Behind What Veil? Muslim Female Dress and its Critics

By Guest Contributor Janan Delgado, originally published at Gender Across Borders

Despite a title that makes skins crawl among Muslim women the world around, The New York Times’ “Behind the Veil” article published a few weeks ago was a welcome relief from the usual sensationalist and mystery-clad coverage of veiled women. In a funny, inspiring and down-to-earth fashion, Lorraine Ali recounted the stories of two niqabi (face-veiled) American Muslim women; why they decided to adopt this dress, how it affects their life in Albuquerque, NM, and what this choice means to them.

The article sparked hundreds of comments from readers in America and abroad, unveiling some of these individuals’ stereotypes and misconceptions about Muslim female dress, as well as an inability –or refusal- to hear about the meanings of the veil from those who actually wear it. Nancy from the USA is a case in point. She wrote, “The message this sends to women is be invisible, be subservient, be asexual. As an atheist and a feminist, I find it repugnant that any woman would hide behind a dozen yards of cloth to please a nonexistent God.”

Though most obviously applicable to the face veil, the critique of ‘invisibility,’ is commonly associated with the Muslim veil in general. Muslims believe, the trope goes, that withdrawal from society is necessary because this is “impure, corrupted and dangerous.” However, this astonishingly simplistic claim ignores that Muslims’ opinions about the societies in which we live are as diverse as these societies themselves, be it in China, Senegal, Egypt or Ecuador. In America, veiled Muslim teachers, lawyers, doctors, academics, etc., send a clear message: behavior, not clothing, determines social invisibility.

So if not to hide from society, why do Muslim women veil? Ascribing motives is a tricky business, and the question itself is worth a pause. Unlike what seems the norm in secular liberal spaces, for many veiled women this dress isn’t a puzzling matter, nor is it on our top ten issues of concern. When asked ad infinitum about the veil, many of us wish to say, ‘the veil is what it is, can we talk about female education, world poverty, social inequality, military occupation, anything but this dozen yards of cloth?’

Yet, fixation on the veil remains a fact, and questions are asked. Many individual women, as the ones in the NYT piece, explain that the choice to veil stems from a desire to submit to God. This being the case, Nancy almost got it right about subservience. To God, though, not men. To those who think Islam is an evil male hoax designed to subjugate women, the distinction between subservience to God and subservience to men may be illusory. Yet to those of us who choose to believe in Islam, and find solace and comfort in it, the conflation of two is meaningless.

Nancy also mentions repugnance in her comment, and this feeling is not uncommon. Many veiled women have seen our dress inspire a visceral reaction in people who believe it goes against their core beliefs and values. Behind these feelings often lies a fear of the unknown or an incapacity to relate to a different worldview. Hence, the fulfillment Muslim women feel under those dozen yards of cloth is unimaginable, their place uninhabitable.

While this repugnance may be harmless if kept under check, it is hardly conducive to feminist sisterhood (which Nancy the feminist may wish to care about) or to societal harmony. Hence, a first step to get rid of it is to dismiss once and for all the ill-conceived notion of universality of desire; Not all women find fulfillment and happiness in the same life choices. A woman may actually find happiness under a dozen yards of cloth, seeking to please a God Nancy as an atheist believes non-existent. A second step is not to insult each other’s intelligence. Muslim women have not been brainwashed into Islam, nor are we waiting for anyone’s help to awaken from our supposed “false-consciousness”. Islam is our informed choice.

So is this informed choice the case for every Muslim woman? A recurrent critique of articles that focus on empowered Muslim western women is that “while women in the West have the freedom to veil, one should not forget that in Saudi Arabia…etc…” But who is forgetting? It is perfectly legitimate to speak about an American Muslim reality independently of the experience of frustrated veiled women in Iran (forced to veil), or frustrated unveiled women in Turkey, France, etc. (forced to unveil) (though people are usually not equally interested in the latter).

Experiences vary across countries, and it is ludicrous to insist someone must tie all these experiences together, unless she has offered to provide a comparative study of Muslim women across the world. It is similarly ludicrous to ask Muslim Western women to apologize for the misguided policies of Middle Eastern regimes they have no relation to whatsoever. This analytical mishap is the direct product of some people’s incapacity, unwillingness, or flat-out refusal to accept Western Muslims as Western. Hence the insistence on tying their Western experience to Middle Eastern regimes.

As Tom from Virginia comments about the veiled women in the NYT piece, “They can dress as their conscience allows in our country, but we can’t dress as our conscience allows in their country.” Except, of course, Tom forgets “their” country and “his” country happen to be one and the same.

Share and Enjoy:
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Google Bookmarks
  • NewsVine
  • Current
  • email
  • Print

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Monday Morning Stepback: Jane Austen Fight Club, Metaphors, and Chocolate on My Tongue « Read React Review on 26 Jul 2010 at 7:27 am

    [...] Lorraine Ali wrote Behind the Veil for the NYT Fashion page. Then we had Martha Nussbaum’s NYT article in the Stone on the subject of Muslim women and veils. And now we have a response by Racialicious here. [...]

Comments

  1. abrildelsol wrote:

    This is so true. Well said, and about time. I hope Racialicious’ readership perks up and takes notice.

  2. Blake wrote:

    I think the repugnance comes, at least partially, from personal fear. Submission to God for Christian women is in many denominations equivalent to submission to men, especially husbands (and quite explicitly so in the Bible). The secularists see it as a visible manifestation of the Christian “good wife” pressure, the “get back in the kitchen” messages and the cultural narrative of modesty.

    I doubt any amount of education about individual Muslim women who wear the veil is going to change that fear, because that fear isn’t a fear of Muslim women. It is a fear of being asked to submit, focused at those who visibly and proudly say “yes”.

  3. JihadPunk77 wrote:

    “The message this sends to women is be invisible, be subservient, be asexual. As an atheist and a feminist, I find it repugnant that any woman would hide behind a dozen yards of cloth to please a nonexistent God.”

    Yes, Nancy, it’s people like you who are the ones who see Muslim women as invisible and assexual, you stupid asshole. By writing that comment, YOU are demonstrating your own Islamophobic, misogynistic attitude toward Muslim women who have made their own fucking choice to wear the niqab!!!!!!!!!!!!

    and I’m always amazed at atheists who are so arrogant, often shoving their beliefs down my throat and others’, forcefully telling us that God doesn’t exist!!! WTF? Tolerance goes both ways, people!!!

    I am a Muslim who believe in God and I’ve never tried to preach to atheists or non-Muslims about reading the Holy Qur’an or practicing Islam.

    I used to wear hijab for 3 years (not the same thing as niqab, mind you) and it was MY choice, MY decision. My parents were against the hijab. People always asked if my father “forced” me to wear it and I used to reply that my father was trying to force me to TAKE IT OFF.

    I know a few niqabis and they are very sexually liberated, intelligent, independent, and devout to God. They are not invisible or assexual!!

  4. JihadPunk77 wrote:

    As Tom from Virginia comments about the veiled women in the NYT piece, “They can dress as their conscience allows in our country, but we can’t dress as our conscience allows in their country.” Except, of course, Tom forgets “their” country and “his” country happen to be one and the same.

    Ahhh, another idiot invoking the Islamophobic’s Law!! You see, folks, whenever there is an article about Muslims , whether they are American or foreign, whether it’s a political or social or entertainment article, you can always spot idiots invoking THE ISLAMOPHOBIC’S LAW in comments.

    One classic example of the Islamocphobic’s Law is when idiots write something like this along the line: “why do these damn Muslims have the right to dress how they want, but I’ll never have the right to wear a bikini (or Western suit or whatever) in Saudi Arabia [or insert any other Muslim country here, because they're all idiots who think the entire Islamic world is the one and the same!]. So why should we let them dress how they want here?”

    I remember seeing an article about Hillary Clinton who went to Pakistan on one of her her first international trips as Secretary of State. She wore a silky dupatta over her hair as a sign of cultural respect when she met with Pakistani government officials. There were ignorant comments on the article, invoking the Islamophobic’s Law. “Why should she dress like that in Pakistan?” some of them wrote, “we should force these women to dress like Americans if they came here.”

  5. alegna wrote:

    Yes and this: “It is similarly ludicrous to ask Muslim Western women to apologize for the misguided policies of Middle Eastern regimes they have no relation to whatsoever. ” Cosign.

    Your article reminded me of a report I was listening to on NPR about muslims rallying the school system for adding muslim holidays to the school calendar. In it the reporter and some officials kept referring to Muslim New Yorkers as if they were all foreignors or first generation Americans. The fact that many of the muslims asking for this recognition, on par with the recognition that christians and jews receive, are in fact American and have been Americans for some time.

    Also I am greatly disturbed by this move in Europe to police the dress of women with the justification that they are liberating women, esp because they are the ones oppressing these very women by limiting their choice.

    I feel like we live in a batty time where racists are free to call civil rights workers racists and supposedly “free” societies limit the choices of “oppressed” women.

    Everything is upside down. Did I fall into the rabbit hole?

  6. Gillian wrote:

    “Islam is our informed choice.”

    YES!

    I am a Christian woman who was largely ignorant of Islam for a long time. Growing up in America, I saw Muslims portrayed as the ultimate Other – exotic and inherently threatening.

    In college, I lived with a Muslim girl and, as a result, got to know her and some of her friends*. My roommate covered her hair, but did not veil her face. Some of her friends did; some of them did not. Some of them did neither.

    During that time, I learned exactly what Janan talks about in this post: that Muslim women make informed choices about whether to veil, and that these choices are, for them, an expression of their faith. As a person of faith, I can relate to searching for the best way to express that faith.

    The other really important point in this post (at least for me):

    “Muslims’ opinions about the societies in which we live are as diverse as these societies themselves, be it in China, Senegal, Egypt or Ecuador.”

    THANK YOU! Yet, this fact is STILL ignored in media coverage of Muslims in America and around the world. But then again, it is typical of this society to view The Other as monolithic and, therefore, not entirely human.

    *Note: I’m not saying this makes me an expert on Islam, its practices or Muslim women. I mention this because it was the beginning of my UNlearning some of the most common stereotypes about Muslims.

  7. Darth Paul wrote:

    Women have the right to express themselves religiously or secularly just as they have the right to choose birth control. Therefore, impugning one while treasuring the other is damaging to the very spectrum of femininity. No group holds exclusive rights to it.

    Don’t like the hijab? Don’t wear one!

  8. GDSinPA wrote:

    Thank you so much for this article. I have not had the guts to ask any Muslim frields directly about it’s meaning and why some women veil and other’s do not.

    I also especially appreciate what JihadPunk77 says. I will admit that my own brain wants to work that way as well. We associate the veil with Muslim countries that oppress women in other manners and assume “covering up” must be part of that oppression. As someone else mentioned – it’s also a form of othering – when we see such attire, we wonder what country they are from.

    Let me give you an example. During a recent visit to the zoo in 95 degree weather, I saw family where the mom and daughter wore a Hijab with her face also covred, while her husband and 2 sons sported a t-shirts and sneakers.

    Though, they do not cover their faces, I often see Amish and Mennonite families with similar disparities, or at least what I perceived to be disparaties.

    The first line of though? Why should this woman be subjigated to this while her husband gets to wear Hanes and Nike? I doubt I’m alone in assuming it’s her husband making her dress this way, while he can dress as he pleases.

    I need to check that prejudice, and continue to learn and understand the choices people make in order serve God.

  9. Darth Paul wrote:

    @ GDSinPA – Patriarchy itself is responsible for the inception of the inequalites you’re observing, not the faith. “God” has little to do with it – original scriptures only discuss and urge modesty, not the specific implementation of it. In traditional cultures, women are expected to marry (young) and essentially make themselves appear unavailable or even unappealing to other men. The roots are clear – fear of female sovereignty and an understanding of how easily men can go rapist.

    If you look at mainstream evangelicalism in the US, the mentality is the same despite the lack of a symbol like the hijab- the woman must submit to her husband, must never get divorced, and must put out on demand (marital rape is a nonconcept). Anything short of this makes for an outcast.

    I hope this helps putting things into perspective.

  10. ObaaYaa wrote:

    This article makes me so happy. I get so so tired of everyone and their Mommas thinking it is their destiny to “liberate” Muslim women form their veils and burqa etc.
    Thank you soooooo much for writing this!!

  11. TAB wrote:

    @JihadPunk77

    ITA. There’s definitely an arrogance which assumes that the values and priorities of non-Muslim western Europeans and their diaspora constitute the inherently objective ruler against which all others should be measured. It allows those who insist on universally applying those values/priorities (e.g., “freedom” to wear a bikini in every country/culture) to remain blind to the irony of dictating everyone submit to their point of view. For some, the hegemony of said western European/diaspora values just ain’t enough; there must be complete adherence everywhere. To them, individual agency looks the same regardless of context. Through this filter, disrespecting other cultures is seen as enlightened (e.g., wanting State Sec Clinton bareheaded in Pakistan while on official State business*) while showing cultural respect is seen as capitulating to something sinister and backward. Pretty convenient: under this ruse, Islamophobes would never have to experience the discomfort of adjusting to a culture outside of their own.
    ______________________
    *As if the already-existing perception of the U.S. government and U.S. tourists as impervious to and ignorant of anyone/thing outside of its borders isn’t problematic enough.

  12. Sara wrote:

    Come on, Nancy, stop making us atheists sound as bad as the Christian fundies. And why the jab at asexuality? I’d expect better from some one who calls them self a ‘feminist.’

  13. ObaaYaa wrote:

    JihadPunk77 said: “and I’m always amazed at atheists who are so arrogant, often shoving their beliefs down my throat and others’, forcefully telling us that God doesn’t exist!!! WTF? Tolerance goes both ways, people!!! ”

    UGh! Thank you! My goodness! I had to stop identifying myself as an Atheist because the amount of unchecked privilege and bigotry with some Atheists (who seems to be comprised of white men) was too much to handle.

  14. Irendi wrote:

    Thank you for this post!

  15. Lola wrote:

    sounds like an extension of the perpetual foreigner stereotypes: Muslims in the west are treated like foreigners and expected to answer for the leaders of countries they don’t even live in!

  16. Jamerican Muslimah wrote:

    @GDSinPA,

    Don’t think we’re unaware of how other people view us in the scenario you mentioned. When I am out with my husband and he’s wearing shorts with a tee shirt and I am covered in my headscarf and modest clothing, I see the disapproving glances and sometimes the outright disgust. Many times my husband will alter his dress because he’s also aware of how it looks to people. Eventually, we decided we cannot allow other people to dictate what we do with our lives.

    I made the choice to dress like this when I converted to Islam (long before I married him.) The irony is I do not feel oppressed by my clothing but by other people’s prejudice towards me because of the way I dress. Why? Because they’re trying to impose their belief system onto me.

    I can appreciate your willingness to learn and to challenge your view of Muslim women. I wish more people would.

  17. Crommunist wrote:

    “and I’m always amazed at atheists who are so arrogant, often shoving their beliefs down my throat and others’, forcefully telling us that God doesn’t exist!!! WTF? Tolerance goes both ways, people!!!

    I am a Muslim who believe in God and I’ve never tried to preach to atheists or non-Muslims about reading the Holy Qur’an or practicing Islam.”

    *Sigh* Oh good, the ‘arrogant’ canard makes its way into the only blog I read that is, thus far, not explicitly religious. Pay no attention to the arrogance of demanding tax funding for religious schools, buildings, lobby groups, political parties… that’s not shoving anything down anyone’s throat. No no no, expressing an opinion – THAT’S arrogant oppression! But because YOU don’t do it personally, therefore you are immune from having to hear anyone disagree with you.

    I am a non-Muslim man, so I am perfectly willing to accept that my opinions on Islam and feminism lack a level of insight and knowledge, but it seems to me that if the justification for the head covering (of whatever form) is sexist, then there is a case to be made that the rule itself is sexist. There is a further case to be made that any society that wishes to distance itself from systematic sexism might not be too friendly about encouraging an openly sexist practice. Of course, the argument is being made on public policy and safety grounds, but not everyone buys that argument (and I’m a bit skeptical myself).

    Again, my position is that of an interested outsider, so I am happy to be instructed if my interpretation of Qur’anic verse is simplistic, but when you assert that the wearing of the hijab is not inherently sexist, it isn’t Islamophobia that makes me doubtful. And if you are undertaking an activity in subservience to God, it is reasonable for people to point out that public policy must be made based on observable fact, not individual (or group) superstition.

  18. Sophia wrote:

    GDSinPA – it’s also quite often a cultural and sensible form of dress. In Egypt, where I’m from, living in the desert means you see a LOT of men and women wearing long, loose Gellabiyas and jilbaab. It’s pragmatic – covering your hair with a light-colored fabric and wearing a loose outfit like that is WONDERFUL in that dry heat. When I visit my family, they laugh at me in my jeans and t-shirt because I’m sweaty and sticking to my clothes while they’re all nice and cool. It’s not even a matter of religion – Christian Egyptians (and Tunisians, Algerians, etc.) also don headwraps and clothing of this type in order to beat the heat.

    In general response:
    Most of my aunts are also hijabis and made those decisions after getting married, having kids, etc. Their husbands didn’t ask them or force them to (that actually made me laugh out loud because my favorite aunt is totally ‘wearing the pants’ so-to-speak), and they’re happy. And even women in Islam who are hijabi debate the niqab and burqa – the aforementioned aunt calls those women “ninjas” and is convinced that France and Belgium are really just afraid niqabis are an elite military force…

    ;)

  19. Olaudah wrote:

    Unlike France and a few other self-proclaimed “liberal democracies”, people in America are in no foreseeable danger of losing their right to practice their religion in whatever austere way they choose. But like any other secular society that values individuality and free expression, the practice of hiding one’s self from view will always make the majority uncomfortable and will never be accepted and respected by the mainstream. It is deeply antithetical to our common values and egalitarian culture, especially when a practice of such explicit self-effacement is exclusive to the more commonly oppressed gender. Nevertheless, in america, we are free to empower or efface and alienate ourselves in any expressive manner of our choosing.

  20. Mena wrote:

    @ GDSinPA I think you should ask your Muslim friends about it, but in a respectful and intellectually honest way. One thing that grates on my nerves is that whenever this conversation comes up Westerners ignore the voice of Muslim women. I wonder if it’s because they think that Muslim women are oppressed?

    I used to go to college outside of Philly which has a large Muslim population as well as had female friends that were Muslim. They were American as well,and in fact whenever I saw a Muslim wearing niqab I almost always assumed they were American because it seemed to be popular with the Black American Muslim women.

    There are many ways for a Muslim women to be modest (for lack of an accurate term), just as there are for men. A woman can wear modest western clothing like long shirts with long sleeves, long skirts etc. Google “hijab” and “fashion” or check out http://www.hijabshigh.com for some real life examples.

  21. Heather Leila wrote:

    I wish this article had addressed the question as to why veiling is only for women, and not practiced by men? This is the problem I have with it. Just as women are expected to remain virgins until marriage but men are not – in many different cultures, including in America – why is their the double standard? Why are women expected to be modest in this way, and not men?

  22. CaneLaWomyn wrote:

    many times when people get approached by cultures or religions different than their own the first instinct is to find the parts of the idealogy that are different from theirs and why they disagree. If people approached difference openly and as a way of learning, there would be no need to find the loopholes.

  23. Ira wrote:

    To Heather and Cromm, I think the same question can be asked of virtually any gendered form of dress. Why are skirts gendered in the West? Yarmulkes and headscarves (excluding certain orthodoxies)? Virtually, all cultures have developed gendered forms of dress. These gendered forms invariably reflect assumptions about the functionality of each gender within that culture (as providers or as ornamentation), and such assumptions are fundamentally sexist. That a woman’s hair should be covered to preserve modesty where a man is no less modest for uncovering his would seem to stem from the assumption that a woman’s hair is sexualized in a way that a man’s is not. However, another explanation I have read is that historically men were frequently called to perform labor outdoors in hot weather, whereas women were expected to work indoors. It is not so much that women were held to a higher standard of modesty but that standards of modesty were relaxed for men to accommodate the conditions of their labor. That men are expected to display greater modesty indoors and that there are hair coverings for men (keffiyehs, etc.) seems to support this explanation. So while the origins of the veil as gendered dress may be rooted in sexism, it is the historical sexism that confines women to the home. It would be futile to problematize every form of dress that evolves from this root. Moreover, to label the veil a “problem” for this reason is to ignore its evolution as a symbol of solidarity and faith and ignore a woman’s capability to claim it as such.

    This may be a strong example, but in a way, this debate reminds me of the old debate over the use of the n-word. I’ve noticed a lot of whites who ask why it is acceptable at all. Obviously, there is a context in which its use is abhorrent: in which it is used against a black person, thus reflecting its historical origins as a tool of oppression. And obviously there are people who have been oppressed by it and would never use it for this reason and should never be pressured to deal with it. However, there is also context in which it is normalized, reclaimed essentially, in music, literature, personal interaction, by members of the community that it targets. Obviously there is still a lot of room for debate about its use, but I think we can all agree that’s a debate for those who have experienced its oppression, nor for government, right?

    The veil is not a perfect analogue in that it is a recognizable symbol of faith today and began as such, and did not originate as a tool of oppression (from my understanding, correct me if I’m wrong). Nonetheless, I think there is a parallel: it would be abhorrent for a man to force the veil on a woman, the same way it would be abhorrent to use a a racial epithet against a minority. And there are Muslim women who would never support the veil because they feel oppressed by it. And yet there are still women who find peace through it. And ultimately if there is any debate to be had, it’s for those who are actually affected by it, namely, the Muslim women that either embrace or reject it. There’s something incredibly arrogant about attempting government intervention or condemning something from such a distance.

    If a practice were truly abhorrent in every respect, trust me, there is no amount of cultural relativism that could blind you to it. There are anti-FGM movements in Africa, victims who speak out, anti-rape movements in Nigeria. We don’t need outside intervention to tell us these things are bad. Women are not embracing these things out of cultural blindness. The veil may be imperfect, in the same way that Western expressions of femininity are far from perfect (heels? straightened hair?). Still, I think the fact that there is a significant group of Muslim women who do embrace the veil ought to be a hint to people that it’s not an absolute evil.

  24. Carib Muslimah wrote:

    @Heather, there is a code of modesty for Muslim men. They cannot wear shorts above the knee (they cannot reveal the area between the navel and the knees), walking around bare chested is HIGHLY discouraged, and they are not to show off their form. They are also expected to lower gaze and not to stare at women in a lustful manner. A big part of their modesty requirement is in behavior.

  25. Linda Binda wrote:

    *wades foot into the water, after having not posted since June 2009*

    I think Blake’s theory about Christian women fearing that submission to Islamic dictates equals submission to one’s husband like that in the Bible is the most brilliant one I’ve heard in a while. It seems to make a lot of sense. I don’t know much about what Islam demands of wives, but the New Testament certainly has quite a few demands requiring that wives submit to their husbands on their way to submitting to God.

    @Crommunist I’m an atheist, too, but I get tired of seeing Islam-related blog posts on places like CNN.com and random local newspaper blogs (you know, where the moderation is pretty much non-existent, and bigots get to say whatever), where there’s always some unproductive moron in the comments saying, “DARR! RELIGION IZ DUM! ALL OF U R DUM FOR FOLLOWING IT, NEWAYZ.. IT DUZNT MATTUR.” (talking like this is fun :) ) There’s a discussion going on about something delicate, like responding to “Let’s Draw Muhammad” Day, or about Muslims fighting to get their holidays recognized in the New York City school system, and some random dork goes, “religion is stupid! Dump religion!” I mean, yeah, I don’t think religion is exactly the greatest thing ever, either, but there are social and political complexities to consider — a comment like that just brings nothing to the conversation.

    I wonder if JihadPunk77 was thinking of those types when she was recalling the arrogance of atheists; either that, or the Bill Maher types who act like Islam is somehow especially more bigoted and backwards than all other organized religions. All I have to do is pull out some references to the Spanish Inquisition, bring up Pat Robertson at all, or just pull out your typical, non-Texas-school-board-tampered high school world history textbook, and that’s disproven pretty damn quickly. One’s religion is only as backward as its followers are economically and socially allowed to progress. For instance, Malawi’s a pretty conservative Christian country just 40+ years out of colonialism. Expecting tolerance of homosexuality out of the typical Malawian (ha, ha! I just read about the formerly arrested couple breaking up in one of their online newspapers last night — the comment section was NOT pretty), not to talk of the typical American (paltry with lip service, for most) is a bit of a tall order — let’s see about them getting a decent economy before one can make hard arguments like that as relatively easy as one could make it in most of the ‘developed’ world, shall we?

  26. Marcy wrote:

    I think some of the feminist anger is misplaced. Atheist Nancy should be getting angry at women who dress up like Betty or Joan for Mad Men premier parties. Or all those unenlightened women trapped in the Stone Age who still wear skirts and Spanx and heels. Bloomers and Doc Martens and unisex uniforms for all! (I kid. Kind of.)

    Arguing about clothes is a fruitless endeavor. From a symbolic interactionist POV, of course clothing is important, but only inasmuch as it provides clues as to the wider culture’s narrative. Clothing does not actually mean much on its own. If there are women wearing the veil and making money, subverting the art world, getting educations, raising loving families, and expressing their spirituality, then the veil is obviously not shrouding their souls or rendering them invisible.

  27. sitara wrote:

    Ugh. I should know better than to read the comments on anything Muslim-related, even on racialicious.

  28. Kari wrote:

    I have to give props to Linda Binda for commenting about Blake’s theory. I can totally see that. What frustrates me about this whole debate is that it seems like there are people trying to make the decision for women in general. Why can’t women be the one’s to make the decision to veil or not, why must the government get involved? Wouldn’t that be the feminist thing to do? Let women have control over their own lives? However I could understand on the other end why full face covering could be banned as it does present a safety, security issue. I have read of many Muslimahs talk about men using these dressings so they can commit crimes. Also the Koran does not require a specific garment and the garments like the burqua and niqab are really just cultural rather than religious in nature. I think the non Muslim world has a hard time differentiating what is cultural and what is religious when it comes to people of the Islamic faith.

  29. Guyllaume wrote:

    Issues of religious requirements aside, isn’t this just a classic case of the tension between social vs. individual rights?
    In many countries it has long been the case that government and society at large dictates what is and isn’t acceptable as clothing choices.
    Some Western countries (e.g. US, Netherlands) have long had a strong individualist bent. Other countries, particularly in Asia & the Middle East, have long had laws on what can be worn, mainly borne out of religious or conservative reasons. Western countries generally only restrict clothing choices on grounds of public safety or public decency (of course, there are some crazy laws out there e.g. in the UK it’s illegal to wear military medals which are not yours). I think the attempts to dictate veil-wearing must be the first time liberal democracies have sought to prevent women from wearing certain items on the grounds that it is necessary to protect women’s rights or liberal values. It is an interesting new phenomenon & one which I think is philosophically problematic, particularly as most people who seek such measures are driven by reasons of racism, social conservatism and fear of the “other”.
    Having said all of that, I think it should be pointed out that very few countries are as socially libertarian as the US, so I’m not surprised that such laws instinctively rub a lot of Americans the wrong way.

  30. GDSinPA wrote:

    @Darth Paul – I totally agree.

    @Mena – thanks for the encouragement. My family befriended a Muslim family through my wife meeting them at her former workplace. The woman is much more outgoing than her husband, and she essentially manages their social calender so to speak. She wears only a head scarf, but will take it off at the workplace, which has only women.
    As many are detailing, Muslim women (and men) dress modestly in a variety of ways and there are a variety of background reasons. Most uninformed people(bigots?) judge the level of modesty with the level of patriarchy and oppression. In other words, less covering = more freedom = better.
    The article and comments provide a message that it’s no where near that simple. We should be careful to judge ones choice of attire, even if that choice is connected to their faith or culture in some way.

  31. L. Alahem wrote:

    I wonder about those people who are out to SAVE us from ourselves or something. I’m like, Have you looked at your 12 year old daughter lately? She looks like a $2 hooker, and you are up in arms because you can’t see my hair? please! And if you think that hair isn’t sexualized, just go to the local Target and look at the Hair Care aisle. it’s a billion dollar industry, women’t hair.

    I wore hijab for 4 years, full time. I took it off because I got so sick and tired of my deen being wrapped up in a scarf. Islam is a way of life, not a fashion statement. Someday I hope to wear hijab again, but this time I will be Muslim from the inside out, not the outside in.

  32. Gené wrote:

    Growing up attending a conservative Catholic school, but living in a diverse urban neighborhood I just understood the hijab as part of a continuum of gendered religious clothing. Not only did all of the nuns wear full habits and all of my relatives and mother covered her hair at church (and still do to this day), but our Hasidic neighbors also wore a wig or tichel in public. While there are definitely historical, cultural, and theological differences in the various practices and especially a combination of xenophobia/racism at work in targeting hijab, I am struck that the discussion about hijab in the U.S. & Europe often ignores the so-called “Western” religious gender practices. I guess it’s just another example of U.S./European exceptionalism, ignorance and imperial privilege….

  33. cathy wrote:

    I tend to agree with Kari that women get to make decisions about what clothing that feel comfortable wearing (or not wearing). However, I really could have done without the atheist bashing. Yes, we atheists don’t believe in your god(s), it is what it is to be an atheist, by definition, get over it. Let’s not pretend for a second that the nationalistic, racist policies that some (but certainly not all) atheists espouse are somehow radically worse and different from those that exist within the rest of our cultures. It is biased to find one of the most hated minorities (in the US and many other places) and pick them out for not living up to a higher standard than the rest of their culture. I do think it is because of racism, imperialism, nationalism, and sexism that muslim women are judged and disrespected in a way that Christian women or religious groups who are more coded as white are. I don’t like notions of modesty (at all), I don’t like religion, but I am not going to pick on avulnerable minority (in the US, where I live). I wouldn’t automatically treat someone wearing a cross necklace and a long skirt as stupid and inferior, why should I treat a woman with a veil that way? One of my grandmother’s closest friends is a Catholic nun and she wears a habit (with the headcovering) and she is not treated the way that women of color in non-christian religious veils or headscarves. Coating this issue as ‘atheists are meanies’ really doesn’t help the problem, because this isn’t some quirk of atheists, it is a huge widespread cultural problem (also, in the US, self-identified atheists make up two percent of the population and we have a grand total of one federal congressperson , a president in my lifetime has said that we should not count as citizens, etc. we aren’t exactly the dominant power in regards to societal beliefs about religion).

  34. Nick wrote:

    I don’t know if (as a white male atheist) my attitude is welcome in this debate…

    But in all honesty, I don’t want people of any religious or cultural persuasion to be forced to do anything by governmental or societal decree.

    My original concern about the veiling of women was based on the worst case scenario. Women being forced to do something by men, justified by a belief system that I regard as untrue.

    And that rankled.

    But I accept that my attitude comes from my background. If you tell me you wear the veil through choice and as a reflection of your faith then I respect that unequivocally.

    Just my two cents.

  35. ourname wrote:

    @L. Alahem “Have you looked at your 12 year old daughter lately? She looks like a $2 hooker, and you are up in arms because you can’t see my hair? please! ”

    So this kind of slut shaming on Racialicious is ok?

  36. Heather Leila wrote:

    “If a practice were truly abhorrent in every respect, trust me, there is no amount of cultural relativism that could blind you to it. There are anti-FGM movements in Africa, victims who speak out…”

    No, it’s all about cultural relativism. Not everyone finds FGC abhorrent, or else it wouldn’t happen:

    http://classic.feministing.com/archives/015251.html

    I think talking about a hijab and a burqa in the same conversation is difficult (much like comparing burqas and bikinis is inappropriate). Covering your hair out of devotion ormodesty, because it is culturally sexualized, is different than covering your entire face – because, what, your entire face is too sexual?

    From a Western perspective, this is profoundly symbolic. Our face is our identity. We say things like “I am so embarrassed, I can’t show my face there anymore.” To be unable to show you face or to look someone in the eye means you are ashamed. So, of course this may be a cultural misunderstanding – because maybe showing your face doesn’t mean the same thing in other cultures. I think a veil over your hair is profoundly different than a burqa.

  37. Linda Binda wrote:

    “I do think it is because of racism, imperialism, nationalism, and sexism that muslim women are judged and disrespected in a way that Christian women or religious groups who are more coded as white are. I don’t like notions of modesty (at all), I don’t like religion, but I am not going to pick on avulnerable minority (in the US, where I live). I wouldn’t automatically treat someone wearing a cross necklace and a long skirt as stupid and inferior, why should I treat a woman with a veil that way? ”

    I agree with this. I think your entire post, cathy, is a good answer to any Christian on the Internet who asks, “why do you guys always pick on us? Islam’s worse!! :(

  38. Anomalocaris wrote:

    “Most uninformed people(bigots?) judge the level of modesty with the level of patriarchy and oppression.”
    There’s a good reason for that: it’s usually accurate.

  39. diana wrote:

    The issue of women’s rights and the veil always reminds me of the story of Evelyn Garing Cromer who fought against the veil in Egypt (supposdly 4 the advancement of women) while being head of the Men’s league for opposing womens sufferage in England. In reality he was just doing his best to advance western colonialism and domination on both ends.

  40. Donald wrote:

    @Guyllaume
    There is a long history of cultural imperialism over forms of dress. Generally it is done by social pressure but when that doesn’t work the next option is the law. There is always an excuse of a benefit to the people affected but that doesn’t justify the loss of choice. Introducing a law usually indicates that it is too late – sufficent people are dressing that way for it to be irreversible.

    The US record is no better than other western countries. There would be major objections if the law applied to them but most will shrug it off when it only applies to a minority they don’t personally know.

    I’m reminded of the story of Germaine Greer suggesting hijab was oppressive and receiving the response that western women were oppressed because they wore high heels. That I think is the answer to those who want to ban burkas and niqabs – propose banning high heels at the same time. Not only do they restrict movement but they can injure the wearers. :)

  41. Digital Coyote wrote:

    I don’t think I’ve ever found the way some Muslim women dress to be indicative of their enslavement to men. I wonder, at times, if I’ve offended any of them wearing headscarves by taking too long of a look at them; some of the scarves are drop-dead gorgeous even if they are plainly colored.

    I will admit that I am “bothered” by the veils to a certain extent. Mind you, I’m bothered by mirrored sunglasses for the same reason. Something about covering parts of the face with something so obvious or tangible sets me on edge because I feel like I’m missing out on important information (e.g. some kinds of body language or conflicting facial expressions) and that the impenetrable nature of the item forces a great deal of personal distance. It’s got absolutely nothing to do with the wearer and I readily admit it’s my own weirdness at work.

    Does anyone know if state or federal governments have worked out a compromise for women that wear veils? I remember a woman wanting to wear hers for a driver’s license photo, but never heard if there was ever an official ruling on the matter.

  42. Christie wrote:

    It feels uncomfortable to me (not being used to it) to talk to someone when I cannot see much of their face. However, I would like to point out that (as a white U.S. woman living in an overseas country where sunglasses are not so popular) — I often feel highly uncomfortable talking with American expats, esp. women, because they often wear big, dark sunglasses, and they do not take them off while talking to me!!

    This makes me very uncomfortable. I can’t see their eyes at all and I’m not used to this, so I keep trying to peer at the sunglasses, hoping I will see their eyes or something, so we can have normal conversational eye contact. I keep thinking, “It seems like bad manners for her to stand here chatting with me and not take off those big, dark, sunglasses… maybe it is okay in the US, but I am so uncomfortable with this situation!” It makes me uncomfortable that they can see my eyes the whole time, but I can’t see their eyes at all.

    I would guess that the feeling of wanting to see certain parts of the face while talking is a cultural thing (based on what we are used to), and non-Muslim women in the U.S. are certainly just as likely to make someone uncomfortable, by keeping their eyes covered up with these dark sunglasses.

  43. Dani wrote:

    [edit]

    @ourname
    I’m not sure if that’s slut shaming…Children are not appropriately dressed these days. A hooker prototype has a particular set of dress, yes? There is no way that is appropriate for a child. A grown woman can do whatever she wants. She was speaking specifically to sexualization of children. Did she shame the woman for being sexual? No. She noted a child should not dress as such.

    That being said, I don’t agree that “hair is sexualized” in that manner. If that is the case, either way, anything can be sexualized. If a man chooses to sexualize a woman, why do we not blindfold him? Better yet, if anything can be sexualized, how about a man’s hair?

    I grew up Muslim and rejected many of these double standards, even if Muslim men are required to cover a certain portion. As a child I would question these principles to receive uneven answers. I grew older and read the Quran, to still be unsatisfied.
    That being said, it’s a choice. For many, in this day in age… These women make a choice. I made a choice not to, others make a choice to do so. It’s not that hard to understand.

  44. Jess wrote:

    Somehow whenever I see the veil brought up — or any other religiously mandated form of dress, and in New York you see a lot of that among Jews in my neighborhood — I feel like people end up asking the wrong set of questions from the get-go.

    Wearing the veil — or a yarmulke, or the wig (orthodox Jewish women almost always wear them as opposed to the old-fashioned headscarf these days) is an informed choice — if you happen to be in a context where that is so. In the US, for instance, a second-generation Muslim or convert especially is making an informed choice, because that person is in a position to do it.

    But I don’t think you can say the same thing at all about an illiterate teen Algerian girl from the rural districts who is expected to marry young and probably had no say whatsoever in the matter.

    This is hardly unique to Islam, by the way. An Amish kid who never left home isn’t making much of an informed choice either. It’s one reason the Amish have a policy of letting the kids go wild a bit, but there’s also the strong Anabaptist idea that when you join the church, you do it as a mature adult with your eyes open. (It’s why they don’t baptize infants). Home schooled Christian fundie kids aren’t well-informed either.

    In may countries, where the laws are such that violating religious norms is a punishable offense, the whole notion of informed choices seems, frankly, a bit shaky. Just like it is silly to assume that the people that grow up ignorant in Texas because their textbook gatekeepers decided to keep them that way made such a choice.

    And I don’t think too many feminists would say that choices are unconstrained by sexism either, even in our own society.

    That is, whether you find fulfillment as a wearer of the veil– or the yarmulke, or the wigs, or Amish dress — is one thing. But talking about whether such choices are really choices is another and depends heavily on your circumstances.

    That strikes me as a whole different question and set of questions than whether Islam in particular is better or worse or any of that other stuff. In fact, I’d say that there’s a discussion to be had over how constrained our choices are and how we might address reducing those constraints so that people really can choose, freely and with their eyes open. The veil is a sideshow in that discussion.

    As to whether Islam is particularly sexist, I don’t think so. The relevant passages in the Koran I ran across are no worse or better than the Bible’s. But I do think it’s pretty disingenuous on the part of anyone who who follows any religion to say “I’m doing it right” or “You’re not doing it right” because none of it has any particular logic anyway. To a 16th century Spanish Catholic, you’re all doing it wrong. Scripture hasn’t altered a whole lot in that time — just what we choose, as readers, to emphasize. religion isn’t like physics, there’s no experiment you can do to falsify any interpretation you could come up with.

    For those of us who describe ourselves as atheists. We acknowledge that the answer in any religion, no matter what it is, usually boil down to “just because.” That’s fine, if we all get honest with ourselves about it. What makes people like PZ Myers lather up is the feeling that people aren’t being honest. But again, that’s a whole separate question. But my problem with him (and Arthur C Clarke) is the position that you must be stupid to be a religious person.

    (The first person I know of to ask that kind of thing was actually Shakespeare, IIRC it’s the scene with the jester and Hamlet discussing this very issue).

  45. Valkyrie607 wrote:

    This Nancy person kind of sounds like a jerk, in the way she phrased her opposition to the veil, ascribing asexuality and subservience to Muslim women simply based on their choice of what to wear. As an atheist, I find her broad-brush generalizations thoughtless and offensive. I hope that JihadPunk77 and others will do me the same courtesy I extend to them and not judge me by the actions of one individual who happens to subscribe to the same belief system as I do.

  46. Stormy wrote:

    A few important points that other commenters have raised that are easy to lose in the flood here: first off, the dress code is not wholly innocent. The very notion of modesty is vaguely toxic, and is one of the subtler tools of patriarchy. L. Alahem brings it to the forefront here, describing those who dress in contemporary Western clothing as “whores”. Granted a lot of racism and bigotry goes on in people who are uncomfortable with the veil, but this is the other side of that coin. If a niqab is considered proper, what is to be thought of a woman in a tube top and a miniskirt?

    Of course, I can’t answer that question. I don’t think anything of it myself, except perhaps that it’s an unfortunate look, but that’s strictly a fashion choice. Ideally, a niqab would be viewed in the same light, as just how someone is more comfortable dressing, or even better, just how someone ENJOYS dressing. The derivation of this enjoyment is immaterial to someone who isn’t wearing one, or it should be. What does it matter to me if you wear one because it pleases god, or if you just like the way it looks? Ideally, this wouldn’t even be a question that occurred to me. But it does, because I do wonder about restrictive social mores, and by extension, behavior that mimics restrictive social mores. I look askance at people who decide to have their children (males too) ritually mutilated for the same reason, and yes, that includes friends and family.

    But the more important issue, far greater than what motivates the niqab, or whether it represents some subtle misogyny, is that an attempt to STOP someone from wearing a niqab is oppression, no matter how well-intended. It’s colonialism for the modern age. I don’t expect to be made to take confession for the sake of my soul, and I don’t expect anyone to be made to take off a niqab because someone thinks their husband bullied them into it.

    Lastly, I know there are some atheists that are jerks. I know a few of them personally. I also know some Muslims that are jerks. Can we please stop assuming that any of these things have anything to do with each other?

  47. Harsha wrote:

    Some information that will help clear the air. The dress in the picture, is a Burka. Full body covering, and it came into being hundreds of years after Islam began. The veil, which is the important thing, is little more than a headscarf. The only thing that needs to be covered according to the Koran is the face and cleavage. Not hands and legs etc.

    And good going France, I support the ban. They technically did nothing against Islam, while at the same time stopping muslim women from being alienated. Hiding your face is hiding a large part of your identity, and it makes the women seem unapproachable. Yes, you are not being harassed or judged maybe, but people are also staying away due the fear of a new or strange thing. The Burka is also one of the main symbols of Islam that promotes xenophobia.

    Ghettoization is a very real danger, and it is there even in India, in which Muslims have lived for centuries. Muslim emperors, kings, and now presidents, political parties etc are there, but even now, you will rarely see a Hindu living in a ‘Muslim’ area or vice versa.

  48. Donald wrote:

    @Jess
    I agree the question is usually wrong but you seem to be assuming that western society allows informed choice. In many cases the choice is to be part of the social group and following the requirements or stepping outside it and finding a new social group. Combined with social conditioning that is a major barrier to informed choice.

    Western society is rich enough to allow individuals to make such choices and diverse enough for that to happen. In much of the third world the society isn’t rich enough. If individuals drop out of the community and don’t repay the investment made in their upbringing family members and even the whole community risks dying. If there are better alternatives the community will die anyway but if there aren’t people will die with the community. A lot of social practices developed to help communities survive and outsiders demanding they change will be resisted. Conversely social changes that are beneficial to a sociey will happen. Not immediately but over a few generations. It is often hard on the individuals who take the lead but it happens.

  49. Donald wrote:

    @Harsha
    Ghettoization will happen or not irrespective of whether a minority of muslim women choose to veil. If I can cope with interacting with a veiled woman there’s no reason why most people can’t. My preference for seeing the whole face is insignificant by comparison to their choice of dress.

    I really don’t think the French vote is favour of a ban is positive in any way. It is a right wing president pandering to xenophobia among a population most of who have never seen a burka or niqab outside the media. It is carefully worded to catch only muslim women and not christian nuns which some of the earlier suggestions would have done. It will probably get thrown out either by the French courts or the European Court of Human Rights on the grounds of religious freedom. The president will have someone else to blame but in the meantime people will have been hassled by the police.

    To get this issue in proportion I spent a bit of time this weekend at the local Desi cultural fair. There must have been over a thousand people just while I was there, the majority muslims. I saw no burkas and just a few niqabs. Headscarves of various styles were common but even they were in the minority.

    It gets me that the western media call the burka a symbol of Islam. They are wrong and pandering to their agenda only encourages them.

  50. April wrote:

    And good going France, I support the ban. They technically did nothing against Islam, while at the same time stopping muslim women from being alienated. Hiding your face is hiding a large part of your identity, and it makes the women seem unapproachable. Yes, you are not being harassed or judged maybe, but people are also staying away due the fear of a new or strange thing. The Burka is also one of the main symbols of Islam that promotes xenophobia.

    Seriously? So it’s up to these women to make sure white people in France are “comfortable” in their presence, or else their marginalization is warranted?

    Oh yes, I see…I suppose if these women unveil, all the tension regarding Muslim immigrant communities in France will magically disappear. Because it has nothing to do with France’s colonial history or racist definitions of what a “true” French person looks like. No, the women are holding themselves back! If they just threw on some Paris designer’s clothes, everyone would accept them, just like they’ve accepted men of Arab origin and Muslim faith. It’s not like there’s ever been rioting in the banlieues.

  51. diana wrote:

    @ april
    I loved ur comment. The French ban is exactly the same as government mandates to wear the veil. To veil or not veil is a very personal choice.

  52. karak wrote:

    I don’t care what you choose to wear, or you’re reasons for wearing it. I care if you are in danger if you make a choice to dress a certain way. Muslim women who wear the veil are in danger in most of the Western world, in danger of harassment and attack. This is just as wrong as a Muslim woman being in danger because she chooses not to wear the veil.

    The Christain Western world can take it’s smugness about “women’s choices” and shove it up it’s ass. Perhaps we should put our own house in order before we go around being all superior and shit. Because I know a lot of women who’ve been attacked, assaulted, molested, or harassed for the clothes they choose to wear or not wear.

  53. Christie wrote:

    As always, people are getting themselves all het up over …

    How much should women be allowed to cover, or uncover, their bodies?

    How much covering or uncovering is allowed seems to vary according to the time period and the country, but what does not change is that there are always people ready to hate on those who are too covered or too uncovered.

    Why is the amount of a woman’s body covering of such interest to other people?