- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
But using her death to make a larger argument against the hijab seems willfully misguided and oppressive in its own right. If we were to proscribe anything with the possibility of being oppressive -- without making a distinction between actual and potential oppression -- we would have very little left in this world.
Her death makes an excellent argument that the hajib is a symbol of oppression. It is no more wrong to condemn the hajib for this than it is wrong to condemn a statement that "Christian women should graciously submit to their husbands". I wouldn't support banning the hijab -- that's interfering with a choice that many women do make willingly and knowingly. That doesn't mean that I need to refrain from arguing against it just because I'm in the majority rather than the minority.
It's also a slippery slope fallacy to talk about proscribing "anything with the possibility of being oppressive". We can restrict the discussion to things with a long history of being oppressive.
