A fascinating Op-Ed in yesterday’s NYT by Jean-François Copé, the majority leader in the French National Assembly and the mayor of Meaux. He argues that women should not be allowed to cover their face in public:
First, the freedom to dress the way one wants is not what’s at stake here. Our debate is not about a type of attire or the Islamic head scarf that covers the hair and forehead. The latter is obviously allowed in France. The ban would apply to the full-body veil known as the burqa or niqab. This is not an article of clothing – it is a mask, a mask worn at all times, making identification or participation in economic and social life virtually impossible.
This face covering poses a serious safety problem at a time when security cameras play an important role in the protection of public order. An armed robbery recently committed in the Paris suburbs by criminals dressed in burqas provided an unfortunate confirmation of this fact. As a mayor, I cannot guarantee the protection of the residents for whom I am responsible if masked people are allowed to run about. …
[B]anning the veil in the street is aimed at no particular religion and stigmatizes no particular community. Indeed, French Muslim leaders have noted that the Koran does not instruct women to cover their faces, while in Tunisia and Turkey, it is forbidden in public buildings; it is even prohibited during the pilgrimage to Mecca. Muslims are the first to suffer from the confusions engendered by this practice, which is a blow against the dignity of women.
The whole article is stuffed with interesting and contentious statements. One case I wondered about is people who are badly disfigured: should they be forced to show their faces too, even if they didn’t want to? What do you think?
jeremy says
I’m not a big fan of banning much of anything.
<
p>And wearing a burqa can reasonably be considered a statement of religious expression. And religious expressions is also something I’m not wild about banning (despite my being an atheist).
<
p>Now I think certain at-risk buildings — Government offices, banks, etc. might have security grounds to ban wearing a burqa in those buildings. But that’s a very different thing from a whole-scale society wide ban.
nopolitician says
<
p>Isn’t that like trying to claim that banning Afros isn’t aimed at a particular race — after all, no one of any race can wear one?
smadin says
lightiris says
that are not worthy of our respect. The burqa is one of them. In the same way that I would view, say, shackling women objectionable even when viewed as a religious expression, I view the burqa as more of the same. If we take the clothing away and substitute some other burden, it becomes much clearer that such practice is incompatible with a civilized society. A ban is probably unnecessary in this nation given the relative (and I use that word advisedly) freedoms of women to live and dress as they choose, I think this notion has merit:
<
p>
<
p>And as for the silly comparison of disfigurement, all sorts of accommodations are made for individuals who are both disabled and disfigured. Suggesting that there is any reasonable comparison between forcing a disfigured individual to exposed his/her facial disfigurement in public–a practice no one would suggest is practical or reasonable given any sensitivity to such matters–and a woman showing her face in public as a matter or social practice is bizarre.
<
p>There comes a point at which religious practice can and should no longer enjoy privileged status in a civilized society. This is certainly one of them.
hoyapaul says
The problem with this argument is that many of the women themselves who wear the burqa do not see it as a constricting mask, but rather a statement of their femininity and devotion to their religion. Maybe they are deluded, but it doesn’t seem like the government’s role to make the choice for them.
<
p>Further, as with many policies, we run into serious problems of knowing where to draw the line. You argue that the burqa should have no place in civilized society because it is mask that restricts the freedom of women. A couple points, in addition to the one above, are relevant here.
<
p>First, we are still talking about clothing here, and not literally shackling or torturing women. The latter should clearly be banned, regardless of any claim of religious practice. But once we move from banning the extremes (shackling) to things like banning clothing choices, we are getting into a much grayer territory. I think you acknowledge this argument when you note that a burqa ban may be unnecessary in which freedoms of women are stronger.
<
p>Second, it’s not clear why certain practices of other religions should not also come under government fire if the burqa were to be banned because of its affect on women. The Catholic Church’s ban on female priests, it could be argued, is meant to reinforce distasteful assumptions regarding the differences between men and women. Is this practice something that the government should ban? I’d argue that this would be quite a dangerous road to go down.
lightiris says
<
p>I don’t even know what to say to this, as I find this comment so deeply offensive.
<
p>I appreciate the time you took to respond, but I can see that we’re destined to talk past one another.
hoyapaul says
You may find my comment deeply offensive, but many Muslim women would find your suggestion that they are being oppressed by their decision to wear the burqa deeply offensive. While Westerners see the burqa as something quite strange and indeed sexist, many of the actual people wearing these burqas do not see it this way.
<
p>We might talk past one another, but I’d encourage you to read the substantial literature, journalistic and academic, that clouds your assumption that the burqa is no different than shackling or torturing women. It’s nowhere near as simple as you present it.
lightiris says
Reasonable people can disagree on this subject, despite what you suggest through your paternalistic, pedantic, and condescending tone. The trivialization of the status and treatment of women suggested by your “just clothing” suggests you may be need of some education yourself. Indeed, “it IS nowhere near as simply as you present it.”
hoyapaul says
I did not intend for my comments to have a “paternalistic, pedantic, and condescending tone”. I don’t see how they are, but to the extent that they are, I apologize for the tone.
<
p>In fact, I’m glad to hear that you are well versed on the subject, since I only have superficial knowledge of this area. For that reason, I’d be legitimately interested to hear your thoughts on why it is that many Muslim women do not see the burqa the way that you do, and whether this has any relevance to the topic at hand.
kbusch says
I almost always enjoy reading your posts, Hoyapaul. So don’t take this too hard.
<
p>The reading assignment at the end of your previous comment might be regarded as condescending. Possibly gentler would have been quotes, links, and references rather than an implication (which you might not have meant) that Lightiris’ position derived from ignorance.
hoyapaul says
Yes, I apologize for that section. The implication was in no way that lightiris’s position derived from ignorance, since lightiris could be an expert in these matters for all I know. Another example of how intended tone is difficult to get right in writing.
liveandletlive says
that’s probably why you don’t see it.
liveandletlive says
“0” me all you want. It’s meaningless. Especially when you do it way too often.
huh says
Just chanting “no it isn’t” is worthless…
hoyapaul says
<
p>My clothing comment was, of course, not trivializing the status and treatment of women (and I didn’t say that it was “just clothing”). To Muslims and critics of the burqa alike, the burqa obviously means something a lot more than clothing. My point is rather more straight-forward. From the perspective of a neutral observer — what the government should be in this case — when we discuss the burqa we are talking about clothing, not something obviously oppressive like shackling or torture.
<
p>To give another clothing example — many Muslims, Christians, and other religious persons, including women, believe that bikinis are more than “just clothing”. Many believe that it is an offensive symbol, and one that demeans women rather representing true femininity. To be clear, I disagree entirely. I also disagree that the government should be making this decision to ban the clothing without much stronger justification based on social coercion and similar concerns. To the government eye’s, bikinis and burqas alike should be “just clothing”. Otherwise we run the serious risk of social intolerance and mistreatment of minorities.
kbusch says
It’s not exactly evidence of non-coercion that burqa-wearing women say they like wearing burqas. They are under social pressure not just to wear the things but to like doing so. Expressing misgivings is strongly sanctioned. Even if one didn’t initially like wearing a burqa, one’s life would be better if one learned to accept doing so.
<
p>Stated briefly: Submission isn’t synonymous with free endorsement.
<
p>And yes, there are elements of mind reading and deciding what’s best for other people — something the libertarians among us just hate.
hoyapaul says
I agree completely. If there are serious social pressures exerted on a specific sub-group, then it’s something we need to take seriously when deciding how law enforcement will handle it. A good and relevant example might be polygamy, which is banned in part because of the social pressures it places on women. Nevertheless, it can be a dangerous business to start deeming things social harms and then banning them, since it is so difficult to draw the line in these cases.
<
p>For that reason, the safest approach is to acknowledge that while we must take into account social harms, the burden of proof should certainly be on those who want to prohibit an activity to ensure that any social harms of the activity outweigh the exercise of liberty. From my understanding, the burqa situation is far too mixed on that score to give the government the ability to ban them.
jconway says
I would also argue that coercing women NOT to wear burqua’s is just as offensive, if not more deeply offensive, than the social pressures some of them face, because the actor is a state actor and it is state oppression as opposed to social coercion. Furthermore we are trampling on people’s cultural and religious freedom which they are free to exercise. Every Muslim woman I have met who has worn a burqua, and I met one woman who lost her job as a Turkish MP, had her home and family threatened with violence, and was under immense social pressure by her mostly male colleagues and family NOT to wear the burqua and still resisted it, all of them view wearing it as an act of defiance, an act of expression, and an act of celebrating their womanhood and their Muslim heritage. To deny them this right would be highly illiberal and un-American. And for us to judge them exercising these rights as them ‘caving in’ to sexism or misogyny is just as pejorative and paternalistic. The Muslim women in my high school who wore burqua’s did so since they were unashamed of being Muslim in a post-9/11, unashamed of being Arab-Americans, and proud and fiercely protective of their bodies. To remove the burqua by force would not be ‘removing a mask’ as the French commentator argues, but would instead by akin to removing a layer of skin from their bodies. For them it is highly feminist to proudly wear burqua’s and to celebrate their womanhood, and I am leery of any attempt to impose our conceptions of feminism and womanhood onto other people who have different cultural understanding of those concepts. It seemed to me to be very sexist that the only woman in Parliament who choose NOT to wear burqua had rocks thrown at her, was harassed, and had to flee the country. I also find it very empowering that she came here, got her JD/MPP from Harvard and went back to show those people she was unafraid. I have met few women as courageous as she willing to risk their lives for something they believed in.
<
p>To me the main issue is choice. If parents or male relatives are forcing women who don’t want to wear burqua’s to wear them, then I think it is appropriate for the state to defend their right not to wear them. If women are being harassed or discriminated against because they wear them than the state should defend their right to wear them. As long as the woman is making the choice freely, of her own volition, and without outside interference I do not see it as threatening.
<
p>Also the for the French banning burqua’s is an attempt to exert state control and coercion over a racial minority they despise, ghettoize, and refuse to empower in any meaningful way and let us not forget it. This is akin to Buckley’s deplorable NR article stating blacks in the south ‘were not yet ready’ for civil rights and freedom and were ‘being protected’ by their white superiors. It reeks of paternalism and racism. And it can easily lead down the slippery slope where the Swiss can ban mosques. I really fail to see how we empower women by telling them what to do and what to wear.
mr-lynne says
… that it is at least possible for cultural coercion to be more odious and offensive than state coercion. Such a judgment might mean that in particular cases a judgment call might need to be made about ‘the greater good’. In the US such a judgment call is easy because our culture of free expression and it’s enshrinement in our founding principals. In Turkey there is no such enshrinement but there is enshrinement of the secular. In that context the judgment call might differ from what we might prescribe. If we were to be very much offended and their judgment call it could be said that we were being ‘westernly’ paternalistic – that our enshrined values should be theirs and that therefore their judgment call should be ‘as we would do’.
smadin says
Well hi there, John Stuart Mill! 🙂
dhammer says
I’m fine with the Catholic Church not allowing female priests, I just don’t think they should be tax advantaged for their discrimination.
<
p>Regarding coercion and harm and educating yourself, 15 minutes of internet research turns up these gems.
<
p>
<
p>The author doesn’t link to the surveys, so maybe it’s bunk, but pretty chilling. Wikipedia has this to say about the use of the burqa as a tool of political oppression. So no,
we’re talking about a piece of clothing that is actively used to oppress women, one that if not worn can result in actual torture or maiming. Now granted, I only did 15 minutes of searching so I didn’t find this, but I’d like to hear the pro-burqa argument from a muslim woman. What I did see was that the burqa was worn a lot less in cities in Afghanistan prior to the Taliban and since the US invaded it is less common.
<
p>There were muslim women who used the veil to protest western colonial influence, so there it’s used as a tool of liberation, but that’s the veil, not the burqa.
<
p>I’d like to hear from a Muslim woman who actually does think the burqa is a “statement of their femininity and devotion to their religion.” I never have and interestingly, I’ve only ever heard this line of reasoning from men.
<
p>None of this says we should ban it – but maybe we should ban husbands and fathers from forcing their wives and daughters to wear it, maybe our president should come out in the Muslim world and say women should have the right to wear the hajib, or to not wear the hajib – something he failed to do in his address in Cairo.
<
p>
sco says
If we take the clothing away and substitute some other burden, it becomes much clearer that such practice is incompatible with a civilized society
<
p>Exactly! If you replace the burqa with something even worse you can see how much worse it is!
<
p>Look, I understand the baggage surrounding the burqa and how it reinforces some particularly distasteful gender roles (an understatement for sure). There’s a real concern about coercion and abuse that should be taken seriously. There’s enough wrong about the burqa and the society that would require it that you don’t need to substitute it for something that we as a ‘civilized society’ would find abhorrent.
<
p>That said, I find the effort to ban the burqa just as ridiculous, just as targeted toward minorities and just as unconstitutional as the effort to ban ‘saggy pants’ that was all the rage a few years ago.
lightiris says
as I said in my comment. I am, however, saying that I think the practice is abhorrent and unworthy of respect.
<
p>As for your suggestion that there are “worse” things than wearing a burqa, hence we should see the burqa as not so bad, well, I don’t know what to say. Personally, I think it is possible to compare forcing women to live in bags in 120-heat as they do in some countries with other “burdens.” Guess the “burden” is in the eye of the bearer.
sco says
What I was trying to communicate is that the burqa is bad enough as it is that we should not need to imagine something worse to be offended by. That is what the quote I pulled from original comment asked us to do.
jconway says
I would argue it is highly paternalistic of you to force your sense of what is and isn’t female empowerment upon someone else who has a completely different conception of what those values are. By saying you do not even respect that view you are acting in effect as a cultural imperialist forcing a Westernized view of femininity, sexuality, etc. upon another person. The whole reason I oppose James Dobson is not because I dislike his value system, which I do, but because he is advocating policies that force his value system upon other people. You are doing the exact same thing, forcing your value system upon people who do not want it and who do not see it the way you do. You can say you disagree with the theology behind wearing a burqa and find it deeply disagreeable and even offensive to your own notions of womanhood, but I would caution against saying you disrespect it because you are disrespecting someone else and their culture and belief system and in effect saying yours is superior and hoping to force yours as the public standard. That might not be what you intended to mean when you said that, but to me it seems that you want to force your beliefs upon others and I think the whole point of liberalism is to oppose such authoritarian instincts, even if they are nobly placed.
<
p>
sco says
But I just wanted to point this out:
<
p>lightiris: “I’m not advocating banning”
jconway: “it seems that you want to force your beliefs upon others”
<
p>You seem to be using a version of the word ‘force’ that I’m not really familiar with, jconway.
jconway says
She says she does not respect the burqua in anyway shape or form and she is denigrating women that freely choose to wear it. In her idealized world women would never wear something that she wouldn’t.
sco says
In my idealized world no one would do a lot of things. Same with yours, I’m sure. Doesn’t mean I’m ready to put the coercive power of the state behind my preferences, though.
metoo says
There are over a billion muslims in the world and this is not a uniform expression of their religion. It seems to be more cultural or political. This custom might even exist without the religion. It seems to be a statement of women’s lower status in these groups. Those that express it as a matter of devoutness may be pushing overtly or in-overtly a governing agenda that leads to a theocracy. This causes discomfort and because of deep seeded beliefs in freedom of expression. It makes dealing with it very complicated. Deciding on societal norms is always a mine field. There is no crystal ball to predict which way the wind will blow either for or against. Maybe we need to think about it some more.
metoo says
fyi
kbusch says
The Roman Catholic Church’s doctrine of apostolic succession means they don’t just base their doctrine on scripture. Most expressions of Judaism include a rich overlay of interpretative work that likewise is not scriptural.
<
p>Islam bases its practices not just on the Koran but on the practices of the Prophet and from the time of the Prophet. In fact, one of the interesting developments of Islam was a whole field of scholarship that tried to determine whether stories about the Prophet were true or apocryphal — like modern academic historians on centuries earlier.
<
p>So one should be careful about bringing a Protestant sola scriptura expectation to Islamic practice and theology and trying to determine, based on Protestant principles, what is or is not authentically Islamic.
christopher says
…are also cultural to the Arab Peninsula which long predate the Prophet.
jkw says
The purpose is to maintain a standard of decency. Some people think that a woman exposing her face or hair in public is indecent. Some people think a person exposing their genitals in public is indecent. Some people think a woman exposing her breasts in public is indecent. Some people think a woman exposing her shoulders in public is indecent. Some people think a woman wearing pants (instead of a skirt) is indecent. Standards of decency are essentially arbitrary, so you can’t actually have a logical argument about what makes sense. How is maintaining one standard of decency an unfair burden, but imposing a different one is a reasonable thing to do? Or should we all be required to walk around naked whenever it is warm enough, because being required to wear clothing is demeaning and a burden? Should we ban skirts? Is asking a woman to wear a burqa really all that different from asking a woman to wear a shirt?
centralmassdad says
how little some “progressives” seem to care for the institutions of our government. I guess this policy wouldn’t be grossly unconstitutional if the the constitutional ruling were made by plebiscite, another bright idea recently expressed here. Perhaps the policy might be improved further with compulsory attendance at approved UUA services.
<
p>It really is the negative image of the Falwell/Dobson/Robertson worldview: you know how the ideal world should be, and, for the betterment of all, would force everyone to adhere to that ideal. If only they weren’t so ignorant that they don’t understand how much more free they would be if they just cheerfully accepted that control.
jconway says
Couldn’t agree more. I oppose Dobson et al not because I disagree with their value systems, which btw I do, but because they are trying to impose their values upon other people which is distinctly illiberal and un-American.
<
p>I am a Catholic uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage within my faith tradition, but in no way do I have a right to somehow force my faith’s definition of marriage as the state’s definition of marriage upon society as a whole. I exercise that restraint which many of my brothers in Christ fail to do.
<
p>A better example, I am no racist and I hate the KKK, but I would oppose on principle any efforts to ban that organization or restrict its right to free speech and free assembly. Living in a liberal democratic society means accepting the right of people to do things that you despise or find repugnant.
<
p>I am not all that comfortable with Muslim theology, particularly as it relates to women, but who am I to dictate to Muslim women how they can practice their faith? As long as they are freely choosing to wear the burqua and are exercising their rights to free expression without being coerced to do so I do not see how it is any of our business what someone else chooses to wear. It seems to be that to argue female empowerment by advocating the power of the state to choose what females can and can’t wear is a contradictory position.
david says
Coercion, I suppose, being in the eye of the beholder. Or something.
<
p>You should read this very interesting book by one of my law school profs. The subject is more complicated than you think.
christopher says
..but based on the title it’s about the idea that slaves were happy with their lot. There’s an easy test for the difference. If a slave decided he wasn’t happy after all and ran away, the law would chase him down and at least require his return to his master and possibly punish him further. If a woman in the US woke up one morning and decided not to wear her burqa there is absolutely nothing the law is going to do about it.
david says
It’s a philosophical piece, not a historical one. He asks, basically, what if a well-treated slave was happy and preferred to stay where he was, rather than be forced to go out into the world and make it on his own? Is the state really doing him a favor by telling him that he may not make that choice?
christopher says
I guess the way to split that difference is to hire out your own labor for pay. After all, the work done by slaves would still have to be done even if slavery were abolished. This gets into the debate about minimum wage because some argue that a person should be free to accept work for a pittance, while those of us who support minimum wages argue that having such laws prevents or at least holds back a race to the bottom. I don’t think one woman’s choice to wear a burqa at all effects another woman’s choice, whereas someone’s willingness to work for less compromises the ability of others to seek more.
david says
Don Herzog is a really smart guy, and the issue is very interesting and complicated. But just to respond very briefly, the hypothetical “happy slave” is presumably of the view that he doesn’t want to go to the trouble of “hiring out his own labor for pay.” He’s happy where he is; he likes the guy he works for and the work he’s doing; he has a good living situation; why should he be forced out into the marketplace, with all of its inherent insecurities?
stomv says
🙂
jconway says
I would agree with Christopher that there is a massive distinction between wearing a burqua and voluntarily committing yourself to unpaid labor. One is an article of clothing that does have a considerable amount of historical and cultural significance, arguably significance that is detrimental to the freedom of women, that said the women that freely choose to wear it are in of themselves modernizing and redefining what wearing the burqua itself actually means. To argue that wearing this will make them more likely to submit to men, more likely to voluntarily be submissive or docile is not supported by the facts. Women getting into politics, women scientists, women professors, Muslim women in a host of professions free of any male influence doing what other modern women do-heading a household, holding professional careers, raising families, etc. accept that they do so while wearing an article of their faith. So I would argue the burden of proving that wearing the burqua is somehow a harm someone is voluntarily inflicting upon themselves has yet to be conclusively proven.
<
p>Secondly Mill would argue someone cannot freely consent to enslaving themselves on the grounds that they are removing themselves from being rational actors within the marketplace of ideas and that this action is so irrational that the state must stop it. What one defines as slavery in a modern context is subjective and variable but I would argue that of course we would not want people freely surrendering their freedoms in a severe fashion. A good example of this would be the women in Mormon polygamist cults, the state does have a right to break up those families and tear the women away from their men since the system is incredibly exploitative and coercive. And certainly within some Muslim communities, even within a liberal democratic society like ours, that level of coercion might be occurring where the women feel they have the freedom to be submissive but really are not acting in their own interest and are allowing harm to themselves and their families. Burqua wearing could be an aspect of that. But in that case it is a symptom of a much more perilous condition that the state would have a right to intervene in and stop mainly child and woman abuse. Again it comes to choice, if the women are clearly being exploited than there is no free choice, if a woman is wearing it by her own volition than that choice should be protected by the state.
david says
All due respect, that position is pretty much 100% inconsistent with what you’ve been spouting elsewhere on this thread. Set aside the issue of underage women in Mormon polygamist families — I’m not talking about them, and I believe that the state does have a right to stop underage women from being forced into marriages.
<
p>I’m talking about the grown-ups who voluntarily choose to be part of a polygamous marriage. How can you possibly square your extreme version of religious liberty with your position that the state has every right to bring in the black helicopters to break up voluntary marriages that are dictated by sincerely-held religious beliefs? Sounds to me like you just don’t like polygamy and therefore think that it’s inherently exploitative and should be illegal, whereas you have been convinced that a religious dictate to wear a burqa is not inherently exploitative. Who decides? You?
medfieldbluebob says
<
p>You wanna explain that one?
centralmassdad says
that might be the subject of compulsory attendance initiated by a progressive, the UUA, to its credit, being much more progressive than any other religious or spiritual denomination of which I am aware.
<
p>The notion of compulsory religious observance should be offensive, as much as the compulsory non-observance contemplated in this thread.
hoyapaul says
<
p>This is a strange argument by the mayor. I’m not sure how banning the burqa would stop criminals from using burqas, or other clothes that mask identity for that matter, in the commission of a crime. Unlike, say, a gun, it’s not exactly hard to obtain clothing using to cover the face even if it is banned. And there are plenty of other things that are perfectly legal and make camera identification difficult — motorcycle helmets, for instance.
<
p>This argument just seems like pretext for some other unstated reason to ban the burqa. And that reason is generally animus towards Muslims, pure and simple.
mrigney says
It’s not that burqas stop cameras from working, it’s that cameras don’t work: http://www.schneier.com/essay-…
<
p>The Times has a pretty good round up of opinion discussing the use of cameras in light of the Times Square failure as well: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nyt…
<
p>Even if the argument is only that cameras help catch criminals after the crime is committed (less useful than preventing the crime, imho) Jeffrey Rosen writes on that Times page:
sco says
This is America. If you want to wear a burqa, a velour tracksuit or dress up like Peter Pan it’s your own business.
stomv says
<
p>this guy.
medfieldbluebob says
these guys
jconway says
It is no longer shocking to me how ignorant people are on this site, especially people that supposedly celebrate multi-culturalism, freedom of expression, and consider themselves ‘enlightened progressives’. There are several linked reasons why this is a bad idea.
<
p>1) It is unconstitutional
<
p>The first amendment clearly allows the free expression of religion, and consistently the courts have upheld the right of individuals to express their religion freely and without any kind of interference from the state. If we ban burqua’s we are essentially forcing a religious minority to conform to the will of the secular majority, and we are denying them their right to life, liberty, and their pursuit of happiness as endowed by their creator in the declaration of independence as well as a whole host of their rights as assured by the Constitution of the United States. Considering how readily people want the state to interfere with religion on this site I sometimes wonder if people here have even read their Constitution.
<
p>2) It is not anti-woman
<
p>Every Muslim female in the United States has a right to express herself however she chooses. If she chooses to wear a burqua the state should defend that from censure or seizure by public entities and harassment or discrimination from private entities. If she chooses not to wear it, the state should defend her from family and social coercion.
<
p>That said, anyone who says the burqua is a medieval relic or holds the ‘enlightened’ opinion that it is anti-woman and anti-feminist is clearly forcing Western cultural conceptions of femininity on a culture where they do not belong. Just as I wonder if people here have read the bill of rights I wonder if anyone here is actually friends with or has even talked to a Muslim in their lifetime.
<
p>A Turkish MP who proudly wore her burqua was kicked out of Parliament and ostracized from her country because she protested the illiberal secularization that occurs in that country. She was oppressed and kicked out of government because she was a woman and because she was a woman who felt individually empowered to display her religious affiliation without fear of coercion. Her husband and political superiors (all men) advised her against it and she had the agency to oppose them and oppose her male dominated society that insisted what was good for her was not to wear the burqua. In effect others were dictating choices for her and she felt empowered by rebelling against them. I cannot think of a more courageous women I have ever met nor a more articulate and devoted feminist, who also happened to be a Muslim. When she came to visit my high school history class she was finishing a joint MPP/JD at Harvard with the intention of going back to Turkey and once again standing for parliament in spite of the wide spread opposition, death threats, and violence she endured. For lightiris to argue she is a weak willed person ignorant of her femininity or the power it brings, is an incredibly ignorant statement, if anything if she went along with the rules that the male dominated Parliament tried to force upon her agency to decide freely to practice her faith, she would have fit the stereotype the burqua allegedly enforces of a weak willed woman submitting to her male relatives.
<
p>The burqua is not a sign of male patriarchy dominating female agency, to those women that wear it they are making a statement that they take their faith seriously, that they are so proud of their bodies they want to keep them pure and hidden from the public, for them being proud means keeping themselves honest and pure, the shame for them would be to show off their bodies, that would be defiling them and would be the shameful practice. Here of course we celebrate women of all shapes and sizes dressing sexy and showing off their curves, but to their social and cultural upbringing that fetishes and denigrates the feminine form and in fact gives way to male domination. The whole theological justification for the burqua is that men are pigs and woman are the superior sex that can rise above the temptations of the flesh. Again I am not endorsing that viewpoint, but I am saying it is ignorant to place burqua wearing in a box labeled ‘misogyny or patriarchy’ when in fact Muslim women when given the free choice often choose to wear the burqua as a sign of modesty and free expression that in fact empowers them and keeps them free from male harassment and domination.
<
p>3) Free agency is the key to a liberal society
<
p>Most of us hear on this site call ourselves ‘progressive’ or ‘liberal’ without really thinking of the historical origins of the terms. Historically liberals from John Stuart Mill through to Justice John Paul Stevens have argued that liberalism is defined as an ideology that places the individual and his/her right to make free choices as the hallmark of a free society. Conservatives, at least classically, believe that communities, groups, churches, and classes organically make decisions on behalf of the individuals welfare while liberals believe that individuals whether acting as part of these groups or even alone can make their own decisions. To force woman not to wear burqua’s ‘for their own good and liberation’ smacks of all sort of paternalism. It is a form of cultural coercion and cultural paternalism, akin to the Westernization of the Indians in the 1800s, the kidnapping of Aboriginal children to be raised by whites ‘for their own good’ in Australia to the attempts to force birth control and sterilization onto the mentally retarded in the 1920s. All of these actions were supposedly enlightened, backed by scientific and academic studies, and engaged by the majority to ‘better’ the conditions of minority groups. All ended in failure, and all are viewed as historical monstrosities today because our society so believes in empowering an individual that we cannot fathom a society alternatively composed. So if a woman freely chooses to wear a burqua or a bikini I say let her its her right as both a woman and an American. Forcing her to go one way or the other deprives her of individual agency and would be a step back for feminism.
<
p>4) Free agency is key to feminism
<
p>I am tired of the third (or is it fourth?) wave feminist narrative that women have to conform to a certain ideal of empowerment in order to be feminists. It completely undermines the actual good fight feminists fought for historically. There was a time not too long ago when women were deemed physically and intellectually weaker and denied through overt political/legal ends and through covert social/cultural norms from acting in the interests of their own welfare. Now of course some women are trying to force certain social/cultural norms onto women. Women that freely choose to stay home and raise their kids, women that choose to abstain from sex until marriage, women in crisis pregnancies that choose to have children instead of getting an abortion, women that choose to go into historically female oriented professions, women that choose to join celibate religious orders, these women are derided and mocked by some feminist commentators (Maureen Dowd in particular) instead of celebrated. The whole point of any of these choices is that women now have the freedom to make them. The whole point of feminism and the sexual revolution was to allow women to have control over their bodies, their sexuality, and their lives-it was not to coerce them into making a certain set of choices. A woman who abstains from sex, who wears a burqua, who becomes a nun, or who becomes a stay at home mom is still a feminist because she is making those choices without outside interference and because she is doing what she wants to do with her body, with her live, and with herself. That is the entire point. And many Muslim women will tell you that the ‘modern Muslim woman’ does not necessarily have to go without a burqua. to argue that ‘modernity’ means shedding the burqua, to compare it to a shackle, is pejorative and ignorant. To most women that wear them they are wearing them because they want to, because they are proud of their heritag
e, because they are proud of the values embodied in wearing it. And because for the first time they can choose whether or not to wear it and wearing it celebrates that choice.
<
p>Any policy that narrows the choices women have, that narrows the freedom people have, is a policy that is against the very social revolutions that have shaped this country and society. Banning burqua’s is repugnant and un-American plain and simple.
sco says
It is no longer shocking to me how ignorant people are on this site, especially people that supposedly celebrate multi-culturalism, freedom of expression, and consider themselves ‘enlightened progressives’.
<
p>Please point me to one commenter who has expressly advocated for this ban. After reading through the thread it seems that even people who think the burqa is a really horrible thing are not in favor of the ban, some for the very reasons you’ve just pointed out.
smadin says
when as far as I can tell he’s agreeing (if cheekily) with sco.
<
p>Also, these
seem like awfully broad blanket statements of dubious supportability. As Hoyapaul discussed above, there are certainly Islamic feminists who do not think that veiling should be seen as oppressive; but there are also Islamic feminists who argue that it should – are they “forcing Western cultural conceptions of femininity on a culture where they do not belong”?
<
p>To say that the burqa is, inter alia, a symbol of women’s submission in a patriarchal society is not to say that therefore the wearing of the burqa should be banned (which continues, absurdly, to place the burden on the women themselves, and in any case addresses the symptom but not the disease) or that it’s not also a symbol of many other things, some of which may be very positive and very important to people who choose to wear it. Of course it’s a complicated cultural phenomenon (so are, for example, high heels, skirts, and makeup), but that doesn’t mean it’s exempt from critique even from people outside that culture – such people just have a responsibility to try to be careful and informed in crafting their critiques, and to pay attention to and not discount the lived experiences of the people they’re talking about.
mr-lynne says
… I actually take the position that the workday suit is a cultural symbol of the submission of the individual to the corporate culture. Note that acknowledging this is not advocacy, just cultural anthropology.
mr-lynne says
… needs a little context. The Turkish state made a point at it’s founding to specifically be secular and wile they have done a decent job in that area of the world of keeping that, their challenges are formidable. They constantly have to fight the influence of Islamic clerics calling for theocracy and sharia. The challenges they face to uphold that are quite different than what you’d expect in other, western societies. Simply put, they’ve made a decision that the religious cultural pressures that much of Islam is known to assert should be actively fought against. It is considered a danger to the state, and as such, it could be argued that they have pragmatic reasons for ‘forcibly’ influencing the culture toward the secular. While it is true that we often impose our western sensibilities in analyzing other cultures, it should also be noted here that in Turkey this is also a clash of cultures internal to that country. Our yearn for freedom of expression would seem to clash with what Turkey does, but that too is an imposition of our western ideas in the analysis.
hoyapaul says
I think your comment indicates how the balance between liberty and social concerns cannot be applied in a blanket fashion, because the strength of the arguments on either side of the ledger depend quite a bit on context.
<
p>Your Turkish example reminded me of the various bans that Germany (and other European countries) has on selling and displaying Nazi memorabilia. In the US, a strong argument could be made that such a ban violates free speech. In Germany, however, the balance between liberty and social concerns is quite a bit different, for the obvious reasons.
jconway says
But I would argue for any country to be democratic, at least by a liberal definition, it has to allow for individual expression. The Turkish state is secular to prevent as you pointed out the imposition of theocracy upon their populace as has been the case in many of their neighbors, most notably Iran. But I would argue Ataturk himself might find the level of secularization inherent in the country a bit too much. He feared clerics taking control of the state, now the state in effect controls the clerics which is also illiberal. Of course I would oppose a state that forced the burqua upon its populace, but here was a woman who choose to wear it and was under severe social and political pressure and was threatened with violence because she wore it. I would say that this is universally repugnant to people that value liberal democracy, and considering that the Turkish people continue to elect her political party that does advocate more religious expression I would argue the people are resisting the elites who are paternalistic in their rigid secularism.
mr-lynne says
… be absolutist about making sure that state coercion does not interfere with expression, how about public nudity. I’d submit that 99% of the time suppression of public nudity is anything but a cultural value, yet we legislate clothes. I take it then that you’re against public nudity laws? Taking the example even further, how about public copulation?
<
p>We make our judgment calls, they make theirs. We struggle with ours, they struggle with theirs. I’m no moral relativist, but it can hardly be surprising that different cultures differ on such judgment calls, however offensive to each-other.
<
p>Your example of defending the KKK is illustrative. The KKK is a small problem here. Islamic fundamentalism dwarfs it over there and represents real pragmatic problems for a state that wishes to retain secularism as a core principal.
jconway says
But if anything Turkey shows how an Islamist party can in fact articulate a religiously inspired political vision without adhering to fundamentalism, extremism, violence, or an aversion to democracy itself. The Islamist government is widely popular and promotes a social justice agenda with some social conservatism, but in no way is it fundamentalist, violent, or anti-democratic. The Taliban is repugnant, particularly to women, because it prevents people under its rule from exercising free choices. A strict secular state does the same thing though in ways that are less odious to us since we are for the most part voluntarily secular. I oppose both since both restrict freedom though to varying degrees of repression and oppression. Surely the secular state is the lesser of the two evils, but it is still evil at least from the perspective of this (small d small l) liberal democrat.
<
p>She felt that not wearing the burqua would objectify and subjugate her to men, a viewpoint I do not necessarily endorse, but one that she convincingly holds, in this case convincing her husband it was okay for her to wear the burqua while she was ridiculed and threatened by her male colleagues and coworkers and her children were pummeled with rocks at school. That to me is almost as odious as a society that stones women who don’t wear the burqua, since neither society respects the free agency of women to decide for themselves how to express themselves. She is no Islamic fundamentalist, she was the exact opposite of that, but she also felt being a modern Muslim woman to her did not mean turning her back on an aspect of her religious heritage and expression she felt was important. Certainly Muslim women have felt differently and feel the burqua is a relic and that their conception of Islam means liberating themselves from that responsibility and obligation, but I would agree with the Queen of Jordon who has passionately argued that she is a good Muslim even though she does not wear the burqua AND that women who choose to wear the burqua’s are also good Muslims. The important thing is that they are free to choose one way or the other. And I think that choice is best left to Muslim women, not to the state, not to non-Muslim women who want to dictate what they think is and isn’t sexist, and certainly not to any man Muslim or not.
david says
What on earth could you be talking about? While I actually agree that a state ban on the use of burqas would be constitutionally problematic, I certainly hope you are not referring back to discussions of the Catholic hierarchy’s involvement in the covering up of child abuse when you are talking about the state interfering with religion. Feel free to clarify.
jconway says
I am talking about BrooklinTom’s extreme beliefs that religion has no place in the public sphere, that would censor the right of teachers and students to practice religion within public schools (again practice their individual faith on their own time, as opposed to a group led prayer no one can be excluded from), that would censor the ability of religious groups to use public buildings for meetings, rent public space for religious purposes, place religious symbols or memorials in public places, etc. I am talking about arguments that the Catholic church can be forced by the state to recognize gay marriage within its walls, that Christian Scientists should be forced to take medicine, that religious hospitals should be forced to provide abortions or carry contraception, the opposition to conscience clauses, the notion that religious adoption agencies should be forced to allow gay adoption, etc.
<
p>Now on some of these points I am in agreement with the outrage people have expressed, personally I am not a big fan of the burqua, I do not think it is logical for a parent to deny their child access to medical care, I do not think it makes sense for a pro-life organization like Catholic Charities to decrease the pool of potential parents and decrease the viability of adoption as an alternative to abortion, but I defend the autonomy of religious organizations and individuals to practice their faith freely so long as they are not advocating violence against others or causing harm to others (that are not consenting to be harmed). But just as I find it repugnant for the Christian right to use the state as an arm of religion, I also find it repugnant that some on the secular left find it appropriate to use the state to exert their own beliefs and views upon religions they find backward, regressive, or offensive.
<
p>And for complete clarity never did I ever argue that the Catholic church should be immune from state prosecution regarding the shelter or harboring of abusers, never have I argued that Catholic clergy are above the law. I simply stated that there was insufficient evidence against the Pope, and that the drastic reforms of the Church called for by progressives inside and outside the Church were unrelated to the abuse scandal. I defended my Church from generalizations that the Church as opposed to evil people within it, was corrupt or advocated pedophilia. I defended it from misrepresentation and distortion. But I am glad to clarify.
david says
that would censor the right of teachers and students to practice religion within public schools (again practice their individual faith on their own time, as opposed to a group led prayer no one can be excluded from)
<
p>I don’t recall Tom or anyone else ever making that claim, and I seriously doubt anyone would.
<
p>arguments that the Catholic church can be forced by the state to recognize gay marriage within its walls
<
p>Again, I seriously doubt that anyone has ever argued that.
<
p>that Christian Scientists should be forced to take medicine
<
p>No — but it should be possible to force them to allow medicine to be given to their children under some circumstances.
<
p>that religious hospitals should be forced to provide abortions or carry contraception
<
p>Again, has anyone ever really argued this? Maybe federal or state funding can be conditioned on it, but that’s an entirely different kettle of fish.
<
p>When making claims like these, you will help yourself a lot by (a) linking, and (b) not exaggerating.
peter-porcupine says
I agree with all of your points – First Amendment makes this a hypothetical discussion at best.
<
p>But this was written by the head of the same government that made the following law in 2004:
<
p>
<
p>No problem with restricting Jews and Muslims, but to ask petite Marie Antoinette not to wear Grandmere’s discreet little cross in a legally secular country? Mais non! THAT goes too far! Next, they’ll want to regulate the Petite Souers de Merci (not that a habit is anything like a burqua…)
<
p>The French are hypocrites regarding this matter, and do not deserve attention.
hoyapaul says
Jconway’s post is getting some heat, in part because of some broader comments about progressives and this site, but I would note that the substance of his comment really is excellent and quite thought-provoking.
<
p>There’s a lot here, though I’d highlight a couple things. First, regardless of whether anyone in this post directly advocated banning the burqa, the original question Bob asked was “Should the U.S. Ban the Burqa?” For many of the reasons jconway notes, the answer is, to me at least, quite clearly no. The government should be taking a neutral stance as far as religion goes, and interfering with religious practice — especially when the interference is against a disfavored minority group — is potentially quite dangerous. As I noted in a comment above, the government should start from a baseline of treating the burqa no differently than other clothing (like bikinis). Is there a clear cultural and symbolic context surround the burqa that may be relevant? Of course — just as there are with bikinis. Even if these social concerns are properly taken into account, however, the balance should remain on the side of liberty unless a clear showing is made to the contrary. Unlike literal shackling, the showing is not so clear here.
<
p>Second, the discussion of women and free agency is an important one. Feminism can mean different things to different people, but this notion of individual choice must be at the foundation. Jconway brought up the example of stay-at-home moms, which may seem like an attenuated example but in fact I think is quite relevant. While certainly not all progressives have done so, there are certainly some who see the traditional “housewife” role as hearkening back to an older and unenlightened time, and one that does little but reinforce general role stereotypes. While this critique may have an element of truth to it, we can’t so easily brush aside the fact that such choices are, at least in many cases, legitimate choices. It is this sphere of individual choice that should be left as wide open as possible, whether that means women choosing to wear the burqa or choosing to stay home with the kids while her husband works outside the home. I recognize that both situations can be the result of social pressures — but we need to be careful not to assume that the individual choices are invalid.
dhammer says
You’re pretty much saying Mill (a westerner) can be used as a proper cultural prism, but feminism (which is hardly uniform and quite often non-western) cannot.
<
p>Call me a cultural imperialist, but when you spout this nonsense, your generally credible arguement falls apart.
<
p>
<
p>More accurately, we are forcing actual conceptions of feminism on a culture where far too often, complete subjugation of women is the norm. I’m opposed to the burqa being banned in the US, for many of the reasons you state – but I wholeheartedly reject this notion that imposing my “western” views on other cultures is somehow wrong when those views are repugnant. Nazi imagery is banned in Germany, child pornography is banned in the US – we limit speech and expression all the time when it is truly vile.
<
p>Your Turkish MP friend can and should be allowed to wear whatever she wants and it’s awful that her kids were attacked – but just because she’s a woman that doesn’t make her argument valid. The burqa is a relic that has done plenty of actual harm. When 15 girls are allowed to die in a fire because they didn’t have the proper head scarf that’s the veil being demonstrably anti-woman. I may be forcing ‘western’ cultural values on Saudi Arabia to oppose that – good for me, because I’m right – that’s deplorable. Just because subjugation is a traditional cultural value, doesn’t make it not subjugation.
<
p>
jconway says
How does endorsing a woman’s choice to freely wear or not wear a headscarf lead to me endorsing letting women burn and die because they do not wear the proper headscarf?
<
p>I see little reason to make that leap. I am arguing that in a free society, and it seems that you agree, a burqua ban is an extremist policy that in many ways imposes one culture’s norm upon another. To me that is a form of cultural imperialism, when you tell something they can no longer do what they did for centuries and then claim it is in their own interest that is repugnant.
<
p>Now is the compulsory wearing of burquas equally if not more repugnant? Certainly and nowhere have I defended it. I have strongly condemned that as a massive step backward for human rights and feminism and have admitted that forced secularism is a lesser evil than an Islamic theocracy, since at least women have substantially more rights in a secular society. But their rights are still curtailed when they are prevented from expressing themselves, and contrary to lightiris’s point many modern Muslim women in cutting edge professions that were not open to women in their society just a generation back still choose to wear it out of love for their heritage, faith, and culture and I think it is wrong for the state to prevent that expression and it is also wrong for us to claim as liberals that value cultural diversity that their free exercise of their cultural expression is not worthy of our respect. We can certainly disagree with that, and to that I would say if you hate the burqua so much don’t wear one, but to condemn a woman for celebrating her cultural heritage and faith seems just as sexist and pejorative, even if such condemnation is coming from a supposedly more enlightened and feminist tongue.
<
p>I say let women do what they want so long as they are not harming anyone-why is this such a bad standard? Why must all women conform to a western conception of what a women should do in a post-patriarchy?
dhammer says
Of course you don’t endorse what happened to those girls, and I don’t imply that you do. I’m saying that the burqa is actively used as a tool to oppress women, so to say that it’s not anti-woman or that a westerner’s opposition to the burqa derives from a “western cultural conception of femininity” is wrong.
<
p>While I agree that it’s wrong for the state to prevent that expression, I find no quarrel with not respecting the free exercise of cultural expressions that I find repugnant or foolish. Banning the burqa goes too far – discouraging it from ever being worn, that’s the right thing to do.
jconway says
In some cases the burqa can be used as a tool of oppression in other cases a woman is freely using it as a tool of cultural, religious, and personal expression. In the former case obviously a state composed like ours should not allow such a form of oppression, it goes against the very civil rights and liberties it was composed to protect, and against modern notions of gender equality. In the latter case I would argue regulating the wearing of the burqa also goes against the freedom and liberties our state was composed to protect against, and similarly to limit woman’s choices would be to project a specific notion of gender equality upon women that might not agree with it. I would argue the crux of feminism is that women are free to make the same choices men are free to make. If that choice involves wearing clothes that hide the body and are not overtly sexual, or if the choice is to wear ‘regular’ clothes or ‘sexy’ clothes the choice is hers alone to make.
<
p>Essentially I’ll admit the term ‘cultural imperialism’ may have been harsh, perhaps ‘cultural paternalism’ is better, but essentially lightiris and other burqa critics are presuming that a woman is allowing herself to be oppressed by choosing to wear the burqa, whereas if you ask the women wearing them they believe they are expressing themselves. I am not taking one side of that debate or the other, I am saying if lightiris does not like burqa’s then she doesn’t have to wear one, but a Muslim woman who wants to should also have her choice respected and upheld, even if it is a choice none of us would make. The burqa can be a symptom of a much wider form of gender inequality that is typically enforced via state (In S. Arabia and Iran for instance) or social mechanisms. That gender inequality should not be tolerated on our shores, and hopefully there may come a day where it is not tolerated anywhere. That said to argue that a Muslim woman living in this country who freely chooses to express her faith by wearing it is somehow oppressing herself without realizing to me reeks of a paternalism and cultural insensitivity that is incompatible with modern liberalism.
lightiris says
<
p>You’re tired of it? You are? Are you really? Forgive me if I don’t really care what you, as a man, are tired of when it comes to the experiences of free and oppressed women in first- and third-world nations. And forgive me if I don’t really care about your fatigue or your imagination when it comes to a woman’s sense of coercion when it comes to what she may or must wear in a patriarchal or ostensibly free society.
<
p>As for the rest of your diatribe, it’s not worthy of comment. Your “expertise” in these matters regarding the female experience seems equal to the value of the rest of the “expertise” you display on this site.
<
p>
jconway says
I think you made some valid points that the burqua for many reasons is in fact a symbol of male oppression over the female, but many Muslim woman have reclaimed the burqua as a symbol of their own independence and faith and I think it is incredibly pejorative and paternalistic for you to brag about disrespecting that when you clearly have never had a conversation with a woman who wears a burqua or know anything about the historical significance that this item has in their religion. I would argue that is speaking from profound ignorance when you say you do not respect someone else and their cultural heritage because you find it ‘backward’.
mr-lynne says
“Again (0.00 / 0)
I think you made some valid points that the burqua for many reasons is in fact a symbol of male oppression over the female”
<
p>What do you man “again”? I think this is the first time you’ve indicated that she had some “valid points”.
lightiris says
<
p>I’m fascinated that you have so much insight into my 50+ years on this earth. Please do tell me what I have and have not done, to whom I have and have not–, no, I take that back, “never” spoken.
<
p>The richest irony in all of this is you denounce my views based on some very short commentary here as “profound[ly] ignoran[t]” and “paternalistic” based on nothing at all except your fantasies about who I am, where I have lived in my life, and with whom I have “spoken.” Hubris and prof, indeed.
jconway says
Have you ever talked to a Muslim woman who freely wears a burqa? How many Muslim women have you talked to about their faith?
<
p>I have been blessed to go to school in diverse cities like Cambridge and Chicago and I know many Muslim woman and count a few of them as my friends. As a Catholic I have many objections to Islam theologically, and as a liberal I dislike the theocratic and anti-woman tone I find present throughout the Koran. Yet having attended a joint Muslim-Catholic conference on Mary, attended anti-war protests with Muslim woman, debating with Muslim women in cross country tournaments, having worked with Muslim woman to fight for justice in Palestine, and living with them in my dorm I know that they all find themselves liberated, independent, and still view themselves as practicing Muslims. I know plenty of Muslim women, in fact the majority of them on this campus, who choose not to wear the burqa. A few of them do and this does not stop them from taking pre-med classes, debating in cross country tournaments, or otherwise leading independent and fulfilling lives. To presume then that these women, who are living by themselves in the very liberating atmosphere of a college campus, are somehow shackling themselves and holding themselves back is ignoring the bare facts that they are doing no so such thing.
<
p>In no way can you tell me that the Turkish MP I have discussed was not courageous in standing up for her beliefs, even if you disagree with them. In no way can you say her battle to fight to express herself as she choose to express herself was somehow a step backward for feminism, a step backward for women, and she is somehow beneath your respect.
<
p>Perhaps it is just the age difference between you and I that forces us to talk past each other. And I might be wrong, but I am guessing you did not grow up with many Muslims in your classroom, my parents who are of a similar age did not. Also having been through the 60s you have fought many of the ‘good fights’ to make sure a society where women are oppressed and considered second class citizens no longer exists, so to you the notion of a woman freely choosing to mask her face smacks of another bygone age you are glad has passed. My generation on the other hand grew up being exposed to many multiple cultures and different ways of living. Our schools, at least in Cambridge, forced us in many ways to form friendships with people that were different than us and to respect other people’s culture. From an early age I supported gay marriage because my friends had gay parents. From an early age I learned to respect Islam since so many of my classmates were Muslim and I learned more about their culture by watching them fast, comparing our faith’s holidays, etc. I asked my Hindu friends what a sari was, learned from my Jewish friends what a yamakah (spelling) was, and see those objects as no different from the crucifix I wore or the burqa my female classmates then and now choose to wear. You can respect someone elses culture and faith even if you do not share them, even if you do not share their worldview. And to me I am grossly offended by your previous statement that you cannot respect women that wear burqa’s and your comparing it to the shackles of slavery. It is only a shackle when forced upon a woman, but when she chooses to wear it, if you ask her, it can be a sign of liberation and celebration of a culture, a faith, and a heritage, albeit one completely different from yours.
<
p>So forgive my previous declarations of your ignorance, but I assume that if you talked to and knew Muslim women who wore the burqa you would not hold their decision to express their faith by wearing it in such vile contempt.
stomv says
smadin says
I don’t think lightiris is out of line.
lightiris says
be able to persuade Mr. Conway to think differently were I to be nicer, I’m not interested. I feel no need to be “sweet,”–indeed, I could riff on the suggestion you just made and start another conflagration, but I’ll refrain.
huh says
JConway and liveandletlive are arguing from emotion rather than reason. They already KNOW in their hearts that your motivations aren’t pure (like theirs). Any attempt to convince them otherwise, especially by use of facts and logic, is going to go nowhere. Jconway, in particular, will just make something up for you…
liveandletlive says
what this means?
<
p>
<
p>
huh says
It’s a nicer version of what I said.
stomv says
I meant me. I read
<
p>
<
p>and stopped reading. Why? I’m a man. When you write something like that, it’s pretty clear that my kind aren’t quite so welcome to the conversation. Hence, the comment about honey.
<
p>And no, this has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with jconway — it has to do with the reality that conversations on blogs have many bystanders, and those are the people worth convincing, educating, etc.
smadin says
It’s not that as men we aren’t welcome. It’s just that we don’t get to make ourselves and our ideas the center of the discussion – just as, say, as a white person I don’t really have a right to tell a person of color what is and what isn’t a manifestation of racism, and what they are and aren’t “allowed” to be bothered by. That’s not to say, of course, that you don’t “get” to have an opinion, or that your opinion is worthless – but you don’t get to demand that your opinion be given primacy, either, and you should probably recognize that because men are privileged in our society, we’re insulated from the full range of misogyny women face daily, and without basically going out of our way to educate ourselves we may not be in a position to offer sufficiently informed opinions. That is, our opinions aren’t worthless, but they often are worth less, and that’s not actually unfair at all.
<
p>It’s really remarkably condescending for a man to say to a woman, “oh, you should be more sweet-tempered,” in any case – that’s one of the oldest silencing tactics.
liveandletlive says
that when you made your statement “You get more flies with honey than with vinegar” that you meant it in a condescending way from a man to woman to interpret as “oh, you should be more sweet-tempered.” A man’s voice in this debate is so incredibly important, especially when you are open to listening to the views of women and trying to understand the perspective there from. In this debate, I actually am siding with the men, because I also think that forcing a woman to wear or not wear something is more demeaning than letting her choose for herself.
<
p>Lightiris brings up valid points. It has been a very long and very hard battle to achieve equal rights for women. Even though the laws are on our side, there are still instances of oppression and abuse, however, they come with or without a burqa.
<
p>In any case, I think it’s wrong to shut down the debate and put up walls. We only learn and grow by talking about things.
smadin says
that he meant to be condescending. I’m sure he didn’t. Intent isn’t the only thing that matters.
<
p>And, again, no one on this thread as far as I can tell has been advocating “forcing a woman to wear or not wear something”.
smadin says
jconway says
So you think laws that prevent women from expressing their culture and religion are somehow just, fair, equitable, liberal, or in accordance with American values?
<
p>Do you think telling my Muslim classmate who wants to become a doctor that she is somehow oppressing herself and not defending her womanhood is the right thing for me to do? Is that feminist? Am I respecting her personal rights and freedoms? Or am I treating her like an infant and acting paternalistically?
<
p>In that New York Times article I see a male politician telling other women he knows better than them how they should live their lives and making policies on their behalf without their consent. To me that smacks of misogyny not feminism, but apparently I’m in the minority on that one.
<
p>In fact lightiris resembles the 1950s Don Draper looking guy more than I do, telling Muslim women they can’t be feminists if they wear the burqa.
smadin says
NO ONE HERE SAID A BAN WAS A GOOD IDEA.
<
p>Quit trying to mansplain feminism*, and quit putting words in other people’s mouths. I don’t think lightiris agrees with Copé, and I certainly don’t.
<
p>*Especially when you don’t seem to be aware that the idea that religious “modesty” rules for women are misogynistic and should be criticized, is a second-, perhaps even first-wave feminist concept.
lightiris says
<
p>You needs to step away from the keyboard. Your straw man factory is in overdrive. You are ascribing opinions to me (and others) that I (and they) do not possess and mischaracterizing what I and others actually wrote all so that you can launch one screed after another, a propos of nothing. There’s a clinical word for this sort of behavior
<
p>Stop it. Your behavior is childish. I’m weary of seeing my name as the bete noir of your posts on this thread an others. Stop mischaracterizing what I say. Stop ascribing opinions to me I do not hold. Stop claiming I said things I never said. Stop fabricating “facts” about my life. Your behavior is intellectually dishonest to the point of neurosis.
<
p>I will not engage you on this topic because you’re irrational. I will not justify my opinions to you, my experience as a woman to you, or my bona fides as a female and feminist to you. I don’t value your anecdotal conversations with Muslim women. As well, I have neither the time nor the inclination to wade through your masturbatory diabtribes that posit you as an authority on every subject you write about while everyone else is an ignorant dolt.
<
p>
jconway says
So I take it you have not talked to Muslim women, have not interacted with Muslim organizations, have not taken classes on Islam? I have established my bona fides and have been incredibly diplomatic in my posts. But you are the childish one calling me names and saying anyone who disagrees with you hates women. I have presented facts you present bullshit. End of story.
dhammer says
Where’s your evidence for this? Everything I’ve seen has shown that the number of people wearing burqas is decreasing which indicates a lack of popularity. Furthermore, the Reuters article I linked to earlier claimed that 77% of the girls who wear the hijab do so because of physical threats.
<
p>As far as I can tell, your only data point is this Turkish MP and the many women you went to high school with who wore burqas – while they may place a screen across their face every morning with glee, they hardly account for “most” women, so let’s have some evidence.
jconway says
The phrase is ‘most women THAT WEAR THEM’, I understand that the number is not particularly high. I asked the President of the Muslim Student Association here at U Chicago how many women at this University wear the burqa and she said around 30%. I have seen a few in my dorm room, my pre-med girlfriend has seen a few in her lab classes, so clearly wearing a burqa does not stop a woman from pursuing her education freely, becoming a doctor, or somehow means she is submitting herself to a man as lightiris and others here would contend.
<
p>I need to be crystal clear on this point. I find the policies in Saudi Arabia and Iran completely repugnant and do not at all defend Sharia law that compels women to wear burqa’s. In fact I would argue that as someone who supports equal rights for women I do not tend to favor laws that compel women to do anything one way or the other. I find the laws that prevent women from celebrating their cultural heritage and practicing their faith freely equally repugnant. I even find the burqa personally unsettling, it is not something I would ever want my daughters to wear. That said I am not a Muslim woman. Neither apparently are any of us who have commented on this subject or the author of the original article in the New York Times. I say lets allow Muslim women to decide for themselves whether or not they want to wear the burqa. I am not offended if they do, I am not offended if they don’t, unlike some other hypocrites here I am consistent in my desire to let other people choose for themselves how they want to live their lives.
smadin says
Where did lightiris claim this, or where did anyone else on this thread?
<
p>
No one here has argued against this.
<
p>
If you’re going to take swipes like this, name names and cite quotes. Where did, for example, lightiris or dhammer say “we shouldn’t let Muslim women choose to wear burqas/chadors, or hijab of some other form”?
jconway says
She called it a shackle and said any woman who wears it lacks self respect and is not worthy of her respect.
jconway says
<
p>So any Muslim woman who wears a burqa is taking an action incompatible with a civilized society-there is the cultural paternalism right there. Similarly it is a religious express that is not worthy of ‘our’ i.e societies respect. Er go a ban could arguably be permissable since lightiris is dictating what does and does not demand societies respect. Also the inference that SHE does not respect women who wear burqa’s is also easily made and right there embedded in the quote. It is a form of “shackling women” and “more of the same” which refers to centuries of women being oppressed.
<
p>I politely asked her if she ever talked to a Muslim woman wearing a burqa and got more information on the subject. She did not answer and instead proceeded to call me more names. She has no capacity to empathize with people that think differently than her, have different religious views than she does, or have different conceptions of womanhood than she does. She cannot even agree to disagre-nope she admitted that not only are Muslim women who wear burqa’s not worthy of her respect, they are not worthy of OUR respect and they are uncivilized barbarians. That to me is grossly inoffensive and so far she has not backed up any her assertions with facts. I have met these women and talked to them.
<
p>Here is the Turkish MP who spoke to my class. Here is a link to a Turkish Muslim woman’s Op-Ed chastising the burqa but defending the right of her countrywoman to wear it. Links to a Muslim group made up of all women opposing Canada’s burqa ban.
<
p>At the end of the day lightiris has a right to think the burqa is backward, so she shouldn’t wear it. She should not place women that wear them into a box marked ‘uncivilized/unworthy of respect’ that is completely wrong and certainly not something a progressive should do.
smadin says
So just to tackle the really basic issue:
“cultural and/or religious tradition X is a manifestation and/or symbol of the oppression of group Y, and not automatically exempt from critique or worthy of respect merely by the fact of its being a cultural and/or religious tradition”
or even
“cultural and/or religious tradition X, a manifestation and/or symbol of the oppression of group Y, is an uncivilized and harmful tradition, unworthy of respect in an egalitarian society, notwithstanding its cultural and/or religious significance”
is not the same statement as
“members of group Y who participate in cultural tradition X are themselves categorically uncivilized and unworthy of respect.”
<
p>It’s not the same at all. It’s not a hard distinction to make. That you persist in treating statements of the former type as though they were the latter does tend to suggest that you’re not really trying to engage with lightiris’s arguments here, and prefer just repeating yourself, on which topic see above re: mansplaining.
huh says
How can someone whose features can’t be identified qualify for a picture ID? I suppose the same thing applies to scarves.
stomv says
You don’t get to wear giant aviator sunglasses either.
<
p>Facial hair could make things complex (Sikh), but given how easy it is to change the shape and color of hair, showing head-hair doesn’t seem nearly as useful as showing eyes, nose, lips, cheekbones, and ears.
smadin says
but my understanding is that (in most cases, anyway?) Muslim women who wear veils or full-face coverings can reveal their faces to other women, so if they need their ID checked for some reason, there just needs to be a female staffer and a private room available. I may be mistaken on that, though.