Laura * and Condi wearing the black head coverings/bhurkas....

[Francine Frensky]

As a female, I was bothered by the photos of Laura and Condi wearing head coverings (some kind of black cloth? was it planned or did they just rip a small curtain in half?) when they visited the pope's dead body. Eerily similar to the head coverings forced upon the Afghan women. Bhurka's for american women??

What offends me more is that I'm catholic, and while wearing head coverings for women was the old standard (from the 1950's), it is not common anymore for catholic women to wear something on their heads, not at all required in any church I have ever visited, so that struck me as either ignorant (uninformed and insulting) or frightening, if they were forced to wear it as this was in italy and catholics are just that backward over there (and maybe that kind of thinking will come to america soon?).

I avoid the mainstream media at all cost, just caught the video on Wednesday night of the bush clan praying by the pope's body, so perhaps this has been covered in the media already, but honestly, that bothered me.

Anyone know what was going on there??

[CoffeeCat]

1. I just assumed...

...that the girls had gone doily shopping earlier that day, while the men got drunk in the hotel room.

I could be wrong.

[Maple]

2. It was a

black lace mantilla. Shoulder length.

At least the dresses were knee and not floor length.

And both women are protestant as far as I know.

Very strange, but then so was the kneeling.

Not very presidential.

[Placebo]

3. It wasn't just them.

I know the Queen of Spain was wearing one as well, and a few others.

[Maple]

5. But they are

catholic.

[mn9driver]

4. When in Rome...

You know the rest.

[Sannum]

6. It is proper protocol at the Vatican.

It would have been inappropriate if they had not worn them. I was surprised that the women attending wore short dresses, when protocol calls for long dresses to the floor. There is a time and a place for everything, and this was far from being "forced to wear a burka".

Foreign women visiting the Vatican wear black, unless they are Catholic, and then they can wear white. A veil or mantilla is required as well I still have no idea why Queen Rania of Jordan wore white a few years ago.

Yes, I am a protocol nut.

[Maple]

8. And if they visited

Saudi Arabia?

[Sannum]

12. They would dress conservatively.

I do not think that foreign women are required to wear a veil in Saudi Arabia while on an official visit. The Crown Princess of Sweden did not. She did dress very conservatively. Saudi Arabia and Italy are two different countries and I am not even going to argue about it since this thread is about Italy and The Vatican.

This isn't about opression. It is about a cultural tradition and custom. I do consider myself a feminist, but I am also respectful of traditions and cultural differences. If Pills and Teeth had worn gray, I would have been the first to complain.

[Maple]

21. So invading Afghanistan

and liberating women from the Taliban wasn't 'going against tradition and cultural differences?'

[Sannum]

29. As I said...

This is about one custom at the Vatican. Not Islamic fundamentalists I think the over-reaction is amazing.

I guess I should not say that I once curtseyed to the Crown Prince of Spain. I guess that would make me a slave:eyes:

[Placebo]

31. Great post!

:yourock:

[Maple]

33. And Bush is noted

for following the customs of others?

And if you curtsied to the Crown Prince of Spain, you're a very odd sort of American.

The Brits don't even curtsy to the Queen of England

[Sannum]

40. oh god...

I did what felt right at the time. It is optional. It doesn't matter either way. It would not have been proper to slap him on the back and say "Hey Felipe! How is that nutty anorexic new wife of yours". :eyes:

Bush is not respectful of other cultures and traditions, but that does not mean all americans have to be.

You seem to be reading WAAAY too much into this small gesture. I don't want to be there when you go to a wedding and the bride wears a veil.

[Maple]

42. Do you do that when you meet others?

Go between curtsying and back slapping?

Odd choice.

Bridal veils are also a holdover from veiling women in the Middle Ages.

What is it about the Middle Ages that would appeal to a modern woman?

[Sannum]

49. oh for god's sake...

I give up. I guess I am for enslaving women now...come and get me boys:eyes:

[Maple]

55. If you want

to wear a veil and kneel in front of a man, it's your choice.

Same with curtsying to one.

Just don't claim to be either feminist or polite or modern.

[Sannum]

57. what?

I find the fact that I am no longer a modern feminist a very interesting development.

I like protocol and history. I tend to follow it when I am in situations that require it.

You are obviously here for a war so I am just going back to the lounge. Calm down. This is not the main problem in the world.

[Maple]

58. Tell ya what

Read the book called 'A Handmaid's Tale' by Margaret Atwood.

See how easily medieval 'protocol' suddenly overtakes the US.

Male bonding, between two quite different religions, took place right in front of you, and you're busy being 'nicey nice'

None of the men were required to wear 14th century garb.

And yes, the liberation of women is a major problem in the world.

It affects birth control, abortion, children's health, education, jobs,population control, and a myriad of other things.

Until we get past the feudal stage, we won't get anywhere.

Ditch the veil.

[Sannum]

59. I have read it.

Female heads of state wearing a doily on their head is not a concern of mine.

Focus on the big picture. I do.

[July]

65. I think you are being a little unfair here.

One can claim to be feminist, polite, and modern without doing things the way you think is best. You don't really know much about the poster except that she would follow a protocol that you wouldn't. That alone does not throw her into a "backward" category.

[Nikia]

66. I think so too

Personally I find the "custom" of women wearing high healed shoes to be more oppressive to women than veiling (I mean the ones that don't cover most/all of a woman's face). I don't think women following protocol for this occaision are really bowing to oppression anymore than women at a formal event are for wearing uncomfortable shoes, dresses, make up, and styled hair.

[grasswire]

70. I would never, ever, ever, ever curtsey to royalty.

Too much blood was spilled to buy our liberty. Nevah! Nevah!

[Francine Frensky]

15. Really a rule that all women visiting the vatican wear

the "veil or mantilla"?? I didn't know that, but again, I've never been to Vatican City.

I wonder how many people will see those pictures and think all women in all catholic churches dress that way. I think it's a set back for my religion.

[theboss]

18. It's a rule at the Vatican

Didn't Hillary discuss this in her book?

[MADem]

35. No, head coverings are not mandated anymore

AT a high mass, it is considered respectful to wear something on the head if you are female, more of a tradition than a requirement now. The mantillas were over the top.

A small cap that matched the outfit would have been fine--subdued shades, of course, it is a funeral.

[lenidog]

16. Hey nothing wrong about being a protocol nut

in such places as the Vatican or Court of St James some of the protocol can be incredibly fascinating especially when you find out the back story on it. This coming from history nut.

[MADem]

22. Not true about dresses

To, or just above the knee is fine. They don't go for hot pants, shorts, minis, dungarees, and they don't like pants at mass, but they will tolerate them on the tourists who are visiting during the day to see the Pieta and so forth. Also, no bare arms.

Any head covering, like a beret, cap, small hat, would have been appropriate at a high mass.

I've been to the Vatican probably fifty times or more, with Catholics, ex-Catholics, and people of other faiths, and no woman in my contingents ever wore all black or all white. They just wore regular clothes, and were appropriately covered.

One of the most amusing thing about the piazza in the summer is to see the tourists who are backpacking who want to visit the basilica. They strip down to thongs to change into appropriate clothes, right there in the middle of the square. Many eschewed brassieres, so everyone gets a look see when they need to change a shirt. Never quite got used to that!

Edit to add this photo, you see tourists in casual dress enroute to the Sistine Chapel:

[July]

63. Did you see footage of previous popes' funerals on television?

I saw Queen Sofia of Spain and another royal female (can't remember who it was) wearing white at one of them and wondered where that came from. I know the Spanish royals are well-versed in protocol, so I assumed there was a reason. Do you know what it was?

[Terran1212]

7. It's actually their pathetic attempt at being culturual...

Head coverings are standard for most olden cultures, traditions, and religions. These are not bhurkas, they are hijabs (urdu word for them).

It's the way they dress, it has nothing to do with oppression. Don't turn everything into a marxist/feminist complex, please!

[Maple]

9. No, try the 21st century

And since when has Bush worried about cultural differences?

[saigon68]

14. He doesn't worry about committing MURDER EITHER

Or other assorted War Crimes.

[Hatalles]

13. I agree.

Some people choose to dress that way. I know plenty of Muslim women that would take huge offense to that hijab=oppression crap.

[Clark2008]

24. Thank you for commenting

It's standard protocol and nothing more (except their legs shouldn't have been showing - and neither the men.)

When I was a little girl, a woman did NOT enter the Church without something over her head - a veil, a small hat (where do you think Easter bonnets came from!?).

Yes, traditions have been broken and that's fine. But this was a STRICT Catholic funeral and, hey - I don't come in your house actin' all high and mighty - don't come into the Pope's house actin' like you made the rules, either.

It's just respect.

[Maple]

26. If Bush wanted to respect the pope

he wouldn't have invaded Iraq.

That would have mattered much more than some antique rule about women covering their heads.

[Placebo]

30. You're a bit of a radical.

Not going to war as a trade-off for an antiquated formality, what kind of crazy nut are you?!?!

:sarcasm:

[Maple]

34. Gosh yes,

I would have thought it more important. :D

[Swede]

10. Similar to burkas? Your reading too much into a simple tradition.

Relax,how can you compare a funeral ceremony for the relegious leader of a billion people and head of state to the wearing of burkas. And we critisize the right for bring up the slippery slope all the time.

[Maple]

28. It's a tradition not to be armed either

Do you think Bush followed that one with his bodyguards?

[Swede]

38. Really? Those NATO jets must have really pissed you off too.

Not to mention the 9000 soldiers on the streets.

[Maple]

39. Well it was pretty stupid

unless bin Laden has acquired an airforce when no one was looking

[Swede]

43. He didn't have one on 911.

But you knew that.

[Maple]

46. He didn't need one then

and doesn't need one now.

And guerrilla warfare consists of doing the unexpected. Not the same thing twice in a row.

Bin Laden has nothing against all those other people. Just Americans.

[Swede]

52. You mean like Bush and Clinton.

Nice big targets,no?

[Maple]

53. No

It's American foreign policy he objects to.

Not easily replaced individuals.

[MADem]

11. Some ass told them that wearing a Spanish Mantilla

was just the thing to do. Nitwits.

In Italy, you still see them up in the rural areas on the old ladies who are like stereotypes of the old lady in Moonstruck who tells Cher she put a curse on the plane that Johnny Camareri just boarded to see his dying mama in Sicily. But they've been "out" for many decades.

When I lived in Spain (aeons ago), women would always have one in their pocketbook to have handy to wear if one wanted to nip in for confession or to light a candle for a relative or whatever. They were small, easily tucked away, and satisfied the requirement back then that women cover their heads in church.

In sophisticated Rome, and because this was the ultimate high mass, the smart thing to do would have been to wear a small, smart, appropriate-to-the-costume formal hat...the Brits tend to go overboard (throw out the hat, wear the hatbox, is what it looks like half the time), but on that idea.

Since it was a high mass in latin, something on the head was right, but the mantillas made them look like backward rubes, if you ask me.

[Maple]

17. I agree

a small hat would have been much more appropriate.

[Francine Frensky]

20. See, THAT's my whole point!

It's an insult to be an important person and in photographs all over the world and make it LOOK like that's the right way to dress. It's like a MOCKERY of catholic women.

For people who aren't catholic and who see those pictures, it's going to set our religion back 200 years.

I'm not kidding, it's an insult.

[Swede]

32. It's a funeral of a Pope at the Vatican.

If people are too obtuse to see the context then they're morans.

[Maple]

37. Says a male

What if they wanted you to dress up like one of those Swiss guards?

[Swede]

41. Slippery slope sliding again.

I didn't see any representatives in sweats and t-shirts.

[Maple]

45. Can't answer eh?

Nobody said anything about sweats and T's

A suit is fine.

But I notice a lot of people perfectly happy to put women in veils again.

[Swede]

48. Papists perhaps?

:)

[Maple]

51. Protestants apparently

[Placebo]

25. Then why did other VIP women wear them?

:shrug:

[Maple]

27. They are catholic

[MADem]

50. Long in the tooth, most of them

...or culturally appropriate for the Catholics from say, Spain, or even France. If you do not customarily wear one, that was not the occasion to start. It looked wrong, because it wasn't real or customary for them. And clearly, I was not the only one who found it jarring.

When Margaret Thatcher visited the ME, she wore a long blue dress to the ankle and a big ass blue hat that covered her hair. She conformed to the cultural requirements, but the hat and the dress were of British styling and manufacture--she didn't toss on a chador for the occasion.

[WillowTree]

19. Though no longer required...

....most Catholic women in Europe, particularly in Latin countries, apparently still do wear head coverings in church. Most of the women among the dignitaries were, and most of those that did were wearing some variety of a mantilla. The White House protocol people probably recommended that they wear them.

[theboss]

23. Maybe they raided my aunts' closets

I sorta miss the old school everyone-dress-in-black approach, to be honest.

[Cleita]

36. Even when it was standard, none of us wore black burkas

even for funerals. Black hats were standard and many of us in the hispanic community work black mantillas to cover our heads. Very lacy and very sexy. At regular mass I often pinned flowers on mine behind one of my ears. Really, great for flirting with the boys at Mass with your eyes peeking around the lacy scallops of the veils edges.

On edit: I remember now Jackie Kennedy wearing a black lace mantilla to the Vatican for something there and they photographed her with the then Pope in it.

[AutumnMist]

44. My Italian Godmother

wore the same black scarf over her head during a funeral. My Mother has as well. A Bhurka is a very different thing, worn for very different reasons. The black scarf/veil has been worn for decades and at times can cover the whole face or be wrapped around the head as shown with Mrs. Bush. During the Kennedy funeral the wearing of a black scarf over Mrs. Kennedy's face was worn out of respect to show mourning for the somber occasion. Its traditional in many ways. But I don't think it should be a sign of repression in any way. Many women, not even Catholic, will wear the same thing as a sign of grief. It's not so much a sign of old school religion.

[Maple]

47. How long ago was that?

And what generation?

[MADem]

54. Jackie O had a flair for the dramatic

She planned that funeral down to the second, and she wore what were termed "widows weeds" (a triple veil with a built in hat, more or less) for a couple of reasons: first, she hadn't slept and felt that she looked like shit, and second, she was so intensely private that she did not want a clear photograph taken of her should she shed a tear.

Even back then, in the relative dark ages of the 60's, her head covering was over the top. She got away with it because she was THE trend setter for women's fashion in the US. It is no accident that if you look at old TV shows of the era (Dick Van Dyke's Laura Petrie, as played by Mary Tyler Moore, e.g.) that most of the women in these programs have some sort of "Jackie" look going on. Since she was a style setter, it was OK. Anyone else might not have been able to carry it off.

I will link, not post, to a picture (big image) where you can see the strain on her face--she was a master of the image, rest her soul. http://teaching.arts.usyd.edu.au/history/hsty3080/StudentWebSites/AMELIA/My%20Webs/AMELIA%20RFK%20WEB/images/photoalbum/pages/jackie%20+%20flag_jpg.htm

[Maple]

56. Yes, it surprised people even then

We hadn't seen anything like that since Queen Mary's day!

Everyone kindly assumed she was weeping, and wanted privacy in front of the millions watching, so nothing was said.

[Hardrada]

60. Yes, that famous picture of the three queens

At the funeral of George VI. I remember it from magazines of the time.

If anyome has it I'd like to see it one more time.

[LdyGuique]

61. I'm sure the male protocol hosts gave out the dictum for appropriate wear

While this past few weeks has given me a fresh respect for the integrity of Pope John Paul II (PJP2), watching the funeral was a stunning example of "men in control."

First -- every single person intimately involved in the funeral were men -- celibate men -- men who has deliberately eschewed the counsel or wisdom of any woman. While PJP2 may have venerated Mary, it made little impression on him in terms of believing that women are equal or as valid as men. Nuns do not give counsel, do not perform masses, and are obedient to the male hierarchy.

Even the choir was all male.

The heads of state -- all male, some with wives carefully veiled. Since they were not inside the church itself, the ritual or tradition to be covered did not apply -- it certainly didn't apply to all of the ordinary pilgrims who also attended.

While I appreciated the ecunemical aspect of the service, there were no women present amongst the ranks of the other churches, either. Not a single political or theological dignitary was female.

Only Hindus have a delightful pantheon of female deities.

Women want to know why they are 2nd class citizens all over the world? Take a look at the religions that are currently dominating the authoritarian structure.

[Nikia]

67. Are Hindus known for woman's rights?

In a gender related class that I took in college, we discovered that female deities does not always equal a greater respect for women. I know that there are many successful Hindu women, but what about the oppressive practices of dowries for marriage, infanticide and abortion of females, and the tradition of widowed women burning themselves on their husband's funeral pyre, among other things. I don't think that having female deities have really helped these women.

[LdyGuique]

69. Times, they are a'changing in India

Many of the traditioins that you're remembering go back to pre-Independence and Gandhi and they weren't necessarily universal. Women play a major role in government, as well as have strong numbers in college and the new outsourcing workplace. There is still a strong tradition for a woman's role that is very similar to a Christian woman's role of staying home and rearing children, but the current generation is breaking away with the increased job opportunities.

One of the most interesting traditions is the role of the daughter-in-law in her new home, under the iron rule of her mother-in-law. Women truly run the household in all ways, and woe be the son or daughter-in-law who doesn't toe the mark. In turn, the daughter-in-law will one day become mother-in-law in her own right.

As for India's population -- it jumped from 750 million to 1 billion in a less than 20-year period preceding 2YK -- if they are practicing intfanticide, they're not doing it very well.

It was China that was practicing female intfanticde due to the one child per family rule. Now, they've got a major problem, far more men of marriageable age and women are definitely going to be driving the marriage negotiations because they are in short supply.

[burn the bush]

62. I thought they looked stupid and outdated. I don't believe veils are

still used at funerals are they?

[mmonk]

64. Just for show

like their fake expressions. Rice should know better that women seldom wear head coverings anymore but I guess the show must go on.

[bleedingheart]

68. It is Vatican protocol that women who visit the pope wear a cover

over their heads.