French Feminists attack Obama over Islamic veil

[Captain_Nemo]

"Feminists attack Obama over Islamic veil

Saturday, 06 June 2009

French feminists attacked US President Barack Obama's defence of the Islamic veil yesterday, accusing him of dealing a blow to the rights of millions of women in order to appease religious sentiment.
Obama was due to arrive in Paris later in the day, after a Middle East tour in which he gave a speech in which he accused countries like France of hiding "hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism." France bans girls and young women from wearing Muslim headscarves in state schools, and women's rights campaigners here see its widespread and sometimes compulsory use in the Islamic world as an abuse of women's rights. One French women's rights group, Ni Putes Ni Soumises ("Neither whores, nor submissives"), said: "Reducing the dialogue between civilisations to a dialogue between religions is once again to instrumentalise women. "By attacking secularism and defending the veil, the President of the United States <...> has hurt the struggle of millions of women, some of whom pay with their lives every day to escape fundamentalist violence," it said. Anne Saugier, president of the International Women's Rights League that was founded by Simone de Beauvoir, accused Obama of seeking to reconcile the United States with Muslims "on the backs of women." "What a slap in the face for those women in Algeria, Iran and Afghanistan who died in atrocious conditions for having refused to wear what they consider the most radical sign of their oppression and segregation," she said. Wearing some variety of headdress – whether a scarf over the hair, a veil or face mask or a full length "burqua" – is compulsory in some Muslim majority countries and common among Muslim communities in others. It is considered by some a sign of women's subjugation and repression, and banned in some public institutions in some countries, but in his speech in Cairo on Thursday, Obama went out of his way to defend it on three occasions. "It is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear," he said."
http://www.macaudailytimesnews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=28469&Itemid=33

A 2006 article on the group, ""Neither whores, nor submissives" from MSNBC
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12812170/

PARIS — Fadela Amara — feminist, anti-racism campaigner, political activist, Muslim — is spearheading a new French revolution.

Battling against the "machismo" in France's bleak, heavily Muslim suburbs, Amara, the president of Ni Putes, Ni Soumises (Neither Whores nor Submissives), has defied the conspiracy of silence surrounding the extreme acts of violence perpetrated against young minority women in the ghettos and is offering them a third option: respect.

“Our problem today is that a lot of the girls in the suburbs ... they think the station of women is dictated by the men or boys of the quartier (neighborhood),” Amara said during a recent interview in the organization’s sparsely decorated headquarters in eastern Paris. Posters from the group's recent campaigns, showcasing the multiethnic face of France, as well as a Che Guevara print, adorned her office.

[Clio the Leo]

1. Clearly some folks didn't hear the speech.....

... and I found Mr. Sarkozy's rationale on why women working for the French gvt. aren't allowed to cover their heads .... that, in an effort to not espouse any religious beliefs, all expression of it is forbidden while on the job ... to be a load of hoo ha.

[Captain_Nemo]

2. THen you haven't been reading the accounts of violence and discrimination towards

girls and women in France because of the wearing of/not wearing of a headscarf.
Even girls in schools who don't wear them sometimes are called whores. IN an effort for equality this had to be done.

[Clio the Leo]

10. Suppression of someone's rights.......

..... is never the answer. And I realize I may be applying the American Constitution in this instance, but my fundamental belief is that ALL human kind has the basic right to express their religion .... or not to.

And yes, I am fully aware of what you're referring to.

I am also fully aware of my Muslim friends ... who are fortunate to live in a country ... THIS country that allows them to cover their heads because they CHOOSE to .... and of Pentecostal women who grow their hair long because they CHOOSE to. I respect their decision to follow God in that manner, just as they respect my decision not to follow God in that manner.

We should never cast blanket judgements of religious behaviours that WE deem to be wrong without realizing that adult, consenting women (or men, whatever the case may be) often choose to behave in that manner.

Freedom only exists when ALL human kind is free.

That's MY point and I believe that is the point the President was trying to make as well.

[amandabeech]

69. Like you, I've followed the French and Scandinavian situations.

Those countries should deal with their particular cultural issues in the way that they see fit. Considering French history, I perfectly well understand why they chose the solution that they did.

I wonder how much Obama and his advisers have been following the issue, because I think that he really stepped in it with those comments.

[Recursion]

3. Personally, I'm troubled by the anti-hijab thing

I just don't think I'd be comfortable telling a Muslim woman she couldn't cover her hair if she wanted to.

[Captain_Nemo]

9. No one should be forced. However, in france they have a huge problem with girls coming to school

with the hijab and without it. Non-muslim girls came without it. A lot of harassment ensued towards the girls who didn't have one.
Thus, France outlawed it. Every girl has a right to go to school and not be abused.
After the law was passed in France there was a lot of news about it, of course. They had mulsim girls happy about it becasue their families forced them to wear the hijab, and now they were free not to.

[Recursion]

12. Then the problem is the bullying, not the hijab

I don't see how outlawing a piece of clothing that many women like to wear is a fix. A few of the high school girls I tutor just did a "hijab project" where you wear it for a week and they loved it.

[Clio the Leo]

16. That law is punishing the wrong party....

.... if I sent my child to school with an Obama shirt and he was beaten up by racist bullies .... would it be right to ban all political t shirts?

Or should the bullies be taken out of school instead?

And that doesn't even address the fundamental issue that some women feel it is sinful to not cover their heads.

[lbrtbell]

4. I agree with the feminists

IMHO, headscarves and burquas are nothing more than another example of unenlightened men making women feel "dirty" for "exposing themselves". It's not about religion; the religion is being misused by men who wish to subjugate women in every way.

Whenever I see women here wearing headscarves, it just makes me sick at heart. When will these women understand that holiness comes from the heart, not from a piece of cloth stuck on your head to hide your "sinful" hair from the world.


ON EDIT: I'm NOT putting down Islam here, just saying that religion should never be used as an excuse to make women be inferior. This applies to Christianity and any other religion, being misused to oppress women.

[SpartanDem]

7. Who are you to limit someone

else's religious expression? IMO western countries banning women from wearing veils is just as bad as forcing them to wear it

[Captain_Nemo]

14. Read more about FRance and Norway and the problems they have there.

OSLO - Norway's biggest headache right now is not the financial crisis. Rather, the predominantly Christian nation is plagued by a religious dilemma over the right of a Muslim woman to wear a hijab as part of her police uniform.

As the controversy has escalated, the country has seen the physical collapse of the justice minister, the public burning of a hijab, and a substantial rise in the popularity of Norway's anti-immigrant opposition party just six months before general elections.

This is odd for a country known for religious tolerance, generous international development aid, and peace efforts worldwide. But the controversy highlights the latent fears of a nonpluralistic society, where 91 percent belong to the Evangelical-Lutheran Church of Norway.

The dilemma began last fall when a Norwegian Muslim woman petitioned for permission to wear her hijab, the traditional head covering for Muslim women, as part of her police uniform. Norway's justice ministry originally decided in February to allow it, but revoked the permission a few weeks later after loud criticism from the police union, which argued it breached the neutrality of the uniform.

"A change of uniform regulations, with an allowance for covering hair, has never been a goal in itself. It has always been thought of as a possible means to increase the recruitment of police from minority groups in society," said Justice Minister Knut Storberget, in defense of his decision to revoke the initial permission.

Amid the heightened media attention and political backlash from his flip-flopping, the minister collapsed and subsequently announced a two-week sick leave, which was then extended.

The hijab debacle comes on the back of the minister's other religious-related political defeat over a now-defunct blasphemy law. Mr. Storberget initially tried to replace the law with a new paragraph that would have protected individuals from defamatory religious statements. But after much political opposition, the law was repealed and no paragraph introduced.

This has provided political fodder for the opposition Progress Party, which has stoked fears among Norwegians over "sneak Islamization." Progress Party leader Siv Jensen spoke out strongly at the party's national meeting last month against granting special permission for special groups. She pointed specifically to the case of a largely Muslim neighborhood in Malmö, which she claimed had been partly overrun by Islamic law."
Read more
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0320/p07s03-wogn.html

[Clio the Leo]

29. What is your take on....

.... what the President said in his speech? (and obviously it's perfectly fine if you disagree w/him)

Freedom of religion is central to the ability of peoples to live together. We must always examine the ways in which we protect it.

<snip>

... it is important for Western countries to avoid impeding Muslim citizens from practicing religion as they see fit – for instance, by dictating what clothes a Muslim woman should wear. We cannot disguise hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism.

Indeed, faith should bring us together.

<snip>

I know there is debate about this issue. I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal, but I do believe that a woman who is denied an education is denied equality.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/us/politics/04obama.text.html?pagewanted=6&_r=1

[Recursion]

31. I think a lot of westerners fundamentally misunderstand Muslim headcovering practices

And I was very happy about what Obama said.

[Clio the Leo]

35. I think you're right. ;-)

Despite our best efforts .... we on the left can potentially be as prejudiced as we like to make fun of those on the right. ;)

[Captain_Nemo]

24. and who is anyone to allow girls to be discriminated against by separating them through clothing.?

[Clio the Leo]

32. Um ...... their parents?

Parents make decisions for their minor children all the time. Surely you're not advocating the emancipation of everyone under age 18? ;)

[Chulanowa]

38. And who is anyone to tell them they're not allowed to dress as they like?

Funny how feminists suddenly decide that their white skin and Chrisitan upbringing make them every other woman's "daddy" isn't it?

if a muslim woman in a western nation does not want to wear a chador or jhijab or whatever else, no one has the right to make her do so. Nor do we have the right to dictate to her that she cannot do so. Understand?

Probably not.

[boppers]

8. "religion should never be used as an excuse to make women be inferior"

I agree. I'd also point out that disallowing a woman to dress as she chooses also treats her as inferior.

[Recursion]

15. Hmm

Whenever I see women here wearing headscarves, it just makes me sick at heart.

Have you ever talked to a hijabi or niqabi about it? I have. What they say might surprise you. I haven't talked to anyone who wears a burqa so I can't comment on that, but what is it about hijab and niqab that make you think they are meant to make women feel inferior?

[vaberella]

79. The poster of that comment makes me sick to my heart. Fuckin' disgusting.

These women are knowledgeable and independent and make their decisions and yet this guy is talking about s/he feels without knowing a damn thing.

I had a friend when she converted to Islam it took her years to decide to wear the hijab and when she did she had valid reasons why she chose it. Yet in France and this OP just don't respect that because they want to force it on the people that secularism demands that you don't show any outward proof of what you believe.

[Clio the Leo]

21. Are Western men wrong to oppress women by making them cover their breasts?

... when indigenous women in South America are free to go topless like men are?

Where do we draw the line and who makes the global standard on what modesty is?

It's an individual decision.

And it would just as wrong for me to tell a Yanamamo woman to put on a shirt as it would be to tell a Saudi Woman to take off her birkah.

[Recursion]

26. Minor point: strictly, a burqa has a net or mesh of some sort

Women in Saudi Arabia almost universally wear a niqab, which does not cover the eyes with a veil.

[boppers]

45. Cover their breasts?

I live in Portland, Oregon. We have no such laws here.

Actually, we have a group who rides bicycles naked through the city.

I find the whole concept of "state mandated modesty" anathema to personal freedom.

[Clio the Leo]

48. but their shouldn't be laws to protect against....

.... chafing?

Ouch!

(I cant find the uncensored version of this album cover, so this will have to do)

[boppers]

50. Chafing is a matter of personal choice.

I know of some places to pay for it here. ;)

Anyways, lest you think I'm joking:
http://bikeportland.org/2008/05/30/portlanders-prep-for-record-breaking-naked-ride/

1,200-1,500 strong for this event.

[WinkyDink]

105. Stupid post.

[vaberella]

78. Are you kidding me?! Do you know anything about Islam?

Hijab's are a choice. And in actuality a lot of the attire didn't start because of men it started because of the environment and then become more and it was integrated into the religion. This also the case in why Chopsticks were used rather than knives are used in eating in Asian culture....it started off because of famine control and then became rationalised in religion through Confucianism.

[boppers]

5. Way to confuse the issue.

State-enforced dress codes are immoral, in both Afghanistan, and France.

Both countries subjugate the choices of individual women to the choices of politicians, effectively treating women as a property to be dressed according to the patriarchy's "official traditions".

[asphalt.jungle]

6. and what do Muslim women who like wearing the hijab think?

http://observers.france24.com/en/content/20090605-obama-tackles-french-hijab-cairo-speech-france

"Again, why is it that everyone BUT Muslim women are the ones deciding how they should live their lives?"
-Jana Kossaibati

[Captain_Nemo]

11. And she can wear it. NO one should be forced to, is the issue.

[Recursion]

13. Except at school or in a government job

She can't wear it there.

[boppers]

17. In France, they are forced *not* to wear it.

The women have no choice, or say, in the matter.


edit: missing word

[Captain_Nemo]

19. you are sidesteppin the reason France outlawed it. Discrimination against other girls in schools.

[boppers]

23. Discrimination is the problem, then.

Forcing people to all dress and look the same doesn't get rid of it, the bullies will simply pick on something else, until the bullies are dealt with.

[Captain_Nemo]

25. In the case of the hijab and schoolgirls, yes, it helped the problem.

[boppers]

40. Forbidding people from "looking too jewish" worked out real well in Germany, right?

Maybe if we took away their freedom of the press, they'd also avoid discrimination for expressing their opinions.

Is there any right so sacred that you wouldn't abolish it to avoid discrimination?

[Clio the Leo]

42. So the bullies will grow up thinking that if they dont like someone...

.... or something ... attack it and they'll get their way?

Is this where Dick Cheney went to school?

[vaberella]

80. Huh...so if France told me to bleach my skin to white so I could avoid persecution then I should.

Way to make the victim the perpetrator.

[Gwendolyn]

101. Secularism has been a source of pride since the French cast off the yoke of the Church's suppression

following the revolution.

They believe freedom FROM religion is more important than freedom OF religion.

Who is anyone to tell these people what is or isn't right for their country?

[asphalt.jungle]

18. And how is that relevant to Obama's position?

How could that possibly be the issue when the point of this thread is to complain about Obama saying that countries shouldn't force women to take off their hijabs.

[Captain_Nemo]

20. Becasue it was an attack on France where they outlawed it because of discrimination.

[asphalt.jungle]

34. According to Sarkozy yesterday it's because France is secular and don't want any form

of religious expression. weak sauce. so they're patronizingly protecting them by taking away their freedom of expression (religious or otherwise -- what if a Christian woman likes it from a fashion perspective). Black men are discriminated against in America, are you going to force those with locks to cut them off or give children Eurocentric names to avoid phone interview discrimination? They can take away a lot of individual expression with the "protecting you from discrimination" excuse.

[Clio the Leo]

44. And good on him for doing so! NT

[sfbabe3]

90. What about the right NOT to wear a hijab?

In some countries wearing a hijab or other such coverup is mandated by law. Terrible harassment comes form not wearing the garments.

This whole thread seems to be devoted to France, for the most part.
I know someone who must take her little girls out of public school in Vienna because they are called "whores" for not wearing the hijab.
These were problems also in French schools--any "conspicuous religious symbols" not permitted.
Public schools, secular is their viewpoint.

To be fair, Obama's mention was referring to the U.S. and the right to wear the hijab. France brings in another view. And countries which
mandate coverup garb for women, and even forbid them to go to school (areas of Afghan., and forbid women to see movies with men (Saudi Arabia)
don't give the rights to women NOT to wear these garments, get an education, drive a car, and various other issues, depending on the country.

[Captain_Nemo]

22. Most THREADS HERE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DISCRIMINATION ASPECTS

why is only one poster recognizing that it is a tool of segregation?
Why are the posters who are criticising the feminist group not replying directly to the concerns from Norway and France where girls who don't wear the hijab have suffered being called a whore? Where is teh sympathy for these girls?

[Recursion]

27. Because this "solution" is discriminatory too

Two wrongs don't make a right. The answer is to stop the bullying, not to force girls who want to wear hijab to uncover their hair.

[SpartanDem]

33. +1

[boppers]

37. Calling a woman a whore is wrong (unless, of course, she choses to adopt that label for herself).

Outlawing, or requiring, hijab, simply doesn't change that, one way or another.

What the feminists are doing is claiming that one form of regulating women is better than another form, casting a blind eye to the issue of equality, rather than a non-solution like dress codes.

[Clio the Leo]

46. For the same reason that you're ignoring all of our questions as to why ...

.... punishing the victim is the best solution? ;)

We WANT to protect the girls ...... but we dont want them to be abused even more when they grow to be women and bullies grow up to be .... adult bullies.

[jberryhill]

53. If Black Students Are Mis-Treated In School, Then Should White Students Be Required To Change Color?

Going through security at a US airport last week, the TSA agent who was running the X-ray machine was a muslim woman wearing a hijab. I would have loved to see a run-of-the-mill freeptard reaction to the fact that, yes, we respect religious practices involving clothing in this country, be it a muslim head scarf, a jewish yarmulke, a sikh turban, and so on.

France does tend to have a different view than we do about propagation of a national culture, but to force an entire group to compromise on a religious practice that does not interfere with education, on the basis of the actions of a few, is not something that would fly in the US.

Absolutely, as a result of gang violence, I understand there are clothing restrictions in some US schools which seem odd to those not acquainted with the problem, and France indeed had a problem with the orderly conduct of education. However, their solution strikes me as extreme.

[boppers]

71. Make berets mandatory. Along with black and white striped shirts.

Thus, they preserve their "culture", and allow people to cover their heads, and preserve stereotypes about their culture!

:evilgrin:

[vaberella]

81. That's the same question I asked. The OP position on this is as weak as France's. n/t

[stevenleser]

102. I think we should all also realize that France's law is more than anti-hijab

it bans all external religious coverings. As on commenter to an article pointed out:

1/ It's not the hijab that was banned in France, it's all exterior signs of personal belief. This includes visible crosses around the neck, Kippas and Sikh turbans,
----------------------------------

So, if you are an observant Jewish boy in France, you cannot wear a kipa/yarmulke and Sikhs cannot wear turbans. And if you are Christian, we better not see that cross you are wearing.

I see both sides of this. I guess if forced to choose, I would say that since this is public school we are talking about, that it is best not to allow any religious wear.

There is always private school.

[vaberella]

107. Exactly. n/t

[depakid]

28. If accurate, probably an instance where Obama should have kept his mouth shut

Policy on this is France's internal affair- let them deal with it.

[Clio the Leo]

47. Yeah and he should quit telling the Israelis where they can and cannot....

.... build their Obama huts. :sarcasm:

Of course HE didn't call out any particular geographic or demographic group. He was speaking to the citizens of the world. Perhaps some of the French are upset because their consciouses are bothering them?

[jberryhill]

54. I disagree with the French policy, but...

...I do agree that the French are probably best positioned to formulate their policy on this issue.

It sure as heck wouldn't fly in the US, but the French might find the clothing restrictions in, say, Los Angeles schools to be a bit odd, in the absence of a full understanding of problems caused by wearing gang colors.

[Clio the Leo]

56. And if Islam only existed in France, I might agree with you...

.... nah, who am I kidding? I still wouldn't agree with you. lol

[jberryhill]

62. I don't understand

So you agree with the French policy?

I don't. But I do not consider myself competent to tell France what it should or shouldn't do in its schools.

What is it you disagree with? You think I am competent to tell France what to do in its schools?

While I appreciate your vote of confidence, trust me, you don't want me running a national school system.

[Clio the Leo]

66. Sorry, I was pretty vague.....

.... as I said in a previous post, I think freedom of religion is a basic human right. It's part of MY religious beliefs that mankind is free to follow God how they choose or not to follow him at all. I believe France's policy is in violation of the basic human rights that should be afforded to all human beings .... I feel the same way about Saudi Arabia's law requiring Muslim women TO cover themselves.

I'm not any more comfortable saying "that's France's problem" any more than I am saying "it was Germany's perrogative to force Jews to wear stars for identification purposes."

Both things are/were basically, fundamentally wrong.

[depakid]

63. Maybe not, but I would bet wine to water that as an American

if the French president criticized one of Obama's policies in the US, you'd be singing a completely different tune.

[Recursion]

65. It was a smart fight for Obama to pick

It's something a lot of the world's Muslims are upset about, and there's no concrete damage from his having said that.

[depakid]

67. That's arguable, but at least it's respectable take on the matter

[Clio the Leo]

68. Well duh..........

..... if ANYONE criticized one of Obaam's policies I'd sing a different tune. :)

In all seriousness, President Obama wouldn't create a policy that violated anyones freedom of religion/expression. I dont just like the guy because he's cute. ;)

[depakid]

61. Oh, PUULLEEZE

Even attempting to equate the two instances is a sorry, sorry apologia.

[vaberella]

82. You do realize this is a human rights issue that reeks of Muslim prejudice.

Where the guise of protection is used to force an agenda when in fact they turn the victims into perpetrators and force THEM to make that change. So if I, as a Black woman, is oppressed or abused in France. I'd have to change the colour of my skin in order to protect me from those attacks is the mentality. That shit just doesn't fly.

[Captain_Nemo]

30. Here is an article from 2004 in France about the ban.

"Support for the ban

France has placed an emphasis on laïcité, or secularism, in modern society. As part of this desire to separate religion and government, religion is given no special status though it is respected and can be freely practised. This system was initially established to prevent religion from interfering in government affairs.

Today, the same concept is being applied in support of the ban on religious symbols in France's public schools.

Some also believe that this ban will help prevent the division of society into ethnic communities, and promote integration into French society.

"Secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic," said President Jacques Chirac in an address to the nation in December 2003. "It is a crucial element of social peace and national cohesion. We cannot let it weaken."

Arguments against the ban

In December 2003, shortly after the French government announced its intention to ban religious attire, about 3,000 demonstrators marched in the streets of Paris. A global protest followed in January 2004, with demonstrations occurring in cities across Europe and North America.

"We live in a country which is supposed to defend human rights, and to practise one's religion is a human right," said Betayeba Hayet, one of the French protesters.

Opponents of the ban say that it violates international laws on the rights to freedom of religion and expression, and that religious practices should only be limited when there is a public safety concern or the practices affect the rights of others.

In addition, some say that this law disproportionately affects those for whom the wearing of religious symbols is considered an obligation, not a choice, such as the wearing of the hijab for women of the Muslim faith. There is also concern that this could discourage school attendance by Muslim women.

Finally, there is also some debate over the fact that the law does not ban all religious symbols, only "obvious" religious symbols. However, whether the fact that this law is selective means that it is also discriminatory has not yet been decided.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/islam/hijab.html

[Clio the Leo]

55. "Secularism is one of the great successes of the Republic"....

The most certain test by which we judge whether a country is really free is the amount of security enjoyed by minorities. - Lord Acton

He that would make his own liberty secure must guard even his enemy from oppression; for if he violates this duty he establishes a precedent that will reach to himself. - Thomas Paine

There is no conflict between liberty and safety. We will have both or neither. - Ramsey Clark

and I could go on...........

[TreasonousBastard]

36. And Christian schoolgirls and workers are not to...

wear crosses on their necklaces?

And Jewish women are not to wear wigs? Jewish men not to wear yarmulkes? Muslim men not to wear their headgear?

Sikhs not to wear their ceremonial daggers?

And what about saris and forehead dots?

And on, an on, and on...

Many of these battles were fought here already, and some have been fought in France for years. The Sikh thing was a problem since Sikhs are required to wear the dagger, but schools don't alow knives. Solution-- rubber daggers.

Orthodox Jewish men and police and military uniform violations have been dealt with over the years. It's almost funny, even to some Jews, seeing a cop in a prayer shawl, but you get used to it.

In the end, unless something really stupid comes up all these things can be resolved if everyone just takes a deep breath, realizes other people have a right to their religious attire, and work toward a solution, not a battle.

[msongs]

39. so why is it that MEN ARE NOT REQUIRED/FORCED to wear a veil/hajib? nt

[Recursion]

43. You mean from the standpoint of Islam?

That's a pretty complicated issue which deals with the concept of 'awrat, which is a concept that doesn't translate well into western languages ("shame" is the usual word, but it's more positive than that; "modesty" kind of works but isn't strong enough). It is related to the practice of ablution (ritual and self-aware washing of the body), which is something else that Westerners often find puzzling.

The hijabis I know personally (three Americans and one Egyptian, all three quite politically liberal) love their hijab and the respect from men (Muslim and otherwise) that accompanies it.

[boppers]

49. Men have lots of requirements, too.

Hair requirements, clothing requirements, bathing requirements, etc.

Just like the Christians and Jews, no detail of life was too small to escape the formalization of religion.

Part of where, I think, people get confused is that many western societies turn a blind eye to their own bizarre histories, when looking at the customs of other cultures.

[burning rain]

74. I'm sure you've also seen plenty of unpleasant contrasts, too.

Men dressed comfortably in short-sleeve shirts and shorts or light slacks; with the wife covered head to toe in black, or wearing hijab plus that long coat women of Iranian background (especially) wear -- all in the heat of summer. Not exactly equitable but I don't see anything to be done for it in the US, where we allow religious communities to get away with an awful lot in terms of what they impose upon "their own," so long as they don't impose on people outside their religious community. But I think France's solution of disallowing religious garb in public institutions is a good one and feasible for them.

[kiva]

41. This is an area where I disagree with our president.

To say that secular countries display "hostility towards any religion behind the pretence of liberalism" is wrong. Personally I'd like to see more of this 'pretence of liberalism' here, but given the religious climate in this country I'm not holding my breath.

[Clio the Leo]

59. Darn those founding fathers and their stupid First Amendment!

more :sarcasm:

[Beacool]

51. What does the Koran say about women wearing the hijab and burka?

Is it expressly written that women should cover their hair at all times or was it just another way for men to control women by making it obligatory centuries ago?

The subjugation of women is quite common in most religions. Christianity tried to keep women down for centuries. Eve is responsible for bringing sin to the Garden of Eden and therefore she has to suffer for her sins through the pains of labor. To which I say, BULLSHIT. Women have always been portrayed as temptresses who are not to be fully trusted. The mother v whore dichotomy.

What I'm trying to say is, are Muslim women really "free" to choose or do their society's expectations supersede their true wishes?

If a little French girl is called a "whore" for not wearing a hijab, how could she be considered "free" to choose to wear or not to wear one?

Good for the feminists!!!

:applause:

[jberryhill]

58. "are Muslim women really "free" to choose"

Why not ask a Muslim woman? They don't bite, you know.

The ones I've known who live independently and have advanced professional degrees, wear them because they choose to wear them.

[burning rain]

72. So have I.

It particularly strikes me to see women wearing not only hijab but heavy-duty all-encompassing garments even in the greatest heat of summer. A good many have wearily told me that it's really hard. Every one of them obviously chose to dress that way, though -- whatever the conditions of their choice.

[Recursion]

73. I hear that dismissed a lot as "brainwashing", but I don't buy that

Nice avatar, btw. Live free or die!

[burning rain]

100. I don't think "brainwashing" is quite the word, either.

On the other hand, it's clear to me that in a number of cases wearing heavy garb in the summer heat is not exactly a Muslim woman's druthers, either. It's always useful and enjoyable to talk with people, but I think that in dealing with religious folks, it bears keeping in mind that they're less likely to reveal skepticism or misgivings regarding their religion and its strictures to strangers. Many only open up that way to close and trusted friends of the same religion, or at least faith tradition. I have certainly observed that with regard to Methodists. I was raised in that church, and am often struck by how many Methodists have the gravest doubts as to even the basics of Christian faith, even the resurrection and the afterlife. They sure wouldn't be comfortable revealing such things to strangers or folks who didn't have a Methodist background, though.

[Number23]

84. I've lived in two Muslim countries

You are exactly right. There are many Muslim women who wear the hijab proudly; some who just wear a scarf to cover their hair, and many who choose not to do either.

We have no business interfering in any of their decisions.

[Beacool]

91. I don't know one well enough to ask.

:-(

[boppers]

60. Koran, and the Old Testament, have the same rules.

It's Abraham-ic tradition to cover the head/hair, regardless if you're a Christian, Muslim, or Jew, man or woman.

Some modern versions of those faiths have different forms of the religion, with many Christians, Muslims, and Jews ignoring portions of tradition, but it's thousands of years old.

As far as being "free", well, they're religious, so by definition, they have chosen to sacrifice some freedoms for their beliefs.

[Recursion]

64. Good question

First off, the Qur'an was written in a time and culture where women universally veiled themselves as it was; it's important to keep that in mind (the men did too, for the most part; the Hejaz is a very uncomfortable place to have exposed skin).

The Qur'an itself does not explicitly require anything other than "modesty" in clothing; however, there are specific references to veils and headscarves in some places which makes many people conclude that they are necessary for modesty. Others say that a woman's "hijab" (which literally means "protection" or "barrier") is really her conduct and intellect, not a piece of cloth. (To be clear, pretty much everyone agrees that conduct and intellect are the foundation of hijab; some say that it must also include a physical head covering).

Certain hadiths (these are later commentaries on the Qur'an, and are not accorded the same level of deference as the Qur'an) do make rules explicit: men must cover everything from the knee to the neck and elbow; women must cover everything except their face and hands (some very conservative hadiths say men also must cover everything but their face and hands). In both cases, a man or woman may take an additional private religious obligation to cover his or her face and hands.

A lot of westerners scoff at this idea, but it's important to reiterate it: the woman's head covering is not a sign of inferiority. There are highly respected department heads at research universities who lecture in their niqab, to say nothing of hijab.

What I'm trying to say is, are Muslim women really "free" to choose or do their society's expectations supersede their true wishes?

Obviously in a country like France, an adult woman is legally free to dress as she wishes. The societal ramifications of that are what they are.

[BlueMTexpat]

85. Thanks for your informed comments generally!

I'm old enough to remember when it was required for girls and women to cover their heads when entering a Catholic Church. Both Judaism and Christianity also stemmed from a time and culture where women universally veiled themselves.

I've also visited Saudi Arabia for work where it was necessary to wear both niqab and hijab. People shouldn't knock either unless they've tried them. Hijab is actually quite practical and flattering, especially on "bad hair" days (!) and, underneath our niqabs, which were lightweight and made of silk, we women were able to wear loose shirts and pedal pushers (who was going to see, after all?) and were thus much more comfortable in the heat outdoors than were our male colleagues in their suits and jackets.

What I don't like is when wearing/not wearing such is not a choice. In a way, my situation represented a choice for me because I chose to go to Saudi Arabia. Following the dress code, at least externally, was one of the conditions that I knew that I would have to meet. Interestingly enough, when our work was finished, we were treated to a picnic in the desert, and were able to shed the external trappings altogether: different strokes for different folks.

All that said, I understand why France has the ban. More people, including French Muslims, support it than do not for reasons stated throughout this thread, whether those who do not live in France find them compelling or not. No, banning hijab does not resolve bullying generally. Bullies should always be held to account for their actions and educated to understand that those actions are not acceptable. Banning hijab among other things was just a first step and a lot of the hazing in the schools did stop for the most part. Now, it's time for education to commence in earnest so that someday no one will think that it's such a big deal either way. The situation is not black and white and we should not treat it as such.

[BlueMTexpat]

86. Deleted: inadvertent dupe n/t

[Beacool]

92. I like this interpretation:

Others say that a woman's "hijab" (which literally means "protection" or "barrier") is really her conduct and intellect, not a piece of cloth.

I never thought that a head covering was a sign of inferiority, but I often wondered how these women really felt about wearing it.

Thank you for the detailed explanation.

:hi:

[vaberella]

83. Actually the origin of these systems is mainly environment and then finds it way into religion.

People don't seem to realize that and they think..."Oh men did this..." I did a bit of studying of this stuff in my Anthropology class. The use of Chopsticks was also something religiously demanded upon the people but was started due to environmental demand. Everyone seems to stop at Islam---physical environment plays a major part. Men have as many rules as women in Islam I hope you know, they just don't have one as so physically undeniable as the hijab.


All in all this is not a man versus woman thing...it's a just the way it is considering both share the rules and regs. If people decided to do some research on that besides talking out of their arse, it might be a better world.

[Beacool]

93. Chopsticks?

Why were they something religious?

:o

[SpartanDem]

52. How can these people even call themselves feminist?

There entire objective is to have these women conform to their views.

[grantcart]

57. which, ironically, strengthens Obama's position as the reasonable middle

[burning rain]

70. Not the easiest call, but I'm inclined to agree with the French feminists.

I don't like depriving anyone of their free choice needlessly, but veiling is not simply a binary opposition of free individual choice or not. For Muslim women, wearing the veil -- let alone dating! -- often involves heavy social and family pressure, even violence -- it's not simply an uncoerced individual choice. I hear the feminist concerns about playing sectarian politics (the logic of which is something like, your rights and representation are determined by and vary according to your religious community) at the expense of downgrading women's rights and interests as citizens of the same state.

[camera obscura]

75. I agree completely.... this is a very complicated issue

it comes up in debates on everything from polygamy to headdresses - when is something a choice, and when is it being pushed by a culture? But knowing what I do about society, I'm inclined to side with the feminist side of things. In an ideal world women would be able to chose freely, but we don't live in that ideal world yet.

[burning rain]

77. Like your screen name!

And, it also has an interesting tie-in with my tagline!

[solstice]

104. Bingo.

[vaberella]

76. Obama is right. What France has done to Muslim women in the guise of "secularism" is DISGUSTING!

n/t

[Sultana]

94. Oh fucking plz

They need to get over it or go to a place that they can wear their hijabs.

[Teaser]

87. BBBBB OOOOO RRRRR IIIIIII NNNNN GGGG.

YAWN.

[BlooInBloo]

88. (a) France's law is just anti-Muslim bigotry, (b) The State shouldn't tell people what to wear...

(c) Religions shouldn't oppress women.

Anything else?

[Mass]

98. I guess that public prayer should be authorized in US public schools as well, if some of these

posters are logical.

[JerseygirlCT]

89. Compulsory wearing or not wearing - it's the same - both are

infringements of women's rights.

If a woman chooses to dress that way, it is her business. Which of course is what Obama said.

Women should never, ever, be compelled - by cultural or religious dictates to veil themselves - especially in order to keep men from acting badly. But limiting her choices is nearly as bad. It's the state instead of religion or culture dictating her behavior.

[leftstreet]

95. Do wealthy Muslim women wear this stuff?

Is this a class issue?

:shrug:

[Douglas Carpenter]

96. no, it is certainly not a class issue. Many wealthy Muslims do wear the hijab and many ordinary

Muslim women do not and vice versa.

Only in the sense that the wealthy in most societies, including Islamic society, tend to be more western and more secular, might one find somewhat fewer wealthy Muslim woman wearing the hijab than say poor Muslim women who would tend to be more traditionalist and more religious.

It is a traditionalist issue and and among some, a religious issue, but most certainly not a class issue.

Most Muslim women would consider it a sign of piety and modesty, but not subjugation and definitely not an indicator of their economic status.

[Mass]

97. So these muslim women are wrong? They are bigotted against Muslims?

Amusing.

[Mass]

99. This thread is totally amazing. So, these Muslim women who have fought all their life against

the oppression of their fathers and brothers and are trying to live an occidental life in a country they are born emit an opinion and they are bigotted, anti Muslim people. (and NO, this is not all Muslim men who are this way in France, but these are real situations, that you are dismissing so lightly when blasting these women).

A 100 year law written to be sure that there would be NO CHRISTIAN SIGNS in French public offices is the sign that French people are horrible.

And, BTW, you can walk in Paris with a hijab or a scarf. You cannot wear it as a public servant or in a public school, where you will be told to hide your cross under your shirt, to take off your yarmulke, ... You can agree or disagree with this, but stop stupid comments on how these French people are horrible because a Muslim women organization has dared criticize Obama. This is ridiculous. (and, to be clear, I would have preferred they had let the girls go to school with a scarf, but this is not the law, so get over it).

[vaberella]

108. They shouldn't also push and force the women who do want to wear the hijab.

This is forced upon the people...it's not a choice and most people don't know this...but wearing the hijab is choice. However, when you wear it, you're committed to it. Iran is something else, they were all forced to wear it, however that wasn't the case originally and it was always a muslim nation. However, even though they wear it, they wear it wrong.

[solstice]

103. I agree with the feminists.

[vaberella]

106. I completely disagree with French Feminists and they need to get a life.

The people who are involved are the women of Islam who may have a problem with it. But it's up to them to decide...not French feminists and not even Obama. I find the French government as out of control for what they have done.

[Darth_Kitten]

109. Yeah, everybody needs to get a life who has the guts to stick up for women....

and disagree with Obama. :eyes: