free. It's as if we have become accustomed to the fact that we will be judged by men based upon how much they want to fuck us and judged by women based upon how well-groomed we are.
It's ridiculous, the double standard that these women are inadvertently applying here.
@AtelierCeleste: I think your aging argument is a dangerous one. Women should worry less about aging because aging should be less stigmatized--not because people should be unable to SEE them.
@AtelierCeleste: Well, I didn't mean that they are "more" or "less" liberated. I just meant that the liberation itself exists in their ability to choose/not choose to wear whatever article of clothing they want, for whatever justification they have. And although some women may be forced to wear a hijab (or a mini skirt, or a Little House on the Prarie Dress), many women still regard donning it as a matter of pride and self-respect. I'm sure that many women who wear the hijab still suffer body image issues, for we have seen that body dysmorphia/discontentment often has nothing to do with what a person looks like. I just don't see how there can be a blanket judgment of the hijab as a "symbol" of violence against women. To use it as such is disrespectful, divisive, and ignorant.
So, let Barbie wear the burqua and let Muslim women choose whether or not to buy it!
I'm arguing that instead of the preoccupation we have with the fact that these women have adopted a full body covering (women who probably chose to hide themselves in accordance with their religious doctrine or out of general safety), we should be worrying about why our society places so much emphasis on our physical attributes (or lack thereof) and what we can do to change this.
What is wrong with people being unable to see your face if you find it to be outside the dictates of your religion? How does the appearance of my face impact my ability to do a job or excel at my career? And why must these women conform to our ideas when they are in a better position to make the case for feminism than any woman who gets out of her bed in the morning and gets tarted up to go to work?
@Habibiti: But to a lot of people, the beliefs behind the tradition of the burqa (even when proudly and voluntarily worn) seem sexist. I don't view them as inherent symbols of violence, but I do view them as representative of a cultural and religious belief that there's something wrong with women's bodies and sexuality.
@AtelierCeleste: What is your evidence that they are necessarily far more liberated? Because their bodies aren't being judged? Are women who reveal their bodies thus un-liberated? And aren't their plenty of non-Muslism women, in America and elsewhere, who where non-revealing clothing?
Also, what are we talking about when we talk about women who choose to wear these garments? Many women are doing it willingly, but they have also been brought up in a culture that attaches positive value to wearing them. Isn't that like praising me, a born-and-bred New York non-Muslim, for NOT wearing a burqa? No one's forcing me to wear jeans instead, but to say I CHOOSE not to wear a burqa is highly misleading.
My problem with this article and others like it is that the language almost always implies that the women who wear the burka are forced to do so. Particularly with the debate in France, which deems that the burqa is a symbol of oppression.
And like you, I'm wondering, if this garment is considered oppressive, then what is less oppressive for these women? Would we be more accepting of these women if they walked around in minis and tees? If this barbie was dress in a bikini, would this be an article?
And yes, in my personal opinion, women who are not constrained by society by their personal appearance are far more liberated than those of us who have to constantly worry about our appearance.
Have you ever wanted a job and thought to yourself, there's no way I can have that job because I don't have a certain look? Or for African American women, how often have we had to concern ourselves with our hair in the workplace? Like as not, women who live in societies where covering is the norm are NOT subjected to these types of inner-debates (that is not to say that they don't have body issues, but rather when they interview for jobs, they don't think to themselves that they will be disqualified because they're not blonde and blue-eyed or because they might be considered too militant because they're sporting an afro).
@AtelierCeleste: One could indeed argue about who's the more liberated - the woman wearing a burqa or the one wearing a miniskirt (and makeup, and a string, and brazilianized private parts, and botox, and various anti-age-products... much like Barbie). We're sooo quick to assume that they're oppressed, while we're just making a choice. And that choice is 100% our own choice, it's sooo totally not like we're subjected to peer pressure, or certain beauty standards or expectations that we're indoctrinated with beyond our comprehension...
(Insert something suitable here about capitalism or patriarchy or other evÃl institution if you like....)
With you so far. But....
...my point would be that so far we've *only* talked about *women*.
The day that men start wearing the burqa covering hair, face and body considering it their religious duty? The day men argue that it makes them feel strong and liberated, enjoying the freedom in being "judged by the strength of their characted and not by their appearance"? The day the men in my surroundings start to cover their entire bodies for fear that I would see them as objects and sexual creatures only (and despise them for it)?
Then we might have gotten somewhere.....
Or not.
Well, at least we wouldn't have double standards.
@AtelierCeleste: I think the African-American hair example is a really good one. So, by your model of liberation, wouldn't the most liberated African-American women cover their hair, or shave it? To me that's less about being liberated, and more about going unnoticed in the prison.
@AtelierCeleste: We can argue about both. The whole "why talk about THAT when THIS is going on" argument has long been used to dismiss feminist debate, and it's a total fallacy. People can and do care about more than one issue. I think most third-wave feminists believe that society should demand neither constant sexual purity/modesty nor constant sexual availability from its women. (Or from its men, while we're at it.)
@Susan B.: Though I see your point, I think it becomes cyclical. It's true that we are all subject to a certain amount of indoctrination in our cultures. But even given that, it still doesn't speak to whether or not going against one's culture makes us "more" or "less" free. I can't say someone wearing the burqa hasn't chosen to, just as she couldn't tell me that I haven't chose to wear jeans today.
Though the burqa *has* become representative of the belief that there is something wrong with women's sexuality, it shouldn't be. And maybe putting Barbie in a burqa will help show girls that it is a choice that some people can make, just as they can choose to put Barbie in a string bikini. At the end of the day, it isn't which one you wear that damages women. It is the attitude of judgment surrounding the choice.
@Habibiti: Well, AtelierCeleste, to whom I was responding, had said that women who choose the burqa are the "most liberated." I was responding to that notion; I do not myself think we can rank liberatedness(?) so easily, and I wanted to deconstruct that concept a bit.
@littlegreenalien: I'm with you until you get to the bit about men covering their assets. What would those be? women have breasts and ass and necks and arms. We have allowed men to turn every bit of our bodies into an object of sexual arousal. And newsflash, we have allowed them to do so by playing up these attributes in our everyday lives.
What would happen tomorrow if we refused to go without makeup the world over?
I don't think a bit of business would be done......
@AtelierCeleste: Really, I find it a bit Imperialistic for Americans to judge those who wear burqas or hijabs. If it is that woman's choice, it's her choice. You don't have to agree with it but critcizing her for it or trying to force her to not wear it is just as bad as forcing her to wear it. It takes away her ability to make the choice on her own. Trying to force one's own beliefs on someoneor mold them to your culture is a bit egotistical. Instead, take time to try and understand WHY that person has those beliefs.
@AtelierCeleste: Oh, men have asses and legs, and tummies, and uh, things I shouldn't mention beneath, and chests, and arms and hands and necks and actually a number of other interesting body parts, and if you're lucky, a brain.
Is the solution to sexualize and objectify men right back? Pinch those tight asses? Make derogatory comments about aging men (30), their weight, their hair, their wrinkles, their lack of exercise resulting in beer bellies and double chins? Comparing the size of 'packages' of your male co-workers and discussing your views openly in the lunch room?
(Not so sure, but it could be fun.)
Should men feel really bad about their own bodies instantaneously when, for instance, the David Beckham underwear ads air? Should we encourage them to? (Hell yes. The Eva Mendes underwear campaign just aired in our country. I feel like getting even.)
I don't know about you, but I have gone makeup-free for my almost 44years (minus 2 weeks of experimentation when I was 13), and that goes for miniskirts, strings, and the brazilian as well. I've never considered this to be brave or revolutionary or a statement of any kind. Should I have?
(But I'm Scandinavian, and we're from a different planet. We don't have cheerleaders and prom queens and child beauty pageants either.)
@Susan B.: Yes! Thank you. We'd also have an easier time with child care if only men could have several wives. And we wouldn't need IVF if we all got pregnant in our teens and early 20s.
As it has been said on Jez before, many millions of muslim women wear the burka by their own choice. They are not forced to do so. I think its quite an orientalist approach to assume that all women who choose to wear their religious dress are being forced to do so by men.
In my opinion, it reeks of orientalism to paint all muslim women who wear the burka, as being subjects of oppression and extremism.
When did every practice that is different from our own become evil and reviled?
This is not to say that women arent forced to wear the burka, but that many millions choose to by their own accord, and I dont think its fair to discount their religious beliefs/practices for daring to be different from our own.
@rd2uk: @blazedom: Right. And there are plenty of places where wearing one can put women at risk of violence or death.
I have a friend who—in uber-liberal Cambridge, MA, in Harvard Square—was attacked and had her coat, shirt, and headscarf ripped off of her by a mob of anti-Muslim ignorants shortly after Spetmber 11.
Feminism to me means that women should wear whatever the hell they feel like, be it a burka or a four-inch-long miniskirt, and not feel threatened, intimidated, or endangered walking down a street.
@rd2uk: I can only speak for myself, but I think the very fact that women are forced to cover up in more fundamentalist regimes is precisely what makes it so hard for me to understand why a woman living in more secular society would choose to cover up. But, you know, each to her own. I find it just as hard to understand why any woman would choose to have octuplets, or cartoon-size breast implants, or wear a g-string, so…
@betty.black: I agree with you 100%. No one should have to pander to our expectations of right and wrong. I don't know how we can expect millions of women around the world to give up their cultural and religious practice to meet our expectations.
@Diziet_Sma: And there are Muslim women out there who wonder why you would subject yourself to the judgements on your body that come with wearing, and particularly shopping for, Western clothing.
I mean, doesn't everyone have a moment when they're jeans shopping when the idea of everyone just wearing a burka seem kind of appealing? To me it seems like the same idea that's behind school uniforms.
I don't know. I don't think all Muslims would be upset about a Barbie with a burka or a hijab (as long as it was correctly labeled!). My little cousins (in Lebanon and in the US) play with Barbies at home and they make their own variety of head coverings. Of course our family is mixed, so they are just as likely to make a First Communion dress for Skipper, but...isn't representation of all women part of what a doll so popular should be about?
If Mattel made a "Nun" Barbie, I don't think I'd accept that the Catholic Church could tell them to get rid of it. I could understand why they might be offended, but plenty of my friends growing up dressed their Barbies as nuns. It just seems like it's more an expression of the fact that girls imagine Barbies to be whatever they are considering at the moment.
Saudi Arabia and other M.E. countries can ban Barbie, but they don't speak for all Muslim families. I think I would like to see a Barbie with a hijab. And a Barbie dressed as a nun!
Marcia Pappas and several of the commenters on Pajamas Media appear to be slamming Mattel, while I read this the same as you -- a one-off artistic display that Mattel may have given a little underwriting money toward, perhaps they donated the dolls, or at least they've given permission for them to be used.
I mean, it's not like Mattel is suddenly going to start selling the things, a point that seems lost on some of the commenters to the other site.
@Magister: Mattel actually does make dolls under different distributors in different regions of the world. Takara Jenny was one such doll that was tailored to Japanese tastes.
Remember Barbie is the American version. I don't think it would be a stretch to say they localized dolls for different markets.
They do that for movies and video games...why not toys? Would it be so horrible for them to make a Barbie doll that tailored to the tastes and mores of the culture that plays with it?
@Magister: Yea I don't think Mattel should be at fault for all. This is Fox trying to fuel the fire of bigotry.
"Look at those dirty Jihad dolls"
Now if the art show had strapped mini bombs to these dolls we'd have another discussion.
It's just short-sightedness on NOW's part to assume dolls aren't already being made to fit similar tastes. And to be outraged over making a profit from them when we pour billions of dollars in oil money into that region is laughable.
@LilSpitfire:
It appears that some of the people on the other site didn't get the memo because some of the commenters (and the article's headline) are calling for a boycott.
I'm glad that now that we've cured cancer, ended terrorism, passed comprehensive health care reform and achieved world peace, that Fox News is now freed up to carry breaking news on three Barbies, out of potentially millions of Barbies worldwide, dressed in Muslim garb for an auction. This is truly a great country, no? This kind in depth reporting really does change lives.
@Lymed: I think the most Barbie can do is a split. Which is frankly more than I can do. Oh great, now I feel sexually inadequate. *Shakes fist* Damn you, Barbie, and your unattainable standards!
11/23/09
jus make it more realistic to ACTUAL humans, my only issue with it
11/23/09
11/23/09
like i was saying, my main beef is how fake barbie looks...
so to have a more multi-cultural looking barbie, in all shapes and sizes.... would work for me
#tips
11/24/09
11/23/09
Hmm, now this is actually the justification that I've heard by Muslimahs and apologists, that it's just like any other garment(which I disagree with as it is uniquely restrictive and effacing)
11/23/09
Really? What makes the doll absolutely non-Muslim? Its coloring? Should we be launching a campaign against American Girl for selling Christmas and Hanukkah doll outfits independently of the dolls?
11/23/09
11/23/09
you'd be surprised by the manner of burkas one see's women wearing in europe and the middle east. everything from Fendi logos to gold embroidery head to toe and diamong and crystal studded ones for special occasions - the bright colors are not uncommon, especially at weddings etc!
good choice not become fox news fodder, though.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
@labeled:
11/23/09
11/23/09
Which isn't to say that I think this Barbie was a bad idea, or that women shouldn't be allowed to wear the burqa. Women should be allowed to make their own choices, especially about something as personal as how they dress. But we shouldn't ignore that this style of dress is, in fact, rooted in a patriarchal mindset.
11/23/09
11/23/09
Also, I think it would be very hard to find a form or style of dress that ISN'T rooted in some kind of patriarchal mindset. How much of the fashion in the US is rooted in that and "looking good" to attract men?
11/23/09
Though I do not practice this dress code now (my family moved to another state when I was starting middle school and there were no such churches in that area), I don't feel that there was anything wrong with the code itself. I've always viewed this dress as what I was always told: that it wasn't as much an attempt to cover up my body as it was a symbol of my faith to people outside and inside of the church.
I think that by simply stigmatizing the burka we are, in fact, looking at it very one-dimensionally and making the women who wear them out to be weak and almost infantile in that they don't really understand what their clothes mean and that they need us, women from the West, to tell them how to dress. Their clothes mean something very different to them than they do us in the same way that I have very different feelings about my traditional clothes than women I describe them to. The issue isn't the burka. It's violence against women. If a woman is forced to do something on threat of violence or death, be is wearing a burka or sexy clothing, that's the problem. The abusive society behind the clothes are the problem, not the clothes themselves because how we dress our bodies mean wildly different things to different, thinking women.
Some of us like to dress in order to show our skin to make a point (that our bodies are natural and beautiful) and some of us like to dress in order to cover our skin to make an equally valid point (that our bodies are devoted to our God and thus clothed in a certain garb). Neither is better than the other.
11/24/09
I agree that the society behind clothes is more of a problem than the clothing itself. If we stigmatize clothes based on the society they are prevalent in, we'd have nothing to wear. :) I think, for those in the US, it's harder to understand the reasons behind a culture that would wear something such as a burqa, just because it is so different than what you are accustomed to here. You said it well, neither is better than the other.
11/23/09
What a silly generalization. The burka is used as a tool to control and harm women by a psychotic few under the convenient guise of religion and modesty. It is one of many methods used by zealots who will inflict violence whether the burka is there or not. Stigmatizing the burka does not in any way help those who are forced to wear it and it actively harms those who choose to wear it. Making it a 'symbol of violence' is unfair and foolish.
11/23/09
And funny that most do not realize that the incessant spot-light on the lives of these women is doing more harm than good.
Most of the muslim women I know ( and I know quite a few) consider covering their bodies to be their religious duty. Even those who wear burqas, they wear it by choice. It's as though the West has taken one maybe two stories of abuse (in the attempt to go into Afghanistan and 'liberate' the people, no doubt) and turned it into a crisis.
Honestly, do you not understand that to argue against the wearing of the burqa is in the same vein as the assumption that these women are forced to wear it?
I have yet to see it entertained that these women do it by choice and in making that statement, they are also showing how much of a feminist they are.
Irony: that this article is on the same page as an article that ponders how women are dealing with aging and how often they think about it. I wonder how many times these women who chose to wear the burqa have to worry about aging, what it will do to their marriage prospects and if they will receive the same attention from men as they used to.
Which women are the most liberated in this situation? Those who spend endless amounts of time wondering how a NATURAL AND INEVITABLE process such as aging will negatively impact their lives? or the women who excel in their culture based upon the strength of their character as they cannot be judged based upon their appearance? Who are the real victims here?
11/23/09
11/23/09
In writing the article found on this page about aging, very few of the women in that thread entertain how liberating it would be if we didn't have to worry about such things. If the opinions of the world regarding our aging were of absolutely no consequence to us. How much our appearance actually dictates our success in life and how we are the slaves.
Nor do you ever see articles supporting the suggestion that women should go makeup free. It's as if we have become accustomed to the fact that we will be judged by men based upon how much they want to fuck us and judged by women based upon how well-groomed we are.
It's ridiculous, the double standard that these women are inadvertently applying here.
11/23/09
11/23/09
So, let Barbie wear the burqua and let Muslim women choose whether or not to buy it!
#tips
11/23/09
I'm arguing that instead of the preoccupation we have with the fact that these women have adopted a full body covering (women who probably chose to hide themselves in accordance with their religious doctrine or out of general safety), we should be worrying about why our society places so much emphasis on our physical attributes (or lack thereof) and what we can do to change this.
What is wrong with people being unable to see your face if you find it to be outside the dictates of your religion? How does the appearance of my face impact my ability to do a job or excel at my career? And why must these women conform to our ideas when they are in a better position to make the case for feminism than any woman who gets out of her bed in the morning and gets tarted up to go to work?
11/23/09
11/23/09
Also, what are we talking about when we talk about women who choose to wear these garments? Many women are doing it willingly, but they have also been brought up in a culture that attaches positive value to wearing them. Isn't that like praising me, a born-and-bred New York non-Muslim, for NOT wearing a burqa? No one's forcing me to wear jeans instead, but to say I CHOOSE not to wear a burqa is highly misleading.
#tips
11/23/09
My problem with this article and others like it is that the language almost always implies that the women who wear the burka are forced to do so. Particularly with the debate in France, which deems that the burqa is a symbol of oppression.
And like you, I'm wondering, if this garment is considered oppressive, then what is less oppressive for these women? Would we be more accepting of these women if they walked around in minis and tees? If this barbie was dress in a bikini, would this be an article?
And yes, in my personal opinion, women who are not constrained by society by their personal appearance are far more liberated than those of us who have to constantly worry about our appearance.
Have you ever wanted a job and thought to yourself, there's no way I can have that job because I don't have a certain look? Or for African American women, how often have we had to concern ourselves with our hair in the workplace? Like as not, women who live in societies where covering is the norm are NOT subjected to these types of inner-debates (that is not to say that they don't have body issues, but rather when they interview for jobs, they don't think to themselves that they will be disqualified because they're not blonde and blue-eyed or because they might be considered too militant because they're sporting an afro).
Context.
11/23/09
(Insert something suitable here about capitalism or patriarchy or other evÃl institution if you like....)
With you so far. But....
...my point would be that so far we've *only* talked about *women*.
The day that men start wearing the burqa covering hair, face and body considering it their religious duty? The day men argue that it makes them feel strong and liberated, enjoying the freedom in being "judged by the strength of their characted and not by their appearance"? The day the men in my surroundings start to cover their entire bodies for fear that I would see them as objects and sexual creatures only (and despise them for it)?
Then we might have gotten somewhere.....
Or not.
Well, at least we wouldn't have double standards.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Though the burqa *has* become representative of the belief that there is something wrong with women's sexuality, it shouldn't be. And maybe putting Barbie in a burqa will help show girls that it is a choice that some people can make, just as they can choose to put Barbie in a string bikini. At the end of the day, it isn't which one you wear that damages women. It is the attitude of judgment surrounding the choice.
11/23/09
11/23/09
What would happen tomorrow if we refused to go without makeup the world over?
I don't think a bit of business would be done......
11/23/09
I apologize if I offended you, I thought you were making really good points about AtelierCeleste's arguments, and wanted to understand them better.
11/23/09
11/23/09
I don't know what this means.
11/23/09
11/23/09
Is the solution to sexualize and objectify men right back? Pinch those tight asses? Make derogatory comments about aging men (30), their weight, their hair, their wrinkles, their lack of exercise resulting in beer bellies and double chins? Comparing the size of 'packages' of your male co-workers and discussing your views openly in the lunch room?
(Not so sure, but it could be fun.)
Should men feel really bad about their own bodies instantaneously when, for instance, the David Beckham underwear ads air? Should we encourage them to? (Hell yes. The Eva Mendes underwear campaign just aired in our country. I feel like getting even.)
I don't know about you, but I have gone makeup-free for my almost 44years (minus 2 weeks of experimentation when I was 13), and that goes for miniskirts, strings, and the brazilian as well. I've never considered this to be brave or revolutionary or a statement of any kind. Should I have?
(But I'm Scandinavian, and we're from a different planet. We don't have cheerleaders and prom queens and child beauty pageants either.)
11/23/09
11/23/09
Yarmulke Ken, Pope-Hat skipper, Bopsy the Buddhist, and Bahá'à Nikki.
11/23/09
In my opinion, it reeks of orientalism to paint all muslim women who wear the burka, as being subjects of oppression and extremism.
When did every practice that is different from our own become evil and reviled?
This is not to say that women arent forced to wear the burka, but that many millions choose to by their own accord, and I dont think its fair to discount their religious beliefs/practices for daring to be different from our own.
11/23/09
I have a friend who—in uber-liberal Cambridge, MA, in Harvard Square—was attacked and had her coat, shirt, and headscarf ripped off of her by a mob of anti-Muslim ignorants shortly after Spetmber 11.
Feminism to me means that women should wear whatever the hell they feel like, be it a burka or a four-inch-long miniskirt, and not feel threatened, intimidated, or endangered walking down a street.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I mean, doesn't everyone have a moment when they're jeans shopping when the idea of everyone just wearing a burka seem kind of appealing? To me it seems like the same idea that's behind school uniforms.
11/23/09
If Mattel made a "Nun" Barbie, I don't think I'd accept that the Catholic Church could tell them to get rid of it. I could understand why they might be offended, but plenty of my friends growing up dressed their Barbies as nuns. It just seems like it's more an expression of the fact that girls imagine Barbies to be whatever they are considering at the moment.
Saudi Arabia and other M.E. countries can ban Barbie, but they don't speak for all Muslim families. I think I would like to see a Barbie with a hijab. And a Barbie dressed as a nun!
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I mean, it's not like Mattel is suddenly going to start selling the things, a point that seems lost on some of the commenters to the other site.
11/23/09
Remember Barbie is the American version. I don't think it would be a stretch to say they localized dolls for different markets.
They do that for movies and video games...why not toys? Would it be so horrible for them to make a Barbie doll that tailored to the tastes and mores of the culture that plays with it?
11/23/09
Right now, it's just a one-off display and to fault Mattel is sort of like calling out paint companies because of offensive graffiti.
11/23/09
"Look at those dirty Jihad dolls"
Now if the art show had strapped mini bombs to these dolls we'd have another discussion.
It's just short-sightedness on NOW's part to assume dolls aren't already being made to fit similar tastes. And to be outraged over making a profit from them when we pour billions of dollars in oil money into that region is laughable.
NOW is missing the mark big on this.
I'm not a fan of xenophobic imperialism.
11/23/09
It appears that some of the people on the other site didn't get the memo because some of the commenters (and the article's headline) are calling for a boycott.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
I agree with Anna's advice. No reason to be Fox's pawn.
11/23/09
11/23/09