Letters to the Editor
-
is it not a feminist issue if it's women and not men forcing other women to be "modest"
and men are not involved, especially if women gaining this kind of control over women also means they would be able to control men's sexuality as well as that of other women, because things are clearly moving in this direction.
-
Thinking reflexively
I keep thinking about this situation and being really grateful for the people who decided to make the first and best amendment start with "Congress shall make no law..."
Government gets so messy otherwise. This situation seems like it'll have an untenable decision either way.
-
This and boys are the ONLY two topics ever on BS anymore.
I'm wondering what you're going for?
-
Can't they ban the pressure over it instead?
In other words, make the language of the ban rescission require that women have the right to choose to wear the hijab or not, and anyone trying to force the issue one way or the other is guilty of coercion.
Personally, I find it funny that God made us naked, we made ourselves clothed, and yet we declare it to be Godly to cover ourselves.
-
Ultimately, though, it's questionable how prominently women's rights figure in the debate.
That's a nice sentiment T, and it does conveniently get you off the hook for coming down on the side of veiling as you did in Spain.
One way to abolish the pressure to veil and oppress women is of course to ban veiling in schools. But gosh, we decided that if Jews can wear kippot, than it must be racist to decide that muslim women must not wear veils.
Because it's exactly the same thing, and Jews frequently kills Jews that do not kippot and Jewish men wear kippot to keep oppressor women from staring at their payiss and schvantz.
-
You're right on as always Tracy
This is what I was telling my homies yesterday, Tracy. I am red. Red is me, and when my principal doesn't let me handkerchief or let my other bangers handkerchief themselves, well he is taking away who I am. And then who are we?
Tray Ball, '83rd Street Killaz
-
Please Tell Us, Symbol-man
Please show us exactly where Tracy "came... down on the side of veiling... in Spain." Not on the side of the choice to veil or not veil, but the side of veiling.
Alternatively, you can admit that you just make things up to complain about.
-
The key quote:
"They fear that overturning the ban will actually force them into wearing the hijab and remove their religious choice.
These women are basically asking the govt to protect them from the choices forced upon them by the lifestyle to which they belong. At this point I have to ask, why do they continue to accept a lifestyle that would make them behave in ways they didn't like if the govt didn't prevent it?
I say the govt should let women wear what they want. Women being forced to obey by family, religious pressure is a whole other issue and should be dealt with separately.
-
Veils are about control
Greetings
Its about freedom but not religiosity...
Veils and habits and all special garments for women are inherently controlling. It is about a culture maintaining females in a subservient position
Voluntary Veiling is not freedom of any type its merely women buying into their own subjugation
Just say NO to veils...
Enjoy the journey
WarLord
-
Polygamy? Genital Mutilation? Bride Burning?
It is not altogether unknown that women particpate in their own oppression, just as the rest of us do in some fashion.
The ostensibe freedom to wear whatever you want is balanced by the rationale of the headscarf, chador, burka, etc., which is to cover 'alluring' women up from the male gaze. The headscarf is nothing but the peasant scarf and the nun's habit, in urban areas.
We ban polygamy, genital mutilation and bride burning, not because we cannot find women who justify these practices on some basis, but that they are harmful to women, no matter what some women think. Admittedly, headscarfs are not physically damaging (except perhaps in reducing Vitamin D from the sun) but they symbolize, I think, male control of women. Sort of like a 'star of david' for women.
Does that justify allowing this 'symbol' of male oppression? Hard question. The dynamics of this in Turkey is that the fundamentalist Grey Wolves and ultra-right are going to use this as a wedge issue to push their whole fundamentalist agenda. Sharia law is dwelling in the background, of course, along with assassination and attacks on women who don't wear the headscarf. It can now be used to control the women who DON"T wear the scarf, publically identifying them to right wing gangs.
So for that reason, I lean against legality.
-
There is a bigger question
Some are arguing that since women want the veils, then veils are not a feminist issue - women should have the right to do what they want, right? So how about "female genital mutiliation"? That is something that women want, too. But we're pretty clear that it is a bad thing, regardless of whether the women want it or not.
Veils are not a choice, regardless of what the women who wear them believe. Women are pressured by their churches, their families, and society in general to wear veils. Nothing in the Koran requires it any more than anything in the bible requires that Christians wear crosses. This is a tough issue, but I suspect that if the ban on veils is repealed, then the women who currently can choose to not wear veils will soon find that they have little choice in the matter as society forces them to conform.
-
Wear whatever you want, but...
Some of the quotes from these people in the Turkish government made me laugh. It will be a cold day in hell when anyone in Turkey is able to get away with systematically forcing anyone to wear "traditional" clothing. This is a country that banned the fez for generations out of massive, popular cultural anxiety about the mere reminder of more "backward" times. That concern hasn't lessened any now that Turkey is asking for admission into the EU.
Yes, there are doubtless devout and even fundamentalist Muslims who want to see more burqas and veils and so on. That doesn't mean that Turkey's secular population is going to suddenly roll over and somehow "regress."
Here in the US we don't tell women what they can or can't wear in public, and women are certainly in no danger of all becoming devout Mormons just because there are some women who exercise their right to cover themselves from neck to ankle on a hot summer day. (And on the other end of the spectrum, it's worth noting that in some parts of the country it's even legal for women to go topless, though women in those areas virtually never do — does that make them self-oppressing?)
So let Turkish women decide what Turkish women will wear. Clothing is a universal form of mediation between private and public life, between the individual and the communal, and not even in the freest societies on earth are people somehow excused from having to negotiate those questions on a daily basis.
That said, there is a difference between being in public life and being a public figure. If being completely veiled is a way to enjoy the protection afforded by anonymity, it cannot simultaneously be acceptable for women who wish their identities to be known and recognized, at least on the terms which we take for granted in the West (and to which Turkey at least nominally subscribes). How do you verify the identity of someone testifying in court if they're wearing something that is expressly intended to completely obscure their identifying features?
That's not to say that a hard line against the burqa is necessary for the functioning of a modern secular state — imagine, for example, courts staffed entirely by women so as to make it possible to conduct legitimate legal processes without violating the privacy of women who wish to be veiled. Of course, that would require a massive investment in the education and training of women in jurisprudence, law, journalism, stenography, law enforcement, security, and so on — adherence to tradition becoming the ultimate engine for affirmative action and women's empowerment.