Also, long skirts and oversized dresses don't completely eliminate your individuality. They don't make it so that no one can even see who you are. They don't make you into a silent ghost. Not the same. Not the same at all.

 Reply

I'm not a fan of the Burqa or male dominated religions (all of them) but it's stepping a little over the line for Sarkozy to tell the citizens of his country what they should and should not wear. And Sarkozy's rules seem to target the Muslim community and no one else. I don't remember hearing Sarkozy speak so loudly and publicly about orthodox Jewish women not being allowed to wear wigs in public. Do you?

 Reply

A quote from the article: "How could you," I was inclined to say, "join a religion that has such a track record of oppressing women?"

What about Catholicism? What about Hinduism? Haven't all religions been somewhat oppressive of women? If you're going to cite an article, try not to pick one that has such a glaring bias against Islam. I have been blessed to meet and make friends with members of the Muslim community and they are lovely, tolerant, kind people. The girls I know are in no way "oppressed".

 Reply

"Islam may not be essentially incompatible with feminism. Muhammad's first wife, Khadijah, was an independent businesswoman, who hired the prophet on her own account, and arranged to marry him because she liked his looks, and because he had carried out her business transactions well.

"There is no reason why she should not be the model for all Muslim women. There is nothing in the Koran about veils. But Islam as it is generally practised is not compatible with women's equality.

"Perhaps this is because Islam seems not to have produced an indigenous movement for women's spiritual equality to compare with the campaign waged by Christian women."

 Reply

Acknowledging that western women are culturally manipulated into some form of sexualisation isn't exclusive to acknowledging the same about Islam, if that's what you believe. Critiquing Islam in the context of a personal experience you've had with it (in this case, the writer's sister's conversion) does NOT have to be done in conjunction with criticising Catholicism or Hinduism or other religions oppressive to women. Within all those religious folds, there will be many, many people who are modest, kind and giving - it doesn't make the political structures of those religions any more excusable or appealing.

The least problematic thing about Karen Green's article is not that she's essentially wrong about everything she's positing, it's that she's so remarkably one dimensional about it. For a lecturer in feminism, I'm amazed that she's attempted to juxtapose the willingness of Muslim women to achieve equality with the supposed eagerness of Christian women. To suggest that women veil out of some sense of vanity seems like nothing more than a spurious and not even particularly well thought out theory.

Having said all that, I agree with Sarkozy's statement in the post. Burquas may be chosen by some Muslim women exercising their own free will, but as a culturally recognised symbol they exist as one of 'subjugation and submission'. The fact remains that in parts of the Middle East, there are women who are forced to wear them. Even though they existed long before the Taliban, the use of them as a weapon of control underneath that regime made them a symbol of oppression. The swastika (backwards) was a Buddhist symbol, but it's now become a symbol of Nazism. Defending its history prior to Hitler won't change that association in people's minds, and I think the same is true for the international community's perception of the burka.

I am personally comfortable with expressing my belief that shrouding oneself from head to foot and leaving only a gauzed slit to see out of is abhorrent to me. In my opinion, it's not the way to address the sexualisation of women in society. Women who choose to veil in this way may see it as a path to respect, because they're removing the physical from people's interactions with them. I'm not going to argue with them on whether or not this is effective or works for them, because it's their experience and not mine. But essentially, I don't feel it's just or effective in the long term.

So I really don't see that it's fair to criticise Sarkozy for basically demonstrating that he would like the women of France to be accepted as equals, given that he (like myself and many others) think that the ritualistic covering of only women's faces acts as a huge barrier to this.

Sidebar: I highly recommend the award winning journalist Geraldine Brooks' "Nine Parts of Desire" for a history on veiling in the Middle East.

 Reply

I think it is ESPECIALLY problematic to criticize such things as an outsider in a position of power. I think it's frankly patronizing for a member of the white male elite to make any assumptions that Islamic women -- in any way -- need to be somehow "saved" by our presumably superior Western laws and customs.

I am not saying that we have to criticize Islam in conjunction with anything, and yes, it is a given ON JEZEBEL that we are shackled by the internalization of various sexist practices. That said, this is NOT a given in mainstream society. How often do French politicians stand up and question the oppressive practices of the beauty industry? Has anyone stood up and banned wearing make-up? How about wearing cross necklaces, because of the patriarchal policies of the Catholic church? No, but France HAS banned headscarves.

I am not saying that burquas or hijabs or headscarves are or are not oppressive, because as a non-Muslim Western woman, it's not really my place to dictate that. They might very well be, and it is indeed important to question these traditions, as it is to question our own. I'm just saying a person in a position of power questioning one without acknowledging the other -- and presuming that "we" are in any way fit or capable to fix the perceived societal problems of another (marginalized) group -- is a Eurocentric, imperialist mentality and it's incredibly offensive.

 Reply

There should be a "possibly" in my first sentence -- "possibly problematic and sexist." I think they definitely COULD be; I just think it's not OUR place to say, as I articulated better in my second "contradictory" comment.

I totally see your point about just stepping off. It's a tough call. I guess my main beef is that there are better ways to show support for women's freedom and choices than by... taking away their choices!! Not to mention making a relatively reductionist argument in a public forum that denounces a cultural tradition of an already maligned group of people.

If this was the representative of a group of French Muslim women speaking on behalf of French Muslim women, I'd be like, rock on ladies. Do what you need to do. I'm pretty open to similar arguments made by people like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. But I get all prickly and angry inside when some powerful white dude tries to tell a marginalized group what to do, and implies that "our" ways are in some way superior while failing to acknowledge our own societal failures. That reeks of condescension to me.

Anyway, as always with Jezebel, this has become left-leaning people arguing over pretty similar left-leaning opinions. Can we agree to disagree?

 Reply

@audreyapple: No worries! Again, you also make some very good points. I will totally check out the book; I certainly agree that an "outsider" can be tremendously informed and can make some very valid insights. For instance, I really enjoyed Krakauer's Under the Banner of Heaven, and he is by no means a member of the FLDS. So, this book sounds like it's very much worth the read. Thanks for the recco!

 Reply