Letters to the Editor
slk23
Published Letters: 17 Editor's Choice: 7
-
Seriously Disagree
[Read the article: Sneering at the veil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm not a typical Broadsheet basher and I absolutely support cultural diversity and sensitivity, but I heartily disagree with the thesis of this piece. I've read a number of articles recently about Muslim women living in Western countries and, frankly, it seems that many of these women are not 'choosing' to wear veils. They are wearing veils because they live in isolated, very traditional Muslim communities in spite of the fact that these communities are nestled in the heart of some of the most liberal, progressive countries in the world. Many of these women are restricted in their movements, confined to their homes, limited in their interactions with others--particularly Westerners, and required to wear veils.
In these situations the veil is not just a form of religious expression, it's also a tool of oppression and this Broadsheet piece seems totally to disregard that point. How, exactly, is Jack Straw's request to remove the veil (a request the constituents can refuse if they choose) so much more offensive than the commands of those who would force Muslim women to wear veils?
Noman made an excellent point about this not being analogous to asking a woman to remove her top, but actually I can think of an instance where it would be comparable. If I were meeting with a naturalist/nudist among other like-minded people and that person asked me if I would remove my clothing, I'd consider that a similar set of circumstances. Would I be offended? As long as the request was made graciously and I had the right to refuse, I wouldn't be at all offended and, candidly, I'd probably comply even though I espouse different notions of public nudity for myself.
-
The Right to Choose
[Read the article: Sneering at the veil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I followed up on a previous letter writer's remark about Jack Straw's hearing problem, and it led me to his Wikipedia entry. Which 1) indicated that he has tinnitus, 2) stated that he asked women visiting his constituency surgeries to uncover their noses and mouths to facilitate communication, and 3) reported that he supported his constituents' right to wear the veil.
There's no indication that Straw goes beyond requesting that the women remove their veils. Even the Broadsheet piece paraphrases it as 'asking them to consider' removing the veil. I'm just not seeing Broadsheet's angle here. Say these women are empowered people who wear the veil of their own volition. In that case, Straw asks--they refuse. Let's say they are oppressed by cultural and religious standards imposed by their community or male relatives. In that case, when Straw asks--they refuse. My point is that if they find the weight of their culture or family so powerful that they would wear a veil every day in spite of their own desires, would a simple request from Straw be so compelling that they couldn't refuse?
-
Did Broadsheet do ANY follow-up?
[Read the article: Revisiting the veil]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I'm one of the posters who was scratching her head the first time Broadsheet posted about this topic. Tracy Clark-Forey seems bent on demonizing Jack Straw here, and I'm not seeing that it's warranted. First, as several posters pointed out last time, Jack Straw has a hearing problem and he asks women not to remove "the veil" but to uncover their mouths and noses so that he can hear/lip read more effectively. But Clark-Forey hasn't mentioned this in either of her two Broadsheet pieces, despite the fact that it's pretty widely publicized. Second, Jack Straw doesn't need to "debate" this point because, as I understand it, his interactions with his female Muslim constituents involve him asking them to uncover their mouths and them doing so. By his account, none of the women he's met with has refused to do so or even shown a disinclination to do so. Why is it then incumbent upon him to debate the point?
If Broadsheet wants to discuss the cultural and feminist implications of wearing or not wearing head scarves or veils, I'm all for it. Likewise, if Broadsheet wants to pillory Jack Straw for some legitimate offense, then let's see the evidence. However, to keep setting Jack Straw up as some villainous patriarchal figure imposing his views upon women by ASKING them to uncover their mouths when you've got radical Muslim elements FORCING women to wear burkas or stoning women for allegations of adultery is entirely ridiculous.
-
To The Chief
[Read the article: Is the backlash here yet?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You agree that both parents should be responsible for rearranging their lives to properly raise their child. But yet you single out young women of childbearing age as the group most likely to be targeted by employers who don't want to have to accomodate the needs of parents. However, if both parents (read men AND women) applied pressure to their employers to be more flexible with regard to scheduling, paternity/maternity leave and the like, wouldn't that put us all in the same boat? These stingy employers could hardly toss the resumes of every single fertile person they encountered, right? They could hardly preemptively dismiss every female applicant between the ages of 15 and, say, 45 along with every male applicant between puberty and, well, death.
I'm all for personal responsibility, but your argument seems to carry a caution just to young women, "Be careful, don't ask for too much or you'll ruin it for everyone, even your childless contemporaries." And, frankly, that seems unnecessarily divisive. I'm a childless woman of childbearing age, so I can't help feeling that your warning is directed principally at women like me--those most likely to suffer from the employer prejudice you describe. But the point is that we collectively simply shouldn't tolerate this kind of behavior. You and I and every other person who has children, had children, may have children, or once was a child should be working together to combat this kind of thing.