Salmon Rushdie: Veils take power from women

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005134801

London, England (AHN) - Prime Minister Tony Blair and author Salmon Rushdie applauded a British official for raising the tough issue of whether Muslim women who come to his office should remove their veils.

The official is none other than Jack Straw, former foreign secretary and the current leader of the House of Commons. He has now confronted a debate on Islamic integration in Britain.

Blair said of Straw during an interview with BBC: "It's important these issues are raised and discussed, and I think it's perfectly sensible if you raise it in a measured and considered way, which he did... I think we can have these discussions without people becoming hysterical either way about it."

Salman Rushdie, whose book "The Satanic Verses" once lead to a fatwah or death threat against him by Islamic clerics like Iranian leader Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini told BBC radio, "(Straw) was expressing an important opinion, which is that veils suck, which they do. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women."

SNIP

This appears to be another of those issues where liberals' instincts collide -- the feminist in me is repulsed by veil, but the multi-culturalist wants to think of it as just another cultural expression.

Do I respect their culture even though part of me feels it suppresses women?

But isn't it exploiting women to have them dressed skimpily?

We women are never satisfied.

I think as long as the woman CHOOSES the veil (it's not worn to avoid ostracism or worse) it is OK. But from a cursory observance, it's hard to know. I'm intensely curious about Muslim women, I once heard one say the Koran was a blueprint for feminism, but I never got the explanation!

to address their leaders with their concerns.

the fact that women must hide their faces is incredibly sexist.

and on that he is correct. Human communication is about far more than the verbal, and unless you can see the full face of the person talking to you, communication suffers. Anyone online has already experienced that particular effect in full measure.

But how many women would be comfortable if all the men they encountered in public were wearing hoods over their heads?

the security issues alone would be mind boggling

men roaming freely with damn hoods over their face, sheesh, they're shooting people right and left in new orleans area where i live as it is, there would not be a hope of ever catching and stopping it if they could remain hooded

of course we are supposed to assume that all women are pathetic and helpless and that therefore they would never use the veil for nefarious purpose

argh...

the sexism of the veil is obvious and i don't know how anyone can reasonably argue another side to it

any way you look at it, it insults women

no threat to anybody, veiled or not.

I've wondered, though, what would happen if I got in a traffic accident with someone in face covering. (This isn't a random worry, where I live. Our traffic makes fender benders increasingly common and the veiled community is growing .) How would I even be able to identify the other driver? And it can't be a good idea to drive with your vision so restricted. Hopefully they aren't driving while peeking out through a little rectangle of mesh.

Isn't about to allow them to drive.

in ghettos and have almost no contact with outsiders? The government of Great Britain has little to do with the constrictions of their lives.

only allows them to see out of a scrap of mesh. How do I know they aren't driving with this thing on?

the eyes unrestricted. Looking throuth a rectangle of mesh is an issue only in those countries where women where the burka -- and they are definited not allowed to drive in those countries.

the West. I have seen women wearing the full chador with the mesh square in my own US city. How do I know they're not driving in it? There isn't a law against that, by the way.

And I hope they get the book thrown at them it they drive in that getup and cause an accident because of poor visibility.

As for me, I've live in the NYC/NJ metro area all my life and have never seen anyone in that horrifying garb, thank goodness. I think I might lose what's left of my mind if I did.

where this woman was following her husband around, then standing behind him while he dealt with the clerk at the counter. I wanted to smile at her -- but it's an odd thing smiling at someone who you can't see -- at all. (Even the eyes get obscured behind the mesh.)

I wanted to smile at her . . . but I felt like strangling him. There was such a sense of his being "in charge." Very creepy.

seen women following their men at some distance. It always gets my back up, but it's none of my business. It's her life. Ugh.

The man is walking in front with short sleeves and the woman is behind completely covered. It's disgusting. If the worry is modesty , let the men cover up too.

In any culture I can possibly think of?

but I know it bugs the hell out of me. The men shouldn't be enforcing modesty on females when they themsleves have skin exposed. Let them cover up themselves and shut the hell up about the women.

by the make of their car and their driver's license.

Personally, I agree with the idea that the veil is restrictive and demeaning, but I in no way support banning the veil or coverings. Many American women who FREELY choose to wear it do so for religious and/or personal reasons. I do think that they should be forced to take identification pictures without the veil, however. I agree with the arguments, but I in no way want to restrict the freedom to choose such religious and cultural items.

at that person's license?

And how would you identify that person in court, if you had to?

they are always on the car. If the person ditches, the police could determine who was driving. If the car wasn't stolen, it would be either the woman or someone in their household.

The license plates would only show who owned the car.

None of this would substitute for actually getting a look at the person who was driving and being able to positively identify that person in court.

In this country, it isn't enough to know that a driver is one person, or someone else "in their household." We need to know exactly which person was involved, and personal identification is one of the ways that we do that.

What if a woman did NOT have a driver's license, so she borrowed her sister's or mother's and wore a veil? How would we know that?

I certainly want to see the person I'm talking to.

In my part of England, it's not uncommon for me to encounter veiled women. I find it extremely difficult to communicate with someone when I can't see their face, and I also find it hard to understand words coming from behind a heavy, opaque cloth.

Nowhere in the Koran does it say that women have to cover their faces. It exhorts them to dress modestly (men too), and that's all.

I do.

defending it use is therefore sexist.

and as a feminist I'm appalled by it.

You can be appalled by it - it's your right.

But, it's also the right of Muslim women to CHOOSE to wear it - and most of them do choose to wear it. It's part of both their religion and their culture and they wouldn't have it any other way.

Sorry if that offends you - but your NOT covering probably offends them, too.

for "most" of Muslim women. I posted below about the French law and how it was primarily enacted because schoolgirls were being forced to veil. In fact, the law has the support of the majority of Muslim women in France which I believe says a lot about coercion.

Just because the British government doesn't force veiling, doesn't mean that there isn't a great deal of choice within their communities about it.

That's my point, in total.

I understood it to mean that Jack Straw was uncomfortable talking to a moving bundle of cloth. Frankly, I am too. It feels awkward and it's really hard to have good communications.

Rushdie's comments are his own opinion but I don't see him calling for forced unveiling either.

women may as well be living in the Middle East, based on the amount of pressure they must feel. The fact that they're living in the west hardly seems relevant.

And if they're indocrinated by their culture and religion (see the men who make up the rules of their culture and religion) then how can it be suggested that they're making a true choice.

They're under the control of their husbands, brothers and even their sons, no matter what country they live in.

I know too many to count and nearly ALL of them covered because they wanted to.

We're indcrinated by our culture NOT to cover - it's the same difference. You can't just get rid of cultural morrays just because YOU deem them to be sexist. They don't think they are, the majority of the time.

And I didn't say all of them choose it - I said the vast majority in free countries who still wear it, choose it. Like these women in Britian.

wear a veil, or chose "to cover" is anecdotal. I know two women who still believe that men have superior brains and have given their sons money for college, but not their daughters.

Women have been and still are beaten by men for not wearing the veil, or for chosing to dress in a way that the MALE cultural and religious leaders have deamed offensive. There are too many psychological factors involved in the "choice" to wear the veil and to cover their faces that cannot easily be recognized even by the closest of friends...even when they live in countries like Britain.

have contact with westerners and therefore -- if they're wearing a veil -- they're most likely to be wearing it voluntarily.

I'm more concerned about the ones YOU don't know. The ones that are living in isolation, in small communities consisting only of people like themselves, who don't even speak English and have no way of financially supporting themselves. Prove to me that THOSE women are wearing the veil and living in subjection to men voluntarily.

As opposed to living that way because they don't feel they have any other real choice.

While most that I know dress "modestly" I don't know any that regularly choose to be "veiled." Most wear a scarf (loosely covering their hair) during prayers and not at any other time.

All that I know (versus those that I am merely acquainted with) are residents or citizens of industrial "western" nations. The few (these women, I am merely acquainted with) that wear a hajiib come from very male dominant families and give the impression of being in very subordinate positions to men.

What does this mean ... nothing, it is purely anecdotal. Look at how differently Muslim women from various parts of the world dress.

What I'm defending, btw, is their right to wear whatever they damn well please.

by the conservative men who dictate to them. This is not a choice of free will, IMO.

If it's so wonderful, why aren't the men veiling themselves?

should be allowed to go around wearing Ninja masks all the time. Those have a slit for eyes. I'll claim it's part of my culture and religious beliefs.

We're not talking about headscarves here. Frankly IMO, I don't think we can do anything about the sexism that exists in Islamic countries or many traditional Muslim families. The government cannot change anyone's culture, but it can force them to accept a few basic guidelines for living in that country.

except that wearing the face veil reduces human to human communication, which it does.

One person has access to the other's facial expressions, the other does not. It is an awkward situation. I know I would not be comfortable if every man I came in contact with was wearing a full mask over his face.

its nature, an oppressive statute. MKJ

required from what I understand. Women have taken to wearing the veil because Muhammed's wives wore it and they are trying to emulate them. But Muhammed's wives wore it because they were always getting stared at as his wives....

My understanding is that Islamic women are supposed to make sure they are modest and don't draw stares. The veil is ostensibly a way to be in that mode. But, when a woman is veiled, they draw stares in our (British, Western etc.) culture, imho, defeating the purpose. Also, women who veil give the impression they have been somehow inculcated into a cult - our culture really frowns on people wearing wierd garb like that, and it doesn't lend an impression of respect, just brainwashing which is why I believe we are so mistrustful of it.

Even Catholic nuns wearing their veils - they definitely give they impression they are submissive to the cult, second class citizens (imho of course).

It's the face covering that feels extreme to me.

The basic principle here is the individual choice of the individual person.

Jewish men once were killed for not removing their hats in front of the king, and the principle was the same then.

Tucker

Believe it or not, most Muslim women who cover do so because they WANT to, particularly in free societies like Britian and the US.

banning religious symbols/garb in schools was done (primarily) because girls were being forced to wear the veils. Not only that, but most Muslim women approved of the new law and support it (which says even more about coercion if you ask me).

I would posit that being forced to wear the veil is more common than we want to believe.

though living in a free society, find it difficult or impossible to go against the dictates of their family?

completely covering their face is an idiot, EXTREMELY submissive and/or oppressed.

We're not talking headscarves. We're talking full covering leaving only a slit. That's extremely awkward for conversation.

Western countries offer a lot of freedom with respect to religious expression - more than ANY Muslim nation on earth. I don't think it's asking too much to show your face when communicating with people.

Is that it?

What about women who don't speak English? Who live in a ghetto of people only like themselves? Who are completely dependent on their husbands financially?

You really think these women are all wearing a veil and following behind their husbands out of choice?

If Muslim women in US society don't want to draw stares, they should get fat, stop showering and wear dirty sweatsuits. People on the street will look past them like they aren't there.

Believe me, once they turn 40, they'll be invisible enough...

I'm over 40 and I have never considered myself invisible. You're as visible as you make yourself.

I certainly understand your point. I am coming at this from the other angle; this whole thread's conversation seems to me to center around how men view women, not how we arrange ourselves for viewing. And in my experience, if you are over 40, men (and many younger women, for that matter) dismiss you.

I attract more attention at 43 than I did when I was 23. I think it has a lot to do with self confidence and being comfortable with who you are.

The Quran calls for women to dress modestly, but I don't think that early Islamic women dress themselves from head to toe in burquas and completely cover their faces.

hoods over their heads when out in groups in public? Like the many municipalities that decided to ban masks and hoods in the KKK era? Those laws are still on the books.

Women were foced by tradition to wear those as well. The veil is not as extreme, but oppression comes from the family and the culture more than it comes from the state - and that applies to the vast majority of cultures, not simply Islam.

On edit: what I'm saying is that the state can liberate people by forbidding certain things - it's a complex dilemma, and a delicate one, but one worth discussing on a case-by-case basis rather than in terms of absolutes.

So, how about a history lesson, for the uninformed American.

Did the state forbid cuckolder's horns and thus become celebrated for centuries? :shrug: MKJ

Remembered fondly, that is, usually in the construction "the one good thing the British did ..."

I understand that your Constitution has a fondly remembered (but sadly little-applied) injunction against "cruel and unusual punishment", which would cover things like cuckolder's horns. Ditto "religious test for office", which could be relevant to the wearing (or not) of the veil.

It says that women are property that must be protected and kept off display.

It's a holdover from medieval times, and it remains in use because of adherence to medieval passages in the Koran.

Peace.

a webbed opening over her eyes -- in our local Sears. She was standing beside her husband as he did all the dealing with the female clerks. It was really a gut wrenching experience. I felt like I was seeing a man and his . . . property.

no veiled woman has power, she is property, marked as such, the man may as well lift his leg and piss on her

I am a glasses-wearer. I have worn glasses since I was little. I recognize my face better with glasses on. My friends and family know my face with glasses. I am not used to a world that is not bounded by the safety of frames and lenses.

If someone were to ask me to take use contacts so they could see me better, I'd feel incredibly exposed and vulnerable. The world would just be right *there* where it could, literally, get in my face!

I imagine that, for someone who has grown up regarding her face as private, and who has always worn a veil, going barefaced would be at least as icky as going glasses-less is for me, or going out without at least lipstick on is for my mother. I may think veils, and for that matter lipstick and brassiers, are silly and no one should ever be *required* to wear them, but I cannot justify making someone take off their customary clothing for the emotional comfort of another.

Tucker

And they're extremely difficult to see out of, besides being hot indoors or in warm weather.

It's nothing like the choice between glasses and contacts.

we are the ones in the chador or not. The message is that women are second class citizens, to be led around by men.

Have you ever thought about what it is like to be underneath a full chador? About how limited your vision is when you're seeing through a few inches of mesh?

Have you ever wondered about what kind of man would prefer women to be restricted in that way?

"I command thee to remove thy veil, woman! Shut up your whining about your rights and do as I say so that you'll be my equal!"

Despite what I want them to do and be, what they choose has to take precedence.

I just thought he was speaking to the discomfort he feels when he has to try to communicate with someone whose facial expressions are unavailable to read.

Except for people who are autistic, "reading faces" is an extremely important part of every day communication. In a way, wearing the veil is a way of putting everyone who has to talk to you in the position, in terms of nonverbal communication , of an autistic person. Straw is just acknowledging that, in my opinion.

I think a lot of people are misinterpreting Straw's comments. Maybe people thought he wanted Muslim women not to wear headscarves, which many Muslim women do wear out of choice.

nt

Peace doesn't make it "all better"

No where does the veil = property.

Medieval times-- another term that needs definition.

Veiling/seclusion has been tied to the Sunna of the Prophet, but Byzantine practices as well...

"Medieval passages in the Koran"? Not even going to touch this one.

Peace indeed.

but not so glad to hear you mocking me.

We both stand to benefit from a discussion, but neither stand to benefit when you disable the mechanism of discussion by causing me to feel defensive.

Here's a suggested edit of your post:


This kind of response would elicit exchange of ideas much better than the approach you used.

MH

in your post.

If you wish, look upon it as a learning experience as to how your approach could be received.

I was well aware of how my approach was to be received

As to the edit:

Feel free to read my post however you wish.

To end the post with Peace after making vast generalizations, blanket statements, and ill-informed conjectures is disingenous.

As for mocking-- you can read mocking into my post-- it was not my intent to mock, but rather to pointedly point out that the approach was not helpful

My post was an expression of opinion on a public subject, and not directed personally at you, either directly or indirectly.

This is a discussion forum, where the entire point is to post opinions. Public issues and public figures are fair game, and precisely why this place exists.

I can understand that you disagree with my opinions, but insulting me is no way to convince me or anyone else of your point of view. I see that kind of unprovoked attitude mostly as an exercise in ego. Where are your actual arguments?

You continued with this same tone in your next post. Do you convince a lot of people with this technique? The answer is self-evident. As for disingenous, one need only look at your last sentence to understand what the word means. Your intention was clearly to mock. Now you don't want to own that? Please.

This will be my last post with you. I have little to learn from someone who swings first and asks questions later.

if she wants to remove her veil in the office then let her. if she doesn't, she doesn't have to.

simple.

that covered their heads and faces.

Would you be equally comfortable with that?

There are a number of places in the US with laws that ban groups of people from wearing face coverings or masks in public (with exceptions for Halloween). The laws were enacted because of the KKK.

Should we also require people to wear nametags so we all will know their names? If it's a matter of security, that would allow us to know more about each other. Also it would make it easier for peolple with poor memories for faces. (I would personally be more comfortable if everyone wore a nametag and an indicator of whether or not they want social interaction, like in the all-autie/Aspie town in Oregon.)

Tucker

and the KKK has nothing to do with a religion dictating what its women believers should wear.

someone hit it out of the park in a message above - any rule telling someone what they can and can't wear is an oppressive statute.

i'm sure most women probably wear a veil because they're forced to do so, but i'm sure there's a large segment that wears them because they believe it's what their religion wants them to do.

i have a friend who's a strong christian and she believes that it's her role to be housewife and mother - just like the bible says. should we make a rule saying all women who believe that need to have careers because they're being oppressed?

So our laws are relevant.

The question if, how are they applied?

and she has no choice?

and these woman are under control of their brothers, uncles and even their own sons.

any different than forcing a women to wear something? either way it leaves no room for choice (and it seems like the only place this would take effect is in mr. straw's office).

i would never support a law but i do wish that i could collectively slap the heads of any man who would force his wife or daughter to wear one of these things.

our western society likes to hold itself up as a pillar of civilization but we're just as barbaric to our women, in ways that aren't as easy to point at as a veiled face.

Really, the first approach to this dilemma should be a very harsh crackdown on honour killings and honour crimes such as bridenapping, and far closer scrutiny of arranged marriages. I personally feel that arranged marriage has no place in civil society, but that's from a Western perspective and I'm trying to keep myself open to counter-arguments. Those measures would safeguard women from coercion, violence and the threat of violence, and begin to create an environment where the role of the veil can be honestly discussed without threats.

i guess the only part that bothers me about the whole thing is the idea that mr. straw put forward of forcing women to remove their veils when in his office.

His constituents know he's not a knee-jerk Islamophobe; he was right to say this because it means that the issue can, I hope, be discussed in a sensible and level-headed way. Ranting extremists on both sides will try to derail it, but it's vital that they should not be allowed to.

Rushdie was less sensitive, but frankly he has a right to ignore Muslim sensibilities and go for the jugular of sacred cows because he's willing to put his life on the line.

His comments were not putting forward any kind argument for "forced" unveiling as I read the article.

It's beginning to bother me that it's becoming some kind of untouchable discussion issue. That's getting a bit creepy. Why can't we discuss differences in culture without getting everyone's panties in a wad?

Especially when it comes to protocol and good communications between sensitive parties.

admittedly i just skimmed through it. my fault.

it is an important discussion yes, and if he's merely posing the question then good on him.

and you're right - too often the idea of "cultural differences" doesn't do anything but excuse inexcusable behavior and stifle honest and open discussion.

let's hope that the dialogue in england isn't reduced to the rabid back and forth flame fests that such discussions reliably become here on DU.

In other news, Straw also agreed that the custom of women covering their legs in pants takes power from women. Future female visitors to his office will be required to remove their pants.

Definitions of modesty vary from culture to culture and from person to person. Being modest is about feeling fully dressed. My opinion is that if a woman feels more fully dressed in a veil, more power to her. If a woman feels more comfortable in pants instead of a skirt, she should go for it. A woman coming into the office of the leader of the House of Commons is not likely to be without power, anyway.

The skirted suit is more prestigious for women in the highest corporate & government levels. However--pantyhose MUST be worn under the skirt. The female body below the waist must be encased in a tight webbing of synthetic fiber to counteract the submissive "free access" message conveyed by the skirt.

If you're going by that subset of Western dress codes, at least.

Unless you're in Scotland--where men may wear skirts. And no pantyhose at all!

Or in Texas--where we have slightly different "Western" dress codes, plus a fair sample of international styles.

The original arguments against women wearing pants included the idea that pants made it easier for a woman to spread her legs, and emphasized her sexuality. The Romans thought the Celts looked girlish for wearing what amounts to pants. Now, too many folks seem to mistake a kilt for a skirt, and think THAT looks girly. The Celts just can't catch a break :-)

When I was still wearing women's dress, I once turned down a job that required me to wear a skirt and not pants. I didn't own such a thing, nor the shoes to go with it. It always befuddled me that a set of clothes that left my legs hanging out and shoes that were hard to walk in were supposed to be 'more professional' than trousers and oxfords, especially given that the men in the workplace wore Dockers no-iron pants and loafers. Considering that the job was a technical one that would sometimes require crawling under a desk to plug in cables or hauling computers around, the requirement was absolutely absurd. I balked at being told I had to show my ankles to do my job.

I have also met women who do not even own pants, except for a pair of jeans for yard work. It's just not their way. I couldn't imagine telling a woman she had to wear pants to do her job unless she worked around machinery that might catch on a skirt.

The whole idea of attaching so much meaning to a piece of clothing is beyond me. Isn't the meaning of the empowerment of women that women can make their own choices? Don't we lose sight of something when we fight for an image of what a free woman should look like, rather than fighting for the freedom of women?

Every culture has it's norms and in British culture not showing a woman's face violates that cultural ethic.

any one self-hating enough to think that their face is obscene and needs to be hidden has big, big problems and should not be enabled

for security reasons certainly no one should be meeting w. blair or other high officials in a veil

the veil is about saying a woman's face is obscene, you can't be a part-time feminist, either you reject this or you think it's OK for women of "other" cultures to have their faces deemed obscene and placed in a veil

i'm tired of woman-hating being cloaked under the guise of "multi-culturalism"

our culture in the south used to embrace slavery and lynching, when a culture is evil and when it propagates hate, it must be stopped no matter how loud it screams "but GAWD sed so!"

we humor hate against women if some mullah or some preacher says so and i'm damn sick of it

england is supposed to be a secular country, they should act like it

Pfft. :eyes:

Seriously though, how would you feel if you lived somewhere where people accused you of being a self-hating woman because you choose to wear a shirt?

When the hell did "full-time" feminism turn into dogma about what women should or should not wear?

"....just another cultural expression" of male dominant power.




:think:

But that doesn't mean it is right to legislate that veils or bras or makeup may *not* be worn.*

Tucker


*It is debatable whether no harm comes to braless/makeup-less women in American society anyway, as many workplaces require both.

I'm sorry, I don't quite get your point here. Are you equating burqas with makeup and bras? :shrug:

Also, the question is not "Will harm come to a woman who doesn't do this?" but, rather, "Should harm come to a woman who does?"

Since it goes back to a primary principle I believe in, namely one's ownership of one's own body and right to show it (or not) as one sees fit, I see no wiggle room here. An individual's choice of attire is hers to make.

Tucker

Literally. The context of Straw's remarks is that there's a big debate about whether immigrant cultures in Britain should integrate into the majority culture, or if several cultures can live side by side without problems. Refusing to show your face is an extreme form of keeping people and cultures separate. If someone came into a room, and sat with their back to you while talking to you, wouldn't you consider it rude and unhelpful?

Do you think several separate cultures can co-exist in one political State?

Personally, I don't depend on facial cues for much other than telling where one word ends and another begins. If the person was loud enough it'd be fine--I recognize people based on body shape and movement patterns, much more than faces, and since so many people look so much alike to me I'd prefer if everyone wore nametags. But it's really not up to me.

I am a multiculturalist, and do not believe it is the duty of the immigrant to assimilate.

Tucker

but everyone does, whether consciously or subconsciously. That's a fact. And in the absence of facial cues, people can either misunderstand or be misunderstood. That's another fact. Just Google "facial cues" and do a little reading, you'll see you rely on it more than you think.

Meanwhile, consider how the total absence of facial and aural indicators leaves online communication ripe for misunderstandings, from OOPS! to Flame Wars. Communication is about much more than words.

if you're in the room and your face doesn't show at all :think:

No.

Separate but accomodating, yes.

practices that subjugate women. I don't think female genital mutilation should be legal in the US either, or child marriage, even though these are cultural practices that some immigrants have sought to bring with them into this country.

frowns?

Hard to believe . . . .

When you have two very different cultures in the same democratic country you get "census voting," that is voting based on ethnic affilation instead of political ideology, which is very damaging to civil society and can lead to internal conflict. Multiculuralism has proven to be a falure, European countries should adopt a Melting Pot assimilationist model, like the US has. It IS the duty if immigants to assimilate, I don't care how much the relativist, Postmodernist PC nuts whine and bitch.

I'd say if they couldn't communicate any better, the fault is theirs and not mine and wouldn't worry one whit about it.

There's already a lot of hard feelings on their part about "our" lack of understanding. You can say it is "their" fault but they sure do blame US bitterly for it.

:crazy:

My point is still more of a laissez faire approach.

Don't tell them to cover and don't tell them not to cover. Either way, it's someone dictating how someone else should behave, dress or act and that's unacceptable in free societies (within obscenity reason).

We do have discussions about grey areas all the time (like pornography for example).

We don't allow people to walk around in KKK outfits without penalty, and I believe that it's okay for a society to regulate some of this stuff.

This is a guy, a high governmental official, asking for some kind of dialogue about veiling. Yet even bringing it up is somehow taboo! The strong prohibitions/intense anger about even discussing this should ring alarm bells imho.

I believe it's because there is a lot of "forcing" going on there: culturally via indoctrination perhaps? or by families and communities? whatever. But I'm not sure why we can't even say it's wierd talking to a woman who is completely engulfed in cloth, who we can't even see their face.

It's not part of our heritage or culture yet we are being made to feel guilty? shamed? for questioning it. For letting Muslims know that it perhaps contributes to misunderstanding?

It's a very complex issue.

people? Like Straw does? Wouldn't you care then?

Like many good communicators, he needs to be able to look the person in the face so he can tell if his message is getting through, and so he can read the other person's unspoken thoughts.

in a full veil.

Which is where the article is set. The murdering of people for not conforming to societal norms is wrong, of course, but that isn't what is being discussed here.

"the veil is a way of taking power away from women" is "what is being discussed here." The veil is "another cultural expression" of male dominant power. The burqa is also a powerful symbol of "the murdering of people for not conforming to societal norms."

And you want to control how I discuss this? :wow:

Outrage! Outrage! Rant rant rant! Extreme Tangent!

"Which is where the article is set."
"...of course, but that isn't what is being discussed here."

Of course
:sarcasm:




"Really? Damn, and I SO wanted to limit your thinking."
"Outrage! Outrage! Rant rant rant! Extreme Tangent!"

You do not see where it is condescending for you to make a decision about a woman's choices, and hypocritical to base your decision on what is best for a woman on your own feminist values? You are the one acting like the white male patriarch here, thinking that your cultural values give you the right to decide for someone else what is right and what is wrong.

Muslim women I know who wear a veil in America and in Germany do so out because they want to, because they are proud Muslims and do not want to give up their identity. Especially in places where Muslims are subject to harassment based on their religious identity, the veil is a sign of bravery as well as pride and religious devotion. Such women are more than capable of making their own decisions about what to wear, and they are fully aware of other parts of the world where a woman must wear the veil or face dire consequences. I will defend the rights of these women to make their own choices, whether it is to wear no veil, hijab, a full chador, or a diamond tiara and a rabbit suit. I will condemn the arrogance of Straw to tell a woman in his office that she must dress in a way that makes him feel comfortable.

Your arguments in this subthread do not follow from previous posts. AlienGirl and I were both discussing the right of a woman in Britain to choose to wear the veil, not the abuse of women in other countries who choose not to wear the veil. You posted peripheral tangents and hysterical accusations - yes, I know the etymology of the word, don't bother - and the oh-so-helpful jaw-dropping smiley. If you don't want a condescending and snarky response to your own snarky posts, don't write posts that make you sound like a college freshman and don't take the snark out in the first place.

"Your arguments in this subthread do not follow from previous posts."


I responded to the OP with a simple and factual statement.

Response to Original message 16. "....just another cultural expression" of male dominant power.


"You do not see where it is condescending for you to make a decision about a woman's choices, and hypocritical to base your decision on what is best for a woman on your own feminist values?"

I did nothing of the sort. You are arguing with your imaginary cliche feminist, not with me.



"You posted peripheral tangents and hysterical accusations - yes, I know the etymology of the word, don't bother - and the oh-so-helpful jaw-dropping smiley. If you don't want a condescending and snarky response to your own snarky posts, don't write posts that make you sound like a college freshman and don't take the snark out in the first place."

Your projections, insults and hostility are totally out of line. :hi:





In fact "You are the one acting like the white male patriarch here, thinking that your cultural values give you the right to decide for someone else what is right and what is wrong" by lecturing me on how I should discuss things to merit your approval. :puke:

nt

its religious opression at its finest. You mean so little that we cant even be bothered to look at your disgusting face. Of course, we'll still rape you and then kill you for being raped.

as a women, im sick that other women could possibly see anything other than that. They are upfront that women dont mean shit, they can shove that culture up their collective asses.

little girls are not born wanting to be covered from head to toe - this is drilled into them from an early age by male-dominated religious fanatics

not doing anybody any favors. and the ones that do are usually willing to criticise american "culture" mercilessly, but other cultures are considered off limits for some reason. look, traditions can just as easily be bad as good, and one must look at the history and the larger context to see whether any particular tradition is harmful, helpful, or neutral. quite clearly, the history of judeo-christian religions has been to treat women like crap, and muslim countries seem to have hung on to this longer than most. It needs to be called out for the bullshit it is, but preferably in a rational, even-handed way.

and welcome to DU.:hi:

Let's see... technically men are supposed to cover their heads too.

Some Muslim sects and traditions do veil totally, but this is more of a cultural tradition. Trust me, it was originally in place for a reason. It has to deal with the male gaze.

In the West and especially America we have created the notion of 'personal space'. As Westerners, we always maintain a zone of proximity. This happens to such an extent that even if an unknown woman was almost nude in public men would not enter that zone except visually. They would oogle, but not touch. Women are kept 'safe' by the social construct of personal space.

In the Muslim world (and to a certain extent Asia), personal space does not exist as it does in the West. Try shopping here and you will understand what I mean. There are few barriers between you and other people other than clothing. What must be averted in the Muslim world is the gaze. Women maintain a zone of privacy by averting the male gaze with clothing.

I know many veiled feminists who would profoundly disagree with the sentiments expressed by Mr. Rushdie and some DUers here. Symbolically, it is not a means of repressing women.

Now, do some cultural traditions who have this aspect to their culture repress women? Of course... Repression is repression, veiled or not...

So, a woman must be covered from head to toe because a man can't control himself? Blech. Sorry, in my culture, that's simply offensive.

I know a Muslim woman here in the US and she covers her head/hair with a veil outside her home or if a male outside of the family is in her home, and she makes sure her arms are covered as well. Her face is exposed (she's beautiful, btw). She has only begun doing this SINCE 9/11, saying that she wants HER face to be one of the faces of Islam to the US, so people understand what Islam is and isn't (and it's not crashing planes into buildings).

It is her choice, not imposed upon her by her husband (who is a lovely man as well).

So, I say that it's the person's choice and if a woman chooses this for HERSELF, okay. However, I balk at women being required to cover their entire bodies because men can't control themselves. Men have the capability of controlling themselves just fine.

or come in close contact with you? No, because you maintain social distance AND enforce it.

Here, you will get touched and come in close proximity to people. In fact, I often have veiled ladies come around me in stores to grab things from the shelves.

Those boundaries for personal space here are defined by the clothing... veils, gloves... those are the social rules here...

A repressed woman is a repressed woman if she is forced to wear a burqa by someone, or if she is forced to strip for money by her pimp in Las Vegas.

You guys don't get it do you? Talk like this only succeeds in pissing off moderates and intellectuals in the Muslim world. It wins no hearts and minds. It liberates no woman. Ultimately, it is one more STRAW in a long string of insults, aggravations, insensitivities, etc.

I get it just fine. In your culture, men will be in physical contact with women, therefore women have to protect themselves by obsuring their bodies from head to toe. Men don't have to wear veils and gloves, only women.

Did I "get" it?

Have I insulted a moderate or intellectual by my original post, which read that if it's a woman's CHOICE, it's fine, but if women are forced to clothe themselves to protect against men who can't control themselves, it's NOT fine? It's as bad as people who say, "She wore a short skirt, she was raped, it's her fault."

Sorry for the "insult". This is a board that originates in the US, and my US culture dictates that I can say what I mean according to the culture I live in. I'm not telling anyone else what they HAVE to do, I've only commented that I think it's terrible that women, once again, pay the price for someone else not being able to control their own personal behavior.

My "here" is the U.S., part of the western world. Why is it that when we are in Middle Eastern countries we are expected to conform with their norms, but it is somehow unfair for us to encourage them to adjust to our norms when they come here?

:applause:

Us westerners are evil opressors and so have no right to defend our values!

:sarcasm:

in ways (shoving and grabbing) that in other contexts (i.e., unveiled) would be considered rude.

It reminds me of another experience with chadored women in the U.S. Two of them were in a small women's clothing section of a store, along with an adult man and two boys -- the older boy, approaching 6 feet tall. In the midst of this crowded little area with racks of women's clothes, and other female shoppers, they were allowing the large boy to bounce and throw a basketball around.

The two women in their chadors were basically invisible to me. The adult man averted his eyes. The 6 footer with the basketball just kept up his bouncing and jumping and throwing while the little one darted around.

And I finally gave up on the shopping. At the counter I asked the very young woman at the counter about this. She just threw up her hands. She hadn't known what to do, either.

Straw started thinking about it when a constituent said to him "I so glad to talk to you face-to-face", and he thought "but we're not, are we? I can't see your face".

A woman has the right not to wear a veil if she does not want to wear a veil. A society which tells her she MUST cover is oppressive. A woman also has the right to wear a veil if she wants to wear a veil. A society which tells her she MUST NOT cover is also oppressive.

Shockingly enough, women are people, and have the right to make their own individual decisions. Neither the religious views of fundamentalists nor the political views of Western secular liberals override the right of a woman to pick out her own clothes in the morning.

wearing hoods and full masks in public -- i.e., the KKK?

Many municipalities have those laws on the books.

Is there a reason women should be the exception?

However, these same laws ban all kinds of innocuous dressup, and should be stricken as against the First Amendment right to free speech.

I believe the KKK is firmly set against multiculturalism, believing it to be a "Jewish conspiracy to weaken the white culture."

Tucker

And I think the KKK idiots should be able to wear their trash, too. I don't agree with them, but I agree with the First Amendment.

Would you be comfortable if half the people you ran into in public were wearing masks all the time?

if they didn't have their veiling, that would be so much worse. I think of the Afghan women who dared to show some skin and would get beatings for that.

you can not overlook the fact that that is influencing it's use in western countries. most of these women are recent immigrants from muslim countries where there is no choice about covering, so the decision they are making now is not totally free from coercive aspects.

I actually find it MORE offensive for a government to tell a person what they can wear.

You really have no way to know who is wearing it for what reasons - and that said, it is wrong to substitute your decision for theirs.

That's all there is to it. A culture where women are treated as chattel is in no way morally equivalent to the more egalitarian cultures of industrial nations. Would the multi-culturalist in you see female genital mutilation as just another cultural expression? Do you see America's rampant consumerism and ignorance of all things foreign as valid cultural expression? Remember, multi-culturalism should cover American culture as well as the developing world.

One thing that should be noted, however, is that veils empower women to fight back against oppression in some ways. You couldn't ask for a better garment to conceal weapons, cameras and other tools of resistance. You could probably fit a submachine gun into those Afghan burqas.

burqa. What Straw is talking about is a simple face covering.

The veil is simply a face covering, and you can't hide a .45 behind one, much less a submachine gun. You'd need a full chador or burqa for that.

off against their will.

:eyes:

genital mutilation. That is largely a disgusting North African social practice that also occurs in non-muslim tribal groups.

Don't conflate the two issues.

Dress styles for women vary widely among Muslim societies. In Turkey (and Iraq during the "good old days" of Saddam) only a tiny fanatical minority wear veils. They're mandated by law in Saudi Arabia and Iran, and other Muslim communities fall between these two extremes. Doesn't seem to be anything inherent to Islam about wearing veils.

and to 'dress modestly'

Everything else is pretty much the work of man...

including God, the Bible, and the Koran.

to take off their veils during their visits?

Or do they just not have enough power because they are being repressed...

Two powerful British men back him up. So those women had better obey!

:applause: :woohoo:

You hit the nail on the proverbial woman's head!

to wear the veil if they want to. It's a right to religious expression, that the head of the government wants to forbid cause it makes him uncomfortable?

hair with a hat, scarf or hankie, while in church.

what is it about women's head hair that drives the religiously insane even insaner?

------------

and conversely many young american women shave all body hair off, including pubic. except head hair. and speak with repulsion of their own body hair.

is it fear of the ape in us?

It was revised in 1983.

But here's a story about women and hats and church that you might find interesting:

When Jeanette Ward dresses for Easter services at Second Baptist Church in Riverside today, no one will be surprised that her outfit includes a glorious hat.

"It's a reverence" for God, said Ward, 65, citing the apostle Paul's admonition to women to cover their heads when they pray. "Having a hat is part of worship."

It's also a tradition of self-expression rooted in the Bible and African culture, Inland women said.

At a time when dressing for church means jeans and flip-flops for some, women in many black churches still worship in stylish suits or dresses. For some, Sunday finery is not complete without a hat. These are not ordinary hats.

http://www.pe.com/religion/stories/PE_News_Local_D_easterhat16.3c377cd.html

nt

who's sisters divided on the issue of covering.

His mother and oldest sisters did cover - and they were all well-educated and fairly unrestrained - but they did it because they respected that part of their religion and covered because they WANTED to.

The younger sisters didn't. One told me that she wasn't at the point in her religious belief where covering was comfortable to her.

I respect both opinions.

I don't think a government should tell anyone, anywhere how to dress (within reason - I can understand obscenity laws, for example). If these women want to cover and go to Straw's office, then he damn sure should shut up and let them. It should neither be a requirement TO cover or NOT to cover. Either is imposing man's law on a woman. Period.

That's a very clear expression of a simple, straightforward principle. Thank you!

I don't have any respect for a world-view (religious or otherwise) that advocates the covering-up of women.

It's disgusting and atavistic. Is that intolerant? If so, I'm intolerant and I don't care.

And BTW, what God would demand such a thing? None. Who would? Fucked-up men writing holy books and holy decrees hundreds/thousands of years ago, that's who.

I really wish more liberals would stand up for THEIR beliefs in liberal, secular, egalitarian democracy and not defend pre-medieval belief systems.

Sometimes I wish we on the left would spend more time standing up for what we DO believe in. So I'm in total agreement and think your final point is pretty damn wise. It's not just BuschCo's feudal economic system that's medieval in this world.

You can't use the fight against bigotry to be bigoted against another group.

You can't say those (broad group of people) are a bunch of bigots.

If muslim women want to wear a veil, it's their perogative.

I think he's Salman, not salmon.. that's a fish :D

What does spell check no?

I say more power to them (even if it annoys Western feminists) OTOH, I'm firmly against the idea of anyone being forced to wear it.

the putdown "annoys" really trivializes the whole issue

Give these women a generation of living without it and I doubt many would go back...

Multi-culturalism is a great tool to find common human experience as well as celebrating the cultural differences, but it is not without its naivete.

I think that is great if all things were equal, but I don't consider highly patriarchal cultures good representations of an equal playing field.

I was wondering how could I "answer that and stay fashionable", so to speak. You did it.

It is a thin line to walk but I think it is doable. We can certainly understand other cultures as a way to communicate and interact, but that does not mean we need to accept or agree with all of the tenets and practices of a culture.

For instance I can understand female genital mutilation from the culture's point of view but I still vehemently disagree with the practice and the totally irrational beliefs that uphold it.

I have a very strong, very specific opinion: this is why we have separation of church and state.

If a person *freely chooses* to be part of a religion, and *freely chooses* to wear a veil, she should be free to do so.

But NO government should be allowed to impose such a thing. And there should be laws to protect a person who might be brought up in a religion, and then want to break away from it and join another.

AND as a writer, Rushdie has the right to express whatever opinion he wants. I happen to agree with him. I also think that boob-jobs oppress women, but whatever.

Obviously, these poor, backward women let themselves be coerced into practicing Hijab, whether with Hijab, Chador, Burqua, etc...No, no Muslim woman actually chooses to live this way... :sarcasm:

Imho, if a Muslim woman tells me that she wears the hijab or chador or whatever and that it doesn't lessen her dignity or her identity, then more power to her. What I do not agree with is any state telling women that they must dress in accordance with theological "law". It's a matter of individual choice, and while I see that some women are coerced/forced to practice hijab, I do know that there are most likely plenty of women in the world who are not. We all live in such different cultures, even within our own nation. I see women in Hijab and Chador here in MA all the time. We have to learn to live together and to accept our differences, whether we agree with them or not.

are wearing the chador because they have been coerced?

What if they don't speak English? What if they are financially dependent on men who insist on maintaining the custom? What if they don't know anyone outside of their own culture to reach out to?

unless you have direct personal knowledge.

Woman wearing a skirt? Maybe she's being forced. Long hair? Maybe she's being forced.

Wearing a long skirt isn't uncomfortable and doesn't restrict vision. And most women in long skirts are just wearing a long skirt -- not some kind of uniform. The likelihood is that a woman in a long skirt is doing so out of choice.

But a chador is hot, especially in the warmer months, and ungainly. It's also very hard to see out of one. It's much harder to imagine women wearing one if they felt they had a choice.

Maybe they feel that Allah decreed this, or the Koran -- in which case it is a religious choice. Or maybe they have been coerced by other family or community members, in which case it isn't a choice at all.

We should make sure, at least, that our legal system protects women and girls who want to opt out of this "choice" -- no matter what their cultural community is trying to tell them.

forced to do such things.

But the only person who can decide if she is coerced is the person herself.

And telling people they CAN'T wear something is just as coercive as forcing them TO wear it.

can we tell whoever is forcing those women to wear that garb, that they CAN'T FORCE women to wear it?

Your options are limited.

At the core, only the individual can say if they are forced or coerced.

"... veils suck, which they do. I think the veil is a way of taking power away from women."

It's discrimination expressed in dress, just one of many ways women experience discrimination.

thinking over the thread and this issue some more this is an important aspect we are overlooking.

Racism against Muslims is very real in europe. From my recent travels there, I would have to say 'RIFE'. Britain is a pretty good example of this. A number of women there now choose to veil as an expression of POLITICAL DEFIANCE of the dominant culture. This certainly occurs in Britain.

I suspect this is one of the things that drives Jack Straw bonkers... politically aware Muslim women who are in his face. Too bad Jack, deal with it.

As for Rushdie, he has made his career out of pissing everyone off.

...phenominal writing talent.

:sarcasm: of course that's just one opinion...

He's a self-promoting malcontent of marginally good writing ability... i.e. a perfect writer for this age but not for all-times.

Both tell the male viewer, "Not to be taken seriously."


www.yourmorningleibowitz.blogspot.com
The Daily Show as a comic strip

If people are discussing headscarves or hijabs, that's one thing. There's no reason that should be any more distracting than a cross around a person's neck (or as they called it on Arrested Development that gold 't' shaped thing), or a yarmulke.

But these chadors and burkas (or as Bill Maher called them - beekeeper outfits) are absolutely ridiculous and I think they should be banned in government buildings, while driving, and in the public in general. They should have no legal religious protection whatsoever.

It's restrictive of peripheral vision. It makes communication awkward as hell as well. And as someone else stated, it's a security risk. I've never dealt with anyone wearing one, but sorry, I'd be just as suspicious of someone wearing something like that as I would of someone wearing a ski-mask ALL THE TIME. I know if I ran a business, I would not hire someone always having their entire face covered.

Minimally expressing your religious beliefs is fine, but covering woman's faces is barbaric, and I see no reason Western nations cannot have restrictions on this. What France did with headscarves was going too far, but I cannot see even the slightest issue with what Straw is proposing (if I am understanding him correctly).

because they are not so different.

cover their entire face leaving only a slit for eyes?

If so, then I would not permit those either. Loose fitting clothing and headscarves are not what I'm talking about, and if I understand correctly, neither is Straw.

many women in England are wearing cover as an act of political expression... Straw helps make their case for them:

that they are excluded from British society.

Way to go Straw!

When it's a custom that represses men, it's a human rights offense that must be ended.

I see posters making the argument that women can choose for themselves whether or not to participate in a repressive custom. This argument seems benign when made for veiling, but take it to its logical extreme for other repressive cultural practices, such as female genital mutilation, which is often carried out by women on other young women and is defended by the women in the cultures in which it is practiced. Those women are making a choice; should we then not support female genital mutilation because they do? Of course not; the practice is barbaric and serves no purpose. Veiling is far less violent, but is demeaning and serves no useful purpose. Does it protect women from the elements? Does it make her life easier in any way?? does it do anything other than satisfy some male code of who can and cannot gaze upon his property? Some women may be uncomfortable without a veil over their eyes, just as some women were uncomfortable not being able to have their clitoris removed to be like the other women of their group. Discomfort is an unfortunate part of being part of the world, but being part of the world more than makes up for any momentary discomfort.

There is an argument to be made for being culturally sensitive. This is a case where the argument is to be made for being sensitive to western culture, which is not always the source of all things evil. The status of women in western cultures is far from ideal, but it is light years ahead of many. It is appropriate to make judgments of rightness and wrongness in cultures when cultural practices include the routine debasement and mistreatment of a group of people based on their gender, race, sexual orientation or ethnicity. We in the west condemn child labor, slave trade and other practices we have outgrown, yet we are sometimes too sensitive and delicate when it comes to how other cultures treat women as second (or fifth) class citizens - or chattel. It's all right to be a little a rough, to grow some hair and to stand up and say that no treatment of women that relegates them as objects, or chattel, or anything less than fully human - with human faces - is acceptable.

it's britain for christ's sake (or buddha or mahavira, i really don't give a shit right now)! let 'em wear whatever they want as long as it doesn't put them in the way of direct harm or cripple them from doing their job. please, i know people who corset train for fun and do some of their training while at their desk job. who really cares? all this external implication crap is just that, an external opinion about what *you* think is going on through *their* heads. just give it up and let them express fashion however they want.

ps: having lived in saudi arabia, the grand poohbah of oppression, i can pretty much tell you the women, particularly those w/ beaucoup money in the family, are not utter chattel (it ain't rosy either, though). they are often the family's pursestrings and what some see as a man doing all the shopping as controlling can also be seen as a woman telling him to do all the shopping as she says (or there'll be no allowance for him). we see a man depriving her of her active power, she sees herself using her active power to force a man to do her work. if you feel bad about a man being dragged to the mall in your hometown... funny how perspectives work. and you have *no* idea how expensive the clothes are, from what's underneath to the veil itself -- brand name everything.

but saudi, which has its own big batch of problems, is not britain. in britain the veil means *nothing but* fashion. oh sure, there's crazy cultural leaders who want to enslave everyone to their thinking, but all groups get their wacked out cult leaders and control freaks. nations like britain have laws to smack them and their dipshit followers down when they go loopy. britain, and feminism, isn't in some danger because someone wants to wear lots of extra fabric on their head, just as it wasn't in some danger when others wanted to shave the sides of their head, color the middle locks of hair bright primary colors and spike it up with a whole can of aqua net. grow up people, given the location it's just a discussion on fashion.

pps: Satanic Verses wasn't a very good book. granted there shouldn't have been a fatwah on him, but it put him on the map and sold far more because of it. might've been better if it was just ignored, i think.