Veiled Women at University
What this means is that any government interested in the autonomy and equality of women must make it possible for women to develop as autonomous, equal citizens. This, in turn, means creating spaces where it's possible for them to refuse to adopt religious or cultural traditions which inhibit that development. That's not easy to do, and it's probably not possible without making some trade-offs that are less than desirable on some level.
Pervez Amirali Hoodbhoy writes in the February/March 2008 issue of Free Inquiry:
The imposition of the veil makes a difference. My colleagues and I share a common observation that over time most students — particularly veiled females — have largely lapsed into becoming silent note-takers, are increasingly less inclined to ask questions to take part in discussions.
This lack of self-expression and confidence leads to most Pakistani university students, including those in their mid- or late-twenties, referring to themselves as boys and girls rather than men and women.
Wearing veils is not a neutral choice, even when it is a completely free choice, if it leads to negative consequence's for a young women's personality, education, and development. We must add to this fact that such a choice may be made against a background of pressure from family members who see unveiled women as immodest at best. When parents, siblings, and others keep telling a young woman that she can't be regarded as good or pious and is unlikely to marry well if she continues in her "sluttish" ways, it's hard to see the decision to wear a veil as entirely free.
This raises questions about just how far a state can go in order to protect people from bad choices. You aren't really free unless you are free to make mistakes, right? On the other hand, our choices aren't always as "free" as we would like to believe. We all make choices against various pressures, interests, and of course degrees of ignorance. It's not unreasonable to discourage choices made under pressure from others and which are known to lead to negative consequences, at least in certain contexts and situations.
It's also been shown in the case of France that bans on head scarves open up the possibility of choosing to not wear them generally. Girls who would be forced through community pressure to wear them can now point to a good excuse for not doing so. Government restrictions on what happens in government schools are thus not reducing the scope of choice but are, in reality, expanding it. Isn't it part of the job of a liberal, democratic state to make it easier for people to resist the pressures of tradition, ecclesiastical authorities, and others in order to make their own choices?
French schools thus aren't so much limiting the choices of girls, but rather limiting the scope of control and power which traditionalist religious communities have over those girls. This is an aspect of secularism which tends to be overlooked, especially in the United States. Secularism isn't just about a passive separation of church and state, but also about an active role for secular institutions in society — a role which makes it possible for people to avoid or escape ecclesiastical institutions, theological traditions, and religious beliefs. If people have to go to churches or other religious institutions for basic social welfare services, then society isn't really very secular no matter how much church/state separation is technically honored.
Comments
I agree 100%. I think it’s the responsibility of any government that is serious about human rights to ensure there are opportunities for women to escape the restrictions and social pressures imposed by their families and associates. To this end, banning restrictive clothing in some areas is necessary.
I worry, though, that an unwanted result maybe that some women simply won’t be allowed to be properly educated. If the choice is for her to go to university as a fully exposed, sexual being or to stay home, many families will just opt for the latter.
I have to say, that as a secular citizen of a secular country (at least, so far)I find the insistence of carrying over such archaic ideas as veils, hajibs, burkas etc. offensive to my sensibilities.
Every time I see a woman dressed thusly, walking in a mall or supermarket, or even on the street, I can’t help but cringe inwardly and get a bit angered at what their archaic social beliefs, culture and religion, their patriarchal structure must do to women.
Self esteem, self worth and autonomy, probably are as distant as freedom for a slave for these gender challenged females. Like slaves they cannot belong to themselves but only their masters.
In this day and age I think the generally misogynistic attitudes of any society, including ours, is criminal. One only has to read of “honor killing” a female for the act of “shaming” her family.
This happens in many of the cultures in the world. There are many other horrific acts perpetrated on women only because they are women and people can get away with it in their societal structure.
So, if I got this right, to demonstrate freedom, we need to PROHIBIT clothing that is deemed restrictive???
Here’s my problem with this. I’ve read numerous articles, essays, etc. from Muslim women who proudly choose to wear the veil; they’re not all Arabic women in the Middle East, some are White American women who embrace Islam. So, all arguments about religion aside, are they ALL brainwashed?Despite what non-religious people (and I am such, btw) may think, who are we to impose OUR views on what these women do because of what we PERCEIVE as oppression?
Orthodox Jewish women wear scarves too, some wear wigs, do we tell THEM that’s unacceptable via legislation as we liberate them? Or what about the guys who wear yarmulkes? Do they make the choice or is THAT imposed by religious law?
I mean, are we talking about, in a nutshell, forcing away force?
I agree with ‘realtalk’. As bad as families forcing Moslem women to wear the veil is, governments forcing them not to, even if only in specific contexts, must be regarded as being equivalent (or, at least, near equivalent).
1. There is a difference between “deemed restricted” and “found to promote women’s self-image as inferior.” There are legitimate reasons to disagree with what I wrote, but please focus on what I actually wrote.
2. You are ignoring the established fact that when such garb is allowed, girls and women who don’t want to wear it are unable to say “no.” So, in order to protect the rights of those who really do want to wear it, how would you propose protecting the rights of those who really don’t? Perhaps the compromise is precisely what I suggested: not permitting the garb is certain contexts where the government is already responsible for promoting the civil equality of all. If you have a better solution, I’d like to see it rather than just hand-wringing over what others have been trying to do.
If you interpret requirements on women’s dress as symbolizing their inferiority to men and you want to create an environment that says that women and men are equals then you must prohibit the requirements. A government doesn’t have to allow speech that contradicts its message to be expressed in its own fora.
The notion that women are equal to men is preposterous!
I’ve known a few white American women who “proudly” wore the veil. After more pressing they admitted to wearing it only because they had self-esteem problems to begin with. They felt the veil liberated them from society’s pressure. I know it was their choice to wear the veil, but it just doesn’t seem right to wear a symbol of oppression just because they needed a place to hide.
@Austin
Sorry if I didn’t clarify what I was referencing; it was not only your essay but some of the comments as well, particularly Mave’s about banning certain clothing may be necessary to show that we’re all for freedom (I’ll just let the irony of that concept simmer a bit)
But to answer your question on what to do to protect those who don’t want to wear religious outfits, I would say, unless there’s a cry for help, there’s really nothing that can be done without truly opening a Pandora’s Box.
For example, if we’re to assume that the wearing hijab is under the duress of family/community strictures and to give the young woman or girl a helping hand, we’ll just banish the garment. OK, it may take the guilt away from having to go against the family but do we now want government-sponsored family conflict? Also, where do you draw the line? Again, I have to bring up the yarmulke, do we KNOW that the young men and boys who wear it do so freely? What about girls in certain Christian denominations who are allowed to wear only dresses, do we tell them you must wear pants if you’re to attend this government school? And so on, do we really want to go there?
I still say that the veils, etc. constitute an attitude towards women that is both demeaning and insulting. The social structures that perpetuate this kind of gender discrimination, are totally out of place in this day and age. I do not say we should force women to dress in any particular fashion.
I don’t think that women should be forced into virtual invisibility and inhumane treatment because they are females.
I suppose Ron, if your comment was actually a serious one, that female genital mutilation and acid throwing to “teach” women their place or leaving babies born female abandoned to die, is fine and acceptable as far as you’re concerned. I feel sorry for any female that has the misfortune of getting involved with you.
If you were not serious, then I apologize in advance, although I think this is a very serious subject. Half or more of the world’s population, is, after all, female.
@DeGeorgetown
But we can also say that a miniskirt or hot pants are a “symbol of oppression” because the wearer feels the need to excite men in order to boost her own self-worth.
Plus, if we’re to TRULY respect women as rational beings capable of making decisions, we can’t then turn around and say they’re manipulated or exploited because the choice they make runs counter to what we deem acceptable. How patronizing is that! Just saying…
Realtalk:
The problem isn’t women not making rational decisions, its that the men are making the decisions for them. They are not allowed to make their own decisions.
Do some Googling on female genital mutilation, and female honor killings. Do some real research on how some male dominated cultures view their females as defective but a necessary nuisance for breeding purposes and sex, nothing more. There are a myriad of other misogynistic attitudes in many cultures, world wide.
When you’ve actually done the research, I think you’ll find that the women have very little choice if any, to assert themselves. If death or getting burned alive or having acid thrown at you, is the price for autonomy, how much choice is there?
What qualifies as a “cry for help”? We already know that there are many who would prefer not to wear such garb and simply need an excuse. Why do you think that the “Box” isn’t already open? You seem to act like doing nothing will relieve anyone of making hard choices, but doing nothing in this case is also a choice which negatively impacts people.
Since no one is suggesting that we “banish” the garment, this is just a Straw Man. Pleaes, only real suggestions based on real ideas.
Oh, I think the places where real harm can be demonstrated is a good place — and it just so happens that this very post describes some of that harm.
Since the yarmulke is not a garment used to reinforce male inferiority, and since it cannot be shown to make men feel like they are inferior, this is an irrelevant example. I wonder why you feel you have to bring it up again, then, unless you can’t think of any relevant examples?
It’s already a fact that they can be told that they have to wear different dresses if they attend government schools. Ever hear of school uniforms? So if those uniforms can be different dresses, they can also be pants instead. Now, if it can be established that these dresses are used to reinforce female inferiority and actual harm to self-esteem can be pointed to, then a case can indeed be made.
Are you really not aware of the fact that schools can ban such garb?
Unnecessary. The presence of social and family pressure to wear the garb in question is undeniable. The fact that some would choose not to wear it without that pressure is also undeniable.
The comments on this blog are disturbing to say the least.
You all speak of “freedom of choice” but the only choice that is offered are the choices that your selfish, backward, and archaic thinking dictate.
Your
privileged
selfish
backward
Westernized
“I am right”
ways of thinking are strong in this blog. Not only are they strong, but they demonstrate how much of a brat you really are.
And this author is not only culturally insensitive but gender insensitive as well. For the author of this blog does not believe in freedom of choice but instead force women of the world to conform to his extremely radical world’s view.
Anyone remembers the laws France passed baning Muslim grab for women? How come Catholic head dresses for nuns were not? (I do not hear you protesting that.)
What about the hordes of Muslim women who took to the streets in both Britain and France to protest such actions by both government? (British Parliament was weighing in whether to ban them in school.)
What about the hordes of women who choose to follow and remain devout to a religion once they live in a western country? Be they Christan, Muslim, or Jew.
Your twisted and narrow minded world dictates that women everyone give up their cultural identities (which includes religion) and adopt yours (in addition to bowing down to you.) Women have no choice to choose of think for themselves (or anyone for that matter), instead they must adopt your exact ways of think and rid themselves of any cultural uniqueness, comforts, or identities.
With you, there is no middle ground, simply everyone has to whole heartily agree with and your thoughts. If they do not, you bring a list of “shame tactics” that you and your sort love charge when you run out of anything logical to stay.
I expect the charges of “chauvinism” and “being a religious zealot” will come into play by you and your lot.
With “individuals” (I say “individual” because such people selfish believe that their beliefs are the absolute and universal truth) such as yourself it is never about “choice”, except for the choices that YOU dictate.
OK, I’m confused, folks (Soujourner, esp.): are we talking about what transpires in the US or abroad?
Feel free to support each one of those charges with clear evidence.
Feel free to support this charge as well. Oh, and the idea of dress codes at government schools doesn’t quite amount to evidence “gender insensitivity” since dress codes of various sorts already exist. The question is whether or not this particular addition is “gender insensitive.”
Curious you should ask, since precisely that has been cited several times. Head dresses for nuns is a difficult issue since they are the uniform of a religious order, not simply religious garb. However, I disagree that limits on religious garb should apply to Muslims alone.
What about all the Muslim women and girls who welcome it?
Insofar as symbols and actions are designed to reinforce gender inequality, then yes there will be contexts and situations where they have to be given up. Would you care to explain why they shouldn’t, or am I too narrow-minded to bother with?
Funny, but I’d think that such a charge would be better suited to someone who wants to ban hijabs and related garb completely. If it isn’t “middle ground” to only consider restrictions in narrow contexts like government schooling, then I wonder what is.
No, nothing like that is necessary. All that’s required is to point out that you are long on accusations and personal invective, but short on evidence, support, and reasoned arguments.
I’m curious if you feel the same way about Muslims who believe that all women should be covered in public. Or do you save such invective and unsupported accusations for those who argue that in contexts like government schools, clothing which promotes ideologies of gender inequality should perhaps be restricted?
(If you were not serious, then I apologize in advance, although I think this is a very serious subject. Half or more of the world’s population, is, after all, female.)
Yes, it is a serious subject. My way of being serious is to poke fun at mysogyney. The spell checker says I am guilty of misspelling mysogyney. Sorry bout that!
Realtalk: Surely you realize that the attitudes of misogyny carry over, no matter what the country is. Even in our good old US of A. Yes, there actually was a recent “honor killing” in America. The daughter, who was murdered, by her father committed the sin of shaming the family by marrying outside her race. Therefore the father had the right according to his cultural idea.
minor correction: Meant to say ideology, not idea.
ROTC wears uniforms too for much the same reason.
I’d have to say I agree with realtalk that this is a bad idea. (Though I don’t agree with a lot of his arguments, just for the record).
The trouble with doing this is that though I’m sure many (possibly most, possibly almost all,) muslim girls/women want to have the freedom to not wear the veil, there are some that do. We’re taking away their choice. This however isn’t the only reason I disagree with it, as based on this its reasonable to say that the benefits outweight the drawbacks.
My second reason is that whilst people may think that they’re granting more autonomy by banning headscarfs, who knows how their possibly oppresive families will react? I think a backlash could well be waiting. They might decide that they’ll take their daughters out of school, or decide that their ‘whores’ or ’sluts’ or ‘a disgrace to their family’ by not wearing a veil even if they are forced not to. Who knows what treatment they’ll get at home because of this? Basically they can either refuse to remove the veil and get in trouble at school, or remove it and get in trouble at home for not wearing it in school, they’re damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
What do all the stupid Nazi and pagan tatoos mean? It is just a lot of people playing dress up most of the time. I would draw the line at Burkas and Ku Klux Klan robes however, since masks usually spell too much exclusion and trouble.
When muslim women get to decide that muslim men start wearing burkes, 24/7, I might reconsider any validity your statements might have.
Until then you can f off your misogynistic self. How’s that for insensitive.
I am in contact with a young Arabian Girl who defends wholeheartedly the “Cover up.”
Approaching the day when she wore this (Adult) mode of dress was, for her, as was my anticipation when as a young man moving from short pants to long. (Now no longer done.)
Or for that matter the ritualism and traditional garb of a Catholic boy or girl at first Mass or a Jewish boy at his “Coming of Age.”
This whole idea is based on primitive initiation at puberty. From scarification, genital mutilation,onwards to, dare I say, wearing clerical garb to demonstrate further advancement up the ladder. Bit like an extended Masonic Lodge.
Imbued, or is that indoctrinated? from childhood into this as one of the mysteries of
transformation into adulthood there is often a conception of emancipation and “Arrival”
A bit like a girl’s first bra’. The only objection can be, is if there are restrictions and penalties if the female declines to conform
tomedgar@halenet.com.au
TomEdgar:
In other words, the Islamic females are jumping for joy because they have passed from being a child to becoming a non-entity? Pardon me if I don’t believe that the culture doesn’t perpetuate their misogyny by the intimidation of the females from birth. That and many other cultures that are primarily misogynistic patriarchal societies.
That has absolutely nothing to do with a “first bra”, believe me. Ask any woman about that, or a Bat Mitzvah. By the way, ask any woman who has undergone FGM and escaped the cultures that mutilated her if it was something to look forward to, like a “first bra”. Either you’re very naive, or are talking through your hat!
Nice try, you guys, but I am afraid to say I still find myself in the same boat as ‘realtalk’, ‘professionalism’ (though I do not think he/she does themself any favours by barraging Mr Cline and others who agree with his position on this issue with so many ad hominen atacks) and ‘K.anonyomous’ here. I contend that it is an infringement upon religious liberty and, by extension, civil liberties.
As for Mr Cline’s argument, who are we to assume that young Moslem women and men must necessarily be wearing the veils because of pressure from their families, or that it must impact negatively upon their self-esteem? This seems to me be equivalent to the fundamentalist Christians and Moslems who dictate that people (especially women) should dress ‘modestly’ and not freely parade themselves naked because they think it is degrading to the women. The latter are, of course, the same people who pressure young women into wearing the veils.
It would be incorrect to deny that, in some cases, wearing veils is not an entirely free choice for young women and men and/or does have a detrimental impact on their self-esteem. However, why generalise from that and assume that it must be true in all cases? (I might remind you at this point that not Moslems come from exclusively or mainly Moslem families and brought up to embrace Islam; some do not and hence convert without any pressure or influence from families (or ‘revert’, as Moslems call it, since they at large believe that everyone is born a Moslem and only ceases to be so when they lose their Islamic faith (apostacy), are brought up to embrace a different faith, or are not brought up to embrace any religion at all. This is a belief that I find to be illogical and stupid, but that is a separate issue). Hence, the belief that a young Moslem who wears the veil due to pressure from his/her family is obviously false anyway and merely a stereotype.)
Additionally, the veil in Islam is intended to represent more than just modesty. Apparently it is meant to symbolise cutting oneself off from the material world for the sake of opening one’s heart to God and connecting more intimately with that which is beyond the empirically discernable. (I, of course, as an atheist and empiricist think this is pure gibberish, but, again, that is a completely different issue). Thus, by banning or restricting the wearing of the veil, you are infringing upon Moslems’ right to freely practice a ritual that carries not just moral, but also important spiritual, symbolic weight.
I disagree most strongly with Moslem families who coerce young people into wearing veils and inhibit their freedom of choice. Nonetheless, I feel that it is right and proper to criticise just as vociferously with those who do the same thing by restricting young Moslems’ freedom to wear the veil. I feel that this is a blatant example of hypocrisy.
For those interested, Born Again Atheists quotes are in brackets.
[Additionally, the veil in Islam is intended to represent more than just modesty. Apparently it is meant to symbolise cutting oneself off from the material world for the sake of opening one’s heart to God and connecting more intimately with that which is beyond the empirically discernable. (I, of course, as an atheist and empiricist think this is pure gibberish, but, again, that is a completely different issue). Thus, by banning or restricting the wearing of the veil, you are infringing upon Moslems’ right to freely practice a ritual that carries not just moral, but also important spiritual, symbolic weight.]
Than why is it only the women wear the veils?
[It would be incorrect to deny that, in some cases, wearing veils is not an entirely free choice for young women and men and/or does have a detrimental impact on their self-esteem. However, why generalise from that and assume that it must be true in all cases? (I might remind you at this point that not Moslems come from exclusively or mainly Moslem families and brought up to embrace Islam; some do not and hence convert without any pressure or influence from families (or ‘revert’, as Moslems call it, since they at large believe that everyone is born a Moslem and only ceases to be so when they lose their Islamic faith (apostacy), are brought up to embrace a different faith, or are not brought up to embrace any religion at all. This is a belief that I find to be illogical and stupid, but that is a separate issue). Hence, the belief that a young Moslem who wears the veil due to pressure from his/her family is obviously false anyway and merely a stereotype.)]
So, you’re saying that culture, specifically patriarchal, and misogyny have nothing at all to do with women wearing veils? No family pressure at all? No threats of abuse or worse? The women who “choose” to become Moslem are not bucking a patriarchal dictatorship? Then why veils in the first place? What is the prime cause here? Again I ask, why don’t men wear some sort of veil, too? There’s no way around this, it is blatant misogyny. Call it what you will, but Moslem women have no rights as individuals. They cannot drive, travel, go anywhere without express male consent. “Honor killings” are condoned, strict segregation between the sexes at all times, etc., etc.,etc. By the way, what men wear burqas or face covering except for terrorists trying to hide their identities?
The Sojourner,
I think I can safely say that we all know what things are like for women in Saudi Arabia, which has a reputation as the world’s mysogyny capital. We all know about women there being forbidden from driving, the rigidly enforced system of gender-based segregation, women who violate this system, even in the context of being raped by a man, getting the living s**t beaten out of them, and in public, to boot, etc, etc, etc. I am not saying that a patriarchal cultural/familial background like this has no bearing whatsoever on women wearing the veil. I am saying, however, that it would be incorrect to generalise from this.
Whilst I am on that subject, why do you assume that, just because I am arguing against one extreme (i.e. women wearing the veils is necessarily due to pressure from their familial/cultural background and/or necessarily has a negative impact upon their self-esteem), I am arguing in favour of the opposite extreme (i.e. that women never wear the veil because of familial/cultural pressures and/or that it never impacts negatively upon their self-esteem)? That is, I believe, an example of the false dilemma fallacy.
I do not know if Moslem men wear veils or not, in response to your questions on that subject. Perhaps it was wrong for me to assume so. If I’m mistaken there, I apologise. As for the supposed spiritual symbolism conveyed by wearing the veil, I am merely recalling what I heard an American Moslem (I think he was a scholar) say on the BBC World Service once. The guy, for all I know, could have just been trying to save Islam’s face, so to speak, by seeking to divert the reporter’s attention from how the veil is thought to portray Moslem women as inferior to their male counterparts. I don’t know. I do know, however, that there are dress regulations for men in Islam (the details of which I don’t know) that, presumably, serve to convey a similar spiritual symbolism as the one I described the veil as representing in my last comment.
Another thing: I find your suggestion that female converts to Islam must be ‘bucking a patriarchal dictatorship’ to be bigoted and prejudiced, not to mention Islamophobic. I might remind you at this point that not all Moslem women actually wear the veil (I’m not sure that it is even specifically mandated in the Q’uran, although I am pretty damned sure that it recommends one to dress modestly) and, even among those who do, not all of them have such a cultural background as to regard such things as honour killings as being morally acceptable, much less obligatory.